I am a wife.

You know why?

Because I’m a married woman.
So the controversy over the “gendered” language in the new House Rules is as follows.

1. The House Rules contain an anti-nepotism (you can’t hire your own relatives) provision.

2. To make that make sense, there’s a definition of who is included in the meaning of a relative.

3. That definition is found in Rule XXIII, clause 8(c)(3). This👇🏻is what the definition said in the Rules for the last Congress (the 116th). It uses words like mother, father, wife, husband, daughter, son, etc. Words that convey gender. /2
4. The proposal for the new Congress (the 117th) was to change that definition to “non-gendered” language. Each new Congress adopts its own Rules at the beginning of its session, shortly after being sworn in. The *changes* to the old Rules are proposed in a House Resolution. /3
5. This year that was House Resolution 8. It proposed to change that definition of “relative” in section XXIII.8(c)(3) - & only in that section - to “non-gendered” language. 👇🏻

6. House Resolution 8 passed, of course, so when the House publishes the nicely printed copy of the Rules for the 117th Congress, the “non-gendered” language will be used in the definition of relative, so: parent, spouse, child. Words that don’t convey gender. /5
7. This change does NOT change the definition of “relative” for any other purpose or any other Rule or any law or for debates on the House floor. It only changes it for the anti-nepotism provision in the House Rules.

8. However, it may be a harbinger of things to come, such as requiring that all House materials or legislation use “non-gendered” language.

9. Resolution 8 for example also changed the word “Chairman” to “Chair” for example.

10. This is both good & bad. The original point of switching to “non-gendered” language was good. It was to stop using generally applicable words that by their meaning EXCLUDED women, such as “Chairman.” It was/is a recognition that women can hold such positions.

11. But that only makes sense if the word you’re changing is a gendered word for something that could be a person of either gender, like a committee chair.

12. Some words, however, are gendered precisely because only one gender can constitute that word- like mother.

13. Changing to “non-gendered” words for things that are by definition gender specific is wrong, idiotic, anti-feminist, & anti-equality. It erases people.

14. So changing from gendered to non-gendered words must be done carefully. Where it increases equality, great.

15. Where it erases people, it should not be done.

16. There are many instances for example where changing to “parent” will be more equal & also more efficient.

17. There will also be instances in which eliminating the word “daughter” only serves to erase women.

18. There is a movement in our culture to erase gender, under the guise of “equality.” Sometimes what that movement proposes IS advancing equality for women, but increasingly it is also eliminating & harming the status & rights of women & girls.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Leslie McAdoo Gordon

Leslie McAdoo Gordon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @McAdooGordon

12 Jan

One of the values we need to return to is self-reliance.

You can build self-reliance by first doing it in small ways. Once you start doing it, you realize other ways you can do it & you feel more comfortable & confident in it & you can build more of it into your life. /1
Being self-reliant makes you freer. It gives you options & flexibility when things outside your control go wrong. You’re also less dependent on others & their potential failure, betrayals, mistakes, etc. I’m not recommending isolationism, of course. Just more self-reliance. /2
It becomes a mindset & if you make sure you don’t go overboard either, it’s healthy. Some examples to start with:

1. Spend less; save more & give more to charity.
2. Eat & drink less; walk or play or exercise more.
3. Watch less tv; read more.
4. Be online less; sleep more.

Read 10 tweets
11 Jan
So if the Congress is really going to impeach DJT again, here’s the thing on an “incitement” charge. As I’ve been saying, there is no basis for “incitement” as a matter of criminal law, based on his speech or his conduct overall. It’s not a legitimately indictable case. /1
Like many,(& probably most actually), lawyers, I do not believe impeachment requires that the conduct satisfy the criminal law to be impeachable. That is, just because it’s not a crime doesn’t mean it’s not impeachable. The criminal law is certainly a guide to use, however. /2
So for an impeachment on “incitement,” I suppose you look at the situation a bit more broadly than the criminal law does & say DJT created the environment that led to the storming. I personally think there are too many contributing factors to hold him responsible that way. /3
Read 5 tweets
7 Jan

First, we have to continue to believe in the Union & our republican form of govt. Belief is vitally important.

“One person with a belief is a social power equal to ninety-nine who have only interests.”

John Stuart Mill

BELIEVE in the Constitution & republican govt.
To get perspective on yesterday’s events, I suggest today’s podcasts from @dbongino & @CamEdwards. Both are sober but not defeatist assessments & like me condemn all political violence. Dan is longer; Cam shorter. If you can’t listen today, just fit them in this week. Links👇🏻/2
Read 18 tweets
20 Dec 20
I know people are angry & upset. I am also. We face an existential crisis in our governance, our institutions & our values. And, it is made worse because our opponents are in denial about this or they know it & are for it. We must face this moment with courage & conviction./1
One thing we must do to conquer this challenge is renew our own commitments to our republican form of government, to our institutions & to our American values. Do not lose hope; do not lose faith in what we believe in; do not lose courage in the face of these adversities. /2
But we also need to be doing some things differently & be doing some new things. Each generation of Americans has had to adapt our great experiment to its times. We can as well. Our values & our institutions are true & good. They will endure if we defend them. /3
Read 27 tweets
20 Dec 20
@Heretictus @AncientRedwood @Digitalis_Man You sue, you demand investigations, you vote them out, you demand the legislature investigate & write new laws, you run for office, you publicize the issues with press conferences, meetings, & papers, you call & email & write your representatives, you have rallies, . . .
@Heretictus @AncientRedwood @Digitalis_Man . . . you build coalitions, you create programs to teach people about the issue, you keep pushing your point. Do you think it was any less existential that women couldn’t vote, for example? /2
@Heretictus @AncientRedwood @Digitalis_Man Resorting to using the military to resolve legal issues & particularly those involving elections is to abandon the constitution altogether. There is no basis for doing that now. /3
Read 7 tweets
9 Dec 20
Flynn case. J.Sullivan’s memorandum opinion on the Rule 48 motion to dismiss is completely inappropriate & he knows it. That motion was mooted by the pardon. In order to try & hide that fact, he coupled his order on that motion w/his order on the motion to dismiss for mootness.
He’s making it superficially look like the opinion relates to the mootness (pardon) motion, but it does not. It’s an opinion on the Rule 48 motion, not the mootness (pardon) motion. By putting those two motions together in one order, he obscures that distinction.
This is even clearer when compared to the other minute order he issued at the same time, which ruled that all the other pending motions were moot. The order on the Rule 48 motion should have been grouped with those too. It’s moot just like they are because of the pardon.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!