In the least surprising news of the day, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal and science technology office, has created a list of race and gender speech codes for its scientists, calling the woke nonsense a “top priority.” Meanwhile, China’s scientific community continues to howl with laughter.

For example, as reported by The Center Square, affected federal employees have been advised not to use the words “blacklist” or “whitelist” because of the racial connotations, and have also been cautioned against “using terms that assign a gender to inanimate objects, such as male/female connectors.”

Read it and weep:

The NIST is a little-known government agency tasked with helping the U.S. remain “technologically ahead” of rivals like China, for which Congress appropriated roughly $1.65 billion for 2023 — so, the institute promptly produces the above-mentioned bilge. Yup, your hard-earned tax dollars at work, America.

Here’s more from the list of “woke” advisements:

– Consider that biased terms, such as blacklist/whitelist, also may introduce comprehension issues.

– Avoid terms such as master/slave that perpetuate negative stereotypes or unequal power relationships.

– Avoid identifying an individual’s gender unless necessary for comprehension, or using terms that assign a gender to inanimate objects, such as male/female connectors.

– Avoid descriptive terms that are condescending or reductive in favor of language that the groups being described would prefer.

The genesis of the NIST initiative began with Steven Lipner, chair of the congressionally-authorized Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, who in 2020 sent a letter to the institute recommending the “whitelist” and “blacklist” changes, as well as the changes for master and slave usage. (Reads like it’s from The Babylon Bee, huh?)

Many technology and security standards contain racially insensitive language that is both offensive to many of our colleagues and is also, in many respects, ambiguous – technically and culturally. Examples of such language include using the terms blacklist and whitelist instead of block-list and allow-list and using the terms master and slave.

Shockingly [sarc], Jennifer Huergo, a spokesperson for NIST, told The Center Square the guidance “was created primarily for the benefit of NIST staff experts who participate in the development of documentary standards as expert collaborators and leaders.”

Use of inclusive language helps to avoid potential gaps in understanding that could arise from the use of colloquial or idiomatic expressions that are rooted in particular historical events or regional dialects.

Who’d a thunk the whole silly “safe space” thingy would lead the left’s “woke” attempt to turn the entire country — every square inch of it — into a safe space? Moreover, the ridiculousness has gone full circle in the sense that the more leftist loons tell themselves they should be offended about, the more offended they pretend to be — and the insanity’s not even close to peaking.

Incidentally, the NIST’s new speech code also links to the American Psychological Association’s webpage on “biased language,” which goes on and on about its made-up myriad of possible “genders” — and the pretend need to cater to them. (Sorry, no.)

Transgender is used as an adjective to refer to persons whose gender identity, expression, and/or role does not conform to what is culturally associated with their sex assigned at birth,” APA says.

“Some transgender people hold a binary gender, such as man or woman, but others have a gender outside of this binary, such as gender-fluid or nonbinary. Individuals whose gender varies from presumptions based on their sex assigned at birth may use terms other than ‘transgender’ to describe their gender, including ‘gender-nonconforming,’ ‘genderqueer,’ ‘gender-nonbinary,’ ‘gender-creative,’ ‘agender,’ or ‘two-spirit,’ to name a few.

Before we leave the gender thing, here’s how I see it: If a man wants to pretend he’s a woman, that’s up to him. If he wants us to pretend he’s a woman, that’s up to us.

Finally, assuming your head hasn’t exploded, consider the following — in the context of science, vs. “woke”: