In a clear case of government overreach, the Vermont Department of Health has decided that the terms “son” and “daughter” no longer belong in the classroom, as reported by Fox News.

On Wednesday, the department sparked significant debate with a Facebook post advising educators and families to abandon these traditional terms. Instead, they urged the use of “inclusive language,” such as “child” or “kid,” claiming these gender-neutral words are more appropriate for today’s classrooms.

According to the department, this shift is intended to foster a more equitable environment for all students by avoiding gender-specific language. However, critics argue that this move undermines traditional family values and forces unnecessary changes in everyday language.

Vermont urges everyone to replace ‘son' and 'daughter' with 'gender-neutral' terms in schools https://t.co/VAmnE6Za6A

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 29, 2024

Shotgun Pistol - No FFL Required, Shipped Directly To Your Home

Adding their voice to the outcry, the Dansbury Institute—a coalition of nonpartisan churches focused on public policy—condemned the Vermont Department of Health’s guidance. They emphasized the importance of standing firm in the face of what they see as an erosion of truth.

“The Vermont Department of Health says to stop using the terms ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ in order to be more inclusive. This erosion of the meaning of words and the dismantling of family as the building block of society is wrong. Christians must stand for truth and not give in on these issues,” the institute posted on X, formerly Twitter.

In response to the backlash, the Vermont Department of Health tried to clarify their stance to Fox News Digital. They claimed the guidelines were simply meant to promote inclusivity when the family situation of a student is unknown. However, this explanation has done little to calm the critics who see this as just another example of leftist overreach.

The department’s push for “inclusive language” doesn’t stop at the classroom. Their website hosts a “health equity glossary” filled with similar rhetoric, revealing the extent to which this ideology has permeated state institutions.

Among the many contentious definitions, the glossary describes gender as “socially constructed,” reducing it to mere “social, psychological, and/or emotional traits” rather than biological reality. Additionally, it introduces concepts like “internalized racism” and “white privilege,” further stoking division.

In one particularly eye-opening entry, the department defines “white” not as a biological fact but as a “social and political construct,” linking to a video exploring the supposedly racist origins of the term “Caucasian.”

These definitions, which are being promoted by a state health department, reflect a broader agenda aimed at redefining fundamental aspects of identity and society.