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

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century. 

Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties? 

The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery. 

It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession. 

It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

The Evils of Facebook in the War Against Reason

Facebook is one of the greatest frauds whereby thoughtless friends share or tacitly embrace ideas which, in doing so, adds personal, relatable flair to messages being distributed from largely unknown reporters. 

In effect, these friends then subject a wider community to the thought that since their friends are supportive of such ideas, then they ought to carry some merit or authenticity. 

Facebook commits a great disservice to communication, serving primarily to subject meaningful dialogue to inherently-binary measures of laudability or contemptibility. 

Whereas scientific evaluation serves to extract emotion, Facebook serves to embolden the fallacy-ridden supposition that fact follows fanfare, that truth trails trendiness, and that democratic participation (by way of “likes” or “shares”) can reliably support truth or sustainably produce virtue.

What's more, Facebook and other social media sites tend also to further the fallacy that the last breath, or more precisely the final keystro…

One of Every Three American Adults is a Criminal

Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal posted an article on the growing epidemic of criminal records. The article reports that nearly one out of every three American adults has a criminal record — a statistic corroborated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose records show 77.7 million individuals on file in the organization's master criminal database. Is this an indication of a society which is becoming more violent and criminal, or of one which is becoming ever-populated with needless and overreaching laws, ordinances, and regulations? In a country whose growing majority depends upon government for salary or entitlements, this is indeed the mechanism through which the dependency is enabled. Some are apparently more than willing to surrender increments of freedom for the promise of free stuff.    

Along with the extensive and pervasive development of laws in the United States, their execution has become more vile and horrid; and the experience of police brutality, along wit…