Breaking News: Reality is crumbling

The Daily Absurdity

Unfiltered. Unverified. Unbelievable.

Home/Americas

The Semantic Shell Game: Why Defining 'Woman' Became a Professional Liability

Buck Valor
Written by
Buck ValorPersiflating Non-Journalist
Sunday, January 18, 2026
Share this story
A wide-angle, realistic photograph of a government hearing room. A witness in a gray professional suit sits at a mahogany table with a microphone, facing a panel of politicians seated behind an elevated bench. The lighting is bright and sterile. In the background, several spectators and journalists are visible, some taking notes and others looking at their phones. The atmosphere is formal and tense.

Welcome to the latest installment of 'Choose Your Own Reality,' the only game show where the dictionary is a list of suggestions and biological facts are treated like unexploded career mines. We’ve reached a point in our cultural decomposition where asking for a definition of 'woman' is viewed as a high-stakes trap, the kind of thing you’d see in a Cold War interrogation room.

The article points out that an eight-year-old knows who can get pregnant. Of course they do. Eight-year-olds haven’t been to law school, they haven't sat through six hours of corporate sensitivity training, and they aren't terrified of losing a Twitter following or a committee seat. In the modern political landscape, clarity is the enemy of survival. If you define something, you exclude something. And if you exclude something, you’re an easy target for a mob that’s been caffeinating on grievance since 2014.

So, the Left does this delightful little dance—a sort of performative amnesia. They aren't actually confused; they’re just being strategically obtuse. It’s a linguistic shield. If you claim there is no definition, you can never be wrong. It’s the ultimate PR move: total, non-committal void.

Meanwhile, the Right is feigning a level of shock that would be comical if it weren't so transparent. They love this. They’re clutching their pearls so hard they’re likely to cause a localized earthquake. Every time a politician fumbles the 'what is a woman' question, a Republican strategist gets their wings—and a fresh batch of fundraising emails. They treat these linguistic gymnastics like a sign of the apocalypse, mostly because it distracts everyone from the fact that neither side has a plan for the crumbling infrastructure or the fact that a head of lettuce now costs more than a gallon of gas.

It’s a symbiotic relationship of stupidity. One side pretends they’ve forgotten how mammals work to maintain their 'progressive' credentials, while the other side acts like the sky is falling to avoid talking about actual governance. It’s not 'Bizarro World'—it’s just the same old theater, performed by people who think we’re too dumb to notice the script. We’re arguing over the meaning of words while the world they're supposed to describe continues to rot. But hey, at least we’re being inclusive about our decline.

This story is an interpreted work of social commentary based on real events. Source: RealClearPolitics

Distribute the Absurdity

Enjoying the Apocalypse?

Journalism is dead, but our server costs are very much alive. Throw a coin to your local cynic to keep the lights on while we watch the world burn.

Tax Deductible? Probably Not.

Comments (0)

Loading comments...