Thanks to our government, we now know there are additional words which should not be used in conjunction with saving lives and protecting those who are, ahem, "exposed to the possibility of being attacked or harmed, either physically or emotionally." Well, they said not to use the word, but didn't say the definition of the word was outlawed. Perhaps the CDC could simply include the definition of the banned words wherever they might need to use the word? I mean, the "unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception" might take up more space in a report, but at least everyone will know exactly what the CDC is referring to.
Or perhaps we could just assign them names. "Transgender" could be referred to as "Sue." "Evidence-based" could be "Stephen." An appendix could be included in each report, allowing the reader to clearly understand the text. I am writing a letter to the CDC with my recommendations as soon as I finish my coffee. I wonder if they will be permitted to read my letter if it includes these banned words? Or will the letter be redacted?
Maybe the CDC could include in its reports hyperlinks to websites that explain these words in lieu of the actual words themselves. The Science Council has a lovely definition on its home page: Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
And don't even get me started on the ban of the word DIVERSITY.
While the government continues its march against the use of words, I plan to increase my use of them exponentially. I might even put them on a t-shirt, in case I am so mad I can barely speak.
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming in Listowel.
Jen Jovan and her imaJENation