Don't tell me your pronouns — I can guess!

American Thinker ^ | 31 Aug, 2019 | E.M. Cadwaladr!

[MtnClimber]

A leftist shtick that been going on for some time in universities, government offices, and other haunts of the chronically offended is the idea of choosing one's own personal pronouns — and expecting the world to actually use them. Under this scheme, it would be politically correct for me to self-identify as:

e.m. cadwaladr he/him/his

The main point of this bold new level of wokeness is that a man who wants to entertain an essentially psychotic delusion that he's a woman may now style himself:

Higgly-Piggly Doe she/her/hers

If someone does not go along with such a man's mentally aberrant state and address him according to his delusional identity, the offending person can be prosecuted in some localities. Nor is this game limited to mere conventional gender dysphoria sufferers. There are now sixtyish new pronoun sets, just as we are told there are sixtyish new genders. I do not know what genders "zie/zim/zir" or "ey/em/eir" denote. These words sound vaguely Yiddish to me — though they lack the Yiddish language's quirky charm. The new pronouns are always uttered with a certain peevish militancy that precludes them having charm of any kind.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

A woman in my workplace is apparently changing her identity from woman to “non-binary”, complete with a name change to boot. Don’t know yet whether she’ll be demanding some sort of bathroom accomodation. So after years of calling her X, we’ll have to somehow start using another name, and no longer refer to her as “she/her”, elsewise we’ll be subject to a gender discrimination claim. Whew boy, here we go!

[Nateman]

Not bad. I self identify as a king. You will kneel when speaking to me.

[hecticskeptic]

There are 33 genders... man, woman and 31 types of queer.

Exactly! I was at a family reunion a week ago and a distant strain from the far left decided to engage me in a discussion about 'how normal homosexuality was'. I told her that there was no thing as homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter).... there is only sexuality as one of the characteristics of our created beings and after that, it splits into a) normal God ordained sexuality and b) perverted sexuality.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

The homosexual propagandists have used the very same tactic in urging and convincing adolescent young men who might have had a same sex urge to immediately tell their parents they were “gay,” - to make themselves identified in the immediate world as “homosexual,” so that there they would be perceived that way by the immediate world and there would be scant chance of their ever recanting their statement in their new “community.”
Making students declare “their pronouns” is a slight variation on the same diabolical scheme. Once they’e said it (that they “are” neither just plain male or female), there will be little chance in the age of fast and wide communications and databases of people and institutions of going back on that coerced “check the box” selection, given that their institution, their parents, in short the world now knows them to have said they are that way. Once they are forced to cross someone else’s ad hoc Rubicon, there is no going back for them. They’d be seen as liars and cowards if they tried to change their minds.

[motor_racer]

“he/him” “she/her”. All others can choose from d******d or a*****e

[thecodont]

Great point. “Ms.” is, similarly, a meaningless honorific, meant only to make a political statement.

[Chode]

bet that went over well... not

[YogicCowboy]

All true, except: There is no such biological reality called homosexuality. Two persons of the same sex (not gender) cannot procreate - and procreation is the raison d’etre for the very concept of sexuality.

What goes on between two such persons is homoeroticism.

[Seeing More Clearly Now]

“All true, except: There is no such biological reality called homosexuality. Two persons of the same sex (not gender) cannot procreate - and procreation is the raison d’etre for the very concept of sexuality.

What goes on between two such persons is homoeroticism.”

Thanks for pointing out a precise word for what is going on with those who have same sex attraction. This attraction seems to be a corollary of autoeroticism.
What’s the best way to make a nominal/noun form for everyday use. Should the adjective “homoerotic” be used as a noun, “A homoerotic,” following the pattern of the adjective “homosexual” having become also a noun form? As I write this I am thinking it’s best not to give the word, “homoerotic” the status of a noun and, rather, continue using it as an adjective.

[lepton]

hmmm. Looking at other writings by the author, here’s an interesting related one:

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/reality_is_not_an_option.html

Reality is Not an Option

By E.M. Cadwaladr

Recently, my local morning news channel aired a story about a body discovered in a city park. Sadly, that’s not especially unusual. I was still a little bleary from having just gotten out of bed, so I don’t recall many details. I think they said the body was aged thirty or so, but I remember very clearly that they said it was the body of a man. I remember this because, being of a cynical turn of mind whenever I am conscious at all, I asked my wife — “How do they know it was a man?” My wife ignored me, of course, either because she was asleep or because she knows a rhetorical question when she hears one. So, I put it to you: In a world in which gender is a characteristic entirely at the whim of the individual – how does one determine the gender of a corpse?

Does a corpse have the gender it thought it did when it was alive, or does it cease to have a gender when it ceases to have the power to choose one for itself? To echo the old philosophical wheeze about the anonymous tree falling in the anonymous forest, if a person dies in a park and no one is there to recognize and celebrate (its) gender identity – does it even have one?

Progressives have choked the Western world nearly to death with just this sort ontological goo. Let us suppose we see a statistic that claims that women make less money than men for the same work. Since the state of being male or female is purely at the discretion of the individual, then it would appear to the logical mind that discrimination by gender must also be, in a way, at the pleasure of the victim. After all, if you’re a woman you are entirely a woman by choice – your mere physiology having nothing to do with it. To avoid discrimination, why can’t one just self-identify as a man during working hours, and be a woman, or whatever fantastic gender one prefers, in one’s spare time?

[Kanakabaraka]

I agree. Plus, in business interaction, you often don’t know if a woman is single or married. It’s just easier to have one mode of address. I think that’s why it caught on. The random pronouns have the same drawback as Miss vs. Mrs: you have to ask before you know what to use. And they’re harder to remember once you’ve asked. At least Miss/Mrs. is still binary.

[ExGeeEye]

Well... there are those few dizzy -itches that have gone to the time and trouble to “marry” themselves.

Frankly, the author of “Mary Poppins” appears to me to have appropriated the title “Mrs.” without benefit of clergy... or a husband... or having ever had a close male friend... but she has met the One and Final Perfect Judge, so I’ll say no more...

Oh, and I’m one of those oldthinkers/crimethinkers who unbellyfeel demsoc AND declare the unreality of anything but adult male-female monogamous marriage.

I mean, seriously, just because two dudes or a trio or a wymon alone or with her favorite tree stand on a stage in formal dress repeating lines about “love honor and cherish” they’re not Married.

I can stand on a stage wearing tights and a frilled collar repeating lines about “what a rogue and peasant slave I am” all day long, and never become Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.

[Paal Gulli]

You may call me “sir,” “sahib” or “b’wana,” your choice.

[exDemMom]

Rather than using the traditional “Mrs.” and “Miss”? The title of “Ms.” caught on, and you rarely see Miss or Mrs.used in business correspondence anymore.

I always use “Ms.” in business correspondence. Yet the three women whose preferred title I know all use “Mrs.” They are all listed as “Mrs.” on our organization chart.

I, personally use “Dr.” If that is not a choice, then I tend to use “Ms.” I guess I have been conditioned that way.