Have you ever heard a parent or caregiver tell a child “use your words”? Maybe you uttered this at times as a parent yourself. It makes sense; a child needs something, or is trying to express an emotion, but is expressing it in unproductive ways, so you encourage them to voice their emotions or frustration so you can better understand and help them. Because we are living in incredible and astounding times, we must make some simpler observations when it comes to this. This only helps if the adult knows what words mean, and currently, that is becoming a moving target. The ever-shifting definitions of common words is making the act of communicating nearly impossible. Words have meanings (or used to) and when society begins upending the definitions to even the simplest of words, chaos is the result.
The simple task of defining terms, or words having definitions is on shaky ground right now. There is a growing contingent of “credentialed experts”, or highly educated people who have devolved to the point of struggling with definitions to the most basic, fundamental of terms. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t define the term “woman”. “Not in this context”, “I’m not a biologist” was her response to that query. Now, I’m no Supreme Court Justice, but I do have a simple dictionary on my bookshelf. (I’d suggest everyone find a dictionary printed prior to the year 2000). According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, printed in 1996, a woman is “an adult female human being”. Go to the term female, and it is defined as, “of the sex that bears offspring”, “consisting of women and girls”.
So why was it so hard for a Supreme Court Justice to define such a simple and foundational term? What happens if she has to rule on a case involving sexual discrimination? If she can’t define a woman, how can one be discriminated against based on their sex? What is being discriminated against? A woman? And what is that?
Taking foundational words and upending their definitions to fit the current political ideology or social narrative does not include anyone. It excludes everyone. It dismantles public discourse. It confuses everyone. What would the reaction be if we changed the definition of pollution so that oil was no longer classified as a pollutant? Yes, we could be energy independent again, but what would the reaction be to that?
You can see this locally as well. When it comes to the question of whether CRT is taught at GHAPS, it depends on the definition of CRT. And as always, the definition can shift to fit the point you’re making or the audience. When Mary Jane Evink is participating in a statewide town hall on CRT, CRT is a positive topic that should be taught, and she is knowledgeable on the subject. When communicating with a parent weeks prior to the town hall, she barely knows what it is and can’t define it without “context”. Now over a year later, (immediately after an election and as far away from the next one as possible) she can somewhat define it to the Grand Haven Tribune while tacitly admitting it is taught in the schools if you read closely enough.
The “credentialed experts” have taken to claiming basic terms need context or an expert in that field to accurately define them. They will tell you that you are using it out of context, or have a misunderstanding of the word or term. It puts you on the defensive. This is an attempt to confuse or weaken your confidence so you think they know something you don't. Except they don't. They can’t define simple terms. Basic words in the English language, with centuries old definitions elude them. The “credentialed experts” have brought about the age of definition-fluidity. Nothing means anything, and anything can mean whatever you want.
For more examples, the term court packing had its definition changed when it became politically expedient. The Anti Defamation League changed their definition of racism twice in three years. Once to incorporate tenets of critical race theory, and then again after Whoopie Goldberg used that definition to deny the causes of the holocaust. The term recession was redefined to fit the narrative of the current administration last year.
This is not the same as slang, which every young generation creates. Slang does not change the original definition of words. Words used outside of their original definition do not change their original definitions. They are just used among a subset of the population in a different way while maintaining their original meaning. And eventually, we grow out of most of the slang we use. That is wholly different than taking words and changing their definitions based on the slang usage of said words and erasing the original definition, as is happening now.
Case in point, they have taken definitions of these foundational words, and placed them with new terms. What everyone knew was a male or female, is now a cis-male or cis-female. What is now a male or female is something altogether different to these “experts”.
This is not to accommodate or be inclusive. It is to dismantle everything society is built on. If nothing means anything anymore, or everything means something different based on the current societal whims, how do we pass knowledge down generation to generation? How do we teach? How do we talk to one another, when we are effectively speaking different languages? To borrow from the phrase “if you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything”, if nothing means anything, something can mean anything.
If you know what a man or a woman is, and know the difference between the two, you are not the one on shaky ground. The so-called experts that need context, or a biologist, or other so-called expert, to define the terms, are the ones on shaky ground. Like the first two pigs in the children’s story “The Three Little Pigs”, their houses are built of straw and sticks. There’s no foundation and the first strong gust of societal wind will blow their houses down. In the end, they will be running to their brother, whose house is built on solid ground of solid material. Which of the three little pigs would you rather be?