Skip to main content

Down the Rabbit Hole of Gender Pronouns

Another subject has entered the social scene in a more meaningful capacity than ever imagined for the most basic of questions about personal identity. 

The subject has entered casual conversation, the workplace and even schools, where teachers and professors have been encouraged or even required to gently inquire into the gender identities of their students, so as to avoid mistakenly referring to them by the traditional pronouns which have gotten the job done for so many centuries. 



Well, according to the fresh crop of Cal-Berkeley enrollees, there’s apparently nothing the average person can say or do that won’t offend a member of the protected class. 

And gender is yet another form of unrestrained abuse running rampant in our community, where some individuals have expressed that these two words fail to adequately represent them. 

Well, here’s the cold, hard truth: they were never really designed to represent anyone; they were designed to represent chromosomal composition and reproductive capacity. 

It is only the assumed and subjective roles that have accompanied these basic identifiers, masculinity versus femininity, which have caused so much controversy among the easily-upset crowd of infantile adults who are flush with years of college time — otherwise known as the six-year all-inclusive resort for unemployable busybodies — to prepare for next weekend’s protest against everything that’s keeping them down, whatever that ends up being. 

In this particular case, the topic of gender subjectivity, or gender ambiguity, is wholly dismissed by one unanswerable question: how would my infant know to identify as a zeep, or any other gender for that matter? 

Should the respondent succumb to the temptation to actually describe the profile of a zeep, or any other pronoun, that respondent will have effectively established the rules, parameters, conditions and, incidentally, the original stereotype for that identifier, ironically undermining the integrity of that very movement away from such ruthlessly-insensitive standards. 

In due time, that same respondent will be faced with a deluge of new progressives who wish to question the completeness of the former camp’s definitions, who wish to augment the evolving list with a number of their own unique creations, still uniquely committing only the same error in deviating from the singular chromosomal conditional to a more subjective and idiosyncratic set of alternatives which serve only to inadequately define the person through a wholly different and far mightier initiative than the one which formerly set out to merely capture the person’s chromosomal profile and, by extension, the individual’s reproductive capacity. 

As it turns out, the gender test was never really a marker for one’s identity, one’s personality or the greater nuances which comprise every unique person: in fact, identifiers all over fail miserably to capture these features, and any attempt to achieve this end through new words and concepts serves incidentally to dilute the real diversity, beyond the gauges of a simple survey, of a planet swiftly approaching 8 billion in number, with just as many unique identities. 

Ultimately, what does it mean to identify as a male or a female, or to be feminine or masculine? 

Are these traits best encapsulated by John Wayne, a Marlboro ad, Hollywood's hottest couple or the latest Miss America pageant? 

These may indeed prove to inspire some of the assumptions about genders, but they still serve only to distract the individual from the fact that our archetypes really amount to nothing more than the definitions and expectations we accept, endorse and apply to ourselves. 

As such, it needn’t matter, really, how the chromosomes read, but instead how we manage their real implications and how we view ourselves independently. 

Everything else is noise, concerns about the opinions of others, matters we can’t always control and which plainly have no bearing on the classic denotative structure whose only purpose has been to lay a basic foundation for the most basic human functions.

Unfortunately, the institutions which flex to these political whims, whose professors follow orders by asking their students how they identify, serve regrettably to lend credibility to a concept which is empirically associated with psychosis, depression and confusion, which is marked by a suicide rate roughly ten times that of the general public. 

On the surface, there appears to be nothing wrong with requesting that others respect the expressed preferences of those who identify as some other gender beyond male or female, otherwise known as non-binary, but the oft-ignored side of this discussion centers around the mandate that others must adjust both their perceptions and their lexicons to accommodate a fad, a grammatically-incorrect and plainly unscientific term, while the unseen side of this discussion centers around the perpetuation of an unfounded myth which appears only to bear associations with negative psychological outcomes or, otherwise, a set or persons who have ultimately changed their minds: this latter group reportedly constitutes greater than 80 percent of the entire transgender community.

It is invariably the duty of leaders and mentors to recognize the impressionability and fragility of the youth, their desperate and often-unarticulated quest for direction, and our important position in guiding them to academic and personal success. 

This occasionally means taking a hard line, even when faced with political incorrectness, especially when we have the evidence to illustrate the risks of indulging their destructive delusions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Goldmoney: Real Money Purposed for the Future

The institution of money entered the minds of sophisticated traders several millennia ago, when instead of bartering with limited numbers of people within the cumbersome double coincidence of wants, large-scale economies developed from the reach and transparency of commodity money which was scarce, durable, fungible, transportable, divisible, recognizable, and usable in and of itself. 

While we may appear to have transcended those primitive times and those so-called barbarous relics, the truth is that we have merely mutilated the concept of money by clandestinely replacing it with its more manipulable and abstract representative, the proverbial coat check without the coat. 

This is but the device of a large-scale social experiment run in real time, and we are its unwitting and unconsenting subjects who’ve largely never heard of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate, much less its missions of “maximum employment” and 2-percent annual inflation.

Yet there is hope after all.

Finally, after deca…

Market Manipulation: Mirages in the Desert of Economic Despair

An article published today by MarketWatch, entitled The world is becoming desperate about deflation, reveals the astounding truth that interest rates would not have remained as low as they are today if the American economy had truly recovered from its most recent recession.

Economists of the political ranks tend to support lower interest rates and inflationary measures because they advance spending, boondoggles and measurable economic activity to the limited timeframes of their active administrations, at the real expense of future output and thoughtful investment that simply affords no benefit to present-day headline economic indicators and the intellectuals who wield them.

In an anemic economic climate, infrastructural change is the antidote to misinvestment, while monetary manipulation is the politically-convenient mirage in the desert of economic despair.


While wanderers across that desert perceive advantage in continuing to chase elusive returns and public policy tacitly rewards t…

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …