Carpe Diem

‘Frosty the Snowman’ now banned in Washington state, replaced with gender-neutral ‘Frosty the Snowfriend’

frostyOK, I might have exaggerated a little bit with that headline and the Frosty photo above. But not by much, and only because Frosty probably doesn’t appear in any state statutes. But a new manpersondate in the state of Washington that legally bans any gender (aka male) bias in state statutes will replace “penmanship” with “handwriting,” “freshman” with “first-year student,” and “fisherman” with “fisher.”

To implemenpersont and enforce the 475 pages of “gender neutrality” legislation in Washington requires the manpersonpower of a 40-member staff of the Washington Code Reviser’s Office agency.  I’m not making that up. 

And there are a few gender (male) biased words that will be “grandfatherparented in” like “airmen” and “seamen,” because of objections by the Washington Military Departmenpersont, and “manhole” and “manlock” because no common-sense replacemenpersonts could easily be found. I assume that “manual transmission” will become “personal transmission” and “manually operated” will become “personally operated.”

According to the Reuters article that reported this:

“Other states that have passed gender-neutral constitutional manpersondates include California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Utah. At least nine other states are currently considering gender-neutral legislation.

“Words matter,” said Liz Watson, a National Womenperson‘s Law Center senior adviser. “This is important in changing hearts and minds.”

MP: Just wondering, does the manpersonddate in New York mean that Manhattan will now become Persondaugherhattan?  And in general, what about all of the gender-biased words like manuscript, manifest, maneuver, mannerism, romantic, dismantle, human, mankind, manipulate, performance, semantic, showmanship, sportsman, workmanship, documentary, person, etc., the list goes on forever? Where does it stop? For example, will a “bachelor’s degree” now become a “single-person’s” degree?


43 thoughts on “‘Frosty the Snowman’ now banned in Washington state, replaced with gender-neutral ‘Frosty the Snowfriend’

  1. Well, its good to see our elected officials are addressing these matters since they managed to solve the more pressing problems of our failed war on drugs and massive un and under employment.

    Oh wait, they haven’t solve those problems…

  2. It is only a matter of time before these language cleansers realize that the word “person” ends with “SON”. And they will realize that a SON is a male, and therefore “SON”, MUST BE ERADICATED. These will leave us with “per”, “pers”, and “per’s”, etc. These will be truly “gender neutral” and, therefore, acceptable.

  3. Washington legalized marijuana, they get a free pass to do any dumb thing they want for the rest of the decade as far I’m concerned …

    Perry’s tongue-in-cheek examples aside, I have no problem with changing words such as ‘chairman’ to simply ‘chair’. It seems out of touch with the modern world to continue ‘man’ affixes in words that will often refer to women.

    And of course, language changes. It wasn’t that long ago we were spelling “e-mail” with a hyphen and “Web site” as two words and with a capital W !

    And fortunately government doesn’t get to dictate language. What sticks, sticks, and what doesn’t, doesn’t. How’s that for “markets in everything ?”

      • i wish that seemed like more of a joke.

        when i was at brown there was a small but vocal group of students demanding that the word “woman” be changed to “woymn” so that the word no longer contained the word “man”.

        • “womyn”
          so instead of w-oh-m-eh-n
          it’s w-oh-m-ih-n
          …lol, this just too ridiculous to talk about with a straight face!

    • ” … fortunately government doesn’t get to dictate language. What sticks, sticks, and what doesn’t, doesn’t.” — Janxon Sponge

      Tell that to the victims of the Fort Hood terrorist attack who have been stuck with “workplace violence”.

    • It seems out of touch with the modern world to continue ‘man’ affixes in words that will often refer to women.

      This is based on ignorance of the meaning of the word.

      The Shorter OED gives as the primary definition of “man” simply: “a human being.”

      This is consistent with British law as defined by the Interpretation Act of 1850 (13 and 14 Victoriae, Cap. XXI), section IV:

      … in all Acts Words importing the Masculine Gender shall be deemed and taken to include Females … unless the contrary … is expressly provided.

      Or as Winston Churchill explained in the House of Commons in response to a remark of a female member of the opposition: “man embraces woman, unless the contrary appears in the context.”

      This is still consistent with common sense and common usage, and idiots in legislatures who think they have the right to dictate how ordinary folk use their own language should be voted out of office without delay.

      • This is consistent with British law as defined by the Interpretation Act of 1850 (13 and 14 Victoriae, Cap. XXI), section IV:

        meh. Easy come, easy go. The law giveth and the law taketh away.

    • What’s wrong with legalizing marijuana?

      I think Mark’s examples which you deemed “tongue-in-cheek” illustrated the extreme lengths the politically correct crowd are going to in order to be “fair”.

      By the way, your examples of words which operate as titles are completely disanalogous to fictional cartoon characters.

      Really, Frosty the Snowperson? Are we going to make a new movie with an androgynous Frosty? Of course, we’ll have to have a child play Frosty in order to avoid having an obviously male or female voice.

    • @ Janxon -This is not about the convenience of squishing words and letters a little closer together so they are written phonetically. It’s about eradicating one half of society that is/was the perceived enemy of freedom by social Marxists so that we are out of sight, out of mind, have no influence, no ideas and no opportunities, in order to balance the scales of justice. Why can’t they just say it? That’s what this is about.

      Great little article Mr.Perry btw.

  4. Ever get that feeling that, like some modern art, the instigators of this kind of silliness are just playing a joke, seeing how gullible people are, and how far they can push this?* Sadly, this will also cost taxpayers time and money, whatever happens.

    *(As the painter picks up their drop-cloth, tacks it to a frame, and puts a huge price tag on it, calling their drips and spatters “art”. They’ll either sell it, or donate it to a College for a tax write-off.)

  5. Will electrical connectors no longer be described as male and female, but maybe just innies and outies? A gender neutral description like “person” connector wouldn’t be adequate.

  6. Frosty the Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, or Other,
    Was a jolly happy soul,
    With a corn cob pipe and a button nose,
    And two eyes made of coal.

  7. Hm, I guess now when Washingtonians make snowmen, they’ll need to make them anatomically correct so there can be no question whether it is a snowman or snowwoman.

  8. I was going to comment on the fact that “person” has “son” in it but I see that’s already been done. Rather than remove it, however, they will replace it with a gender-neutral word. So, “son” becomes “offspring”. They will peroffspringdate the peroffspringipulation of language until it is unperoffspringagable to the average layperoffspring.

  9. I would think these ‘government’ officials would read their own damned laws before making new ones!

    If you really want to solve gender equality, make a note that ‘man’ shall mean human being, whether male or female… and if you mean a male specifically, then ‘male’ or ‘gentleman’ or even ‘guy’ or ‘dude’ would suffice to indicate specific gender when necessary. That would be a lot easier and less confusing and more appropriate than changing a whole language because a few people complain about ‘man’ existing in words.

    ~A Very Confused ‘Hu-Per-Offspring….thing?’

    • No, won’t work. Every time my wife and I walk into a restaurant the waitress says, “So how are you guys tonight?” I keep asking why the waitresses don’t split the difference and call us “gals” half the time.

  10. Is it me, or does anyone else feel relieved that “Frosty the Friend” has none of the white male privilege that Frosty the Snowman exuded? :>)

  11. It’s official. We have slipped down the rabbit hole. This of course proves how utterly ignorant our society has become, or at least the university professors have. When distinctions between men and women are removed, we have lost a great deal.

  12. Don’t worry about frosty the Snowman i am sure this frosted his butt too. They did forget Congressmen should really be Congress-idiots.

  13. You clearly have no notion of what gendered language is… There is a difference between the random assortment of letters aka “Manhattan, NY” and using terms like mankind which have male based biased built into the discourse.

  14. I know I’m going to get so much shit for this. But there’s such a thing as internalized misogyny. It’s when you don’t even realise it’s happening. The fact that we would say “Hey guys” to a group with females present is a prime example.

  15. The `man’ in words like `mankind’ is actually from the Old English `mann’. Which means `person’.

    In the same language `man’ was `wir’ and woman was `wif’.

    So a snowman IS a person.

  16. This is stupid. Who cares if frosty is a snowMAN. He has been for years. This whole gay rights thing is bogus. WE DEMAND OUR CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>