Webster’s Dictionary updated the definition of “preference” on Tuesday to include what liberals now claim as a fact: that the word, when used in relation to sex, is “offensive” to LGBT individuals.
What’s the background?
Democrats launched a new attack against Amy Coney Barrett during her Senate confirmation hearing Tuesday because she uttered the phrase “sexual preference” in the context of gay marriage.
Although the term is used widely by Democrats, progressives, and LGBT individuals, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) scolded Barrett for using the phrase to suggest that Barrett, who is a devout Christian, would support reversing gay marriage rights.
“Let me make clear, ‘sexual preference’ is an offensive and outdated term,” Hirono said. “It is used by the anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity. … So if it is your view that sexual orientation is merely a ‘preference,’ as you noted, then the LGBTQ community should be rightly concerned whether you will uphold their constitutional right to marry.”
What did Webster’s Dictionary do?
After Democrats attacked Barrett for using the phrase, Webster’s Dictionary literally updated the definition of “preference” to include what Democrats now claim: that it is “offensive” when used in the context of sex.
Prior to the supposed outrage, Webster’s Dictionary listed the fifth definition under “preference” to link to the term “sexual preference,” the universally used phrase to refer to those with whom a person chooses to have sex.
Now, the definition has been updated to claim the word is “offensive.” In fact, Webster’s Dictionary claims the phrase is “widely” believed to be considered offensive, despite the fact that it was not listed as offensive until after Barrett used it.
“The term preference as used to refer to sexual orientation is widely considered offensive in its implied suggestion that a person can choose who they are sexually or romantically attracted to,” Webster’s Dictionary claims.
Hirono’s statement — that “sexual orientation is a key part of a person’s identity” and, therefore, is not a choice — is not backed by science.
In fact, there is no scientific evidence proving that genetic code concretely determines the people with whom someone engages in sex.
Still, Barrett, being ever so polite, apologized for using the phrase.
“I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense to the LGBTQ community,” Barrett told Hirono. “So, if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell‘s ruling with respect to same-sex marriage.”