There's no birthing person in all the world like that dear old birthing person of mine

If moms are "birthing persons" now, then what should we call dads on Father's Day?

Americans are being bombarded with ads for gifts for that special day for fathers. Should I say "sperm contributors" in preparation for our complete capitulation to the woke?

The "sperm contributor" in your life may want that leather chair, or aftershave he'll never use, a box of fine Maduro cigars, a fly-fishing shirt, or perhaps a copy of George Orwell's "1984" and a bottle of Glenmorangie 18 to wash it down.

And on the special day, he might want to grill something for his children and the "birthing person" who brought them into the world.

That's what mothers are called now, by the federal government, by some scientists and by the left:

"Birthing persons."

Orwell was right, the first thing they do to squeeze the life out of your mind is ratchet down the language.

So, rather than call people fools for not applauding this trend, I decided on a radical plan: asking people what they thought of it.

Most women who are mothers don't like the "birthing person" bit. But I didn't have the heart to tell them they'll be sent to a re-education camp if they persist in not liking it.

"I'm not a birthing person" said Linda Blanco. "Those were the medical personnel on hand when my female body gave birth to my children. I became a mother prior to the birthing process when I carried the children in my womb. If 'birthing person' replaces mother, what term replaces father? 'Sperm contributor?' "

Excellent take, Linda Blanco. The contention that persons must have wombs to give birth is a bit of science fraught with peril.

"The use of the phrase 'birthing person' as opposed to 'mother' is yet another example of the science-denying idiocy that is on full display among many on the progressive left," says Janet Helwig Fortney. "This idiocy must be denounced for exactly what it is."

"In my opinion this is no big deal," says Melinda Abney Kaiser. "A woman who gives birth may be carrying the baby for another person/couple, may be biologically unrelated to the baby, planning to place the baby up for adoption. Some people who give birth are biologically female but live as a male and do not consider themselves a 'mother.' I am the person who gave birth to my children, a simple fact, and choose to be called their mother, but it's not my business if someone chooses another path or uses different language."

Who says I'm not ecumenical? And I agree that people may call themselves what they wish. But "birthing person" is the language now of the federal government and government-funded science. So, it isn't just another person's decision about what to call themselves. It's controlling language, officially imposed. And that's serious.

"How embarrassing to be a liberal, knowing this is BS yet keeping your mouth shut in compliance," writes Robert Zaleski. "Cringeworthy."

Yes, but if you really want cringeworthy, watch CNN returning lefty legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin to its lineup after he was put on leave eight months ago for exposing himself during a Zoom meeting with editorial staff at the New Yorker. But he's of the left and so is embraced upon his return. That's modern journalism for you.

Let's get back to "birthing people."

"Birthing people? As a mother I am beyond insulted and so should every other mother. The womb of a woman is the most sacred place in the world," writes Christine Trzos. "What has happened to the adults in the room? Is there no common sense left in our society?"

There are a few. But we hide in cells of three lest we be discovered.

"I am a mother, not a birthing person," says Jan Peron. "The latter disparages the essence of motherhood and women."

Exactly. And isn't that the point?

Will there come a day when fed-up Americans push back against all this stuff?