Image 01 Image 03

Webster Changes ‘Preference’ Meaning After Dems Attack ACB’s Use of ‘Sexual Preference’

Webster Changes ‘Preference’ Meaning After Dems Attack ACB’s Use of ‘Sexual Preference’

“Webster’s dictionary has revealed itself to be a propaganda machine,” noted one astute Twitter user.

To say Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono’s “questioning” of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett during day two of the confirmation hearings left a lot to be desired would be quite the understatement.

Not only did Hirono bizarrely ask Judge Barrett if she had ever sexually assaulted anyone, but the Senator – a Georgetown Law School graduate – appeared to have problems understanding what “the law” actually means and what the role of a legislator is versus the role of a judge.

In addition to that, Hirono played predictable “gotcha” games with Barrett, criticizing her use of the term “sexual preference” from earlier in the hearing in response to a question from Sen. Dianne Feinstein about gay rights:

“Sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term, it is used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice — it is not,” Hirono said.

The Hawaii Democrat said she was “disappointed” that the circuit court judge declined to weigh in on whether she agreed with the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that granted same-sex couples the right to marry.

“So even though you didn’t give a direct answer I think your response did speak volumes,” Hirono said. “Not once but twice you used the term ‘sexual preference’ to describe those in the LGBTQ community.”


Though Hirono’s remarks on this issue got the most attention Tuesday, Judge Barrett was also criticized over it by New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker as well media figures and left-wing LGBTQ groups, including MSNBC senior producer Kyle Griffin and Lambda Legal:

Right on cue, Merriam-Webster dictionary ripped a page right out of the Associated Press’s stylebook, conveniently changing the definition of the word “preference” on the very day Democrats and the media made Amy Coney Barrett’s use of it an “issue”:

Twitter users responded accordingly, with some noting the Orwellian nature of Webster’s actions:

Others pointed out the hypocrisy of it all, including the fact that not only have Democrats like Joe Biden and the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used the term, but that “sexual preference” was apparently okay to use even in the LBGTQ community as recently as two weeks ago:

In a perfect world, these people would not be taken seriously. But we’re not in a perfect world and many of the people making such a ridiculous, two-faced fuss about “sexual preference” and who are revising history on the matter are in positions of power – whether as a member of the House or Senate, an influential media figure, or a respected worldwide source for words and what they mean.

Let this serve as a reminder that, win or lose in November, conservatives must continue to fight against radical left-wing propagandists for the soul of this country with every breath. Because losing that battle is not an option.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Friendly Grizzly | October 14, 2020 at 8:06 pm

It isn’t a choice.

    It doesn’t matter whether it’s a choice. A preference may also not be a choice.

    But the strident insistence that it’s not a choice makes people suspect that maybe it is one after all.

    Also, insisting that it’s not a choice implies that if it were one then it would be incumbent to choose heterosexuality, and it would be wrong to choose homosexuality. Which is consistent with a religious viewpoint, but totally contradicts the ideology that the gay lobby insists everyone adopt, which considers the two completely equal. If they’re equal then how could it be wrong to choose one over the other? And if it’s not wrong to choose then why care whether it’s a choice?

    My own view is that for some people it’s a choice, or at least something they have some degree of control over, but for most people it isn’t. However whether to act on ones preference is always a choice; nobody is literally compelled to have sex. Chastity is difficult, but it’s possible for everyone.

      whether to act on ones preference is always a choice; nobody is literally compelled to have sex. Chastity is difficult, but it’s possible for everyone.

      The prime premise and first choice, which is why they risked violating civil rights on a false premise and practice, in oder to normalize the “rape culture” in an em-pathetic appeal to self-defense. Which is why they appropriated “gay” and “lesbian” around the mid-twentieth century to soften the image of trans/homosexuals in a progressive bid to set precedent for political congruence (“=”), to be exploited for political, social, and economic leverage.

    For instance, everyone will agree that handedness is not a choice, and yet if you look up “right-handed” on you will find in the first definition served up, “…using the right hand by preference” (my italics). Similarly if you look up “handedness” and scroll down to the definition from Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, you will find it defined as “a preference for using one hand as opposed to the other”.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 12:21 am

      President Garfield was ambidextrous, and could reportedly write simultaneously in Latin with one hand and Greek with the other. Not that it did him any good, he ended up shot anyway.

      Now there’s a danger that we’ll be stuck with a President who doesn’t know if it’s raining or Tuesday.

      Tacitus declared the barbarians to be far more moral people than his fellow Romans. Everybody goes all to hell eventually.

      Handedness can be a “choice” or at least effected by your environment. I was distinctly unhanded using both equally until I broke my left arm and had it in a cast for months on end. By the time the cast came off, I was firmly right handed.

        jb4 in reply to rdm. | October 15, 2020 at 10:58 am

        I am all screwed up …. write and throw a ball left-handed, do most other things, like using any implement, right-handed – not ambidexterous – never broke anything to drive development.

    And yet in some cases, it is a choice such as with bisexuality or pansexuality.

    many nymphomaniacs will also sleep with anyone to satisfy their addictions.

    many drug addicts will also sleep with anyone to get their next fix.

    Calling it sexual preference does not trivialize the experience of a gay man or lesbian female because the word preference does not imply mere fetishism unless you are a dolt.

    It may not be a choice by the time it becomes apparent. While there may be a genetic propensity there is no “gay” gene. The building of one’s sexual persona is multi-factorial and spans a developmental time frame of unperceived and perceived events.

    The issue here is “show me the language, I’ll show you a crime”. The intentional changing of definitions is to exclude rather than include people when used as a weapon.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 14, 2020 at 8:30 pm

There is no need for Webster in the modern world.

Ship DEM all to their Communist Chinese owners.

So this seems contradictory. Some people prefer the opposite gender some prefer the same gender. The overwhelming majority of both categories are, in fact, born with that predisposition. Some are influenced by culture to suppress their predisposition some are influenced by their culture to embrace their predisposition. Some are at times attracted to same gender and at other times opposite gender.

So if there is no such thing as preference what the hell has been the point of the LGB movement? I was under the impression that the goal was to live and let live?

Is this weird Orwellian exercise in linguistic gymnastics an attempt to reinforce the idea that I am a bad and immoral person because I don’t find transgender people sexually attractive?

The biggest difference in the usage of the word in this case is the intent of the users. ACB meant no harm in her usage and was being correct in so far as she knew. The Democrats usage of the word was intended to harm her.

    jb4 in reply to ee76. | October 14, 2020 at 10:04 pm

    FOX pointed out tonight, with clips, that Joe Biden has used the term many times. I guess we are now supposed to vote for the non-Biden candidate, he who must not be named. Alleged senility and graft were OK, but his word usage is a bridge too far.

I haven’t used Merriam-Webster online for at least five years. They always have weird activist blog posts and quizzes. Indoctrinational–is that a word? If so, I look it up on dictionary dot com–or I look in my big book!

The nuances of preference and orientation are resources or obstacles. Which orientation do you prefer.

Is there ANY institution that hasn’t been bribed into corruption by the left??

I don’t get the point. Looks to me like a difference without a distinction.

Even RGB used it. Not to mention Biden and a slew of others. These people always seem to find a lower level to go.

Escaped from RI | October 14, 2020 at 9:34 pm

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

New definition of Webster – Communist propaganda machine.

Let’s apply Darwin:

If sexual preference was genetically determined, given the fact that 2 people of the same sex can NOT procreate, the gene can NOT be passed down to the next generation and would therefore be eliminated by Natural Selection.

So, which one is it?

    Excellent point. Indeed, with the vastly increased acceptance of such relationships, natural selection should wipe out the gene more rapidly.

    Milhouse in reply to Exiliado. | October 14, 2020 at 11:25 pm

    Come on, that’s a very weak point. Have you never heard of recessive traits? Also see the well-known “gay uncle” hypothesis.

    tom_swift in reply to Exiliado. | October 14, 2020 at 11:47 pm

    Genetics are not the only possible determinant of animal development.

    Some species of polymorphic ants grow their strikingly different worker or soldier ants from exactly the same juveniles (basically, sterile females) by feeding them different baby formula.

    Just as a f’rinstance.

    In humans I personally suspect that in many cases, details of sexual development are strongly affected by prior traumatic experiences. And in other cases, not so much.

      DaveGinOly in reply to tom_swift. | October 15, 2020 at 3:06 am

      It is the case with humans. In twins, one can be homosexual and the other hetero. They have the same genes. But more than genetics goes into ontogeny. For instance, when two fetuses are in the womb, some hormones released into the womb can easily affect one fetus more than the other. Some hormones have an effect on fetal brain development. This can lead the twins to be born with subtle differences in intelligence, personality, developmental arcs, etc., because their brains are wired slightly differently due to differential exposure to chemical signals while developing in the womb. The signals can cause slightly different expression of the same genes in twins, leading to differences in genetically identical individuals.

      Some birth defects are not caused by genes, but by the fetus’s own chemical signals going wrong during development. A baby can be born with five fingers on one hand and six on the other. The baby’s genes are OK, but one hand didn’t get the “stop” signal soon enough to prevent an extra digit developed, or got too strong a “grow” signal to begin with. This is why some babies are born with tails. Everyone has the genes for a tail, they’re just not usually expressed. Sometimes during development, they are expressed (again, because of signaling going wrong, not mutated genes), and a tail is developed, when the development should have been suppressed, but wasn’t. It’s not uncommon at all.

Morning Sunshine | October 14, 2020 at 10:20 pm

So, we were at a homeschool conference about a year ago. My daughter brought her public school friend (we’ll call her A), cuz the youth track at said conference is SO COOL. They were wondering the vender booths, and A saw the 1828 Webster dictionary.
“Oh my! Who would have a book THAT BIG in their house?!?!?”
my daughter, laughing, “Every homeschool family I know.”
“Seriously? You guys ARE weird!”

But this story is exactly why we use a reprint of the 1828 dictionary. Because we want our kids to know the real meanings of words, not the newspeak being used in society.

    Except that the language has changed a lot since 1828. The definitions you will find there are not necessarily correct for the language today. Not to mention all the words that have been coined since then. It’s still a cool thing to have, especially if you want to know what a word meant then.

      Morning Sunshine in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2020 at 11:34 pm

      the words haven’t changed too much; not most of them. And yes, new words have been added to our dynamic language. it is a good place to start. It is also a good place to find the definitions of words used “then” – when the Founding Documents were written, for example.
      We also use an online etymology dictionary which helps explain the word more than just defining it.

        A lot of words have changed meanings, or have gained new meanings. Someone from 1828 would have difficulty understanding a modern newspaper. Or this blog.

          tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | October 14, 2020 at 11:53 pm

          Lexicophiles (yes, that’s a thing) greatly prefer the 2nd Merriam-Webster Unabridged over the later 3rd for that very reason. The 3rd dropped indication of preferred usage, leaving the unsuspecting user to believe that all the silly definitions are equivalent in validity. The change from the 2nd to the 3rd caused quite the crisis in the industry. At least one new dictionary—the American Heritage—came out specifically to combat that shortcoming.

      Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 1:36 am

      For example, Milhouse, do you suppose “wet blanket” or downer” would be in that dictionary? As in “He is very bright and clearly clever, but he’s such a wet blanket.” Or “He means well but every other comment shows he can be a real downer.”

Lessons I’ve learned watching Mazie Hirono:

• Korematsu v US is good law;

• Truman should have dropped the third nuke; and,

• The Constitution needs to be amended to require all federal and state offices, elected and appointed, to those who inherited US citizenship at birth by natural law.

    Truman did drop the third nuke. There were only three made, and the first was dropped at Alamagordo, to make sure it worked. The last thing they needed was to drop the first one on Hiroshima and find out the hard way that it was a dud. So they used the first one for a test. The second one fell on Hiroshima, and the Japanese wondered whether perhaps it was the only one we had. Then the third one fell and they decided not to take the chance that we had more. Which was a good thing, because we didn’t, and if they’d called our bluff it would not have been pleasant.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | October 15, 2020 at 12:00 am

      The Alamagordo “gadget” wasn’t dropped, it was placed on a tower built for the purpose. It was a plutonium “implosion” bomb (the design which later lowered property values around Nagasaki). The radically different uranium “gun” bomb (the Hiroshima type) wasn’t tested—for reasons unclear to me, everyone involved was certain it would work.

        alaskabob in reply to tom_swift. | October 15, 2020 at 12:52 am

        May I point you to the book “Critical Assembly” by Hoddeson on the development of the bombs? The “gun-type” U-235 bomb was a no brainer. Taking into account the reactivity of U-235, the only issues were how to best design the “bullet” and “target” and keep them tamped together long enough to go prompt critical. The first minute samples of PU-239 were pure but the samples from reactor production had a mix of Pu isotopes and too reactive for a gun… fissioning (and melting) in the barrel before getting to the target. That required a major re-direction in design. I somewhat chaff at the description of critical mass for Pu-239 when it’s more critical density. Part of my misspent youth was a degree in Nuclear Engineering.

Her answer to Hirano and Whitehouse.

Never forget: when you argue with an idiot, you have two idiots arguing.

Why are we arguing with these idiots?

Speaking of words and definitions, I just learned something cool today. The Hebrew verb letarped (לטרפד), meaning “to frustrate, prevent, render ineffective”, is derived directly from the English word “torpedo”.

Uh, guys, “Webster’s” means nothing. Some judge somewhere decided that “Webster’s” is public domain; but the general public is unaware of this, and still regards anything named “Webster’s” as authoritative. So now most good dictionaries and all not-so-good dictionaries have “Webster’s” somewhere in their titles. People who worry about such things consider Merriam-Webster, Webster’s New World, and the American Heritage Webster to be good ones. I personally think the Random House variants (including the ubiquitous American College Dictionary so common at used book sales) are pretty decent, too.

I looked up “preference” in my Merriam-Webster’s Second Unabridged. It doesn’t match either of the two appearing above very closely.

I don’t see “Merriam” mentioned in any of the Tweets, just plain old unqualified “Webster’s”.

Is it me or does she sound similar the Christine Blasey Ford?

    Ronbert in reply to alaskabob. | October 15, 2020 at 8:52 am

    The odds are that a letter from one of ACB’s students alleging sexual harassment will be presented. This will require a year long investigation. Hirono set this up.

My preference? Dim witted Hirono is removed from office.

The one that grates worst on me is not actually Hirono but ‘Spartacus’ Booker.

Lucifer Morningstar | October 15, 2020 at 9:48 am

Well, never used Webster online dictionary. Always used Guess I’ll stay with that as they don’t seem to edit their definitions to comply with the latest political and social fads.

Here is the problem with the sexual preference and sexual orientation. Both can be voluntary and are not mutually exclusive. When used to address a person’s preference for the sexual characteristics of a potential partner. Self identified homosexuals also engage in heterosexual engagements. Heterosexuals do the same. Though the person may “prefer” sexual relations with a specific physical gender, the human animal is not restricted to sexual relations with a single sexual gender.

A couple of decades ago, a movement was born to cast homosexuals as being the helpless prisoners of biological drives. This was done to increase sympathy for members of that community. Now, while a “preference” for sexual relations with a specific sexual gender is most likely part of the instinctive make-up of certain, specific human beings, humans, unlike lower animals, are not inexorably bound to it through instinct. There have been whole societies, Ancient Sparta comes to mind, where large segments of the population engaged in both homo and hetero sexual practices. Is a gay man incapable of having sexual relations with a female? No. Is a lesbian incapable of having sexual relations with a male? No. Do such sexual incidents occur? Yes, on a large scale. Then we have the people sho suddenly “discover” that they are homosexually oriented, in their later life as well as those who engage in homosexual”experimentation” in their younger years and then “decide” that they are heterosexual. So, how much is preference and how much is an overwhelming, biological orientation?

The slippery slope in all this redefining the term sexual preference is to open the door to legitimizing virtually any sexual practice which the mind of man can conceive of. Pedophilia, pederasty, zoophilia and a host of other sexual practices become non-preferential and therefor can be claimed to be legitimate expressions of human sexuality.

Blaise MacLean | October 15, 2020 at 12:29 pm

Webster needs to change its name to “The Newspeak Dictionary”

Genotype, phenotype, indoctrination, corruption, and/or preference? Normalization, tolerance, or rejection? The Progressives and Liberals have an ideological bent to play with straw clowns in bid to avoid the hard problems (e.g. their infamous wicked solution)