Liz Wheeler discusses her second strike on YouTube and explains how serious such censorship is, exhorting her followers to go to Rumble to watch full uncensored content. Liz states that YouTube issued her second strike for violating their medical misinformation policy, which she believes is unfair and annoying, as she has been careful in her speech and has even self-censored certain topics related to transgender ideology, election security, and COVID-19. She also mentions that the video that was flagged and taken down was from March, and that the channel is on the chopping block.
Liz segues into a discussion of Stanford University’s “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative,” which recently released a list of ten words they believe should be banned from use, such as “racist, violent, or biased” language. She reads through the initiative’s guide to acceptable words and comments on the words that should be banned, such as “addict,” which the initiative believes should not be used to describe someone who is addicted to drugs. Liz reveals that the Initiative’s suggested words to use instead are “devoted” or “hooked,” and explains that addicted is a much more accurate term, and needs to be used. Other words on the list include “crazy,” which the initiative says trivializes the experience of people living with mental health conditions, and “spirit animal,” which the initiative says is cultural appropriation. Throughout the video, Liz expresses her frustration with the banning of certain words and the idea of “cancel culture,” though acknowledges there are certain words that SHOULD be banned due to actually being offensive. She provides these towards the end of the show, including “cisgender,” “chest feeding,” and “women’s health.”
Hi guys. Welcome to The Liz Wheeler Show. I’m Liz Wheeler. I should say not welcome. I should say Happy Christmas Eve, Eve, Eve, Eve. I think it’s Christmas Eve times four, right? Christmas Eve, quadruple Christmas Eve right now. I’m excited for Christmas. I hope you are too. We have a good show for you today here. But I wanna start with just a little bit of housekeeping before we get into the real topic. One of the funniest topics, by the way, that we’ve ever talked about on the show, which we’ll get to. But before that, the housekeeping stuff. So, YouTube has issued a second strike on my channel. As you know, about a month and a half ago, they gave me the first strike. The result of the first strike was I was suspended from uploading any videos for a week. And they did that.
Of course, they claimed that I violated their medical misinformation policy. What? Because I countered their false narrative on masks or criticized Fauci. Gimme a break, whatever. After you get a first strike, you are in this penalty box, this parole period for about 90 days. And if you get a second strike within that 90 day period, it, it ain’t good, my friends. So we got a second strike today. And, and by the way, we’ve been really careful. I hardly even need to tell you this because you’ve been on the receiving end of how annoying it is when I have to be so liberal, pun intended here with my censorship, my self-censorship. There’s so many things related to the transgender ideology related to election security related to January 6th related to all kinds of COVID topics that I have to bleep out on YouTube because for that 90 day period after the first strike, we can’t even flirt with those terms of service if we wanna stay on the platform and, and not risk losing our account.
So, sorry about that. As you know, it’s really annoying to you. It’s really annoying to me. But we’ve been overly meticulously cautious about this, and yet YouTube got us again, we got notified that we have received a second strike against my channel, actually. Well, I guess it’s a little pat on the back to us. We have been doing a good job of being self-censors here because the video that they marked that they pulled down and told us that it violated the YouTube terms of service was a video from March. This is the end of December, 2022. In this video, they had to troll through all my content all the way back to March to find a video that I made about COVID. And they told me that it violated my, their medical misinformation policy. They also flagged and took down a video or an episode about January 6th from September.
So YouTube may be out to get me. And I say this kind of tongue-in-cheek because I don’t take this personally. I know that these YouTube censors are not sitting there looking at me and saying, Liz Wheeler, we hate her. We wanna kick her off the platform. No. They don’t care about who I am. They don’t care about me at all. What they care about is you. They care about preventing you from having access to the type of information that we talk about, the type of information that we sit down together every day on this show because we know it’s important and we discuss the facts. We uncover corruption, we expose reality and they don’t like that at all. So the result of this second strike is I will not be allowed to upload any videos or episodes on my YouTube channel for two weeks.
This time, the penalty has doubled. So if you are one of the viewers who is actually a viewer and likes to watch the video version of this podcast, you can go to Rumble.com/LizWheeler and you will find all of our content completely free, completely uncensored on Rumble. That’s true all the time, but it’s doubly important. Now, if you wouldn’t mind subscribing while you’re over there, I greatly appreciate it. We have such an enormous following on, on YouTube. I’m grateful for each and every one of you guys. I don’t wanna lose contact with you in the event that, you know, Twitter goes back to maybe last year and finds a criticism of face masks or something of that sort. So we knew this was gonna happen, right? The reason that I don’t seem devastated by this is because I’m not, I refuse to play by the radical left’s rules.
I will not, I will not self-censor. I will not stop talking about the topics that I know are really important to the future of our country, whether it’s culture, war issues, whether it’s COVID, whatever it is. So I don’t take this personal, it’s expected. Our whole channel is on the, on the chopping block. It’s certainly unfair and annoying because YouTube is trying to serve as the gatekeeper to your mind. They want to prevent you from having access to all of this information. So remember, remember that it is aimed at you, and please go over to Rumble.com/LizWheeler right now. Hit that subscribe button and then send out that link to anybody that you know, everybody that you know, that values free speech, that watches this show. Make sure that you are all locked and loaded on Rumble.com/LizWheeler. So in the event that YouTube drops that last axe, that we’re prepared, and we can just take it in stride.
Greatly appreciate that. Okay, now that we have that out of the way, I gotta tell you guys, what are we gonna talk about today? I don’t think I have ever laughed my head off harder while prepping a show than prepping today’s show. I don’t even know how to describe it. Stanford University released a list of acceptable words and a list of some words and phrases to ban. I’m not kidding. They are calling this the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative. So I of course, opened this document because they had announced that they were going to do this back in May, and we’ve talked before about universities targeting certain, certain words and phrases and telling us that we’re not allowed to use it. But this, my friends, is some of the funniest stuff that I’ve ever read. So I thought that we would read through this together. And then I have some counter suggestions for Stanford University, some suggestions of words and phrases that we should ban. Yes, there are some words that I think that we should eliminate from our vocabulary. So let’s get to it, shall we?
All right, so the Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative, I feel like there should be this foreboding drum roll here. If you want to read along with me, then you can go to, I actually do not suggest that you pull this from from Stanford’s website because you don’t wanna give them the attention. You don’t wanna give them the website clicks. The Wall Street Journal actually posted this document and I will share the link with you in the description to this episode. I will share this link on locals. You can just go to LizWheelerShow.com/Locals and I’ll post that link for free. So if you’d like to read along with me, you may. The Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative. This is the description of their project, of this endeavor. They say the goal of the elimination of Harmful Language Initiative is to eliminate many forms of harmful language, including racist, violent, and biased, i.e. Disability bias, ethnic bias, ethnic slurs, gender bias, implicit bias, sexual bias, language in Stanford websites and code.
Okay? So just Stanford’s defense of all of this is this is just what we’re doing on our campus. This is not something that we’re trying to impose on you, to which I respond, sure, sure, okay. Say what you will. But you’re indoctrinating these people on your campus who when they reach the real world, they bring that with them. They export your wokeness, this ridiculosity, into corporations, companies, everywhere in the United States. They say the purpose of this website is to educate people about the possible impact of the words we use. Language affects different people in different ways. We are not attempting to assign levels of harm to the terms on this site. We are also not attempting to address all informal uses of language. Oh. Oh, good. So they’re not telling us whether we’re in venal sin or mortal sin. Thank you, Stanford.
This website, they say, focuses on potentially harmful terms used in the United States, starting with a list of everyday language and terminology. Our suggested alternatives are in line with those used by peer institutions and within the technology community. Don’t you just love that, by the way? They can’t take responsibility and saying, this is the word that I think you should use. They have to engage in technocracy. Oh, the experts tell us that it’s okay to use this word. We don’t have to think for ourselves when the experts direct us. Okay. And then they go on to say, content warning. Do we have this? Matt, can we put this on the screen? Because this just slayed me when I was reading this content. Warning, this website contains language that is offensive or harmful. Please engage with this website at your own pace. At your own pace.
Oh, man, I wish they would’ve said at your own risk. That would’ve been more in line with saying that this language is actual violence. This language is harmful. Engage at your own risk. No, at your own pace. They still want you to experience it, even if it’s harmful, just slowly so that you’re hurt more slowly. Okay? They start, see, this is what I spent the hour before the show, just scrolling through this, just laughing my head off, cracking up. Okay? They start with ableist words. This is how they define ableist. Ableist language is language that is offensive to people who live with disabilities and or devalues people who live with disabilities. The unintentional use of such terms furthers the belief that people who live with disabilities are abnormal. One of the things, I guess this is a little bit more serious of a point, but one of the things that is really subversive about the Left is they try to assign malicious intentions to you, while at the same time telling you that you’re not aware that you’re doing it, which is a very creepy concept because in almost every other aspect of a judgment system, whether this is American civil law or even the Catholic church, judging sins, intent always matters, right?
It’s not that there are certain actions that you could, it’s not that I could go out and kill someone, and if I didn’t intend to kill them and I didn’t know that that murder was a crime, that I wouldn’t be held accountable. There would be some accountability, right? But it’s different for premeditated murder than for unintended manslaughter.
Intent always matters. The same thing in the Catholic church. There’s the concept of mortal sin, which is a sin where you reject Christ, and if you reject Christ, then you put your salvation at risk, right? But the definition of immortal sin, you don’t accidentally commit immortal sin. You can only commit I mortal sin. If you are in full knowledge of what you’re doing and of the repercussions of that choice. Intent always matters. But to these people, you can unintentionally do this. You can act in a way that is harmful and violent and you’re just completely unaware. That’s a very subversive idea, not to go off on a soapbox too soon into this episode. So let’s look at some of their examples. This one is their first one. They say, instead of saying the word addict, you should consider using instead, like, what, what is offensive about addict?
You should consider using person with a substance use disorder. Their context they say is using person first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics. First of all, I’m not gonna take you guys seriously if you split your infinitive to not define, no, not to define, use proper grammar here, except we’re told grammar is white supremacists now, right? I don’t care. I do not care. Okay, two things here. First of all, the term addict is not offensive. It is not related to any kind of slur or anything. Person with a substance use disorder, I will never use that phrase. And here’s why. Because a disorder is something over which you have no control. A disorder is equal in some ways to an illness, right? It is, it’s usually an illness that is related to your mind, a mental illness. And I understand that addiction, once you have begun and you are addicted, changes the chemical balances in your brain.
That’s what addiction is. And it becomes an illness, yes, but it is not something that is preordained. It’s not something that you are born with. It’s something that happens as a result of your deliberate choices. I will never use the phrase person with a substance use disorder. And here’s another reason why. They say instead of the word addicted, consider using hooked or devoted. Why? Because the word addicted trivializes the experiences of people who deal with substance abuse issues. Devoted is a word, this is open as devoted is a word that’s like I’m devoted to you. This man is devoted to his family. This woman is devoted to her faith. That’s a word with a positive connotation. Devotion to God is what we strive for. If we are religious people, devotion is not the proper way of describing someone who is shooting up heroin in an alley in San Francisco.
You are not devoted to heroin. You are addicted to it. You are not hooked on it. Hooked on it is slang. You are addicted. Your body is addicted. Your mind is addicted. That’s not offensive in any way. It’s not offensive. They also say, instead of saying the phrase committed suicide, consider using died by suicide. Now, that is not a particularly, that that’s not a phrase died by suicide. It’s not longer or more unwieldy than saying committed suicide. But the reason that they tell you to say died by suicide. I reject this reason. They say ableist language that trivializes the experiences of people living with mental health conditions. So first of all, I will never honor, I will never respect, I will never accept suicide as being something that is appropriate or legal in a civilized western culture or country.
Like what Canada’s doing right now with assisted suicide is grotesque. They have an active campaign for doctors to encourage people with mental health issues to commit suicide, kill themselves, instead of get the mental health healthcare that they need. I will never, ever get on board with that. I reject that. So what is ableist language? It is a crime in our country, in the United States for person A to kill person B. Why? Because we acknowledge the first principle that life is valuable, that people have dignity. And so if person A, if it’s a crime for person A to kill person B, because we acknowledge that that person’s life is valuable and that they have a right to life, then if person B tried to kill person B, it’s still a crime against person B. That is where the phrase committed suicide, because it is a crime to commit suicide.
You’re not allowed to kill yourself because even if you don’t value you, we value you as a society. This, oh, it’s more, it’s more. Some of them are serious. Some of them are a little lighter and a little funnier. Like this next one. Instead of using the word crazy, consider using surprising or wild. Why? Because crazy is ableist language that trivializes the experience of people living with mental health conditions. Well, now that’s just crazy. Wouldn’t you love to hear them break down me saying the word bananas? Like where do you think that would fall on this list? Do you think that’s appropriate use of describing something that’s crazy? Or do you think that’s ableist language? Maybe that’s, maybe that’s offensive to animals in some way. Monkeys maybe not sure, but saying crazy. Some things are just crazy.
They’re just crazy. You’re not allowed to say insane either. According to Stanford, they say, instead of saying quadriplegic, you should say person with a spinal cord injury or person who is paralyzed. And because, they say, the word quadriplegic generalizes a population of people while also implying that people with disabilities are not capable. Well, here’s the thing. I hate to break it to Stanford, but quadriplegics are not capable of walking. Quadriplegics are not capable, physically, in the way that we define capability, meaning capability to live a self-sufficient adult life autonomously without help. There are certainly accommodations that we as a society are happy to provide to people who are quadriplegic. They, they are people of dignity. They are valued, and we want to help them be as autonomous as possible. But to ignore the difference between an adult person with a fully operative body, arms and legs and spine, not to acknowledge the difference between that and someone who is paralyzed from the neck down.
Like, why wouldn’t you acknowledge that? Why is that offensive? To acknowledge? It doesn’t mean that the person, the quadriplegic is any less. It means that person is generally injured. It’s okay to acknowledge that. It’s not offensive to acknowledge that It’s weird if you pretend that there’s no difference. Instead of saying toned up, don’t you love when the Left comes for their own phrases too? Instead of saying tone deaf, consider using unenlightened because tone deaf is ableist language that trivializes the experience of people living with disabilities. Supposedly. So does the term walk-in. You can’t say walk-in. If you’re talking about a hair salon or an nail salon and they’re like, oh, walk-ins welcome. Meaning you don’t have to call ahead and schedule an appointment. It’s a normal phrase. They say this trivializes the experience of people who can’t walk. Okay, okay, well, let me just tell you, I plan to still use that term.
There’s nothing on here that has convinced me more or that has convinced me not to use these phrases. And I’ve never been more convinced that these people are nut cases, nut cases. However, oh, it gets worse. Wait until they address the word that best describes Joe Biden. Okay, so then we get to the ageism section. The ageism section. When I read this, I thought, oh, huh, I wonder why they’re including this? Could it be possibly because we use accurate descriptions for Joe Biden’s bananas behavior? This is how they describe their ageism section. Ageist language singles out a person based on their age instead of their qualifications. But what if their qualifications are decreased because of factors of age? Is that not okay to notice that? Well, according to Stanford, we may not use the word senile anymore. Why? Because this term is often used disparagingly to refer to older people whose mental faculties appear to be in decline.
They suggest, instead, that we call Joe Biden a person suffering from senility. Oh, so we can use the same word, but it’s not offensive if we use four words to describe what one word would describe. This is like, I don’t know if you guys had traditional English grammar education in elementary school and high school. I did. And one of the principles of writing specifically and of speaking, is not to use four words when one will do, not to create a run on paragraph, when you can accurately depict what you are trying to communicate with one word or two words. This is the opposite of that, and it drives me bananas. Okay. Past the ageism section is the colonialism section. Oh, I can’t wait for this one. This is how they describe it. Colonialism is the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically. It is better to avoid terms that derive from colonialism. I have a very controversial opinion on colonialism. I don’t think it’s always bad. I think in the history of our world, there have been instances where colonialism has brought incredible good to countries, to peoples, and to the entire world.
The English empire, the British Empire, is a good example of that. Liberal heads are literally exploding right now. Oh, is that because I’m of ableist term though. Well, we’ll have to check with Stanford. The US is a perfect example of that. What did we do? What did what? What did what happened here? The, the first settlers to America were colonizers. That’s why they came. This used to be called the British colonies, and it was the American colonies. They came here and they, they took the land because the history of the world. I don’t know if these people have never opened a history book, if they just don’t care about what the reality of life is, but the history of the world is a history of war and conquest. Peoples are always taking land from other peoples. We are in this singular, unique stage of world history right now where this is not happening as often as it used to, at least in the western world.
But up until 250 years ago when America was founded, this was a constant, a constant reality of life. And it’s not a bad thing. Imagine if the American settle have been like, oh no, we can’t be colonial, we can’t be colonizers, we can’t be, we can’t be imperialists. No, no, we can’t do that. The United States wouldn’t even exist. And yet these people are afraid of being offensive. Okay? So this is their example though. They said we should not use the phrase Philippine Islands random, right? Didn’t you expect something about Native Americans? No. No. They’ll get ya They suggest and said that we say Philippines or the Republic of the Philippines. Why? Because Philippine Islands, they say the term is politically incorrect and denotes colonialism. And then they say, this just slayed me. Some people of Filipino heritage might use the term, though.
Okay. So you’re not allowed to use it, and I’m not allowed to use it because, what, I’m white? But because it denotes colonialism, it’s offensive. We should avoid it. But if you’re Filipino, you can say it. So is this like the whole N word thing for black people? Like rappers are allowed to say N word, but if a high school senior who’s signed at a football college is singing along carpool karaoke to a rap song and says the N word in the course of rapping along to the lyrics, then he loses a scholarship. Is that this situation? I reject the idea that there are certain people that are allowed to use certain words and other people that it’s offensive for them to use it. No, no, no, no. Either a word is offensive, or a word is not offensive.
You don’t get to tell me that I don’t get to say a word because of what I look like, but you get to say a word because of what you look like. I don’t think so. Okay. Then we go to their culturally appropriative section. This is how they describe it. Culturally appropriative language misuses terms that hold meaning to a particular culture in a way that often lacks respect or appreciation. These are some really interesting, interesting examples because what I expected them to say is don’t engage in derogatory stereotyping, right? Like, don’t do something offensive with a Halloween costume that depicts a culture as being entirely represented by some negative trope about that culture. That’s what I expected them to say. And in a sense, I can be like, okay, yeah, we don’t want to glorify negative stereotypes, especially if they’re not really true.
That’s not what this is. Read along with what this is. They say, do not use the term, bury the hatchet. Instead use call for peace or call a truce. Why? Because the phrase bury the hatchet using this term is cultural appropriation of a centuries-old tradition among some North American indigenous peoples who buried their tools of war as a symbol of peace. I’m like reading the sentence waiting for why it’s offensive. And I’m like, yes. And? This is a great way to illustrate when people come together and reconcile in some way. Why is this cultural appropriation? This isn’t North American indigenous peoples who did this. It’s describing it. It’s actually a way of like giving longevity to this, this culture. This is the thing, this is the problem with cultural appropriation, is they actually don’t mean that you just shouldn’t perpetuate negative stereotypes about a culture.
They mean if you are not a part of a particular culture, then you are not allowed to talk about, use phrases from, or engage in any cultural practice or tradition that came from that culture. This literally renders the United States, people in the United States completely paralyzed. Oh, look at the buzzword completely paralyzed in all of our behaviors because we are a melting pot of all these different cultures. If we did not exchange cultures, pick up phrases, do all of these things that are informed by the fact that we are a melting pot, then we wouldn’t be allowed to do anything or say anything. Saying bury the hatchet is not negatively reflecting on the culture of the Native Americans at all. Okay, so after bury the hatchet in our culturally appropriative section, here we have the word guru. Why aren’t we allowed to say the word guru?
Why on earth not? They suggest as an alternative, an expert, a subjects matter expert, primary leader, teacher, or guide? No, I like guru. I like guru. Why on earth can we not say that? They say in the Buddhist and Hindu traditions, the word is a sign of respect. Using it casually negates its original value. Why? How does that negate its original value? When we use the word guru, we are using it to describe someone who is the creme de la creme of their field. Someone who knows more than you. It’s a descriptive word. Also even aside from the fact this is not a negative, that using the word guru is not perpetuating some negative stereotype, I feel no responsibility in my life to kind of practice tenets of other religions. I can use a word that another religion elevates as like a holy word, and I don’t have to pretend that that word is holy just because this other religion thinks that it’s holy because it’s the other religion is wrong.
So maybe two reasons that I will keep using the word guru however I want. They say, you may not use the phrase low man on the totem pole. Why not? Because it trivializes something that is sacred to indigenous peoples. Also, in some first nation communities, Stanford says, being low in the totem pole is actually a higher honor than being on top. The term also reinforces male-dominated language. Okay, so you got your trifecta there. Low man on the totem pole doesn’t include women. Well, you would think, then, that feminists would really like this, that woke intersectional folks would really like this because maybe it portrays the fact that men are the lowest. And that seems to be what the feminists and the intersectional and the woke and the wokes really want. They don’t wanna elevate women. They don’t want equality for women. They want to actually trample on men here. So I don’t know why they have a problem with that. I don’t care what is sacred to a pagan religion. I do not feel compelled to protect something that is sacred to a pagan religion.
They say we’re also not allowed to use the word, or the phrase, I should say, on the war path. Why? Because it’s a cultural appropriation of a term that referred to the route taken by indigenous people heading towards a battle with an enemy. Yes, that’s exactly how we use it. We use it to describe the same thing. How is this disrespectful? It is not disrespectful. It is not disrespectful. It would be disrespectful if you dressed up like a white woman for Halloween. If you dressed up like me for Halloween and you pretended that women, or like a rag queen if you pretend, if you dressed up as me for Halloween and pretended that it, that women who are blonde have no brains, they’re only to be objectified for their body and that they only belong to a menial labor or some, some horrible sexist, negative tropes about women.
That would be like a negative portrayal. That would be something that would be a disrespectful portrayal of somebody with specific characteristics. And I could get on board with not doing that. But saying on the war path is just describing two people that are describing somebody who is out for a fight. No problem with that. This one, oh my gosh, I hope your reaction is the same way as this one. Guess what word we’re not allowed to say? Pocahontas. The suggested replacement for this is to use the person’s name instead of using Pocahontas. They might as well just stamped this and said Trump. Trump. Do not call Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas. Why? Because this is a slur and should not be used to address an indigenous woman unless that is her actual name.
Elizabeth Warren is not an indigenous woman. Elizabeth Warren has less Native American DNA in her blood than the average American citizen. How is this a slur? This is only a slur. If you think that Native American people are less, it is not a slur. And then, and then this is funny because what does the Left do they always eat their own here? The next prohibited word is powwow. Why is this? Why is this offensive? Because using this term, in this manner demeans a term of cultural significance to indigenous people. So first they try to go to bat for Elizabeth Warren, but then, you know, she has a cookbook called Powwow Chow. And so then they come after her. So, I mean, what can I say? I hope, I hope that she apologizes here. You’re also not allowed to use the word spirit animal.
Why not? Because the term refers to an animal spirit that guides or protects one on a journey so as to equate it with an animal one likes is to demean the significance of the term. There is nothing that I would like more than to demean pagan practices, demean new age practices, demean demonic or satanic communing. I have no respect for such practices, nor should anyone, spirit animal, oh my goodness, to equate it with an animal. One likes us to demean the significance of the term. Okay? Then we get to the gender-based terms that we’re not allowed to use. Gender-Based. This is how they describe it. Gender-Based language includes a range of words and phrases that are not helpful, and in many cases are exclusionary. Some people may not mind having the terms applied to them, or even prefer having the term used. It’s always preferable to ask a person how they want to be addressed
instead of making consumptions. Who does this? Like what would a party look like? If this is what, if this is how people acted. You walk up to someone and you’re like, hi, are you a are you a man or a woman? Are you non-binary? Are you, are you gender queer? What actually are you? Are you a person? Are you an animal? Are you trans-able? Can you imagine if you walked up to people and actually acted like this? This is how the Left wants human interaction to be. Okay. So instead of using the phrase preferred pronouns, Stanford says that we should just use the phrase pronouns. Why? Because the word preferred suggests that non-binary gender identity is a choice and a preference. Yes, that’s accurate. That’s exactly what it is. Gender identity is a choice. It is a preference, and there’s no such thing as any other sex aside for man and woman.
Okay, this one. Excuse my French here, but I could not pass up. I couldn’t skip this one just because it’s a little vulgar. But it’s so funny. Instead of using the phrase balls to the wall, they say consider using the phrase accelerate efforts. Why? Because the phrase balls to the wall attributes personality traits to anatomy. To anatomy. So we’re not supposed to say the phrase balls to the wall. We’re not supposed to say the word ballsy. Why? Because it attributes personality traits to male anatomy. Can you imagine being the person putting this list together? Like, do you think that they were being serious? Do you think they’re actually offended by these phrases? We’re also not supposed to use the word chairman or chairwoman or congressman or congresswoman or fireman or firemen or freshmen or gentlemen. Why? Because it lumps it lumps a group of people together using masculine language, or it assumes the non-binary.
Two comments on this. First of all the one that stuck out to me the most here was actually fireman and firemen, because you don’t ever hear the phrase fire woman, like, it’s just firemen. You’re a fireman. Even if you’re a girl, you’re a fireman. And this, this they say lumps a group of people using masculine language and or into gender binary groups, which doesn’t include everyone. Do you wanna know how many firemen are women in our country? Like 8%. Eight out of every 100 firemen are women. 92 out of every 100 firemen are men. I think in that case it’s okay to generalize. Not that most women care when we are referred to in the context of mankind, or referred to with the pronoun he, when it is an abstract use of a pronoun. I certainly don’t care.
I’ve never met any woman who cares, especially women who are intelligent, who are readers, who care about grammatical accuracy. Nobody cares about that. But I did think the firemen statistics was funny. Like that’s offensive to what? The eight out of 100 fire women? I’d like to, I’d like to hear from them actually. I’d like to hear from ’em and see if they’re offended by being called firemen. We are not supposed to use the term guys because the term reinforces male dominated language. Isn’t this how I almost always greet you guys on the show? Like, hi guys. I thought that was a Midwestern, a midwestern phrase that I used that will not be changing. They say we should not use the word ladies either because it lumps a group of people using the gender binary language that doesn’t include everyone. Okay, well guess we gotta include those zes and zers, right? Those people that that identify as, what was that video? I forget what that was, but maybe Matt, my producer, remembers. What was that video of that weirdo on TikTok from, like, six months ago who was saying that the neo-pronouns that she chose were some animal? It was like an owl or a toad or something.
Oh, the frog self. Frog self. That’s right. Of course, Matt remembered this. Matt has a memory like a trap. Frog self. Oh my gosh, that’s right. Yes, so instead of saying, ladies and gentlemen, you should also address all the frog self out there. Make sure you do that. Or you are bumped off of this list. We’re not supposed to say landlord and landlady, mailman man hours, man in the middle, mankind, manmade or manpower. Oh goodness. We’re also not supposed to say the word transgendered. Did you know that? This one, I was like, oh, huh, not supposed to say the word transgendered. You’re only supposed to say the word transgender because the word transgendered, or the term avoids connotation, or connections. No wonder this sentence doesn’t make sense. I’m not reading it right. This term avoids connections that being transgender is something that is done to a person and or that some kind of transition is required. If a transition is not required,
why are we castrating young men? If a transition is not required, why are we taking out the uteruses, the healthy uteruses of teenage girls in the name of them being transgender? That’s why I’ve been using this phrase. I don’t know if you guys noticed or not. I’ve been using this phrase. Instead of transitioning, I’ve been using the word trans-ing because you’re not transitioning to everything. You are being transed. Something is being done to you. And of course, a lot of these people, if they’re adults, are active participants. Children, of course, are exploited. So then we get to the imprecise language section here. Imprecise language, they say, is terms that utilize euphemisms, vagueness, or inaccurate words to not say what one is trying to say again with a split infinitive. People. Come on. Now, we are not supposed to use the word abort. If we mean cancel because Stanford says this term can unintentionally raise religious and moral concerns over abortion. And what might those religious and moral concerns about abortion be, Stanford? Could you detail them for us? Thank you very much. We are not supposed to say the word American. I’m not kidding. You may not say the word American. You should say, instead, US citizen. Why? Because the term American often refers to people from the United States only thereby insinuating that the US is the most important country in the Americas, which is actually made up of 42 countries.
The problem with this, of course, is that America is the best country. The United States is the best country in the Americas. This is true. We are the most important country, no matter what country you live in. You might be from Argentina, you might be from Brazil, you might be from Mexico, and you might love your nation. You might feel an incredible amount of patriotism. You might like your heritage and your people, your government, everything, your neighbors, your friends, your family. You might have roots in the geography, roots in the history, all of that. And that’s fine. But still, even if you do, objective reality is that the United States is the most important country in the Americas. We are the most important country in the world. Not because I’m saying this out of any ego, but because we are the literal superpower in the world.
We are the leader of the free world. We are the strongest nation in the world. The nation that has lifted more people out of poverty, not just in our own nation, but all around the world. We are the nation where modern medical advances have happened. We are the nation that ushered the entire globe into the prosperity that we enjoy today. Of course, the United States is the most important nation in the Americas. And when you say that you’re American, of course people should assume you’re from the United States. Keep on saying American. You are not allowed to say circle the wagons according to Stanford, because Hollywood movies about settlers migrating West contributed greatly to the formation of this phrase, which means that quote unquote savages are coming in a group of parenthesis, white people is about to be attacked. It also paints indigenous peoples as the aggressors. They were the aggressors when we were settling the West. It literally was a battle between the white people who were settling the West and Native Americans who were attacking them, who would scalp them and burn their villages and steal their women. It was horrendous. This isn’t something white people made up.
You’re also not supposed to use the term Hispanic, because although widely used to describe people from Spanish speaking countries outside of Spain, its roots lie in Spain’s colonization of South American countries. Instead of referring to someone as Hispanic because of their name or appearance, ask them how they identify themselves first. You look brown. Where are you from? Can you imagine? These people have no root in reality, none at all. They tell us we’re not supposed to use the term people of color or straight or thug or user. Oh, oh, oh. Let’s stop at that one, user. They say you should use the phrase client instead. Why? Because the word user, while often associated with one who uses software or systems or services, it can also negatively be associated with those who suffer from substance abuse issues, or those who exploit others for their own gain.
But like it is negative to abuse drugs. So you can’t say that a software user is a user because that has a negative connotation to someone who is shooting up heroin in San Francisco? Get me a break, then we get to institutionalized racism. We’re almost done here, I promise. Institutionalized racism. This is how they define it. Institutionalized racism is racism embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or organization. It can be seen in processes, attitudes, and behavior through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping. We are not allowed to use the phrase black mark, A black mark against someone’s record. Why not? Because it assigns negative connotations to the color black racializing the term. Okay, guys. Okay. We are also not supposed to use the term gangbusters because it unnecessarily involves the notion of police action against gangs in a positive light, which may have racial undertones. It is positive when the police break up a gang. Who thinks it’s not positive when police take action against violent gangs? Good heavens. Good heavens. Finally, they say, this is under their additional considerations at the very end. They say these are terms that don’t fit into the other categories, but are still important enough to have attention drawn to them. Prostitute, the verb. So to prostitute something, not supposed to use that. Instead, you’re supposed to use the word debate. Why? Because the word prostitute is a verb. Unnecessarily correlates corrupt or unworthy purposes with sex work.
Unnecessarily correlates corrupt or unworthy purposes with sex work. I think it is for unworthy purposes, and it is corrupt, and it is gross, and it is immoral, and it should be illegal. But goodness, let’s not demean that even though women are abused and trafficked in prostitution. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Stanford. If you have a school-aged child, you might wanna consider sending them somewhere else because this is the cesspool to which you will be sending them. I would like to propose before we run out of time here, I would like to propose some alternative words that should be banned. If everyone’s allowed to just sit here and throw out their suggestions of what words should be eliminated from our society. Here are some suggestions. I hereby nominate the word cisgender for elimination from our society.
Why? Because there is no such thing as cisgender. You are born a man. You are born a woman. You are not cisgender if you are a woman attracted to a man. You are just a woman attracted to a man. I refuse to have someone else force on me a label, a gender identity label, just because I’m a woman. I also nominate the term gender identity. Let’s eliminate that from our society. Why? There is no such thing as gender identity. You are a man, or you are a woman. You can be a masculine woman. You can be a kind of feminine dude, but you are a man or you are a woman. If we even acknowledge their phrase gender identity, then we are accepting the premise of the entire queer theory agenda. I also nominate the phrase pregnant people.
Let’s get rid of that one, shall we? People don’t get pregnant. Women get pregnant. It is offensive to women to call us pregnant people. I nominate the word, let’s also get rid of chest feeding. Chest feeding. No man that I’ve ever known with the chest has been able to breastfeed. It’s insulting and demeaning to women to reduce breastfeeding to chest feeding. I also nominate the phrase women’s health. Oh, why women’s health? Because women’s health is a euphemism for abortion. And it’s offensive to me to pretend that abortion, which kills a baby and harms a woman, is related to healthcare at all. It is not. I also nominate the term MAP, minor attracted person. Let’s get the hell rid of that one. This is a poisonous, despicable effort by the Marxists on the Left to normalize pedophilia. They wanna remove the stigma of adults being sexually attracted to little children, toddlers, and babies by giving it a new name.
Because pedophiles is a negative connotation. They’re gonna call it MAP, minor attractive person. No, no, no, no. That’s offensive to everyone except groomers and pedophiles. And finally, I nominate gay marriage. Let’s get rid of that word. Why? Because marriage is ordained by God. It is between one man and one woman. A government, a group of politicians, a court cannot change the definition of marriage because marriage existed before. Our politicians and our government and our judicial system before the judges, you cannot change reality in. If we allow the Left to redefine words, what happens? They become the arbiter of what’s quote unquote true that makes them authoritarians. They have the power of a dictator, if they have the power to redefine words. They are using this authoritarian control to control your words, in order to control your minds, to force you to adhere to their Marxist ideology. Let’s reject it, shall we? Thank you for watching. Thank you for listening. I’m Liz Wheeler. This is The Liz Wheeler Show.