To the Editor:
The article “These Words Are Vanishing in a ‘Free Speech’ Administration” (March 11) paints a troubling picture, highlighting an attack on a fundamental right of expression. How on earth can democracy thrive when the mere utterance of certain words threatens our mental peace? Are we on the brink of adopting a modern-day Newspeak?
— Jackie Lavalle, Queens
To the Editor:
It’s infuriating to see the federal government impose bans or restrictions on so many crucial terms in official documents. Words like “women,” “gender,” “sex,” “underserved,” and “pregnant people” are being sidelined. Yet, “men” seems to be perfectly acceptable, unless, of course, it appears in phrases like “men who have sex with men.” It’s baffling! Women make up over half the population. We pay hefty taxes and share pressing needs and concerns, such as healthcare, lower wages, poverty, domestic violence, and sexual assault.
A couple of friends in the health care grant sector mentioned that references to women and terms like “reproductive health” need to be stripped from reports and proposals—despite the historical negligence and ongoing oversight of women’s health.
It seems there’s an unspoken expectation for us, this supposed second-class group, to stop vying for jobs, political roles, or influence and focus on having more children—without any informed medical care, education, or community support.
— Mary King, Portland, Ore.
To the Editor:
This is sheer madness, almost Orwellian in nature. Are the police not allowed to establish “barriers” anymore or assist crime “victims”? Can we no longer “belong” to groups or “political” parties? Are individuals with “disabilities” expected to vanish, removing the need for access?
I’m puzzled about whether schools are meant to skip teaching grammar entirely or just forego identifying “pronouns.” It seems we can’t “diversify” our investment portfolios, which might not be all bad, given that “equity” might now be an undesired term. But the biggest confusion remains whether “sex” is taboo for all or just for those who are “female” or identify as “women.”
To the Editor:
In response to “Keeping the G.O.P. in Line With the Threat of Ruin” (March 11):
As a psychologist, I’ve pondered why G.O.P. members of Congress seem incapable of standing up to President Trump. This article sheds light on it: Their actions—yielding preemptively, echoing demands—mirror those of abuse victims. His conduct—mockery, threats of personal and financial ruin, relentless cyberbullying—reflects classic abusive behavior. The occasional gifts following abuse only keep victims feeling special and tied down.
As a therapist, I understand how challenging it is for abuse victims to both recognize their situation and take steps to break free. Leaving such dynamics demands courage, careful planning, and solid support.
For those in Congress, my advice would be to remember your original values. Assemble a supportive circle of like-minded peers. Seek legal advice. Real power lies within your conscience. Typically, abusers falter when met with united strength. You have the opportunity to leave behind a legacy of integrity and courage.
— Nechama Liss-Levinson, Washington
Regarding Iran:
To the Editor:
In response to “Conservatives in Iran Force Out Allies of the President, Creating a Crisis” (March 5):
There are some straightforward measures Iran could adopt to kickstart its economy. Firstly, shift attention away from Israel, cut ties with terrorist outfits in the Middle East, stop the nuclear pursuits, and promote gender equality. Doing so would make economic sanctions redundant, free up resources currently spent on global terrorism, and allow a talented workforce to emerge as an international economic power. Alternatively, Iran can continue its current path, clinging to antiquated ideals while dealing with modern financial challenges.
— Paul E. Greenberg, Brookline, Mass.
