Birthing persons?

(Originally published in World News Group)

When Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers proposed changing the term “mother” to “inseminated person” in the state budget, many people rightly laughed at the absurdity of the terminology— with Elon Musk chiming in to say “Hi Mom, I mean ‘inseminated person.’ This is crazy!!”

It’s the kind of liberal detachment that naturally invites ridicule—the latest in a long line of progressive attempts to unmoor words from their meaning. But this I suspect is not just another bizarre bureaucratic exercise in inclusive phrasing. This is an intentional shift that lays the foundation for profound cultural and legal changes—changes that, once again, come at the expense of children. And ultimately our society.

This redefinition of “mother” is not happening in isolation. It is part of a broader, calculated effort to sever the naturally gendered language of family from all biological reality.

We have already seen this done with terms such as birthing persons, which has been used to try to remove women from pregnancy and the act of giving birth. Chestfeeding was introduced to create an illusion of equality where men can nurse infants, and assigned at birth quickly became a go-to phrase for medical professionals to not so subtly suggest that biological sex is a mere bureaucratic designation. Again, these are not harmless word games. They are an attempt to normalize ideological fiction over biological fact, and their success has real-world consequences.

An oft-quoted line, attributed to every dictator from Joseph Stalin to Joseph Goebbels, says, “He who controls the language controls the world.” It is associated with these dark figures because historically the levers of language control have been abused with terrific consequences.

Once we wake up to the strategic intentions, we can see that when state documents strip out terms like paternity and motherhood, they aren’t just trying to be “inclusive.” They are deliberately erasing the idea that children are born from the union of a man and a woman and have a right to that man and woman. This linguistic maneuver subtly, but effectively, paves the way for society’s next greatest reality-bending idea, that children truly belong to whomever intends to parent them. You see, once mothers and fathers are fictitiously separated from the creation of the child, society is free to reassign these labels arbitrarily as they see fit. At last, the final barrier of biology is circumvented as adults become free to purchase, create, and assign children in the way that suits their own desires, identities, and contracts.

This is the realization of the pro-adult, anti-child goal: detached children, free to supplement adult arrangements for adult fulfillment. The cost? Only the fundamental right of children to be raised by their mother and father.

We can see now that these linguistic changes do not exist in a vacuum. They serve a pragmatic, legal purpose: If words no longer have clear, biologically grounded meanings, then the institutions built around those words—marriage, parenthood, and family—can be redefined at will to achieve any adult-centric aim. And what history has shown us, time and again, is that when adult desires become the priority in family formation, children suffer.

When sex is “assigned at birth,” the transition of a child’s parent is not just possible, but must be celebrated. When “Mother” and “Father” are replaced with “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” on birth certificates, a child not only loses his legal connection to both biological parents but also is cut off from critical family history and medical information. When terms like “intended parent” become commonplace it helps to normalize unrelated adults purchasing children via sperm or egg donors, sending newborns home with unrelated and potentially dangerous, adults who have skirted traditional adoption screenings.

This is not just about accommodation or inclusion. This is about whether or not reality itself will be affirmed or denied.

It’s tempting to dismiss these linguistic manipulations as the latest absurdity from the woke left. But we cannot afford to treat this as just another ridiculous overreach. When words are redefined, laws follow. When laws change, institutions break from their foundations. And as these institutions collapse, it will be the most vulnerable among us, children, who lose their fundamental rights to the people and structures that are meant to protect them.

This is not just about a ridiculous term. This is about the erasure of the family itself.

We must do more than roll our eyes at the insanity of a dehumanizing phrase like “inseminated person.” We must expose the real purpose behind these sinister language lies and the child-harming ideology they represent.