MANCHESTER, Conn.

Languages belong to those who use them. Dictionaries standardize language on the basis of prevailing usage. If users want to be clearly understood, they will follow those standards pretty closely.

But the transgenderism craze that is sweeping politically correct circles, which include many news organizations, is upending and mangling the English language here and there, especially in regard to pronouns.

People who don't want to be recognized by their biological genders, some of whom claim that there are many other genders, are clamoring for new pronouns and have devised more than 70. But it is hard to imagine that many people will take the time to learn them all, much less abase themselves by trying to use them when hardly anyone else will understand them either and when using them will imply that the user believes that there really are more than two biological genders.

The recently invented pronouns hamper rather than facilitate understanding. That may be why some gender deniers or concealers want to scrap the individual gender-specific pronouns "he" and "she" and be cited with the plural pronoun "they," English lacking a gender-neutral singular pronoun. But since "they" signifies plural, its use in regard to an individual is silly and can only cause confusion.

In a free country people are free to invent words and use euphemisms to advance their politics. Already in politically correct circles "illegal immigrants" have become "undocumented people," as if they inadvertently left their passports and visas at home before heading to the border. People undergoing sex-change surgery or therapy are said to be getting "gender-affirming care," as if they had no gender at birth. Homosexuals are now "men who have sex with men."

Maybe heterosexuals will become "people who have sex with people of a different gender."

But in a free country people also are free to reject using euphemisms for perfectly good words and phrases and to reject denial of biology.

Besides, it's simple to avoid mangling the language when dealing with people who don't want their gender presumed upon by pronouns. That is: Just avoid pronouns where people don't want "he" or "she" and, instead, use names repeatedly, making them possessive as necessary. It will sound awkward but will preserve clarity without offending anyone, even though people increasingly want to be offended, since it confers power over the easily intimidated.

Lawyer jokes may be the funniest, most cynical and most accurate about the human condition, and the material for another one is gathering in Connecticut's courts.

Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim is trying again to recover his license to practice law, which he lost in 2003 upon his conviction for 16 federal corruption felonies committed during his first term as mayor, for which he served seven years in prison before persuading the voters of Bridgeport to return him to the scene of the crimes.

Ganim's first request to get his law license back was approved by a court committee of lawyers in 2012 but rejected by a three-judge court, which disapproved because it felt that Ganim had not shown enough remorse.

At a hearing last week before another court committee of lawyers, Ganim was more contrite, if not necessarily sincere. So presumably his next committee of judges will reinstate him, as other felonious lawyers have been reinstated in recent decades.

But the previous practice of Connecticut's courts was better. In the old days a felony conviction was enough to disbar a lawyer for life, so as to maintain the honor of the courts and the honor of the office every lawyer holds, commissioner of the Superior Court.

After all, lawyers who commit crimes, especially crimes of corruption, know better, having taken the lawyer's oath to "do nothing dishonest."

The honor of Connecticut's courts and those who would practice law here is no longer so rigorously defended. As a result, corruption is increasingly suspected about courts and lawyers. So maybe it will be better if Ganim returns as a commissioner of the Superior Court and confirms the suspicion, the public's remaining illusions are shattered, the law and the legal business are covered with more shame, and some of those who continue in the business may be more motivated to try cleaning it up.\
xxx

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer, in Manchester, (CPowell@JournalInquirer.com).