Politics: Language: Words Have Meaning – “Gender”


Let’s keep this as simple as possible so no one can mistake what is being said. If anyone tells you that there are more than two genders, or that gender (as it relates to human beings) does not directly pertain to sex, they are either deceived, disingenuous, or delusional. The deceived can be aided with clear facts. The disingenuous are liars and I have no desire to bother myself with them. The delusional are likely beyond our reach, beyond our ability to assist at this time (they need professional help and should be treated kindly, respectfully, and carefully).

However, regarding the definitions, it is not enough for me to just say this, I must prove it. I must prove that gender relates to the two biological sexes (male and female) or the (usually) three “grammatical genders” which are (1) masculine; (2) feminine; and (3) neuter.


I. Etymology online, as of January 9, 2019, defines gender etymologically as (emphasis added):

Noun: c. 1300, “kind, sort, class, a class or kind of persons or things sharing certain traits,” from Old French gendre, genre “kind, species; character; gender” (12c., Modern French genre), from stem of Latin genus (genitive generis) “race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species,” also “(male or female) sex,” from PIE root *gene- “give birth, beget,” with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

Also used in Latin to translate Aristotle’s Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c. The unetymological -d- is a phonetic accretion in Old French (compare sound (n.1)).

The “male-or-female sex” sense is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for “sex of a human being,” in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.

Dictionaries From 1676 to 1989

II. An English dictionary, 1676 (Elisha Cole) defines gender as (emphasis added):

Gender: Difference of sex or kind

III. A Complete and Universal English Dictionary, 1792 (James Barclay) defines gender as:

Noun 1. A sort, 2. A sex; 3. In Grammar, a name given to, or a distinction of, nouns, according to the different sexes they signify; or the termination of the adjective which is joined to them.

Verb 1. To beget; to produce as cause. 2. Neuterally, to populate; to breed.

IV. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition defines gender as:


Noun [Latin genus, from geno, gigno; Gr. to beget, or to be born; Eng. kind. Gr. a woman, a wife; Sans. gena, a wife, and genaga, a father. We have begin from the same root. See Begin and Can.]

1. Properly, kind; sort; 2. A sex, male or female. Hence, 3. In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex; usually a difference of termination in nouns, adjectives and participles, to express the distinction of male and female. But although this was the original design of different terminations, yet in the progress of language, other words having no relation to one sex or the other, came to have genders assigned them by custom. Words expressing males are said to be of the masculine gender; those expressing females, of the feminine gender; and in some languages, words expressing things having no sex, are of the neuter or neither gender.

Verb 1. To beget; but engender is more generally used. 2. To copulate; to breed. Leviticus 19:19.

V. Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1913 Edition defines gender as:


n. 1.Kind; sort; Sex, male or female; 3. (Gram.) A classification of nouns, primarily according to sex; and secondarily according to some fancied or imputed quality associated with sex.
v. 1. To beget; to engender; 2. To copulate; to breed.

VI. Popular and Complete English Dictionary, Vol. I. 1848 (Boag) defines  gender as:

1. Kind or sort; 2. A sex, male or female. 3. In grammar, a distinction of words to express distinction of sex…

VII. Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, 1989 has this to say on gender (emphasis added):


The use of gender to mean “sex” has been cited with disapproval in books on usage for many years. Fowler 1926 seems to be the first to raise the issue, and his remarks are typical:

gender… is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons or creatures of the masculine or feminine g., meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder.

The grammatical gender denotes a subclass of words that is usually partly based on sex and that determines agreement with other words or grammatical forms…[Note: the rest of this paragraph simply goes into grammatical form differences, so I am skipping it].

So much for grammar. The “sex” sense of gender is actually centuries old. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records it as early as the 1300s, and it was included as a standard sense in the dictionaries of both Samuel Johnson (1755) and Noah Webster (1828). Its use during much of the 19th century seems to have been, if not common, at least unremarkable:

…black divinities of the feminine gender — Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities, 1859

But by the turn of the century dictionaries had begun to give it restrictive labels. The OED described it as “now only jocular” in 1898, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries at the time were calling it “obsolete or colloquial.”

Whether obsolete, colloquial, or jocular, the “sex” sense of gender continued in occasional use. By the publication of Webster’s Third in 1961, we had accumulate enough evidence of its straightforward use in written contexts to see the restrictive labels of the past no longer applied. But the real boom in its popularity was still to come. In the past two decades [Note: remember, this is from 1989], the “sex” sense of gender has become increasingly common in standard writing: [Note: they go on to give multiple examples to affirm the statement].

The revival of gender in its “sex” sense may be partly attributable to the increased public attention now being given to issues involving men and women, as well as to the increased use of the word sex in senses related to physical intercourse…. In any case, there is no denying that the “sex” sense of gender is now more common than it has ever been. Most current dictionaries recognize it as standard, but there are still some books on usage (such as Harper 1985 and Shaw 1987) that discourage its use.


Regarding English usage, it should be clear that from the 1300s to (at least) 1989, if not many years later, gender (in the noun form) meant sex, male or female and (in the verb form) to beget, engender, copulate, breed. Clearly, the definition sex, male or female means (for those who struggle with reality…) SEX, MALE… OR… FEMALE… Clearly, as it relates to the verb form, words like beget, copulate, and breed outright REQUIRE male and female (only… and period…) and not some asinine notion of twenty to ninety-plus “separate genders.” The entire concept is downright absurd in both the ancient historical, etymological and lexical sense (i.e. the Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin) and the historic English etymological and lexical sense (again, from circa 1300 A.D. to at least 1989, though likely even later).

As stated in the intro, some people are seriously ignorant (i.e. grossly deceived) on this subject, buying into the modern, Orwellian, definien-twisting propaganda; failing to do the (less than twenty minutes of) research it takes to learn the above. They may mean well but there ignorance is indeed harmful to society; they promote folly, as they defy truth, objectivity, and logic. Thankfully, they can often be reasoned with, using cold hard facts, and clear dialogue. These are the people on whom I focus the bulk of my attention.

However, some people are wickedly disingenuous. In other words, they know the truth, don’t care about it, but will lie and twist things to promote their agenda. These people are often pretty damn evil. Not all of them… but large numbers of them. They know objective reality, they are not deceived or delusional, and they likely laugh at how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of countless millions. These are the radicals, the leftist/humanist policy-makers and spinmeisters, the ones who will use whatever means necessary (Orwellian or otherwise) to get what they want and to bend others to their will. These are often the narcissists, borderline personality types, psychopaths, sociopaths, left-hand path adherents, hedonists, etc. who have no qualms about undermining truth, morals, norms, and a right understanding of objective reality — all to suit their diabolical purposes. These are the types that love to call good evil and evil good.

Now, some of the disingenuous actually mean well (in their own minds) and think that the ends justifies the means to achieve “social justice;” these types can be called semi-delusional (or… foolish). However, many others are simply furthering the Baphometic agenda, and revel in the deception they are perpetrating on the masses, knowing full well what their ultimate aims/goals are.

Finally, there are the delusional; these are the ones with serious mental illnesses (gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, body dysmorphic disorder, body integrity dysphoria, schizophrenia, erotomania, delusions of grandeur, Fregoli delusion, monothematic delusion, paranoia, clinical lycanthropy, delusional companion syndrome, other manifestations of identity and/or delusional disorders, etc.). I have deep sympathy for them, wish them the best, have no desire to hurt or mock them, etc. I disdain Schadenfreude, think it is appalling to denigrate them as (or deny their intrinsic value as) human beings, but I also have no desire to enable their delusions. I don’t necessarily have to “bust their bubble” but I will not enable their delusional state unless their is imminent likelihood of serious harm to themselves or others. Don’t taunt them, don’t rail against them personally, don’t even think of laying your hands on them, but sure as heck don’t confirm them in their delusion.

On a side note, I once held a position of authority and had to handle a situation involving an erotomaniac (in the workplace). A psychologist working with me warned not to confront her, try to convince her of reality, etc. because she will possibly either (1) act in a harmful way towards herself or others or (2) turn her delusional attentions towards me (oh… hell nah). I followed the advice (to the tee), didn’t confront or challenge, but worked damn hard to never affirm her in her delusions (changed topics, made legit-sounding excuses to leave the vicinity, etc., but did not encourage/affirm/confirm her).

This is the heart of who i am — I only want to deal with objectivity reality, truth, reason, and logic. Emotions are needful, they are good, and I feel them just as much as anyone else. However truth and reason must trump emotions and subjectivity. If, through infirmity, others cannot handle such truth, I will try to be as nice as possible, but will proceed to avoid them as much as possible — knowing that they need serious, and often prolonged, psychological help. However, I would no more call a man “a woman,” or a woman “a man,” than I would call a human being a “space alien,” a full-blooded Irish-woman an “African-American,” a Chinese person “an Atlantean;” a teenager a “puppy;” an elderly gentleman “Elvis” or “John F. Kennedy,” etc., no matter how sincerely, viscerally, and/or intrinsically they may believe themselves to be such. Again, objective reality must trump subjective emoting.

So if someone tries to intimidate you, or shame you, into believing/affirming/supporting their error (or their delusion, or their purposeful lie), man up (or woman up), stand your grown, and do everything legal and moral that you can to fight for truth; in other words, resist them! Learn to be both absolutely formidable (French) and absolutely formidable (English). Know your rights, fight for them (as if it was for your very life), tell the bloody truth, and do not back down. If you can understand only one thing, understand this the battle is for your mind, your heart, and your integrity; if you lose those, life isn’t much worth living. Use calm, peaceful, and kind words as much as you can; however, where it is necessary, let your words be ardent and let them resound, let them echo, for all to hear. Stand strong…

For God, family, and country!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.