Changes keep coming to vocabulary

Language evolves. Because English has no governing body to enforce its norms and rules, our idiom changes faster than most others.

The accepted standards of English grammar, spelling, punctuation and diction and what words mean are usually what authoritative groups, companies and institutions say they are. Academia, book and magazine publishers, Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the Associated Press and the New York Times often decide these questions in the United States and the rest of us follow.

We have, for example, agreed upon norms for objective and subjective pronouns.

It’s deemed wrong to ask, “Who did you buy that bike from?” Authoritative sources decided a long time ago that “who” is subjective and “whom” is objective (and some disdain a dangling preposition). So correct English demands the question be, “From whom did you buy that bike?”

But most anglophones today never use whom, other than in formal writing. In cases where most English speakers don’t follow a rule laid down by “authoritative” sources, it ceases to be a rule.

The “mistake” becomes the norm and eventually what is grammatically accepted adjusts.

This bottom-up evolution is more widespread when it comes to new definitions for words. Common English terms that meant one thing hundreds of years ago have different significance today.

For example, bully came into English from Dutch (boel), meaning “sweetheart.” Over time bully came to mean a “good fellow” and later a “daredevil.” From there it evolved into our current definition, “one who is habitually cruel, insulting or threatening to others who are

Help kids learn to read

weaker, smaller or in some way vulnerable.”

Where American English is currently changing fast is with terms that fall under the umbrella of gender, sex and sexual orientation. Davis Enterprise contributor Wendy Weitzel recently shared with me an update in this regard published by the Associated Press that our newspaper follows.

The AP guide starts by defining words. “Sex refers to biological characteristics, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive anatomy. … Gender refers to internal and social identity and often corresponds with but is not synonymous with sex,” according to the update.

“Experts from organizations including the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association say gender is a spectrum, not a binary structure consisting of only males and females.”

Prior to the 1960s, the American people and the institutions listed by the AP believed there were just two genders, male and female. Biblical literalists (then and now) would have quoted Genesis 2:7-23 to bolster that case.

However, as more gays, lesbians, transgenders and others came out of the closet, that consensus broke down. The vast majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage. It was just the opposite less than 20 years ago. We have evolved.

By more than sixto-one, Americans believe the law should protect transgender people from discrimination. There is less of a consensus on the question whether a person’s gender “can be different from sex assigned at birth.”

In a recent column, regarding levels of testosterone, I wrote, “A normal biological male has from 10 to 35 nmol/L; a biological female 0.5 to 2.4 nmol/L of testosterone.”

My terminology apparently violates the new AP Stylebook.

“Avoid terms like biological sex, along with biological male and biological female, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to refer to transgender women and transgender men, respectively.”

The preferred term now is cisgender male or female. While I used that adjective also, I think the AP prejudice against the synonymous biological is nonsense. It’s not just “opponents” of transgender rights who use the term biological male. I’m sure the vast majority of people who have no anti-trans prejudice use it to contrast with transgender.

Another change favored by the Associated Press regards the term gender-affirming care. That “refers to a swath of mental and medical treatments (such as counseling, hormones or surgery) that help bring a person’s gender expression (such as voice, appearance or anatomy) in line with their gender identity.”

I don’t have a problem with that term, as long as the user clearly defines what is meant by “gender-affirming care.” Until an activist informed me that she meant the medical use of hormones and puberty blockers for trans youth, I thought the reference was to sex-reassignment surgeries. If it’s not surgery, say that explicitly.

It’s not progress if a new term is so vague as to confuse the readers as to what is meant. Along those lines, the change from the word “rape” to “sexual assault” has the same problem. The replacement term, which came into use in the 1990s, is vague. It sounds more like unwanted touching than the violent crime of rape.

The new guidelines accept the use of plural pronouns for individuals who prefer them. “AP also uses they/them/their as a way of accurately describing and representing a person who uses those pronouns for themself.”

While I hate this violation of English norms, I realize I am in a shrinking minority. Aside from nonbinary individuals who don’t want to be called him or her, I notice most people now employ the third person plural they/them as neutral singular pronouns. Traditionally, he, him and his were used for both male and neutral singular pronouns. “A chef loves his kitchen.” That neutrality is not only seen as sexist, but it’s often misleading. Today, just about everyone younger than I am would say, “A chef loves their kitchen.” My choice would be, “Chefs love their kitchens.”

Yet our language has evolved from what I was taught. New definitions, terminology and rules won’t be decided by folks my age. Younger Americans are changing English. Their standards will rule the future.

— Rich Rifkin is a Davis resident; his column is published every other week. Reach him at Lxartist@ yahoo.com.

Each summer, the Davis Joint Unified School District provides programming for elementary students needing to improve their reading skills. Beginning in 2016, the Davis 1,000 Mentors for Youth Challenge has recruited and coordinated volunteers to provide these students with extra special one-on-one reading time.

In 2019, the program sponsored 60 volunteers who donated 400 hours of their time to read to 200 students. Following a pandemic pause, our 2023 goal is to contribute 500 volunteer hours to Davis children to foster their love of reading.

Please consider volunteering an hour or more of your time. The program takes place at North Davis Elementary School on Thursdays from 9 to 11:30 a.m., June 29 to July 27. You select the number of hours and times you will volunteer to read with children in the classroom. Both English and Spanish readers are needed. All ages are welcome.

There will be a mandatory orientation session on Tuesday, June 20, from 5 to 6:30 p.m. in the Multipurpose Room at North Davis Elementary School, 555 E. 14th St. We invite you to attend to learn more, or contact volunteer coordinator Suzanne Hinton at 1000MentorsChallenge@gmail.com to volunteer.

You can make a difference in a child’s life. Take a summer reading break with our kids.

Susan Lovenburg, former DJUSD trustee

Hiram Jackson, DJUSD trustee

A whole new world

I could not disagree more with Derrick Bang’s review of “The Little Mermaid,”

Foy S. McNaughton President and CEO R. Burt McNaughton Publisher

Speak

President published on May 26. The film was not “a sad failure,” but an explosive and enchanting upgrade. I have done my share of railing against Disney’s new liveaction reimaginings and refused to see them, but “The Little Mermaid” was different. The 1989 “Little Mermaid” was the first film my mom took me to see. I am not a Disney stan, or even a “princess” kind of person, but the film means a lot to me. When I took my mom last weekend, we were prepared to hate it and spend the drive home spouting our upset. We loved every minute. The updates were not “overkill,” and the inclusivity was not “a sledgehammer.” Being a fan of the original, I felt new version smoothly gave kids (and adults) important shifts in representation.

Instead of being flippant, singing bimbos put on display, Ariel’s sisters are rulers of their own seas. Instead of needing to be rescued by a prince, Ariel takes Ursula down to save Eric and Triton. Instead of

The Hon. Joe Biden, The White House, Washington, D.C., 20500; 202-456-1111 (comments), 202-456-1414 (switchboard); email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

U.S. Senate

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3841; email: https://www. feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/ e-mail-me

Sen. Alex Padilla, 112 Hart Senate Office being a sea of white people, people of color abound.

I especially appreciated the lyric changes in Ursula’s song to better represent body acceptance. Were Scuttle and Eric’s songs Lin-Manuel Miranda’s best work? No, but I enjoyed that we saw more of their characters. The water animation and attention to ocean-life details were fantastic, and I loved that we spent time exploring the island. Its ostensibly a kid’s movie, so the “kumbaya tableau” at the end felt just right and aligned with the 1989 ending.

I will say that Bang was spot-on about Halle Bailey as Ariel. She is truly a marvel. Daveed Diggs crushes it as Sebastian, and his version of “Under the Sea” slaps.

In the words of the high school students my partner teaches, “The Little Mermaid” 2023 ate it up and left no crumbs.

See you under the sea, Emily

Castano Davis

Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202224-3553; email: https://www.padilla. senate.gov/contact/contact-form/

House of Representatives

Rep. Mike Thompson, 268 Cannon Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515; 202225-3311. District office: 622 Main Street, Suite 106, Woodland, CA 95695; 530-753-5301; email: https:// https:// mikethompsonforms.house.gov/contact/ Governor Gov. Gavin Newsom, State Capitol, Suite 1173, Sacramento, CA 95814; 916-4452841; email: https://govapps.gov.ca.gov/ gov40mail/