A Field of Verbal IEDs

     Recently, in a Times article I read, the author discusses how her college-aged daughter has now been converted to the side of P.C. language. Words such as "microagressions" and "cisgender" have now become a part of her daughter's vocabulary. So, one wrong mix up of gender pronouns or incorrect nomenclature earns her a dagger-like stare or groans of pity from her daughter. As a result, her house has become a field of "verbal IEDs", where she must always watch where she steps (or, in this case, speaks).
     Our nation has become much like this author's house. In our case, however, the battle is between political parties, and their weapons are P.C. phrases.
     This is not to say that all P.C. language is bad; Its intentions to eliminate bias on the basis of race, religion, or gender are admirable. But, merely altering semantics is not enough to sew shut the ever-expanding chasm that has split the nation.
     Virtually no difference exists between "abuse vs. torture" and genital mutilation vs. genital cutting"; They are all abhorrent (Okrent 771). These phrases are synonymous, and the minute differences in connotation are only the result of politically fueled battle. They waste time and distract from the real issues. Ultimately, if we can't agree on semantics, we should at least agree to disagree. -MC

Their points are one and the same.