The bedrock of any society is the family unit. But the family’s place in culture has been almost entirely co-opted by government and media.[1] In the book The Coddling of the American Mindthe authors discuss the redefinition of the concept of “safety” to include “emotional safety.”
But gradually, in the twenty-first century, on some college campuses, the meaning of “safety” underwent a process of “concept creep” and expanded to include “emotional safety.” As an example, in 2014, Oberlin College posted guidelines for faculty, urging them to use trigger warnings to “show students that you care about their safety.” The rest of the memo makes it clear that what the college was really telling its faculty was: show students that you care about their feelings. You can see the conflation of safety and feelings in another part of the memo, which urged faculty to use each student’s preferred gender pronoun (for example, “zhe” or “they” for students who don’t want to be referred to as “he” or “she”), not because this was respectful or appropriately sensitive but because a professor who uses an incorrect pronoun “prevents or impairs their safety in a classroom.” If students have been told that they can request gender-neutral pronouns and then a professor fails to use one, students may be disappointed or upset. But are these students unsafe? Are students in any danger in the classroom if a professor uses the wrong pronoun?
Lukianoff, Greg; Haidt, Jonathan. The Coddling of the American Mind (pp. 24-25). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. (Emphasis mine)
This is a very clear example of how everything is redefined in order to dictate political alignment. The family has always been the bastion of emotional safety.[2] Now, however, this safety net must be extended so that no person ever feels alienated (read: unsafe) anywhere and everywhere. The family unit has been essentially undermined when it comes to establishing values among its members.
But what happens when an arbitrary political entity decides that using the pronouns that we have all always used throughout the history of human speech[3] is too threatening for a tiny segment of society? Every single thing in the culture must now be redefined. In fact, nearly everything has a different meaning from what “it has always meant.” In every conversation those conversing need to define their terms, because although they may well use the same words, they probably do not mean the same thing by them. (Sound familiar? IE- Orwell’s 1984)
Once again, remember that we are only setting the stage for the discussion of a far more concerning ploy of the Enemy: Bringing Christians to the place of "having ears" but "hearing not."
[1] Remember Hillary Clinton’s book: It Takes a Village? (1996) The entire thesis of the book was that of co-opting the family’s role in child rearing.[2] Certainly, there are many examples that suggest otherwise, (dysfunctional families, etc.) but these exceptions only serve to establish the underlying principle.[3] Never intending or suggesting any prejudicial opinions in using them.