It is a general truism that the "truth will out". One instance of the truth coming to the surface is the tendency for men to live more and more consistently with their hearts or inner beliefs. Oftentimes the "working out" of beliefs or worldviews can take several generations. Sometimes it happens more quickly.
More often than not, Unbelief turns to folly which attracts (and deserves) ridicule. We Christians ought not hold back from sending up folly (all the while attacking false principles, ideas and beliefs, rather than duped and misled people). Thus in Isaiah 62: 1-2 the prophet ridicules the leading idol gods of Babylon. In chapter 44: 9-20, Isaiah sends up the crass stupidity of worshipping idols. Mockery is a dish best served steaming hot, with lashings of laughter.
In the best traditions of the prophets of old, then, we offer the following scintillating progressive advance in polite speech:
Doctors have been told to refer to expectant mothers as “pregnant people” so as not to offend transgender people, in official guidelines issued by the British Medical Association (BMA). The controversial advice appears in a 14-page booklet on “inclusive language in the workplace” which also rules that the terms ‘biologically male’ and ‘biologically female’ are problematic, and instructs doctors to instead say that the individual was ‘assigned’ male or female at birth. . . .Here's an idea. Let's suggest to the BMA (and all those like minded) that it can and must do better. Not only is trans-genderism calling for respectful, inclusive, and affirmative language. There are some folk now abroad who claim to be transitioning to animals, or who deny personhood entirely. So instead of referring to "pregnant people" (in place of "pregnant mother) if the BMA is really serious, it must speak of "pregnant thing" and the only appropriate pronouns are the impersonal ones: "it" and "its".
It’s not only politically correct terminology relating to transgender issues that is covered in the guidelines issued by the doctors’ professional association and trade union. Members are advised against using ‘male-centric language’, an example of which is the instruction to use the term ‘family name’ instead of ‘surname’, the booklet noting that some linguists believe the latter word “may originate from sire-name, the name derived from one’s father”.
‘Christian name’ is another term the BMA say should be banished from doctors’ vocabularies, the guidelines stating that “to ask a Jewish or Muslim person their Christian name not only makes no sense, but is also highly disrespectful of their beliefs.” In a section of the booklet relating to race, doctors are warned that “difficulties can arise with expressions that use ‘black’ in a negative way, eg ‘black sheep’, or ‘black mark’.” . . . [Virginia Hale, Breitbart London]
And . . . let's make sure (in the interests of full inclusiveness) that vets are no longer excluded from the BMA, but that they be fully accredited as practising medical professionals, able to serve humans, non-humans, and things. How we eagerly looking forward to seeing our first pregnant truck, presided over by its attendant mechanic, or vet, or doctor, or whatever. It's all the same really. That's the whole point of inclusiveness, right?
Bel bows down; Nebo is stooping. What a joke.