Is ‘sexual preference’ offensive ?
Some in the LGBTQ+ communities are alarmed by it. Yet who is defining the term?
Not quite three years ago Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was talking about race and said:
there is a big difference between how our society has come to respect people, whatever their sexual preference, and race discrimination.
The trouble is that Justice Ginsberg seemed unaware the term ‘sexual preference’ creates such terrible consternation among the LGBTQ+ folk. But then Vice-President Joe Biden used the term this May, and he also didn’t seem to grasp the sheer viciousness of the words. In fact, you can watch a fun-reel of Democrats using ‘sexual preference’ repeatedly here.
Yet Senator Mazie Hirono was horrified at Justice Barrett’s confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, and tweeted so. She wanted to ‘make clear’ her views, saying:
sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. To suggest sexual orientation is a choice? It’s not. It’s a key part of a person’s identity. The LGBTQ+ community should be concerned with #WhatsAtStake with Judge Barrett on the Supreme Court.
Now Senator Hirono is using a debating sleight-of-hand here called a ‘straw man’ when she implies that sexual preference and sexual orientation are synonyms. They’re not.
A straw man is an argument that is implied from a (mis)reading of what someone says, and then attack that different argument. Meanwhile Justice Barrett’s original point — that she couldn’t comment on past cases, citing Justice Ginsburg’s famous phrase “No hints, no previews, no forecasts” — was left unchallenged.
To realize just how silly Senator Hirono’s point is, try this thought experiment. Imagine you are a straight female. What would your sexual orientation be? Sounds like you would be a straight female. But what would your sexual preference be? Another straight female? Or a straight male? Or something else? Now ask yourself is it likely that you would ever change your preference? Maybe, maybe not.
So the first thing we should do is look up the definition. We could delve into the subterranean world of Transvivor, who tell us:
Sexual Preference [sek-shoo-uh l pref-er-uh ns] | noun (sexual preferences)
A gender or expression that one prefers to engage with sexually.
And let’s just check orientation:
Sexual orientation | Sexual Identity | Sexuality [sek-shoo-uh l awr-ee-uh n-tey-shuh n] | noun
A person’s identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted. Such as bisexual, and heterosexual.
OK, sounds like we’re on the money here. But just to double-check, what about a more substantial source like Merriam-Webster:
Yikes! Definition 5 says it’s offensive? Merriam-Webster even provides us with a usage paragraph:
Usage of Preference
The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to.
Widely considered? By who and how widely? And why does having a preference suggest anything sinister about who you find attractive?
I smell a rat here. I’m pretty well read-up on these matters, and I have never heard anyone (outside of gay writers with an agenda) suggest it was offensive. Let’s just check the time-machine and see what’s going on:
Looks like there was some sort of activity just after Justice Barrett used her ‘offensive and outdated’ term on Tuesday October 13th. Unfortunately for Merriam-Webster, web.archive.org accessed the page on Monday September 28th ie a couple of weeks back. Let’s see what the time machine has it saying:
Interesting. So a couple of weeks ago we had no mention of ‘sexual preference’ being offensive, and no need to guide us on usage.
However Merriam-Webster (“America’s most trusted online dictionary for English word definitions, meanings, and pronunciation”) decided to update the meaning of ‘sexual preference’ in the morning just after Justice Barrett’s testimony, and give it a sinister twist.
Now it could be that Merriam-Webster has been brooding on this definition for some time, and by a sheer fluke decided it should be updated the morning after Justice Barrett committed her crime. They do say:
To be included in a Merriam-Webster dictionary, a word must be used in a substantial number of citations that come from a wide range of publications over a considerable period of time.
I don’t have any details on just how long Merriam-Webster were considering this update, but at the very least it would seem to scream partisanship until proved otherwise.
This is a prime example of not letting the Left control our dictionaries. They’re not interested in owning the laws, since with control of the dictionaries they can make the law say whatever they want.
