There is nothing more wonderful than the word when it moves the expression from negative to positive, nor is there anything more dangerous than the word when it is subjected to agendas of tendentious employment in order to twist it from its natural contexts to others that contradict the facts and metaphors of language, and even interfere with the rules and requirements of common sense that have been familiar since the earliest ages of history, such as viewing the type of marriage relationship as a religious contract that takes place with the consent of a man and a woman according to religious traditions or laws. For example, the type of marriage relationship is viewed as a religious contract in which a man and a woman agree in accordance with religious traditions or civil laws in each country to become partners who seek personal happiness, emotional compatibility, and then become the heads of a family of sons and daughters.
However, the traditional concept of marriage has undergone a gradual change in the values of modernity and post-modernity. It is no longer a partnership between two heterosexual individuals, i.e. male and female, but has come to be seen, especially within the feminist movement, as a “multiple choice” relationship, which has led the individual into new paths, including civil marriage and same-sex marriage, under the pretext of gender, which is different from the traditional understanding of sex, as sex refers to the biological traits that distinguish a male from a female, such as genitals, number of chromosomes, and hormones, while gender refers to the roles and behaviors expected of males and females. refers to the biological characteristics that distinguish males from females, such as genitalia, number of chromosomes, and hormones, while gender refers to the roles and behaviors that males and females are expected to perform in society, and these expectations are often based on ideological dictates rather than independent personal choices, which has contributed to the reluctance to marry in principle or to marry at a very late age, up to the age of forty in some Western countries.
Ireland, for example, is suffering from the near extinction of its indigenous population, according to some data, including the marriage rate of thirty-two years, and what reinforces the hypothesis of the extinction or eradication of the Irish in the future is the prevalence of a strange concept of the child among them; for these (people), man is considered a “child” even if he reaches forty years old!
The impact of terminological change in personal status concepts regulating social relations has the greatest impact on distorting the features of human society in general, and this distortion reaches its peak when it is carried out by political or intellectual will in line with what has become known as the feminist and homosexual movements, as well as individualistic tendencies in their modernist versions. These movements and tendencies employ language in an aberrant manner to achieve their goals and objectives through the mechanism of terminological substitution within the scope of many vocabulary and expressions; such as changing the word (Spockman) to (Spock Pearson), the word (gay) to (homosexual) or (equal), the word (sex) to (gender), and changing the word (prostitution) to (prostitution) to: (“sex work”, “cohabitation”, etc.
This linguistic change, at its weakest state, represents a structural change rather than a linguistic one, which will inevitably lead to consequences that can only be described as (disastrous), because it seeks to de-hierarchize the human relationship, transforming it from a “role” based on a participatory relationship “husband and wife” to a “pure individual identity”, i.e. just an ambiguous person! This eliminates the familial or contractual dimension, privileges the individual as an autonomous unit, and degrades the family as a distinct social unit.
As far as replacing gay with homosexual is concerned, the main result of this replacement is to remove the negative connotation that was associated with the word “gay” and give it a neutral or positive label, contrary to its reality, reshaping the social acceptance of homosexuality and transforming it from a reprehensible deviation to a desirable diversity has serious implications for legislation, education, public morals, etc.
This terminological distortion - attributed by changing the word sex to gender - dismantles the solid relationship between a person's biological trait and the social role assigned to him or her, and opens the door wide for gender identity, transgenderism, gender determination, etc. The same is the case with changing the word prostitution to sex work or what goes into this stagnant stream, such as cohabitation and so on; because this change or distortion recharacterizes the infamous act as a respectable profession, not a moral failing, which is the characterization on which humanity has been unanimous - perhaps - since the beginning of civilized creation, a characterization that prohibits trading in the human body, in addition to prohibiting other (suspicious) human relationships...
The bottom line here is: these ideologically induced terminological changes are not innocent or neutral at all, but stem from philosophical shifts that seek to define the human being against the concepts of the natural individual and the natural family; language is not just a tool of description and analogy, but a tool for building or destroying human relationships, and in a more precise sense, language can give life to the human species in general, or push it to the abyss of extinction or total eradication.
Comments