A View From Middle England - Conservative with a slight libertarian touch - For Christian charity and traditional belief - Free Enterprise NOT Covert Corporatism

Friday, August 14, 2009

What's wrong with sex?

If ever a word was discriminated against by the modern broadcasters and politically correct journalists it is the word SEX. A very short word. It is not even a four-letter word. It has an absolute meaning, which for whatever reason, is being usurped by a prattish lot of poseurs and pimping politicians. As the late Lord Hailsham said, "sex is what you are, either male or female, nothing more!".

But it does mean more. "Having sex" is a popular expression, or it was. By popular, I mean it was frequently used by many in the populace. A fairly meaningless piece of English but well understood by everyone. Sex became a dirty word. So dirty in fact that it could not be cleaned up to impress the new-fangled lot who now infect every inch of the airwaves with their newfound word "GENDER"!

Gender is a far better word for them. It has no foul connotations. Anyone heard of "having gender"? Try shoving that one into a Hollywood blockbuster. Sex is on a backburner wordwise. This morning on the Today Programme Evan Davis asked about gender as if six or seven varieties were a possible answer. And that is the thing. Gender is so maleable as a word, whereas sex is not. "I'm a lady, yes I am!" "Come on, sir, what's yer name?" "BRIAN!"

All government forms ask about gender. Sex appears nowhere. It has been expunged from the forms, only to appear in the nether regions of a rusting computer's database. The same happened to Christian names. My mother got the frosty reply, "well, not all people are Christians!" when she once had the temerity to enquire about that. I suppose I would get a similar response if I tried to solicit an answer about sex. "Well, not all people are having sex, sir". Quite!


Post a Comment