AP Stylebook inconsistency is fruit of political correctness

[Shana A]

AP Stylebook inconsistency is fruit of political correctness

By: Gregory Kane 05/01/11 8:05 PM
Examiner Columnist

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/05/ap-stylebook-inconsistency-fruit-political-correctness

Today, class, we will discuss matters like The Associated Press Stylebook (APSB) and such.

[...]

I know the APSB and I use it as a tool in a writing class I teach at Johns Hopkins University. I fastidiously follow ASPB procedure, except in those instances when I don't.

Such instances number exactly two. Readers learned of one in my last column, when I refused to refer to Chrissy Polis, a transgendered person who was born a male, with the pronoun "she."

[Vicky]

His comment on "science" definitely proves that he owns a microscope, but has assembled it upside down!!

[JungianZoe]

I see no inconsistency, just conservative doublespeak.

Their rant against the usage of abortion terms in the Stylebook simply proves the author's ignorance (note, I say the author, not conservatives in general).  The term "anti-abortion" perfectly describes that political movement without using political catchphrases.  "Pro-life" rarely describes the anti-abortion camp, as many of them don't care what conditions the baby has to live in once they're born, and advocate for the termination of social programs that help babies (and mothers) living in squalor.  Don't even bother asking them about the death penalty: the Bible says "an eye for an eye," so most of them are for it.  Nothing about this says "pro-life."

On the liberal side, "abortion rights" means exactly what it says: the right to have an abortion.  "Pro-choice" is kind of wishy-washy.  We all know what the choice is, but the term by itself isn't the slightest bit descriptive to anyone who may never have heard it before.  And "pro-abortion" is a conservative jab meaning "you want to kill babies, you wretched monsters."  The Stylebook merely advocates clarity of prose over politicization.

The Stylebook's stance on transsexuals is not politicization, but a reflection of modern science's findings in the area of transsexual biology.  Ah, there's that word the author of this op-ed has such a problem with: biology.  If he knew anything at all about biology and science, it's that everything is a theory, because, technically, everything has the potential to be disproven and/or modified based on new research.  Apparently, nothing can ever go wrong biologically, according to this author.  Everything is cut-and-dry, perfectly compartmentalized, and without deviation.  Cells are cells, right?  They replicate like they should, right?  So cancer must not exist either.  Or should the Stylebook refer to it as "cancer?" (in quotes, because cancer patients are obviously just faking this biological aberration of a natural process for political gain).  Maybe cancer patients should be referred to as "leeches of the medical system" or "people who drive insurance costs up."  After all, everything should work perfectly!  It's biology!

Gah, the ignorance of this piece confounds me.

[Alyssa M.]

Zoe, many people who are opposed to abortion are equally opposed to the death penalty. Many Roman Catholics fell his way, and I don't think it's really all that uncommon. I have also met a number of people who support both abortion rights and the death penalty. (However, I agree with you completely with regard to the AP Stylebook's guidelines on the issue.)

[JungianZoe]

Zoe, many people who are opposed to abortion are equally opposed to the death penalty. Many Roman Catholics fell his way, and I don't think it's really all that uncommon. I have also met a number of people who support both abortion rights and the death penalty. (However, I agree with you completely with regard to the AP Stylebook's guidelines on the issue.)

A very, very good point, and one that I failed to consider in my original rant!

I meant to imply that the political movement of the American religious right is anything but pro-life in their views, as are a good many of the politicians beholden to them.  Those were the ideologies to which I referred in my earlier post.  I don't have exact demographics of who comprises the religious right in this country, but I run into precious few Catholics (including half of my family) who subscribe to that movement.  I actually think it's unfair to paint any Christian (or other) sect as broadly involved or not involved in the movement because I credit most individuals with the ability to make their own decisions.

Hope that clarified my intent a little more.   I was getting ready for work when I wrote that earlier post, so was slightly distracted.

[tekla]

The AP Stylebook inconsistency is fruit of political Stylebook itself is a the direct result  correctness.

FIFY

What else is a stylebook except a shrine, a venerable and just god (I lived by a style book for a big part of my life, I know what these things are like, and they are like Gospel) to someones (or groups) notion of what is - and what is not - correct.



I actually think it's unfair to paint any Christian (or other) sect as broadly involved or not involved in the movement because I credit most individuals with the ability to make their own decisions.
I actually think movements and institutions need to take responsibility for those that speak in their name, and, at the very least work to put as much distance between themselves and their ill-speaking brethren for the sake of those of us on the outside.  But, brethren is greater than civilian, so they don't.