Same but for perhaps a different reason

> As a lamentable side issue, there has been some unrest from the fanatics of the Pronoun Gestapo over the use of the word ``man'' in this Commandment, for they believe that great efforts and loud shouting devoted to the ritual purification of the language will somehow redound to the benefit of the downtrodden (whose real and grievous woes tendeth to get lost amidst all that thunder and fury). When preaching the gospel to the narrow of mind and short of temper, the word ``creature'' may be substituted as a suitable pseudoBiblical term free of the taint of Political Incorrectness.

Not sure that was necessary. If you happen to disagree that Language is a valid place to fight for gender equality, you'd better serve your cause ignoring calls to equalize your language, rather than go on an anti-PC rant that smacks of an alt-right /r/unpopularopinion post. Just Another Old Man Yelling At Clouds.

> If you happen to disagree that Language is a valid place to fight for gender equality, you'd better serve your cause ignoring calls to equalize your language

It's not fair to say that people who disagree should stay silent.

Yep, that remark was an unforced error that has not aged well.

Language is not a place I can leave or join as I please.

We're stuck with language.

> If you happen to disagree that Language is a valid place to fight for gender equality, you'd better serve your cause ignoring calls to equalize your language, rather than go on an anti-PC rant that smacks of an alt-right /r/unpopularopinion post.

What if you happen to want to signal solidarity with the alt-right crowd? Why assume a flamboyant alt-right-style rant is an accidental coincidence? (Nto sure of the 1990 date is for the commandments, the annotations, or both, but in ant case, while it wasn't called the alt-right then, the subculture and attitudes certainly existed at the time this was written; 1990 would have been well into the first wave of it's vigorous embrace of flamboyant attacks on “political correctness” as a signal of group identity, which started in the mid-1980s as I recall.)

The PC movement began well before the 1980s.

> The PC movement began well before the 1980s.

There's no such thing as “the PC movement”; every ideological movement has ideas of correct usage of terminology related to the ideas that motivate the movement, the term “political correctness” has been used as a derogatory term for different of those ideas among different and unrelated ideological movements at different times. (e.g., in the 1930s-1950s it was used in a New York times article describing Nazi drive for uniformity in expressed ideas, as well as by American Socialists attacking the American Communists.)

However, attacks against expression of anti-sexist and anti-racist ideas as “political correctness” by the same segment of the American Right has been extremely popular twice, the first in the 1980s-1990s, and the second we're in right now.

Then that's strong evidence against their reasoning abilities and I don't trust much of anything they have to say, so, fair point.