The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Pronoun Wars: Xit Is It

From the Sacramento Bee:

Gender is no longer so simple, so what’s all the fuss over ‘they’?

BY ERIKA D. SMITH

APRIL 07, 2017 6:00 AM
esmith@sacbee.com

Maybe it’s because it’s a four-letter word. All I know is, for a pronoun, the word “they” can sure tick a lot of people off.

It has been downright fascinating to watch people from both ends of the political spectrum break down and start foaming at the mouth over the prospect of using “they” as a replacement for “he” or “she” for people who consider themselves to be gender non-binary.

What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man? Apparently not a plural pronoun.

Just consider the uproar over the case out of Berkeley, in which a UC student, Pablo Gomez Jr., was accused of brutally stabbing an elementary school teacher to death. When Berkeleyside.com reported that Gomez preferred to be called “they” rather than “he,” an incensed mob descended on the tiny news site, overwhelming its servers. And that was before Breitbart got hold of the story.

Obviously, it’s only right and proper for the media to confuse the public over how many desperate killers on the loose to be on the lookout for. What matters more: informing the public accurately or winning World War T?

… About six months ago, when my partner told me that a friend preferred to be called “they” instead of “she,” I shook my head and immediately climbed on my high horse. “Journalists,” I told her, “are never going to use the word ‘they’ as a singular pronoun. It’s too confusing.”

She smiled knowingly. “Yes, they will. It’s already mainstream.”

They are coming. Like Jae put it: “You don’t have to understand it to be respectful of it.”

But what about those who prefer xe and xer? What about xit?

I think xit is it.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. “Dark white skin”? Are you sure this isn’t a spoof?

    Also, OT but pretty creepy: I just learned that there are 5777 days between 9/11/01 and 4/17/17. It is also the Hebrew calendar year 5777.

    Pretty freaky, huh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    I have dark white skin when I have a good deep tan.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/pronoun-wars-xit-is-it/#comment-1839728
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. So, em… How do we pronounce this new magnificent creation? Zees? Sees? Ksiss? Khiss? Ass?

    Also, is “dark white skin” for real? Sounds a bit like the “white Hispanic” Zimmerman.

    Read More
  3. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    “Dark white skin”? I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than CNN omitting both his race and complexion when there’s no picture (yet they knew his name and t-shirt color): https://twitter.com/Crisprtek/status/853722692591263745

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Actually, seems the "dark white skin" line is fake: https://twitter.com/fox8news/status/853806235723976704

    The CNN one could be faked (as in, they do show his picture).

    , @Autochthon
    I hate to piss in the champagne with gauche things like a basic understanding of optics held by any half-intelligent third-grader, but darkness is the absence or absorbtion of light, and whiteness is the emission or reflection of light.

    For skin (or anything else) to be "dark white" is a contradiction in terms, like "dry wet" or "hot cold."

    In relative terms, of course, a mostly white object's colour may be more or less adulterated and thus more or less reflective, but in such cases the preferred nomenclature is "off white" for the aforementioned reasons. I've seen photographs of the lunatic in question, though, and his skin's tone is nothing like the colour of my refrigerator, so we're back to Steve's point about this nonsense only making it difficult for the public to identify, avoid, and report the location of a crazed murderer!
    , @Marty
    That guy beats Jeffrey Leonard as "penitentiary face."
  4. I think xit is it.

    Especially for those who speak (or know) Portuguese, where xit is pronounced “shit”.

    Read More
  5. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anonymous
    "Dark white skin"? I'm not sure if that's better or worse than CNN omitting both his race and complexion when there's no picture (yet they knew his name and t-shirt color): https://twitter.com/Crisprtek/status/853722692591263745

    Actually, seems the “dark white skin” line is fake: https://twitter.com/fox8news/status/853806235723976704

    The CNN one could be faked (as in, they do show his picture).

    Read More
  6. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Sex is simple for MOST people. Most are men or women. And even homos know they are homos all the time.

    Just a sliver of population is tranny-like. But because that tiny group has ‘gender issues’, we must say ALL people’s genders are iffy. It is micro-magnification.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gross Terry

    Sex is simple for MOST people. Most are men or women. And even homos know they are homos all the time.
     
    out of curisoity, what are the implications of 5 year olds having a sexal preference?

    Judging by the criminal records of homo activists, I think we both know.
  7. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    break down and start foaming at the mouth over the prospect of using “they” as a replacement for “he” or “she”

    Call me old-fashioned but I don’t like it when a journalist endeavors to sass and jive about things that aren’t happening, to wit, “foaming at the mouth.” It makes he or she sound like a spoiled teenager. To hell with him or her and his or her empty-headed kvetching.

    Read More
  8. In tribute to Trainspotting (1996), why don’t we just call them wankers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Dave, I am waiting for the remake of this film titled...."Trans spotting."
    , @Stan Adams
    Is "Wang cares" apocryphal?

    (In the '70s, Wang was the leading vendor of dedicated word-processing workstations. The company floundered as the market shifted to PCs in the '80s.)

    Supposedly, the Wang marketing department couldn't understand why the company's British subsidiary didn't want to use its catchy new ad slogan: "Wang cares."
  9. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The “dark white skin” bullet is shopped in. You can see the kerning and character width of the top item text doesn’t match the letters beneath, and anyway it’s too close to the banner for a newsroom template. Also a quick image search produces the real screengrab without the line.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerryC
    That's a relief. Being demoted to White Hispanic status would be the ultimate insult for They.
  10. OT, but former Goldman Sachs COO Gary Cohn, who did not support Trump during the campaign and whose “singular focus is tax [d]eform” is said to be elbowing Bannon out of the Trump Administration.

    Possibly just rumor or disinformation, but worrying if true. Conservatives get Republicans elected, but after the election the neofeudalists always seem to take over.

    Read More
  11. We have to use they, xe, xer, and xit to describe someone’s gender because when it’s important to be *precise*, but let’s start describing those who disagree as “foaming at the mouth.”

    Foaming at the mouth? This debate doesn’t even get my heart rate up, later alone turn me into a rabid dog. It’s just a discussion over how to refer to a bunch of crazy people. Men who are attracted to men are gay men. Men who behave in ways traditionally thought of as female are effeminate men. Men who think they actually are women are just insane. They’re free to indulge their insanity, but they have no right to demand that I buy into it. But I’m going to eat some Easter candy then roll over and go back to sleep. No need to wipe the foam away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Yes, Wilkey, this story is manufactured outrage. People like you and I will continue to use "he" and "she".

    "What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?"

    Erika, dear, we call them people.
    , @Bill Jones
    The reality is much simpler.

    we have the words She, It and He already. Those who are confused should be referred to by the simple Amalgam: Shite.
    , @Tracy
    I have to quibble with your apparent equating of "effeminate" and "feminine." The former means (classically, anyway) lacking in fortitude or given to luxury; the latter refers to things pertaining to or characteristic of females. The former has a moral sense; the latter doesn't.
  12. What pronoun should one use for a BBC presenter – Balding, (((Perkins))), ((Logan), Toksvig..

    A FRUMPENING of license fee sinecures
    A HECTORING of Poz BS???

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    What pronoun should one use...?

    Did you mean "what collective noun"?

    The singular pronoun for each of those four women is "she". The pronoun for them as a group is of course "they", even if "they" is now apparently also a singular pronoun for a person of one "gender" who wants to identify with another. Question: do we need a new pronoun for a plurality of the latter? Just to avoid unnecessary linguistic ambiguity?
  13. I’m actually starting to love this nonsense the Left throws out there. They are flexing their cultural power to force people to repeat lies and punish those who refuse, but the lies they keep spewing are so nonsensically self-defeating it sounds like they’re trying to claim that believing cobra poison is deadly is a social construct before they all drink it.

    Emperor’s New Clothes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @al gore rhythms
    This is a good analogy and observation and I will probably use it myself, with one pedantic alteration: cobra's inject venom rather than produce poison. If you drank cobra poison you would probably be OK.
    , @Kevin C.
    "Emperor’s New Clothes."

    I'm reminded of a commentor I like elsewhere who is (or at least purports to be) Asian, making the comment that the "Emperor’s New Clothes" is a silly Western fairy-tale, and that in reality, after the little kid points out the Emperor's nakedness, what would happen is not the "preference cascade" of the story, but the little fool and his parents being executed for treason.
  14. “You don’t have to understand it to be respectful of it.”

    What a Bullxit !

    Read More
  15. “Presumably he is thinking of a scenario in which someone who has never heard of Meno is asked whether he is rich etc. Although the person can infer, just by being asked the question, that Meno is a human being, they are otherwise in a complete blank about him.”

    I am quoting a sentence from a book published in 2006 by the Oxford University Press written by a Professor Dominic Scott. At first I thought “they” was a typo but subsequently realized that it represented the author’s political correctness. “Sh/e” is another variant sometimes seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I don't mind using "they" as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I'm sure I've used it.
  16. @jimbojones
    So, em... How do we pronounce this new magnificent creation? Zees? Sees? Ksiss? Khiss? Ass?

    Also, is "dark white skin" for real? Sounds a bit like the "white Hispanic" Zimmerman.

    I had a xit on my ass once!

    Read More
  17. @Anon
    Sex is simple for MOST people. Most are men or women. And even homos know they are homos all the time.

    Just a sliver of population is tranny-like. But because that tiny group has 'gender issues', we must say ALL people's genders are iffy. It is micro-magnification.

    Sex is simple for MOST people. Most are men or women. And even homos know they are homos all the time.

    out of curisoity, what are the implications of 5 year olds having a sexal preference?

    Judging by the criminal records of homo activists, I think we both know.

    Read More
  18. I think xit is it.

    Definitely maybe.

    OT

    7,000 Africans made it to Europe over the Easter weekend as invasion heats upEU agencies accuse NGO migrant rescue boats of creating a “pull factor” which only encourages more people to try to reach Europe in anything that floats…For those who think this doesn’t affect you in America, it does. We have an extensive archive on the fact that we have been taking some of the illegal migrants who reach the island nation of Malta to your towns as refugees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    So where do these people go??? To the beaches of Sicily?

    But even as the rescue vessels race against time to save lives, another battle is brewing with accusations from the European Union’s border control agency Frontex against nongovernmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Mobile Offshore Aid Station, or MOAS, that run so-called charity rescue ships. Frontex says the charity rescue vessels create a pull factor for migrants and traffickers; the NGOs say they are out there in the absence of an EU strategy to save lives at sea and a lack of initiative to provide a safe corridor option for migration and asylum.
     
    I didn't know that NGOs actually pick up people out at sea now. Well, let's open that safe corridor to Sweden, stat!

    I have found some numbers from 2015;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

    Is there anything more recent (not sure whether trawling the eurostat website would bring anything up, maybe later in the day)
  19. @Mr Curious
    What pronoun should one use for a BBC presenter - Balding, (((Perkins))), ((Logan), Toksvig..

    A FRUMPENING of license fee sinecures
    A HECTORING of Poz BS???

    What pronoun should one use…?

    Did you mean “what collective noun”?

    The singular pronoun for each of those four women is “she”. The pronoun for them as a group is of course “they”, even if “they” is now apparently also a singular pronoun for a person of one “gender” who wants to identify with another. Question: do we need a new pronoun for a plurality of the latter? Just to avoid unnecessary linguistic ambiguity?

    Read More
  20. @for-the-record

    I think xit is it.
     
    Especially for those who speak (or know) Portuguese, where xit is pronounced "shit".

    Same for Chinese: Xi = Shee.

    Read More
  21. @Anonymous
    The "dark white skin" bullet is shopped in. You can see the kerning and character width of the top item text doesn't match the letters beneath, and anyway it's too close to the banner for a newsroom template. Also a quick image search produces the real screengrab without the line.

    That’s a relief. Being demoted to White Hispanic status would be the ultimate insult for They.

    Read More
  22. @Anonymouse
    "Presumably he is thinking of a scenario in which someone who has never heard of Meno is asked whether he is rich etc. Although the person can infer, just by being asked the question, that Meno is a human being, they are otherwise in a complete blank about him."

    I am quoting a sentence from a book published in 2006 by the Oxford University Press written by a Professor Dominic Scott. At first I thought "they" was a typo but subsequently realized that it represented the author's political correctness. "Sh/e" is another variant sometimes seen.

    I don’t mind using “they” as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I’m sure I’ve used it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veracitor
    "Thou" has been obsolete for a long time, subsumed into "you" which does triple-duty for singular and plural and collective (except helpfully, as Florence King pointed out, in the American South where "you-all" relieves the ambiguity).

    So to use "they" when both "he" and "she" seem awkward is not much of a stretch, nor is it a usage unknown to our illustrious ancestors.
    , @Venator
    That doesn't justify it.
    , @IBC
    I often use "they" when a subject's gender is unspecified. If you listen for it, this is actually a very common construction and to me it sounds a lot more natural and logical than "he or she" or "she or he," or ... etc. It was 19th century language prescriptivists who pushed the generic usage of "he" and that push lasted right up until the 1970s when feminist proscriptivists began to denounce it as a tool of the patriarchy. Their views have almost become mainstream. And now as you're suggesting, 21st century prescriptivists are actually pushing "xit" --number and pronunciation unspecified. History repeats itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Ironically, Wikipedia notes that it was actually a woman who was among the first to officially prescribe the generic usage of "he." I would assume that an 18th century "woman" grammarian could be described as pioneering because I would have assumed that none existed and would have otherwise pictured someone like Dr. Johnson from that time period. But now, even though "grammarian" is still a gender neutral term, it's actually a woman that first comes to mind for me when I see the word in a modern context. "Funny" how that works.

    , @Melendwyr
    It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do with a lot of historical backing.

    Using 'they' to refer to a known person, though, is pretty weird. Unless there's more than one mind inside that body, a la Heinlein's "I Will Fear No Evil".
    , @bored identity
    Greetings Steve,

    As usual, I have an indecent proposal for you;

    It's that time of the week when you always get extra busy.

    Why don't you get us extra busy as well by posting caption contest based on a photo of this
    glorious colonoscopy-model of the Deep State entrance ?


    Pleasure is all mine.
  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_(novel)

    Egan uses his hypothetical future to postulate the existence of not just one but five new genders, and introduces a set of new pronouns for gender neutral people. One of the central characters of the novel, Akili Kuwale, provides a demonstration of this change and its implications. As an asexual human, Akili has had all reproductive organs removed entirely. Within the scope of the novel, Egan uses the pronouns ‘ve’, ‘ver’, and ‘vis’ to represent Akili’s definitive gender neutrality.

    Read More
  24. This is somehow related…even if I’m not sure exactly how:

    Read More
  25. I don’t mind using “they” as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I’m sure I’ve used it.

    Ugh. Like nails on a chalkboard.

    Read More
  26. Every delusional lunatic that fancies himself a king could demand to be referred to as “Sire” or “Your Majesty” if we followed Erika Smith’s (stupid) logic.

    Read More
  27. @eah
    I think xit is it.

    Definitely maybe.

    OT

    7,000 Africans made it to Europe over the Easter weekend as invasion heats up -- EU agencies accuse NGO migrant rescue boats of creating a “pull factor” which only encourages more people to try to reach Europe in anything that floats...For those who think this doesn’t affect you in America, it does. We have an extensive archive on the fact that we have been taking some of the illegal migrants who reach the island nation of Malta to your towns as refugees.

    So where do these people go??? To the beaches of Sicily?

    But even as the rescue vessels race against time to save lives, another battle is brewing with accusations from the European Union’s border control agency Frontex against nongovernmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Mobile Offshore Aid Station, or MOAS, that run so-called charity rescue ships. Frontex says the charity rescue vessels create a pull factor for migrants and traffickers; the NGOs say they are out there in the absence of an EU strategy to save lives at sea and a lack of initiative to provide a safe corridor option for migration and asylum.

    I didn’t know that NGOs actually pick up people out at sea now. Well, let’s open that safe corridor to Sweden, stat!

    I have found some numbers from 2015;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

    Is there anything more recent (not sure whether trawling the eurostat website would bring anything up, maybe later in the day)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    Have a look at this: http://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/mediterranean
    , @donut
    I don't know why everybody objects to my proposal for a solution to this easily solved problem .
    , @Lurker
    Saving lives at sea implies out on the high seas.

    The suspicion many of us have is they are cruising up and down close to Libya's coastline and picking up everyone they can. Many 'migrants' are in crappy, leaky boats because they were never going to cross the Med at all. Tthey merely have to make it to the combined cuck navy waiting for them offshore.
  28. I use “they” when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use “he” but too many people find that offensive.

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.
     
    Pure laziness.

    After you file your taxes, you may receive a refund.

    After filing taxes, someone may receive a refund.

    After the filing of taxes, the government may pay a refund.
    , @Mr. Anon

    I use “they” when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use “he” but too many people find that offensive.
     
    Offend them.
    , @Tracy
    I use "he" and "his" to refer to a single someone of unknown sex. That's how it was done for eons before the the feminists came along. I hate "he or she" as much as I dislike "they" used for an unknown or generic individual. Go old-school! Take back the night!
    , @carol
    I say "he." "To each his own,"

    It feels so transgressive.
  29. OT:
    Zer Expert Offers a Classic Lügen-Projection Defense of Kushner’s Saccharin Daddy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/dirty-tricks-demonise-george-soros

    “…Now it is commonplace for right-wing Americans to say that only Soros’s corrupt influence can explain why their fellow citizens take to the streets.

    A typically sly report in the Washington Times said one in three Trump voters believed Soros paid protesters to join the women’s march on Trump’s inauguration day.

    Naturally, it did not produce a shred of evidence to support the fantastic accusation. </b.

    That the gormless believed a straight lie was all the proof it needed.

    (…) It’s not just Putin who goes for Soros.

    Macedonia’s former autocratic prime minister, Nikola Gruevski, has called for a “de-Sorosisation” of society, as the country’s right uses every trick it can think of, including the threat of street violence by “patriotic associations”, to stop the opposition taking power.

    In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s self-proclaimed illiberal democracy is threatening the Soros-funded Central European University.

    Its president, the former Canadian Liberal party leader and former Observer columnist Michael Ignatieff, is bewildered.

    He protests that he is running a university, not an opposition political party that might take Orbán’s power away.

    Romania’s socialist elite imitates Trump and claims Soros pays citizens to take to the streets to demonstrate against corruption.

    The supposedly reputable financial analysts at Zero Hedge claim Soros “singlehandedly created the European refugee crisis”.

    Steve Bannon’s Breitbart says Soros’s funding of Black Lives Matter was part of an agenda to swing the US presidential election.

    The European far right claims he is trying to destroy Christian white Europe by importing Muslim refugees.

    Rather than go on, however, it is better to understand what is going on.

    When fighting foul movements, the question arises whether you should play the man or the ball. Playing the ball is the sporting thing to do.

    Lies have to be nailed.

    The factual record has to be defended. You should never regard it as a chore to insist on the truth.

    It is a duty, which if you shirk it, leaves the field clear for race baiters and dictatorial movements.

    But playing the ball means playing the extremists’ game to some extent.

    You treat their arguments as worthy of debate.

    However wrong you show them to be, you acknowledge their point of view. When you are up against dangerous men, playing the ball is not enough.

    You must play the man, too, and expose not just what he says but why he says it….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Oh please, Soros' direct efforts to fund subversive activities is hardly secret. The lack of the "shred of evidence" is only in the mind of liberals; I mean, Soros' money directly funded medical costs for BLM protesters.

    When your standard of truth is plausible deniability, it doesn't look really good.

    If someone, for example, funded the trips, medical funds and living expense of right-wing protests, but claimed that he just donated into a kitty of general funds that happened to be used for "pro-religious causes", would the Guardian consider him anything but guilty of encouraging right-wing protesters? Come on.

  30. Xit.

    Pronounced zit.

    Yeah, I like it! We’ll do it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    Personally, I think the 'x' in xit should be pronounced lie the 'x' in Pinyin:

    https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-pinyin-chart.php

    Native English speakers often have trouble distinguishing between these sounds. For instance, 'x' and 'sh' sound similar to native English ears, but to native Chinese speakers, the sounds are completely different. The tongue and lip positions are very different. For 'sh', the tip of the tongue should be on the roof of the mouth, and 'x' the tip of the tongue should be behind the lower teeth.
     
    Diversity in thought is good!
  31. It has been downright fascinating to watch people from both ends of the political spectrum break down and start foaming at the mouth over the prospect of using “they” as a replacement for “he” or “she” for people who consider themselves to be gender non-binary.

    What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?

    “It”, obviously.

    Read More
  32. In UK English, it has been considered normal to use “they” as a singular pronoun since the year dot or soon thereafter.

    Thus Pink Floyd would be considered to be a plural name and take the pronoun “they” and so would the singular noun England under certain circumstances as in “England are on top of their game” when speaking of the national soccer team.

    They is also normally used when referring to someone of indeterminate or unknown gender and unknown number as in “they are coming at 2 p.m. to sweep the chimney”, could refer to a single female chimney sweep, or a team of men, or a sexually assorted couple, or one or more persons of indeterminable sex.

    My mother-in-law once said of my old Mercedes “they looked after it well”, which was perfectly well understood as meaning “the former owner or owner appears to have maintained this car with care.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Jonathan, Thank you but Gomez wanted to be called They, not Pablo or Mr. Gomez or whatever...as in "Hey they, where you going with that knife in your hand?"
    , @Tracy
    I see this as not as "a use of 'they' for the singular," but as "they" in the nebulous sense, "the powers that be" sense, the "you do X and they'll come get you" sense. I think what's being referred to in this thread is the more concrete -- i.e., e.g., "A customer buys some Murphy's oil. Should he use it on fine furniture?" as opposed to "should he or she use it?" or "should they use it?" "He or she" (and "his or her") is clumsy, especially when it has to be repeated over and over in a single paragraph or article; "they" sounds illiterate. The examples you gave of using "they" in the nebulous sense don't sound clumsy or illiterate at all.
    , @Autochthon
    Your first examples involve the usage of collective nouns' taking plural verbs.

    Your later examples involve the use of "they" when insufficient information makes the choice of any pronoun – feminine or masculine, singular of plural – entirely arbitrary (cf. Paul Reiser's hilarious and insightful routine about our universal invocation of "they" and "the guy" in such cases...).

    Neither of the two types of examples are much to do with the purposeful torture of the queen's English to encourage the psychopathy of disturbed individuals and – far more invidious and dangerous – to quite purposefully alter the language in order to control others' thoughts and ideas, and to stifle dissent, as those familiar with Orwell's writings on the topic and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis understand quite well.

    For these reasons I refuse to conflate sodomy with happiness, invaders with immigrants, immigrants with pioneers, nor men with women – RUAT CÆLUM.

    I encourage others not to, either.

  33. @JSM
    Xit.

    Pronounced zit.

    Yeah, I like it! We'll do it!

    Personally, I think the ‘x’ in xit should be pronounced lie the ‘x’ in Pinyin:

    https://chinese.yabla.com/chinese-pinyin-chart.php

    Native English speakers often have trouble distinguishing between these sounds. For instance, ‘x’ and ‘sh’ sound similar to native English ears, but to native Chinese speakers, the sounds are completely different. The tongue and lip positions are very different. For ‘sh’, the tip of the tongue should be on the roof of the mouth, and ‘x’ the tip of the tongue should be behind the lower teeth.

    Diversity in thought is good!

    Read More
  34. @ScarletNumber
    I use "they" when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use "he" but too many people find that offensive.

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.

    Pure laziness.

    After you file your taxes, you may receive a refund.

    After filing taxes, someone may receive a refund.

    After the filing of taxes, the government may pay a refund.

    Read More
  35. What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?

    Weirdo? Oddball? Freak? Degenerate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @e
    Thing. Or, in another dialect, thang.
    , @Stan Adams
    Child.

    SJWs have childlike minds, so it fits.
  36. @ScarletNumber
    I use "they" when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use "he" but too many people find that offensive.

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.

    I use “they” when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use “he” but too many people find that offensive.

    Offend them.

    Read More
  37. “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?” How about, mentally ill?

    Read More
  38. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I remember from taking German they had distinctions between masculine, feminine and neuter. I know English does too, but we don’t follow it as strictly as other languages do. For example, we use the article ‘the’ whether it describes a boy, girl or object while in German they have variations of the equivalent for the article ‘the’ for all three genders; der, die, das.

    Are they having this type of stupid debate in Germany and other places whose languages feature similar gender structures? Or is it just a result of the US having the most bat-s**t crazy progressives?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Venator
    The craziness is substantially the same. The accidents differentiate.
    , @Stan Adams
    Not only German ... the Romance tongues, as well. And many others.
    , @Melendwyr
    Ah, but the German linguistic genders have nothing to do with the physical genders or identities of the entities they're used on. The word for a young woman is Neuter, for example, and IIRC pens are Masculine while pencils are Feminine. (Or maybe it's the other way around.)
  39. @Wilkey
    We have to use they, xe, xer, and xit to describe someone's gender because when it's important to be *precise*, but let's start describing those who disagree as "foaming at the mouth."

    Foaming at the mouth? This debate doesn't even get my heart rate up, later alone turn me into a rabid dog. It's just a discussion over how to refer to a bunch of crazy people. Men who are attracted to men are gay men. Men who behave in ways traditionally thought of as female are effeminate men. Men who think they actually are women are just insane. They're free to indulge their insanity, but they have no right to demand that I buy into it. But I'm going to eat some Easter candy then roll over and go back to sleep. No need to wipe the foam away.

    Yes, Wilkey, this story is manufactured outrage. People like you and I will continue to use “he” and “she”.

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    You don't get to choose how people address you. It's the other way around.
    , @Peripatetic commenter

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.
     
    You forgot an adjective.

    We call them deluded people.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    You forget that there is agitation for laws to punish people who "misgender" people. And since I'm unlucky enough to be in a large, progressive company, I get to see the tip of the spear of this bulhsheet.

    If people don't push back hard enough, it'll mainstream and accept an entire new level of crap.

    , @Venator

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.
     
    We call him boy, or girl, or God, or angel. In German we call the person ("someone") "sie", in the Romance languages versions of latin "illa". Interestingly, in German "sie" is both "she" and "they", so the plural is already femalized (or the female is pluralized).
  40. Why not simply call them “it”. It’s not necessarily denigrating as can be seen from the fact that in German the article and pronoun for “girl” is “das” and “es” respectively. (I’ve always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times. )

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter

    I’ve always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times.
     
    Do you have evidence for this lack of sexual dimorphism and does it include any lack of the modern dimorphism in height (average 3SD) upper body strength (90% and 3SD or lower body strength (60% dunno how many SDs)?
    , @ben tillman

    Why not simply call them “it”. It’s not necessarily denigrating as can be seen from the fact that in German the article and pronoun for “girl” is “das” and “es” respectively. (I’ve always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times. )
     
    That's not a grammatical convention. It's a matter of word choice. They have come to use the diminutive form of another (feminine) noun to mean "girl".

    The word for girl is "Mädchen", or "little maid".

    The suffix "-chen" means "little", and words using this suffix are neuter. That's the grammatical convention.
  41. @Anonymous
    "Dark white skin"? I'm not sure if that's better or worse than CNN omitting both his race and complexion when there's no picture (yet they knew his name and t-shirt color): https://twitter.com/Crisprtek/status/853722692591263745

    I hate to piss in the champagne with gauche things like a basic understanding of optics held by any half-intelligent third-grader, but darkness is the absence or absorbtion of light, and whiteness is the emission or reflection of light.

    For skin (or anything else) to be “dark white” is a contradiction in terms, like “dry wet” or “hot cold.”

    In relative terms, of course, a mostly white object’s colour may be more or less adulterated and thus more or less reflective, but in such cases the preferred nomenclature is “off white” for the aforementioned reasons. I’ve seen photographs of the lunatic in question, though, and his skin’s tone is nothing like the colour of my refrigerator, so we’re back to Steve’s point about this nonsense only making it difficult for the public to identify, avoid, and report the location of a crazed murderer!

    Read More
  42. @Corvinus
    Yes, Wilkey, this story is manufactured outrage. People like you and I will continue to use "he" and "she".

    "What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?"

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    You don’t get to choose how people address you. It’s the other way around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    You don’t get to choose how people address you. It’s the other way around.
     
    Of course, this isn't about how people are addressed. It's about how they are discussed.
  43. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Hey, the doodle at google.com right now is of a black woman whom I’ve never heard of, and for that matter, whom I think no one has ever heard of. Gee, it’s not like there was anything more important that could have been made into a doodle today…there are only 2.2 billion of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    *Chuckle*

    http://www.inquisitr.com/4151594/no-google-doodle-for-easter-google-snubs-easter-for-17th-year-in-a-row/
  44. @Bob Smith of Suburbia
    "Dark white skin"? Are you sure this isn't a spoof?

    Also, OT but pretty creepy: I just learned that there are 5777 days between 9/11/01 and 4/17/17. It is also the Hebrew calendar year 5777.

    Pretty freaky, huh?

    I have dark white skin when I have a good deep tan.

    Read More
  45. @Corvinus
    Yes, Wilkey, this story is manufactured outrage. People like you and I will continue to use "he" and "she".

    "What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?"

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    You forgot an adjective.

    We call them deluded people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark F.
    Not necessarily. A very small number of people have a medically verifiable "intersex" condition. It's a birth defect. This is not the same thing as people who call themselves 'transgender."
    , @Corvinus
    "You forgot an adjective. We call them deluded people."

    Not in God's eyes. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?
  46. But the question is: Is xit as strong as xit?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy
    Women aren't "genetically inferior"; we're physically weaker in terms of sheer physical strength (we're obviously "physically stronger" when it comes to the ability to give birth and feed the young with our very bodies). We're not ontologically inferior either; we're just different from men on a lotta fronts. I get this guy's point and *totally* agree (I'm not offended at all seeing that SJW Antifa fool-woman getting clocked; in fact, it made me laugh), but he needs to be a helluva lot more careful with language. That sort of talk is what led, in part, to the mess we're in now.
  47. @El Dato
    So where do these people go??? To the beaches of Sicily?

    But even as the rescue vessels race against time to save lives, another battle is brewing with accusations from the European Union’s border control agency Frontex against nongovernmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Mobile Offshore Aid Station, or MOAS, that run so-called charity rescue ships. Frontex says the charity rescue vessels create a pull factor for migrants and traffickers; the NGOs say they are out there in the absence of an EU strategy to save lives at sea and a lack of initiative to provide a safe corridor option for migration and asylum.
     
    I didn't know that NGOs actually pick up people out at sea now. Well, let's open that safe corridor to Sweden, stat!

    I have found some numbers from 2015;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

    Is there anything more recent (not sure whether trawling the eurostat website would bring anything up, maybe later in the day)
    Read More
  48. Growing up in the 70s& 80s, I though the 21st century would hold widespread scientific enlightenment. Hotels in the moon, home life like the Jetsons, overall rational & intelligent people making life better. Universities would blossom with amazing discoveries.

    But really the inmates just run the asylum.

    Are most Americans genetically crazy or is in the water?

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    But really the inmates just run the asylum.
    Are most Americans genetically crazy or is in the water?

    Growing up in the mid-20th Century, I thought that communist tyrannies in the USSR, China, South America and elsewhere were the Orwellian nightmare that only America could help us to avoid in our own free societies.

    But then came: the "European Union"; the collapse of the Soviet Union; a series of US/neocon wars: the social subversion of America through "cultural marxism" (a parting gift from the Soviets), multiculturalism and mass immigration; the semi-secretive pursuit of a globalist New World Order under a World Government; the attempts to replace independent, self-governing nations through globalism and open-borders policy; and an American-British surveillance state arguably more pervasive than any in the Cold War communist era and a 21st Century blueprint (in a western "democracy") for Orwell's "1984".

    Thea, assuming that you are American I guess you are better placed to answer your own question. Respectfully, I suggest that, whether the answer is genetic or mineral, a more important question is what can Americans do to avert the approaching disaster?

    I write as a member of that British generation that does not forget how much we owe to the Americans (and others, including Russians!) who helped Europe to defeat Hitler's project for a European Union under German domination.
  49. From The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe (1987):

    The clerk, Bruzzielli, said, “The People versus Herbert Cantrell, Indictment Number 2-7-7-7.”

    Herbert 92X was on his feet with his hand in the air. “He called me out of my name again!”

    Kovitsky leaned foward over his desk and said patiently, “Mr. 92X, I explained this to you yesterday and the day before yesterday and the day before that.”

    “He called me out of my name!”

    “I explained this to you, Mr. 92X. The clerk is bound by a legal requirement. But in view of your evident intention to change your name, which is your right, and for which legal process exists, the court is content to refer to you and Herber 92X for the purpose of these proceedings. That okay with you?”

    “Thank you Your Honor,” said Herber 92X, still standing. He opened the Koran and began riffling through the pages. “This morning, Your Honor–”

    “Can we proceed?”

    “Yes, Judge. This morning–”

    “Then sid-down!”

    Herbert 92X started at Kovitsky for a moment, then sank down into his seat, still holding the Koran open. Somewhat sulkily he said: “You gonna let me read?”

    Kovitsky looked at his wristwatch and nodded yes and then swiveled away about forty-five degrees and gazed at the wall above the empty jury box.

    Read More
  50. @Steve Sailer
    I don't mind using "they" as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I'm sure I've used it.

    “Thou” has been obsolete for a long time, subsumed into “you” which does triple-duty for singular and plural and collective (except helpfully, as Florence King pointed out, in the American South where “you-all” relieves the ambiguity).

    So to use “they” when both “he” and “she” seem awkward is not much of a stretch, nor is it a usage unknown to our illustrious ancestors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    It's "y'all".

    It even has a possessive form: "Y'all's"
    , @2Mintzin1
    My own illustrious ancestors in the Metro New York region solved this problem with either "you" (sometimes pronounced "yuh") or "youse" for the plural (sometimes pronounced "yuz").
  51. @Robard
    Why not simply call them "it". It's not necessarily denigrating as can be seen from the fact that in German the article and pronoun for "girl" is "das" and "es" respectively. (I've always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times. )

    I’ve always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times.

    Do you have evidence for this lack of sexual dimorphism and does it include any lack of the modern dimorphism in height (average 3SD) upper body strength (90% and 3SD or lower body strength (60% dunno how many SDs)?

    Read More
  52. They are coming. Like Jae put it: “You don’t have to understand it to be respectful of it.”

    I would think the answer is simple: I do not want to respect the notion of “gender questionable” crap people. That was in fact, the last straw that pushed me over solidly to the right, because no matter how unwelcome I might be here, at least I don’t have to deal with that crap.

    Read More
  53. @Corvinus
    Yes, Wilkey, this story is manufactured outrage. People like you and I will continue to use "he" and "she".

    "What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?"

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    You forget that there is agitation for laws to punish people who “misgender” people. And since I’m unlucky enough to be in a large, progressive company, I get to see the tip of the spear of this bulhsheet.

    If people don’t push back hard enough, it’ll mainstream and accept an entire new level of crap.

    Read More
  54. @anon
    Hey, the doodle at google.com right now is of a black woman whom I've never heard of, and for that matter, whom I think no one has ever heard of. Gee, it's not like there was anything more important that could have been made into a doodle today...there are only 2.2 billion of us.
    Read More
  55. @bored identity
    OT:
    Zer Expert Offers a Classic Lügen-Projection Defense of Kushner's Saccharin Daddy:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/15/dirty-tricks-demonise-george-soros


    "...Now it is commonplace for right-wing Americans to say that only Soros’s corrupt influence can explain why their fellow citizens take to the streets.

    A typically sly report in the Washington Times said one in three Trump voters believed Soros paid protesters to join the women’s march on Trump’s inauguration day.

    Naturally, it did not produce a shred of evidence to support the fantastic accusation. </b.

    That the gormless believed a straight lie was all the proof it needed.

    (...) It’s not just Putin who goes for Soros.

    Macedonia’s former autocratic prime minister, Nikola Gruevski, has called for a “de-Sorosisation” of society, as the country’s right uses every trick it can think of, including the threat of street violence by “patriotic associations”, to stop the opposition taking power.

    In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s self-proclaimed illiberal democracy is threatening the Soros-funded Central European University.

    Its president, the former Canadian Liberal party leader and former Observer columnist Michael Ignatieff, is bewildered.

    He protests that he is running a university, not an opposition political party that might take Orbán’s power away.

    Romania’s socialist elite imitates Trump and claims Soros pays citizens to take to the streets to demonstrate against corruption.

    The supposedly reputable financial analysts at Zero Hedge claim Soros “singlehandedly created the European refugee crisis”.

    Steve Bannon’s Breitbart says Soros’s funding of Black Lives Matter was part of an agenda to swing the US presidential election.

    The European far right claims he is trying to destroy Christian white Europe by importing Muslim refugees.

    Rather than go on, however, it is better to understand what is going on.

    When fighting foul movements, the question arises whether you should play the man or the ball. Playing the ball is the sporting thing to do.

    Lies have to be nailed.

    The factual record has to be defended. You should never regard it as a chore to insist on the truth.

    It is a duty, which if you shirk it, leaves the field clear for race baiters and dictatorial movements.

    But playing the ball means playing the extremists’ game to some extent.

    You treat their arguments as worthy of debate.

    However wrong you show them to be, you acknowledge their point of view. When you are up against dangerous men, playing the ball is not enough.

    You must play the man, too, and expose not just what he says but why he says it....

     

    Oh please, Soros’ direct efforts to fund subversive activities is hardly secret. The lack of the “shred of evidence” is only in the mind of liberals; I mean, Soros’ money directly funded medical costs for BLM protesters.

    When your standard of truth is plausible deniability, it doesn’t look really good.

    If someone, for example, funded the trips, medical funds and living expense of right-wing protests, but claimed that he just donated into a kitty of general funds that happened to be used for “pro-religious causes”, would the Guardian consider him anything but guilty of encouraging right-wing protesters? Come on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity
    This particular Cohen is British Brooks Brother from another, but a very same mother :

    And, just like Dave B. covers nonchalantly domestic media horizon from WSJ to NPR,
    Nick C, while consistently marking his tribal territory, is equally let free to dwell through British punditry desert all these years;

    Mr. Cohen is your The Observer,The Spectator, and The Guardian.
    Mr. Cohen is also there to show you right Standpoint, and he used to lead his flocking readers through the proper London Evening Standard.

    Literally.

    Mr. Cohen is your Picked & Chosen Conservative.

    The sole purpose of Picked & Chosen Conservative* (PCC) is to bring an illusion of circus balancing act in yours daily liberal programing.

    (*Derb & Taki could probably tell you firsthand all you have to know about Spectator's Chosen Conservatism)
    , @bored identity
    Addendum


    The Picked & Chosen Conservatism 3 Steps Litmus Test for Beginners.

    1.<b. Invade & Invite :
    Every time Picked & Chosen Conservative (PCC) successfully carpet-pundits your brain with an idea of an imminent necessity to clusterfuckingly invade some Third World Well Picked & Chosen Casemate-State, you can rest assured that PCC will end with an invitation for a new Main Smear Media sinecure.

    2. Picked & Chosen Cosmopoliethnocentric Atheism:

    Religion and tradition are bad.
    Globally speaking.
    Almost always.

    Religious tradition should not be imposed on a secular and non-observant individuals under any circumstances.*
    Globally speaking.
    Almost always.

    (*Unless we are talking of scientifically scientific Snopeserisms that, although originally Picked & Chosen from a murky waters of religious ritualism,are, in fact, so awesomely really good for the all humanity, and therefore should be globally exercised en masse);

    Exhibit 1:
    Surgical removal of newborn's foreskin.

    Exhibit 2:
    Funky Dietary Laws that have nothing to do with a health.

    Exhibit 3:
    Existence of, (only half hour drive from the Big Crabapple!) by tax payers moolah heavily subsidized public communities, where flashing hairy legs in broad daylight while driving bicycles can get you in trouble with a local inquisition.


    3. The Cricket Test
    The average PCC will royally fail on Cricket Test, nine out of ten times.

    Exhibit 1:
    All Walls Are Equally Bad, But Some Walls Are More Equally Badass Walls Than The Others.

    Exhibit 2:
    Every time The Picked & Chosen Conservative uses terms such as-my/our/this country/community/homeland , he or she should also proudly disclose that collection of a half dozen Well-Chosen Passports sitting in the safe.

    Exhibit 3:
    Tell your Picked & Chosen Conservative that you 're well-aware of what their kids did last summer, and then wait for a full and unconditional implementation of Godwin's Law in five, four, three...
  56. @Steve Sailer
    I don't mind using "they" as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I'm sure I've used it.

    That doesn’t justify it.

    Read More
  57. What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?

    Lunatic.
    Attention addict.
    Idiot.
    Rabbit.

    If all else fails, “Hey you!”

    Read More
  58. Maybe it’s just zhe, but Us would love to take a steaming xit all over they.

    Read More
  59. @whorefinder
    I'm actually starting to love this nonsense the Left throws out there. They are flexing their cultural power to force people to repeat lies and punish those who refuse, but the lies they keep spewing are so nonsensically self-defeating it sounds like they're trying to claim that believing cobra poison is deadly is a social construct before they all drink it.

    Emperor's New Clothes.

    This is a good analogy and observation and I will probably use it myself, with one pedantic alteration: cobra’s inject venom rather than produce poison. If you drank cobra poison you would probably be OK.

    Read More
  60. @anonymous
    I remember from taking German they had distinctions between masculine, feminine and neuter. I know English does too, but we don't follow it as strictly as other languages do. For example, we use the article 'the' whether it describes a boy, girl or object while in German they have variations of the equivalent for the article 'the' for all three genders; der, die, das.

    Are they having this type of stupid debate in Germany and other places whose languages feature similar gender structures? Or is it just a result of the US having the most bat-s**t crazy progressives?

    The craziness is substantially the same. The accidents differentiate.

    Read More
  61. @Veracitor
    From The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe (1987):

    The clerk, Bruzzielli, said, "The People versus Herbert Cantrell, Indictment Number 2-7-7-7."

    Herbert 92X was on his feet with his hand in the air. "He called me out of my name again!"

    Kovitsky leaned foward over his desk and said patiently, "Mr. 92X, I explained this to you yesterday and the day before yesterday and the day before that."

    "He called me out of my name!"

    "I explained this to you, Mr. 92X. The clerk is bound by a legal requirement. But in view of your evident intention to change your name, which is your right, and for which legal process exists, the court is content to refer to you and Herber 92X for the purpose of these proceedings. That okay with you?"

    "Thank you Your Honor," said Herber 92X, still standing. He opened the Koran and began riffling through the pages. "This morning, Your Honor--"

    "Can we proceed?"

    "Yes, Judge. This morning--"

    "Then sid-down!"

    Herbert 92X started at Kovitsky for a moment, then sank down into his seat, still holding the Koran open. Somewhat sulkily he said: "You gonna let me read?"

    Kovitsky looked at his wristwatch and nodded yes and then swiveled away about forty-five degrees and gazed at the wall above the empty jury box.
     

    Thanks. I need to read that again.

    Read More
  62. @Mr. Anon

    What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?
     
    Weirdo? Oddball? Freak? Degenerate?

    Thing. Or, in another dialect, thang.

    Read More
  63. @Steve Sailer
    I don't mind using "they" as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I'm sure I've used it.

    I often use “they” when a subject’s gender is unspecified. If you listen for it, this is actually a very common construction and to me it sounds a lot more natural and logical than “he or she” or “she or he,” or … etc. It was 19th century language prescriptivists who pushed the generic usage of “he” and that push lasted right up until the 1970s when feminist proscriptivists began to denounce it as a tool of the patriarchy. Their views have almost become mainstream. And now as you’re suggesting, 21st century prescriptivists are actually pushing “xit” –number and pronunciation unspecified. History repeats itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Ironically, Wikipedia notes that it was actually a woman who was among the first to officially prescribe the generic usage of “he.” I would assume that an 18th century “woman” grammarian could be described as pioneering because I would have assumed that none existed and would have otherwise pictured someone like Dr. Johnson from that time period. But now, even though “grammarian” is still a gender neutral term, it’s actually a woman that first comes to mind for me when I see the word in a modern context. “Funny” how that works.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Ironically, Wikipedia notes that it was actually a woman who was among the first to officially prescribe the generic usage of “he.”
     
    Back in the Jazz Age, juries in Missouri were limited by statute to "male citizens". Some lawyers said the legislature was powerless to change the law without amending the state constitution, which called for "twelve men".

    Lawyers for the state's League of Women Voters, which pushed for the change, countered that in its use in the constitution (adopted in 1875), "men" was generic, so the law could be updated without an amendment.

    So there.

    I'm with Churchill: the masculine embraces the feminine.

  64. @Corvinus
    Yes, Wilkey, this story is manufactured outrage. People like you and I will continue to use "he" and "she".

    "What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?"

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.

    We call him boy, or girl, or God, or angel. In German we call the person (“someone”) “sie”, in the Romance languages versions of latin “illa”. Interestingly, in German “sie” is both “she” and “they”, so the plural is already femalized (or the female is pluralized).

    Read More
  65. Look lets just keep it simple, do what Bender the Robot calls us – “meat bags” when dealing with these freaks and pampered dweebs.

    So when we meet some loser who want us to call him/her/it – “they”, just say “I prefer to call you meat bag, loser” and watch the freak simmer.

    The thing is we should not need to respect or bow down to some “gender questionable” abortion of a human being on a ego trip. Face it, this sort of kow towing to freaks is meant to break down traditional distinctions and values – all very post-modern and insane.

    Don’t play their game, just mock them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy
    I really hate to sound all -- I guess "preachy" is the word, but to me, Western Tradition includes classical Christianity, so calling people "meatbags" and such -- I dunno, man. Seriously, they're mentally ill. We should have some pity for them. But, as you intimate, we can't cave in to their delusions and allow them to turn our world upside-down. I really only get ticked when some of them start making demands that we do that. I get more than ticked; I get FURIOUS. And I get triply furious at the SJWs who play their power games. When it comes to those types, I can appreciate the "meatbag" talk and much worse.
  66. @Dave Pinsen
    In tribute to Trainspotting (1996), why don't we just call them wankers?
    https://youtu.be/cI1eUgtMt6g

    Dave, I am waiting for the remake of this film titled….”Trans spotting.”

    Read More
  67. @Dave Pinsen
    In tribute to Trainspotting (1996), why don't we just call them wankers?
    https://youtu.be/cI1eUgtMt6g

    Is “Wang cares” apocryphal?

    (In the ’70s, Wang was the leading vendor of dedicated word-processing workstations. The company floundered as the market shifted to PCs in the ’80s.)

    Supposedly, the Wang marketing department couldn’t understand why the company’s British subsidiary didn’t want to use its catchy new ad slogan: “Wang cares.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Supposedly, the Wang marketing department couldn’t understand why the company’s British subsidiary didn’t want to use its catchy new ad slogan: “Wang cares.”
     
    Not only does "Wang cares" sound like "Wankers" - it sounds like "Wankers" said with a french accent, which I imagine is doubly funny in England.

    I remember, during the 70s, Wang sponsored Boston Pops Concerts on PBS. I'm surprised Wang ever made a go of it with that name. Imagine all those secretaries of yore, pounding away on the bosses Wang.
  68. @Jonathan Mason
    In UK English, it has been considered normal to use "they" as a singular pronoun since the year dot or soon thereafter.

    Thus Pink Floyd would be considered to be a plural name and take the pronoun "they" and so would the singular noun England under certain circumstances as in "England are on top of their game" when speaking of the national soccer team.

    They is also normally used when referring to someone of indeterminate or unknown gender and unknown number as in "they are coming at 2 p.m. to sweep the chimney", could refer to a single female chimney sweep, or a team of men, or a sexually assorted couple, or one or more persons of indeterminable sex.

    My mother-in-law once said of my old Mercedes "they looked after it well", which was perfectly well understood as meaning "the former owner or owner appears to have maintained this car with care."

    Jonathan, Thank you but Gomez wanted to be called They, not Pablo or Mr. Gomez or whatever…as in “Hey they, where you going with that knife in your hand?”

    Read More
  69. @anonymous
    I remember from taking German they had distinctions between masculine, feminine and neuter. I know English does too, but we don't follow it as strictly as other languages do. For example, we use the article 'the' whether it describes a boy, girl or object while in German they have variations of the equivalent for the article 'the' for all three genders; der, die, das.

    Are they having this type of stupid debate in Germany and other places whose languages feature similar gender structures? Or is it just a result of the US having the most bat-s**t crazy progressives?

    Not only German … the Romance tongues, as well. And many others.

    Read More
  70. @Mr. Anon

    What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?
     
    Weirdo? Oddball? Freak? Degenerate?

    Child.

    SJWs have childlike minds, so it fits.

    Read More
  71. @IBC
    I often use "they" when a subject's gender is unspecified. If you listen for it, this is actually a very common construction and to me it sounds a lot more natural and logical than "he or she" or "she or he," or ... etc. It was 19th century language prescriptivists who pushed the generic usage of "he" and that push lasted right up until the 1970s when feminist proscriptivists began to denounce it as a tool of the patriarchy. Their views have almost become mainstream. And now as you're suggesting, 21st century prescriptivists are actually pushing "xit" --number and pronunciation unspecified. History repeats itself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

    Ironically, Wikipedia notes that it was actually a woman who was among the first to officially prescribe the generic usage of "he." I would assume that an 18th century "woman" grammarian could be described as pioneering because I would have assumed that none existed and would have otherwise pictured someone like Dr. Johnson from that time period. But now, even though "grammarian" is still a gender neutral term, it's actually a woman that first comes to mind for me when I see the word in a modern context. "Funny" how that works.

    Ironically, Wikipedia notes that it was actually a woman who was among the first to officially prescribe the generic usage of “he.”

    Back in the Jazz Age, juries in Missouri were limited by statute to “male citizens”. Some lawyers said the legislature was powerless to change the law without amending the state constitution, which called for “twelve men”.

    Lawyers for the state’s League of Women Voters, which pushed for the change, countered that in its use in the constitution (adopted in 1875), “men” was generic, so the law could be updated without an amendment.

    So there.

    I’m with Churchill: the masculine embraces the feminine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy


    I’m with Churchill: the masculine embraces the feminine.
     
    At least when the feminine ones are young and hot.
  72. @Anonymous
    "Dark white skin"? I'm not sure if that's better or worse than CNN omitting both his race and complexion when there's no picture (yet they knew his name and t-shirt color): https://twitter.com/Crisprtek/status/853722692591263745

    That guy beats Jeffrey Leonard as “penitentiary face.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Njguy73

    That guy beats Jeffrey Leonard as “penitentiary face.”
     
    But Leonard eventually mellowed out and become Correctional Institutional Face. Could this guy?

    Only here can I indulge in dialogue about mid-level outfielders from the '80s.
  73. @Daniel Chieh
    Oh please, Soros' direct efforts to fund subversive activities is hardly secret. The lack of the "shred of evidence" is only in the mind of liberals; I mean, Soros' money directly funded medical costs for BLM protesters.

    When your standard of truth is plausible deniability, it doesn't look really good.

    If someone, for example, funded the trips, medical funds and living expense of right-wing protests, but claimed that he just donated into a kitty of general funds that happened to be used for "pro-religious causes", would the Guardian consider him anything but guilty of encouraging right-wing protesters? Come on.

    This particular Cohen is British Brooks Brother from another, but a very same mother :

    And, just like Dave B. covers nonchalantly domestic media horizon from WSJ to NPR,
    Nick C, while consistently marking his tribal territory, is equally let free to dwell through British punditry desert all these years;

    Mr. Cohen is your The Observer,The Spectator, and The Guardian.
    Mr. Cohen is also there to show you right Standpoint, and he used to lead his flocking readers through the proper London Evening Standard.

    Literally.

    Mr. Cohen is your Picked & Chosen Conservative.

    The sole purpose of Picked & Chosen Conservative* (PCC) is to bring an illusion of circus balancing act in yours daily liberal programing.

    (*Derb & Taki could probably tell you firsthand all you have to know about Spectator’s Chosen Conservatism)

    Read More
  74. @Peripatetic commenter

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.
     
    You forgot an adjective.

    We call them deluded people.

    Not necessarily. A very small number of people have a medically verifiable “intersex” condition. It’s a birth defect. This is not the same thing as people who call themselves ‘transgender.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    I am aware of the small number of such individuals who have conditions like Androgen Insensitivity or even Level-5 CAH females who are most likely to have many male behavioral characteristics despite having functioning ovaries and a uterus.

    I was not referring to such people and their number is so small in any case.
  75. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in Germany and it IS my impression that the women are more masculine than women anywhere else except Africa. It’s hard to say why one gets this impression although the easy part is a lot of them have narrow hips. But there’s more than that — something in their faces.

    I don’t think this pronoun stuff will catch on simply because it is too damn complicated. Most people have trouble with the existing grammar.

    Read More
  76. @Daniel Chieh
    Oh please, Soros' direct efforts to fund subversive activities is hardly secret. The lack of the "shred of evidence" is only in the mind of liberals; I mean, Soros' money directly funded medical costs for BLM protesters.

    When your standard of truth is plausible deniability, it doesn't look really good.

    If someone, for example, funded the trips, medical funds and living expense of right-wing protests, but claimed that he just donated into a kitty of general funds that happened to be used for "pro-religious causes", would the Guardian consider him anything but guilty of encouraging right-wing protesters? Come on.

    Addendum

    The Picked & Chosen Conservatism 3 Steps Litmus Test for Beginners.

    1.<b. Invade & Invite :
    Every time Picked & Chosen Conservative (PCC) successfully carpet-pundits your brain with an idea of an imminent necessity to clusterfuckingly invade some Third World Well Picked & Chosen Casemate-State, you can rest assured that PCC will end with an invitation for a new Main Smear Media sinecure.

    2. Picked & Chosen Cosmopoliethnocentric Atheism:

    Religion and tradition are bad.
    Globally speaking.
    Almost always.

    Religious tradition should not be imposed on a secular and non-observant individuals under any circumstances.*
    Globally speaking.
    Almost always.

    (*Unless we are talking of scientifically scientific Snopeserisms that, although originally Picked & Chosen from a murky waters of religious ritualism,are, in fact, so awesomely really good for the all humanity, and therefore should be globally exercised en masse);

    Exhibit 1:
    Surgical removal of newborn’s foreskin.

    Exhibit 2:
    Funky Dietary Laws that have nothing to do with a health.

    Exhibit 3:
    Existence of, (only half hour drive from the Big Crabapple!) by tax payers moolah heavily subsidized public communities, where flashing hairy legs in broad daylight while driving bicycles can get you in trouble with a local inquisition.

    3. The Cricket Test
    The average PCC will royally fail on Cricket Test, nine out of ten times.

    Exhibit 1:
    All Walls Are Equally Bad, But Some Walls Are More Equally Badass Walls Than The Others.

    Exhibit 2:
    Every time The Picked & Chosen Conservative uses terms such as-my/our/this country/community/homeland , he or she should also proudly disclose that collection of a half dozen Well-Chosen Passports sitting in the safe.

    Exhibit 3:
    Tell your Picked & Chosen Conservative that you ‘re well-aware of what their kids did last summer, and then wait for a full and unconditional implementation of Godwin’s Law in five, four, three…

    Read More
  77. OT: The Most Important Graph in the World made an appearance in Canada’s newspaper of record today:

    Trump’s aid cuts risk pushing African women ‘into the Dark Ages,’ spelling trouble for rising world population

    They try to blame Trump for making things worse, but based on the following passages, I’d say health workers trying to spread contraception in Africa are facing bigger issues:

    That’s why the UNFPA and its local partners in Benin have begun using innovative ideas such as the “contraception boat” to provide information and supplies to remote villages where families of 10 or 12 children are still common…Other villagers are convinced that the boat’s family-planning ideas are a “Mami Wata” practice – a reference to a mermaid-like water spirit in traditional religions, which local churches often portray as evil. They are afraid that the spirit will cause their death if they enter the boat.

    “The boat has come here like a saviour,” says André Todje, the deputy mayor of So-Ava. “Otherwise women would have no encouragement to reduce their family size. According to our tradition, women have no right to decide on children.”

    Read More
  78. @Peripatetic commenter

    “What else are we going to call someone who doesn’t identify as a woman or man?”

    Erika, dear, we call them people.
     
    You forgot an adjective.

    We call them deluded people.

    “You forgot an adjective. We call them deluded people.”

    Not in God’s eyes. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Being deluded isn't a sin, dummy.

    Why are you like this?
    , @guest
    Your response is incomprehensible to me. What is the distinction not being drawn, and how is it relevant to sin and sinners in God's eyes?
    , @whorefinder

    Not in God’s eyes.
     
    Yes, in God's eyes, they would be deluded, since "He created them male and female."

    But you're not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you.


    Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?
     
    Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion---self-delusion by mental illeness---is not a sin.

    The sin is non-trannies claiming we have to violate the truth of reality and there being two sexes and pretend Bob can become Roberta and that gender fluidity exists.

    And it's not hateful to refuse to play along with a delusion and bear witness to the truth. Nice try, little liar. The only hateful ones are you, who try to make everyone deny reality and live in another's delusions.

    Though I do love arguing theological points with the small-brained (i.e. leftist) ones like our resident paid-troll Corvy. They truly have no idea what they are talking about. True ignorance, like a child explaining space travel. Pretty laughable.

  79. @El Dato
    So where do these people go??? To the beaches of Sicily?

    But even as the rescue vessels race against time to save lives, another battle is brewing with accusations from the European Union’s border control agency Frontex against nongovernmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Mobile Offshore Aid Station, or MOAS, that run so-called charity rescue ships. Frontex says the charity rescue vessels create a pull factor for migrants and traffickers; the NGOs say they are out there in the absence of an EU strategy to save lives at sea and a lack of initiative to provide a safe corridor option for migration and asylum.
     
    I didn't know that NGOs actually pick up people out at sea now. Well, let's open that safe corridor to Sweden, stat!

    I have found some numbers from 2015;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

    Is there anything more recent (not sure whether trawling the eurostat website would bring anything up, maybe later in the day)

    I don’t know why everybody objects to my proposal for a solution to this easily solved problem .

    Read More
  80. @Steve Sailer
    I don't mind using "they" as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I'm sure I've used it.

    It’s a perfectly reasonable thing to do with a lot of historical backing.

    Using ‘they’ to refer to a known person, though, is pretty weird. Unless there’s more than one mind inside that body, a la Heinlein’s “I Will Fear No Evil”.

    Read More
  81. @anonymous
    I remember from taking German they had distinctions between masculine, feminine and neuter. I know English does too, but we don't follow it as strictly as other languages do. For example, we use the article 'the' whether it describes a boy, girl or object while in German they have variations of the equivalent for the article 'the' for all three genders; der, die, das.

    Are they having this type of stupid debate in Germany and other places whose languages feature similar gender structures? Or is it just a result of the US having the most bat-s**t crazy progressives?

    Ah, but the German linguistic genders have nothing to do with the physical genders or identities of the entities they’re used on. The word for a young woman is Neuter, for example, and IIRC pens are Masculine while pencils are Feminine. (Or maybe it’s the other way around.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "Ah, but the German linguistic genders have nothing to do with the physical genders or identities of the entities they’re used on."

    See "Gender" under
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awful_German_Language
  82. Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Who is the blond maniac with the Justin Wolfers Dutchboy haircut? Is it Professor Wolfers himself?
  83. @Steve Sailer
    I don't mind using "they" as a vague hand-waving reference to an indeterminate person like in this sentence. I'm sure I've used it.

    Greetings Steve,

    As usual, I have an indecent proposal for you;

    It’s that time of the week when you always get extra busy.

    Why don’t you get us extra busy as well by posting caption contest based on a photo of this
    glorious colonoscopy-model of the Deep State entrance ?

    Pleasure is all mine.

    Read More
  84. This is gonna happen. Look how quickly gender, a grammatical term, replaced sex everywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But it hasn't replaced it everywhere. Even in official SJWdom, "gender" and "sex" are officially recognized as distinct. Indeed it is a faux pas to confuse them. (They are blatantly confused in an article Steve posted on a few posts back, LA Times I think.) Moreover, there is vast swath of society that is either utterly oblivious to the supposed replacement, or finds it absurd and ignores it. It may not be the most obviously influential segment of society, but it exists.
  85. There are already specific cases but there is an overdue “supercut” or master bracket technique juxtaposition, of all the times feminists demanded an end to rape and the murder of women when the attacker was white, versus all the times they were blithely okay with it when the attacker was not.
    But I wonder how much of leftist pablum could either be Markov chains or replaceable with something like that. The hic-a-doola tone the writer strikes early and carries through seems like it could be more explanatory than ideology. Woud it be possible for a flesh and blood female journalist to write in this tone had they not already decided that this was a non-issue?

    Read More
  86. @Melendwyr
    Ah, but the German linguistic genders have nothing to do with the physical genders or identities of the entities they're used on. The word for a young woman is Neuter, for example, and IIRC pens are Masculine while pencils are Feminine. (Or maybe it's the other way around.)

    “Ah, but the German linguistic genders have nothing to do with the physical genders or identities of the entities they’re used on.”

    See “Gender” under

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Awful_German_Language

    Read More
  87. @Wilkey
    We have to use they, xe, xer, and xit to describe someone's gender because when it's important to be *precise*, but let's start describing those who disagree as "foaming at the mouth."

    Foaming at the mouth? This debate doesn't even get my heart rate up, later alone turn me into a rabid dog. It's just a discussion over how to refer to a bunch of crazy people. Men who are attracted to men are gay men. Men who behave in ways traditionally thought of as female are effeminate men. Men who think they actually are women are just insane. They're free to indulge their insanity, but they have no right to demand that I buy into it. But I'm going to eat some Easter candy then roll over and go back to sleep. No need to wipe the foam away.

    The reality is much simpler.

    we have the words She, It and He already. Those who are confused should be referred to by the simple Amalgam: Shite.

    Read More
  88. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Corvinus
    "You forgot an adjective. We call them deluded people."

    Not in God's eyes. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

    Being deluded isn’t a sin, dummy.

    Why are you like this?

    Read More
  89. @Veracitor
    "Thou" has been obsolete for a long time, subsumed into "you" which does triple-duty for singular and plural and collective (except helpfully, as Florence King pointed out, in the American South where "you-all" relieves the ambiguity).

    So to use "they" when both "he" and "she" seem awkward is not much of a stretch, nor is it a usage unknown to our illustrious ancestors.

    It’s “y’all”.

    It even has a possessive form: “Y’all’s”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom-in-VA
    You plural back in Philly is youse.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Anti, Years ago when Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, was being indicted, his mother, Congresswoman Kilpatrick, implored a group of supporters...."Don't let them do y'all's boy this way." Only time I have ever heard that uttered.
  90. I have a proposal that might be less confusing than “they”. How about “kee”?

    He/She/Kee

    Him/Her/Kim

    His/Her/Ker

    His/Hers/Kers

    Read More
  91. @Corvinus
    "You forgot an adjective. We call them deluded people."

    Not in God's eyes. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

    Your response is incomprehensible to me. What is the distinction not being drawn, and how is it relevant to sin and sinners in God’s eyes?

    Read More
  92. @The Anti-Gnostic
    It's "y'all".

    It even has a possessive form: "Y'all's"

    You plural back in Philly is youse.

    Read More
  93. What about the weird non-gender-specific titles? Instead of Mr, Mrs, Miss, or Ms, we have Mx, pronounced Mixster. This is almost guaranteed to raise a laugh, which then becomes a microaggression.

    Read More
  94. @The Anti-Gnostic
    It's "y'all".

    It even has a possessive form: "Y'all's"

    Anti, Years ago when Detroit’s mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, was being indicted, his mother, Congresswoman Kilpatrick, implored a group of supporters….”Don’t let them do y’all’s boy this way.” Only time I have ever heard that uttered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    "Y'all" is part of the regional dialect developed by Southerners and our diaspora, itself evolved from Anglo-Celtic pronunciations. (The related "ain't" is famously ubiquitous in both the Southeastern U.S.A. and Britain, though not as common in other parts of North America.)

    It is a conjunction of "you all," the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the first person plural.

  95. @Corvinus
    "You forgot an adjective. We call them deluded people."

    Not in God's eyes. Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

    Not in God’s eyes.

    Yes, in God’s eyes, they would be deluded, since “He created them male and female.”

    But you’re not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you.

    Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?

    Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion—self-delusion by mental illeness—is not a sin.

    The sin is non-trannies claiming we have to violate the truth of reality and there being two sexes and pretend Bob can become Roberta and that gender fluidity exists.

    And it’s not hateful to refuse to play along with a delusion and bear witness to the truth. Nice try, little liar. The only hateful ones are you, who try to make everyone deny reality and live in another’s delusions.

    Though I do love arguing theological points with the small-brained (i.e. leftist) ones like our resident paid-troll Corvy. They truly have no idea what they are talking about. True ignorance, like a child explaining space travel. Pretty laughable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes, in God’s eyes, they would be deluded, since “He created them male and female.”

    Yet He offers forgiveness to those transpass against Him. Do you seek His forgiveness for fornicating outside of marriage?

    "But you’re not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you."

    Is that what your church tells you after a night on the town prowling to pay women for sex?

    "Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion—self-delusion by mental illeness—is not a sin."

    It's not a mental illness. Some would argue it is a medical condition, others would argue it is an individual choice.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    His attempts to mimic a Southern Baptist are weird and amusing. Anyone who has been in a proper firebrand church would know how it works otherwise. Righteous anger is just one of the many things I was taught, even though I'm not even faithful these days.
  96. @Marty
    That guy beats Jeffrey Leonard as "penitentiary face."

    That guy beats Jeffrey Leonard as “penitentiary face.”

    But Leonard eventually mellowed out and become Correctional Institutional Face. Could this guy?

    Only here can I indulge in dialogue about mid-level outfielders from the ’80s.

    Read More
  97. “Police say two victims are at Ohio State University Main Hospital and seven are at Grant Medical Center. Those victims are Sharda Hall, 25; Brooklyn Bradley, 20; Diamond Harris, 33; Ja’Voughn Henderson, 22; Cornecia Pruitt, 25; Keanta McGrew, 31; Kaadijah Travis, 23; William Boswell, 27; and Juwaun McCrae, 20. Police said the victims either did not see anything or refused to cooperate with investigators. There is no known suspect or motive right now.”

    Steve, this should be good for an iSteve riff.

    I dint see nuttin.

    Read More
  98. @ScarletNumber
    I use "they" when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use "he" but too many people find that offensive.

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.

    I use “he” and “his” to refer to a single someone of unknown sex. That’s how it was done for eons before the the feminists came along. I hate “he or she” as much as I dislike “they” used for an unknown or generic individual. Go old-school! Take back the night!

    Read More
  99. @Jonathan Mason
    In UK English, it has been considered normal to use "they" as a singular pronoun since the year dot or soon thereafter.

    Thus Pink Floyd would be considered to be a plural name and take the pronoun "they" and so would the singular noun England under certain circumstances as in "England are on top of their game" when speaking of the national soccer team.

    They is also normally used when referring to someone of indeterminate or unknown gender and unknown number as in "they are coming at 2 p.m. to sweep the chimney", could refer to a single female chimney sweep, or a team of men, or a sexually assorted couple, or one or more persons of indeterminable sex.

    My mother-in-law once said of my old Mercedes "they looked after it well", which was perfectly well understood as meaning "the former owner or owner appears to have maintained this car with care."

    I see this as not as “a use of ‘they’ for the singular,” but as “they” in the nebulous sense, “the powers that be” sense, the “you do X and they’ll come get you” sense. I think what’s being referred to in this thread is the more concrete — i.e., e.g., “A customer buys some Murphy’s oil. Should he use it on fine furniture?” as opposed to “should he or she use it?” or “should they use it?” “He or she” (and “his or her”) is clumsy, especially when it has to be repeated over and over in a single paragraph or article; “they” sounds illiterate. The examples you gave of using “they” in the nebulous sense don’t sound clumsy or illiterate at all.

    Read More
  100. @Wilkey
    We have to use they, xe, xer, and xit to describe someone's gender because when it's important to be *precise*, but let's start describing those who disagree as "foaming at the mouth."

    Foaming at the mouth? This debate doesn't even get my heart rate up, later alone turn me into a rabid dog. It's just a discussion over how to refer to a bunch of crazy people. Men who are attracted to men are gay men. Men who behave in ways traditionally thought of as female are effeminate men. Men who think they actually are women are just insane. They're free to indulge their insanity, but they have no right to demand that I buy into it. But I'm going to eat some Easter candy then roll over and go back to sleep. No need to wipe the foam away.

    I have to quibble with your apparent equating of “effeminate” and “feminine.” The former means (classically, anyway) lacking in fortitude or given to luxury; the latter refers to things pertaining to or characteristic of females. The former has a moral sense; the latter doesn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "Effeminate" means womanly, unmanly. That's its etymology; no ambiguity there. Whatever connotations it's picked up--voluptuousness, tenderness, effeteness, foppishness, etc.--derives from the popular association of those qualifications with women.
  101. @Rod1963
    Look lets just keep it simple, do what Bender the Robot calls us - "meat bags" when dealing with these freaks and pampered dweebs.

    So when we meet some loser who want us to call him/her/it - "they", just say "I prefer to call you meat bag, loser" and watch the freak simmer.

    The thing is we should not need to respect or bow down to some "gender questionable" abortion of a human being on a ego trip. Face it, this sort of kow towing to freaks is meant to break down traditional distinctions and values - all very post-modern and insane.

    Don't play their game, just mock them.

    I really hate to sound all — I guess “preachy” is the word, but to me, Western Tradition includes classical Christianity, so calling people “meatbags” and such — I dunno, man. Seriously, they’re mentally ill. We should have some pity for them. But, as you intimate, we can’t cave in to their delusions and allow them to turn our world upside-down. I really only get ticked when some of them start making demands that we do that. I get more than ticked; I get FURIOUS. And I get triply furious at the SJWs who play their power games. When it comes to those types, I can appreciate the “meatbag” talk and much worse.

    Read More
  102. @Reg Cæsar

    Ironically, Wikipedia notes that it was actually a woman who was among the first to officially prescribe the generic usage of “he.”
     
    Back in the Jazz Age, juries in Missouri were limited by statute to "male citizens". Some lawyers said the legislature was powerless to change the law without amending the state constitution, which called for "twelve men".

    Lawyers for the state's League of Women Voters, which pushed for the change, countered that in its use in the constitution (adopted in 1875), "men" was generic, so the law could be updated without an amendment.

    So there.

    I'm with Churchill: the masculine embraces the feminine.

    I’m with Churchill: the masculine embraces the feminine.

    At least when the feminine ones are young and hot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Are you a he-Tracy or a she-Tracy? Or non-binary?
  103. @Peripatetic commenter
    But the question is: Is xit as strong as xit?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaKQ4_KM52Q&feature=youtu.be

    Women aren’t “genetically inferior”; we’re physically weaker in terms of sheer physical strength (we’re obviously “physically stronger” when it comes to the ability to give birth and feed the young with our very bodies). We’re not ontologically inferior either; we’re just different from men on a lotta fronts. I get this guy’s point and *totally* agree (I’m not offended at all seeing that SJW Antifa fool-woman getting clocked; in fact, it made me laugh), but he needs to be a helluva lot more careful with language. That sort of talk is what led, in part, to the mess we’re in now.

    Read More
  104. The words don’t matter. What matters is that THEY will tell YOU how to speak and how to behave. If you don’t obey at work, you’ll be fired. If you don’t obey in public, you’ll be shamed and shunned.

    Trans people probably number about 1/100 of one percent. Will we overturn our entire society, our entire culture, our entire system of law, just to accommodate trans people? YES! But it doesn’t have anything to do with the rights of minorities.

    The goal of the Left is to overturn society; they don’t care how they do it.

    Read More
  105. @ScarletNumber
    I use "they" when I am referring to theoretical single person, since it saves me from that awful he/she construction. In the past you could just use "he" but too many people find that offensive.

    For example: After someone files their taxes, they may receive a refund.

    I say “he.” “To each his own,”

    It feels so transgressive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @englishmike
    I say “he.” “To each his own,”
    It feels so transgressive.

    Transgressive, but also correct, as "each" implies each one. And in traditional grammar, as taught pre-feminism, "he" implies "he or she", because - my English teacher explained - the male always subsumes the female and not vice versa.
    But my apologies, Carol, for the lapse into mansplaining. It felt so transgressive.
  106. @Veracitor
    "Thou" has been obsolete for a long time, subsumed into "you" which does triple-duty for singular and plural and collective (except helpfully, as Florence King pointed out, in the American South where "you-all" relieves the ambiguity).

    So to use "they" when both "he" and "she" seem awkward is not much of a stretch, nor is it a usage unknown to our illustrious ancestors.

    My own illustrious ancestors in the Metro New York region solved this problem with either “you” (sometimes pronounced “yuh”) or “youse” for the plural (sometimes pronounced “yuz”).

    Read More
  107. @Cagey Beast
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSEmnX-dgc

    Who is the blond maniac with the Justin Wolfers Dutchboy haircut? Is it Professor Wolfers himself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Great minds:
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/853410471910797312
  108. @Jonathan Mason
    In UK English, it has been considered normal to use "they" as a singular pronoun since the year dot or soon thereafter.

    Thus Pink Floyd would be considered to be a plural name and take the pronoun "they" and so would the singular noun England under certain circumstances as in "England are on top of their game" when speaking of the national soccer team.

    They is also normally used when referring to someone of indeterminate or unknown gender and unknown number as in "they are coming at 2 p.m. to sweep the chimney", could refer to a single female chimney sweep, or a team of men, or a sexually assorted couple, or one or more persons of indeterminable sex.

    My mother-in-law once said of my old Mercedes "they looked after it well", which was perfectly well understood as meaning "the former owner or owner appears to have maintained this car with care."

    Your first examples involve the usage of collective nouns’ taking plural verbs.

    Your later examples involve the use of “they” when insufficient information makes the choice of any pronoun – feminine or masculine, singular of plural – entirely arbitrary (cf. Paul Reiser’s hilarious and insightful routine about our universal invocation of “they” and “the guy” in such cases…).

    Neither of the two types of examples are much to do with the purposeful torture of the queen’s English to encourage the psychopathy of disturbed individuals and – far more invidious and dangerous – to quite purposefully alter the language in order to control others’ thoughts and ideas, and to stifle dissent, as those familiar with Orwell’s writings on the topic and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis understand quite well.

    For these reasons I refuse to conflate sodomy with happiness, invaders with immigrants, immigrants with pioneers, nor men with women – RUAT CÆLUM.

    I encourage others not to, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    For these reasons I refuse to conflate sodomy with happiness
     
    No, but "the pursuit of sodomy" has a certain ring to it. Sodom today, Gomorrah the world!
  109. I just had a look at Justin Wolfers for the first time. He’s the perfect blend of Julian Assange and Peter Sellers in I Love You, Alice B. Toklas. I hope he had an alibi when the Battle of Berkeley went down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Here's economist Justin Wolfers:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/666731236673634304/QXJWDqpK.jpg

    He does look suspiciously like the the alt-right goombah with the Justin Wolfers hairdo who is seen whaling on various ctrl-left antifas just before that woman got punched.

    No proof, as of yet, but ...

  110. @Buffalo Joe
    Anti, Years ago when Detroit's mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, was being indicted, his mother, Congresswoman Kilpatrick, implored a group of supporters...."Don't let them do y'all's boy this way." Only time I have ever heard that uttered.

    “Y’all” is part of the regional dialect developed by Southerners and our diaspora, itself evolved from Anglo-Celtic pronunciations. (The related “ain’t” is famously ubiquitous in both the Southeastern U.S.A. and Britain, though not as common in other parts of North America.)

    It is a conjunction of “you all,” the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the first person plural.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    ...from the second person singular. Yeesh. I need to stop writing again until I'm entirely unmedicated.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Auto, Thank you but I meant the possessive "y'all's".
    , @Reg Cæsar

    It is a conjunction of “you all,” the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the [second person singular].
     
    I think BJ was referring to y'all's, as a possessive, not y'all, which everyone has heard. Blacks in Buffalo, like everywhere else, hold on to their Southern dialect.

    Actually, standard English does have a separate word for the second-person plural-- ye. Sadly, it's gone the way of its singular counterpart, thou. Y'all is just a (relatively) modern replacement.

    In many Indo-European languages, the second-person plural is used as a formal form for the second-person singular. Eg, French, Russian. (In others, eg, German and Danish, the third-person plural does that job.)

    It often appears that Southerners are doing the same thing with "y'all".
    , @Jim Don Bob
    It's youns in western Pennsylvania.
  111. @Cagey Beast
    I just had a look at Justin Wolfers for the first time. He's the perfect blend of Julian Assange and Peter Sellers in I Love You, Alice B. Toklas. I hope he had an alibi when the Battle of Berkeley went down.

    Here’s economist Justin Wolfers:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/666731236673634304/QXJWDqpK.jpg

    He does look suspiciously like the the alt-right goombah with the Justin Wolfers hairdo who is seen whaling on various ctrl-left antifas just before that woman got punched.

    No proof, as of yet, but …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    He does look suspiciously like the the alt-right goombah with the Justin Wolfers hairdo who is seen whaling on various ctrl-left antifas just before that woman got punched.
     
    I call him blond surfer, purple sweater guy. He moved very fast.
  112. @LKM
    OT: The Most Important Graph in the World made an appearance in Canada's newspaper of record today:

    Trump’s aid cuts risk pushing African women ‘into the Dark Ages,’ spelling trouble for rising world population

    They try to blame Trump for making things worse, but based on the following passages, I'd say health workers trying to spread contraception in Africa are facing bigger issues:

    That’s why the UNFPA and its local partners in Benin have begun using innovative ideas such as the “contraception boat” to provide information and supplies to remote villages where families of 10 or 12 children are still common...Other villagers are convinced that the boat’s family-planning ideas are a “Mami Wata” practice – a reference to a mermaid-like water spirit in traditional religions, which local churches often portray as evil. They are afraid that the spirit will cause their death if they enter the boat.
     

    “The boat has come here like a saviour,” says André Todje, the deputy mayor of So-Ava. “Otherwise women would have no encouragement to reduce their family size. According to our tradition, women have no right to decide on children."
     

    Thanks.

    Read More
  113. Red ink for the final paragraph.

    They are coming. Like Jae put it: “You don’t have to understand it to be respectful of it.”

    They is coming.

    We’re all ghetto trannies now…

    Read More
  114. @El Dato
    So where do these people go??? To the beaches of Sicily?

    But even as the rescue vessels race against time to save lives, another battle is brewing with accusations from the European Union’s border control agency Frontex against nongovernmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Mobile Offshore Aid Station, or MOAS, that run so-called charity rescue ships. Frontex says the charity rescue vessels create a pull factor for migrants and traffickers; the NGOs say they are out there in the absence of an EU strategy to save lives at sea and a lack of initiative to provide a safe corridor option for migration and asylum.
     
    I didn't know that NGOs actually pick up people out at sea now. Well, let's open that safe corridor to Sweden, stat!

    I have found some numbers from 2015;

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

    Is there anything more recent (not sure whether trawling the eurostat website would bring anything up, maybe later in the day)

    Saving lives at sea implies out on the high seas.

    The suspicion many of us have is they are cruising up and down close to Libya’s coastline and picking up everyone they can. Many ‘migrants’ are in crappy, leaky boats because they were never going to cross the Med at all. Tthey merely have to make it to the combined cuck navy waiting for them offshore.

    Read More
  115. @Steve Sailer
    Who is the blond maniac with the Justin Wolfers Dutchboy haircut? Is it Professor Wolfers himself?

    Great minds:

    Read More
  116. @Steve Sailer
    Here's economist Justin Wolfers:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/666731236673634304/QXJWDqpK.jpg

    He does look suspiciously like the the alt-right goombah with the Justin Wolfers hairdo who is seen whaling on various ctrl-left antifas just before that woman got punched.

    No proof, as of yet, but ...

    He does look suspiciously like the the alt-right goombah with the Justin Wolfers hairdo who is seen whaling on various ctrl-left antifas just before that woman got punched.

    I call him blond surfer, purple sweater guy. He moved very fast.

    Read More
  117. @Tracy
    I have to quibble with your apparent equating of "effeminate" and "feminine." The former means (classically, anyway) lacking in fortitude or given to luxury; the latter refers to things pertaining to or characteristic of females. The former has a moral sense; the latter doesn't.

    “Effeminate” means womanly, unmanly. That’s its etymology; no ambiguity there. Whatever connotations it’s picked up–voluptuousness, tenderness, effeteness, foppishness, etc.–derives from the popular association of those qualifications with women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy
    I'm Catholic, so my thinking is shaped by traditional Western thinking -- e.g., Aquinas on the question, "Whether effeminacy is opposed to perseverance?". Fortitude and perseverance are virtues, and all of the virtues should be sought by all people, no matter their sex. The word in Scripture that typically gets translated to "effeminate" is "mollis" in the Douay (as in, I'm guessing, "mollify"), and it means soft, lacking in fortitude, given to "delicacy" (and also the passive role in homosexual sex). In this sense of the word, it'd not be good for a woman to be "effeminate."

    We already have the word "feminine," so defining "effeminate" as "feminine" seems kinda redundant (not that we can't -- and don't -- have more than one word for a single thing or concept, but using "effeminate" and "feminine" to mean the same thing doesn't really add anything to the language, really, at least not that I can think of. They sound too similar for it to have any literary value). But I grant that the way you're using the word is how it's typically used these days. I just find it, um, "problematic" (LOL don't hate!) because it equates the feminine with something bad. We're not going to get women to be more feminine if "feminine" -- seen as a synonym for "effeminate" -- is seen as an insult.

    As to etymology, "virtue" has the root of "vir," meaning manliness, but I'm guessing you'd want your Mom to be "virtuous," KWIM?
  118. @Robard
    Why not simply call them "it". It's not necessarily denigrating as can be seen from the fact that in German the article and pronoun for "girl" is "das" and "es" respectively. (I've always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times. )

    Why not simply call them “it”. It’s not necessarily denigrating as can be seen from the fact that in German the article and pronoun for “girl” is “das” and “es” respectively. (I’ve always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times. )

    That’s not a grammatical convention. It’s a matter of word choice. They have come to use the diminutive form of another (feminine) noun to mean “girl”.

    The word for girl is “Mädchen”, or “little maid”.

    The suffix “-chen” means “little”, and words using this suffix are neuter. That’s the grammatical convention.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robard
    True enough, but I'll note that the grammatical rule is dropped in the case of boys, which would indicate "die" for "Junge" and likewise for "Knabe".
  119. @BB753
    You don't get to choose how people address you. It's the other way around.

    You don’t get to choose how people address you. It’s the other way around.

    Of course, this isn’t about how people are addressed. It’s about how they are discussed.

    Read More
  120. @Stan Adams
    Is "Wang cares" apocryphal?

    (In the '70s, Wang was the leading vendor of dedicated word-processing workstations. The company floundered as the market shifted to PCs in the '80s.)

    Supposedly, the Wang marketing department couldn't understand why the company's British subsidiary didn't want to use its catchy new ad slogan: "Wang cares."

    Supposedly, the Wang marketing department couldn’t understand why the company’s British subsidiary didn’t want to use its catchy new ad slogan: “Wang cares.”

    Not only does “Wang cares” sound like “Wankers” – it sounds like “Wankers” said with a french accent, which I imagine is doubly funny in England.

    I remember, during the 70s, Wang sponsored Boston Pops Concerts on PBS. I’m surprised Wang ever made a go of it with that name. Imagine all those secretaries of yore, pounding away on the bosses Wang.

    Read More
  121. @Tracy


    I’m with Churchill: the masculine embraces the feminine.
     
    At least when the feminine ones are young and hot.

    Are you a he-Tracy or a she-Tracy? Or non-binary?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy
    I'm a She-Tracy. And I insist on being referred to as that if my name ever ends up in the fishwraps (God forbid LOL). And I want "Baroness" thrown in for good measure.
    , @Kyle
    Im not gender binary im hexidecimal.
  122. @Autochthon
    "Y'all" is part of the regional dialect developed by Southerners and our diaspora, itself evolved from Anglo-Celtic pronunciations. (The related "ain't" is famously ubiquitous in both the Southeastern U.S.A. and Britain, though not as common in other parts of North America.)

    It is a conjunction of "you all," the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the first person plural.

    …from the second person singular. Yeesh. I need to stop writing again until I’m entirely unmedicated.

    Read More
  123. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/04/17/these-institutions-are-betraying-their-o

    REASON pushed the homomania agenda and backed power of laws to force everyone to bend over to lies and degeneracy. It has no cred when it comes to integrity and freedom.

    Read More
  124. @ben tillman

    Why not simply call them “it”. It’s not necessarily denigrating as can be seen from the fact that in German the article and pronoun for “girl” is “das” and “es” respectively. (I’ve always wondered if the origin of that grammatical convention may have something to do with relatively low sexual dimorphism among Germans in ancient times. )
     
    That's not a grammatical convention. It's a matter of word choice. They have come to use the diminutive form of another (feminine) noun to mean "girl".

    The word for girl is "Mädchen", or "little maid".

    The suffix "-chen" means "little", and words using this suffix are neuter. That's the grammatical convention.

    True enough, but I’ll note that the grammatical rule is dropped in the case of boys, which would indicate “die” for “Junge” and likewise for “Knabe”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    True enough, but I’ll note that the grammatical rule is dropped in the case of boys, which would indicate “die” for “Junge” and likewise for “Knabe”.
     
    Those words and "Mann" don't end in "-chen", so I don't follow you.
  125. @guest
    "Effeminate" means womanly, unmanly. That's its etymology; no ambiguity there. Whatever connotations it's picked up--voluptuousness, tenderness, effeteness, foppishness, etc.--derives from the popular association of those qualifications with women.

    I’m Catholic, so my thinking is shaped by traditional Western thinking — e.g., Aquinas on the question, “Whether effeminacy is opposed to perseverance?”. Fortitude and perseverance are virtues, and all of the virtues should be sought by all people, no matter their sex. The word in Scripture that typically gets translated to “effeminate” is “mollis” in the Douay (as in, I’m guessing, “mollify”), and it means soft, lacking in fortitude, given to “delicacy” (and also the passive role in homosexual sex). In this sense of the word, it’d not be good for a woman to be “effeminate.”

    We already have the word “feminine,” so defining “effeminate” as “feminine” seems kinda redundant (not that we can’t — and don’t — have more than one word for a single thing or concept, but using “effeminate” and “feminine” to mean the same thing doesn’t really add anything to the language, really, at least not that I can think of. They sound too similar for it to have any literary value). But I grant that the way you’re using the word is how it’s typically used these days. I just find it, um, “problematic” (LOL don’t hate!) because it equates the feminine with something bad. We’re not going to get women to be more feminine if “feminine” — seen as a synonym for “effeminate” — is seen as an insult.

    As to etymology, “virtue” has the root of “vir,” meaning manliness, but I’m guessing you’d want your Mom to be “virtuous,” KWIM?

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Language is highly redundant. That's not something we'll ever be able to correct, even if we wanted to.

    As far as your "mollis" goes, softness is associated with women. Our "effeminate" and "feminine" alike hold that connotation. Which doesn't mean we want women always to be soft. They must often be forceful to remain chaste, which is why "virtue" became associated with sexual purity, especially regarding women. This despite the fact that its roots are in manliness, force and strength being traditionally masculine qualities.

    Virility, which has the same root, maintains exclusively masculine association, whereas "virtue" has moved beyond the strictly sexual, and can apply easily to anyone. Effeminacy has not. You'd have to dip into an etymological dictionary to discover the roots of virtue in masculinity, but any old dictionary will tell you that the effeminate are womanly.

    , @guest
    I should add there is an actual difference between "feminine" and "effeminate," aside from the fact that the latter is used derogatorily. There's the idea that you use "feminine" to describe that which properly is womanly, whereas effeminacy implies an underlying masculinity to which you're drawing a contrast.

    Also, "effeminate" is a verb, which means literally to "unman."
  126. @Reg Cæsar
    Are you a he-Tracy or a she-Tracy? Or non-binary?

    I’m a She-Tracy. And I insist on being referred to as that if my name ever ends up in the fishwraps (God forbid LOL). And I want “Baroness” thrown in for good measure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3v300RRGzI



    Tracy, when I'm with you
    Somethin' you do bounces me off the ceiling
    Tracy, day after day
    When you're this way, I get a lovin' feelin'
     


    I can't believe that song is 48 years old, or that my step-cousin Tracy is married to a man who's 78.
  127. @Autochthon
    "Y'all" is part of the regional dialect developed by Southerners and our diaspora, itself evolved from Anglo-Celtic pronunciations. (The related "ain't" is famously ubiquitous in both the Southeastern U.S.A. and Britain, though not as common in other parts of North America.)

    It is a conjunction of "you all," the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the first person plural.

    Auto, Thank you but I meant the possessive “y’all’s”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Auto, Thank you but I meant the possessive “y’all’s”.
     
    At the other end of the Empire State, y'all is youse. The possessive would thus be youses, or youse's. Or so Moses supposes…
    , @Autochthon
    "Y'all's" is simply the possessive pronoun (second person plural) in the dialect ("belonging to you all; belonging to all of you"). Just as "y'all" developed to distinguish the plural (otherwise being "you," indistinguishable from the second person singular except by context), so "y'all's" distinguishes the possessive second person plural (otherwise being "your," indistinguishable from the possessive second person singular).

    If English had distinct terms like "nos," "nosotros," "nuestra," and "nuestras" (to use Spanish as an example); these nonstandard dialects' kludges probably would not develop (cf. "yous" nearer to your neck of the woods).

    It's interesting to me, because English is notoriously precise in part because of its enormous vocabulary and variety of possible constructions compared to most other languages, yet the second person pronouns never seem to have evolved such precision except informally.
  128. @whorefinder

    Not in God’s eyes.
     
    Yes, in God's eyes, they would be deluded, since "He created them male and female."

    But you're not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you.


    Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?
     
    Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion---self-delusion by mental illeness---is not a sin.

    The sin is non-trannies claiming we have to violate the truth of reality and there being two sexes and pretend Bob can become Roberta and that gender fluidity exists.

    And it's not hateful to refuse to play along with a delusion and bear witness to the truth. Nice try, little liar. The only hateful ones are you, who try to make everyone deny reality and live in another's delusions.

    Though I do love arguing theological points with the small-brained (i.e. leftist) ones like our resident paid-troll Corvy. They truly have no idea what they are talking about. True ignorance, like a child explaining space travel. Pretty laughable.

    “Yes, in God’s eyes, they would be deluded, since “He created them male and female.”

    Yet He offers forgiveness to those transpass against Him. Do you seek His forgiveness for fornicating outside of marriage?

    “But you’re not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you.”

    Is that what your church tells you after a night on the town prowling to pay women for sex?

    “Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion—self-delusion by mental illeness—is not a sin.”

    It’s not a mental illness. Some would argue it is a medical condition, others would argue it is an individual choice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    The small brained one is back, trying desperately to earn his paid-troll paycheck!

    Yet He offers forgiveness to those transpass against Him.
     

    God's forgiveness requires admitting you did wrong and feeling regret for it. Liars like you who continue to insist we deny the truth are neither admitting you are wrong nor feeling any regret for spreading your lies.

    But nice try with another lie there, kiddo.


    It’s not a mental illness. Some would argue it is a medical condition, others would argue it is an individual choice.
     
    rofl. and the liar tries to bald facedly claim that his lies are the truth.

    No. Trannies are mentally sick. And you are morally sick for demanding we play along with their sickness.

    And all your lies to the contrary won't make it the opposite, paid shill.

  129. @whorefinder

    Not in God’s eyes.
     
    Yes, in God's eyes, they would be deluded, since "He created them male and female."

    But you're not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you.


    Hate the sin, love the sinner, right?
     
    Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion---self-delusion by mental illeness---is not a sin.

    The sin is non-trannies claiming we have to violate the truth of reality and there being two sexes and pretend Bob can become Roberta and that gender fluidity exists.

    And it's not hateful to refuse to play along with a delusion and bear witness to the truth. Nice try, little liar. The only hateful ones are you, who try to make everyone deny reality and live in another's delusions.

    Though I do love arguing theological points with the small-brained (i.e. leftist) ones like our resident paid-troll Corvy. They truly have no idea what they are talking about. True ignorance, like a child explaining space travel. Pretty laughable.

    His attempts to mimic a Southern Baptist are weird and amusing. Anyone who has been in a proper firebrand church would know how it works otherwise. Righteous anger is just one of the many things I was taught, even though I’m not even faithful these days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @whorefinder
    Yeah, the Left never seems to read those parts of the Bible where Jesus starts whipping people in the Temple and angrily condemning the Pharisees and tells his followers to shun those who don't follow his code.

    Except, of course, when they try to make some convoluted, nonsensical argument that Jesus was some kind of communist revolutionary who was all about wealth redistribution and overthrowing the patriarchy and what not.

    God bless him, hope he comes to his senses before it's too late.

  130. @Mark F.
    Not necessarily. A very small number of people have a medically verifiable "intersex" condition. It's a birth defect. This is not the same thing as people who call themselves 'transgender."

    I am aware of the small number of such individuals who have conditions like Androgen Insensitivity or even Level-5 CAH females who are most likely to have many male behavioral characteristics despite having functioning ovaries and a uterus.

    I was not referring to such people and their number is so small in any case.

    Read More
  131. @Tracy
    I'm Catholic, so my thinking is shaped by traditional Western thinking -- e.g., Aquinas on the question, "Whether effeminacy is opposed to perseverance?". Fortitude and perseverance are virtues, and all of the virtues should be sought by all people, no matter their sex. The word in Scripture that typically gets translated to "effeminate" is "mollis" in the Douay (as in, I'm guessing, "mollify"), and it means soft, lacking in fortitude, given to "delicacy" (and also the passive role in homosexual sex). In this sense of the word, it'd not be good for a woman to be "effeminate."

    We already have the word "feminine," so defining "effeminate" as "feminine" seems kinda redundant (not that we can't -- and don't -- have more than one word for a single thing or concept, but using "effeminate" and "feminine" to mean the same thing doesn't really add anything to the language, really, at least not that I can think of. They sound too similar for it to have any literary value). But I grant that the way you're using the word is how it's typically used these days. I just find it, um, "problematic" (LOL don't hate!) because it equates the feminine with something bad. We're not going to get women to be more feminine if "feminine" -- seen as a synonym for "effeminate" -- is seen as an insult.

    As to etymology, "virtue" has the root of "vir," meaning manliness, but I'm guessing you'd want your Mom to be "virtuous," KWIM?

    Language is highly redundant. That’s not something we’ll ever be able to correct, even if we wanted to.

    As far as your “mollis” goes, softness is associated with women. Our “effeminate” and “feminine” alike hold that connotation. Which doesn’t mean we want women always to be soft. They must often be forceful to remain chaste, which is why “virtue” became associated with sexual purity, especially regarding women. This despite the fact that its roots are in manliness, force and strength being traditionally masculine qualities.

    Virility, which has the same root, maintains exclusively masculine association, whereas “virtue” has moved beyond the strictly sexual, and can apply easily to anyone. Effeminacy has not. You’d have to dip into an etymological dictionary to discover the roots of virtue in masculinity, but any old dictionary will tell you that the effeminate are womanly.

    Read More
  132. @Tracy
    I'm Catholic, so my thinking is shaped by traditional Western thinking -- e.g., Aquinas on the question, "Whether effeminacy is opposed to perseverance?". Fortitude and perseverance are virtues, and all of the virtues should be sought by all people, no matter their sex. The word in Scripture that typically gets translated to "effeminate" is "mollis" in the Douay (as in, I'm guessing, "mollify"), and it means soft, lacking in fortitude, given to "delicacy" (and also the passive role in homosexual sex). In this sense of the word, it'd not be good for a woman to be "effeminate."

    We already have the word "feminine," so defining "effeminate" as "feminine" seems kinda redundant (not that we can't -- and don't -- have more than one word for a single thing or concept, but using "effeminate" and "feminine" to mean the same thing doesn't really add anything to the language, really, at least not that I can think of. They sound too similar for it to have any literary value). But I grant that the way you're using the word is how it's typically used these days. I just find it, um, "problematic" (LOL don't hate!) because it equates the feminine with something bad. We're not going to get women to be more feminine if "feminine" -- seen as a synonym for "effeminate" -- is seen as an insult.

    As to etymology, "virtue" has the root of "vir," meaning manliness, but I'm guessing you'd want your Mom to be "virtuous," KWIM?

    I should add there is an actual difference between “feminine” and “effeminate,” aside from the fact that the latter is used derogatorily. There’s the idea that you use “feminine” to describe that which properly is womanly, whereas effeminacy implies an underlying masculinity to which you’re drawing a contrast.

    Also, “effeminate” is a verb, which means literally to “unman.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy
    The bit about contrast makes sense. And I had no idea that "effeminate" could be a verb, too. Interesting!
  133. The big rarely asked question is ” Do these morons believe this crap or are they just taking the piss?”

    Read More
  134. @Tracy
    I'm a She-Tracy. And I insist on being referred to as that if my name ever ends up in the fishwraps (God forbid LOL). And I want "Baroness" thrown in for good measure.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3v300RRGzI

    Tracy, when I’m with you
    Somethin’ you do bounces me off the ceiling
    Tracy, day after day
    When you’re this way, I get a lovin’ feelin’

    I can’t believe that song is 48 years old, or that my step-cousin Tracy is married to a man who’s 78.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tracy
    Gosh, haven't heard that in years! I have a sister named Amy, and, growing up, we had sister-friends named Renee and Valerie. We each had our own song :)

    But re. the 48 years: as Sir Mick Jagger said, "what a drag is it getting o-0ld." And how.
  135. @Autochthon
    "Y'all" is part of the regional dialect developed by Southerners and our diaspora, itself evolved from Anglo-Celtic pronunciations. (The related "ain't" is famously ubiquitous in both the Southeastern U.S.A. and Britain, though not as common in other parts of North America.)

    It is a conjunction of "you all," the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the first person plural.

    It is a conjunction of “you all,” the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the [second person singular].

    I think BJ was referring to y’all’s, as a possessive, not y’all, which everyone has heard. Blacks in Buffalo, like everywhere else, hold on to their Southern dialect.

    Actually, standard English does have a separate word for the second-person plural– ye. Sadly, it’s gone the way of its singular counterpart, thou. Y’all is just a (relatively) modern replacement.

    In many Indo-European languages, the second-person plural is used as a formal form for the second-person singular. Eg, French, Russian. (In others, eg, German and Danish, the third-person plural does that job.)

    It often appears that Southerners are doing the same thing with “y’all”.

    Read More
  136. @Buffalo Joe
    Auto, Thank you but I meant the possessive "y'all's".

    Auto, Thank you but I meant the possessive “y’all’s”.

    At the other end of the Empire State, y’all is youse. The possessive would thus be youses, or youse’s. Or so Moses supposes…

    Read More
  137. From the Sacramento Bee:

    …so what’s all the fuss over ‘they’?

    The Yankee counterpart of the many colorful and distinct Southern terms trash, cracker, redneck, etc, is merely different permutations of the third-person plural.

    “You don’t want to be seen with them.”

    Those people are not welcome here.”

    “Be very careful passing through their neighborhood.”

    So they can be quite loaded. Maybe this They is “reclaiming” the term?

    Read More
  138. @Corvinus
    "Yes, in God’s eyes, they would be deluded, since “He created them male and female.”

    Yet He offers forgiveness to those transpass against Him. Do you seek His forgiveness for fornicating outside of marriage?

    "But you’re not that well read on the Bible, except what Hollywood and megacorporations tell you."

    Is that what your church tells you after a night on the town prowling to pay women for sex?

    "Trannyism is a sickness, little small brain. It is not a sin if one is truly mentally deranged, as these folks are. True delusion—self-delusion by mental illeness—is not a sin."

    It's not a mental illness. Some would argue it is a medical condition, others would argue it is an individual choice.

    The small brained one is back, trying desperately to earn his paid-troll paycheck!

    Yet He offers forgiveness to those transpass against Him.

    God’s forgiveness requires admitting you did wrong and feeling regret for it. Liars like you who continue to insist we deny the truth are neither admitting you are wrong nor feeling any regret for spreading your lies.

    But nice try with another lie there, kiddo.

    It’s not a mental illness. Some would argue it is a medical condition, others would argue it is an individual choice.

    rofl. and the liar tries to bald facedly claim that his lies are the truth.

    No. Trannies are mentally sick. And you are morally sick for demanding we play along with their sickness.

    And all your lies to the contrary won’t make it the opposite, paid shill.

    Read More
  139. @Daniel Chieh
    His attempts to mimic a Southern Baptist are weird and amusing. Anyone who has been in a proper firebrand church would know how it works otherwise. Righteous anger is just one of the many things I was taught, even though I'm not even faithful these days.

    Yeah, the Left never seems to read those parts of the Bible where Jesus starts whipping people in the Temple and angrily condemning the Pharisees and tells his followers to shun those who don’t follow his code.

    Except, of course, when they try to make some convoluted, nonsensical argument that Jesus was some kind of communist revolutionary who was all about wealth redistribution and overthrowing the patriarchy and what not.

    God bless him, hope he comes to his senses before it’s too late.

    Read More
  140. @carol
    I say "he." "To each his own,"

    It feels so transgressive.

    I say “he.” “To each his own,”
    It feels so transgressive.

    Transgressive, but also correct, as “each” implies each one. And in traditional grammar, as taught pre-feminism, “he” implies “he or she”, because – my English teacher explained – the male always subsumes the female and not vice versa.
    But my apologies, Carol, for the lapse into mansplaining. It felt so transgressive.

    Read More
  141. @Autochthon
    "Y'all" is part of the regional dialect developed by Southerners and our diaspora, itself evolved from Anglo-Celtic pronunciations. (The related "ain't" is famously ubiquitous in both the Southeastern U.S.A. and Britain, though not as common in other parts of North America.)

    It is a conjunction of "you all," the phrase used to distinguish the second person plural from the first person plural.

    It’s youns in western Pennsylvania.

    Read More
  142. @whorefinder
    I'm actually starting to love this nonsense the Left throws out there. They are flexing their cultural power to force people to repeat lies and punish those who refuse, but the lies they keep spewing are so nonsensically self-defeating it sounds like they're trying to claim that believing cobra poison is deadly is a social construct before they all drink it.

    Emperor's New Clothes.

    “Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    I’m reminded of a commentor I like elsewhere who is (or at least purports to be) Asian, making the comment that the “Emperor’s New Clothes” is a silly Western fairy-tale, and that in reality, after the little kid points out the Emperor’s nakedness, what would happen is not the “preference cascade” of the story, but the little fool and his parents being executed for treason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    It's telling we have idealised a story with a moral lauding courageous honesty and the paramount imperative of empirical truth, whilst the insectoidal collectivism and conformity of Asians prompts them to mock those values in a story designed to instill such values in children, instead relishing the paramount importance of meekly playing whatever game the powerful demand and cowardly scheming to succeed within the corrupt system rather than denouncing and reforming it from outside.

    For a good recent example in the real world, we get Dr. Dao's shenanigans (both before and after his rise to fame): he didn't want to save lives, he wanted to get paid; and he doesn't want to reform the injustices and indignities perpetrated by airlines, he wants to get paid.

    This aspect if their character is another reason, by the way, that Asians are seldom innovative, creative, or inventive.
  143. @Autochthon
    Your first examples involve the usage of collective nouns' taking plural verbs.

    Your later examples involve the use of "they" when insufficient information makes the choice of any pronoun – feminine or masculine, singular of plural – entirely arbitrary (cf. Paul Reiser's hilarious and insightful routine about our universal invocation of "they" and "the guy" in such cases...).

    Neither of the two types of examples are much to do with the purposeful torture of the queen's English to encourage the psychopathy of disturbed individuals and – far more invidious and dangerous – to quite purposefully alter the language in order to control others' thoughts and ideas, and to stifle dissent, as those familiar with Orwell's writings on the topic and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis understand quite well.

    For these reasons I refuse to conflate sodomy with happiness, invaders with immigrants, immigrants with pioneers, nor men with women – RUAT CÆLUM.

    I encourage others not to, either.

    For these reasons I refuse to conflate sodomy with happiness

    No, but “the pursuit of sodomy” has a certain ring to it. Sodom today, Gomorrah the world!

    Read More
  144. @Reg Cæsar
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3v300RRGzI



    Tracy, when I'm with you
    Somethin' you do bounces me off the ceiling
    Tracy, day after day
    When you're this way, I get a lovin' feelin'
     


    I can't believe that song is 48 years old, or that my step-cousin Tracy is married to a man who's 78.

    Gosh, haven’t heard that in years! I have a sister named Amy, and, growing up, we had sister-friends named Renee and Valerie. We each had our own song :)

    But re. the 48 years: as Sir Mick Jagger said, “what a drag is it getting o-0ld.” And how.

    Read More
  145. @guest
    I should add there is an actual difference between "feminine" and "effeminate," aside from the fact that the latter is used derogatorily. There's the idea that you use "feminine" to describe that which properly is womanly, whereas effeminacy implies an underlying masculinity to which you're drawing a contrast.

    Also, "effeminate" is a verb, which means literally to "unman."

    The bit about contrast makes sense. And I had no idea that “effeminate” could be a verb, too. Interesting!

    Read More
  146. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Jim Don Bob
    This is gonna happen. Look how quickly gender, a grammatical term, replaced sex everywhere.

    But it hasn’t replaced it everywhere. Even in official SJWdom, “gender” and “sex” are officially recognized as distinct. Indeed it is a faux pas to confuse them. (They are blatantly confused in an article Steve posted on a few posts back, LA Times I think.) Moreover, there is vast swath of society that is either utterly oblivious to the supposed replacement, or finds it absurd and ignores it. It may not be the most obviously influential segment of society, but it exists.

    Read More
  147. @Buffalo Joe
    Auto, Thank you but I meant the possessive "y'all's".

    “Y’all’s” is simply the possessive pronoun (second person plural) in the dialect (“belonging to you all; belonging to all of you”). Just as “y’all” developed to distinguish the plural (otherwise being “you,” indistinguishable from the second person singular except by context), so “y’all’s” distinguishes the possessive second person plural (otherwise being “your,” indistinguishable from the possessive second person singular).

    If English had distinct terms like “nos,” “nosotros,” “nuestra,” and “nuestras” (to use Spanish as an example); these nonstandard dialects’ kludges probably would not develop (cf. “yous” nearer to your neck of the woods).

    It’s interesting to me, because English is notoriously precise in part because of its enormous vocabulary and variety of possible constructions compared to most other languages, yet the second person pronouns never seem to have evolved such precision except informally.

    Read More
  148. @Kevin C.
    "Emperor’s New Clothes."

    I'm reminded of a commentor I like elsewhere who is (or at least purports to be) Asian, making the comment that the "Emperor’s New Clothes" is a silly Western fairy-tale, and that in reality, after the little kid points out the Emperor's nakedness, what would happen is not the "preference cascade" of the story, but the little fool and his parents being executed for treason.

    It’s telling we have idealised a story with a moral lauding courageous honesty and the paramount imperative of empirical truth, whilst the insectoidal collectivism and conformity of Asians prompts them to mock those values in a story designed to instill such values in children, instead relishing the paramount importance of meekly playing whatever game the powerful demand and cowardly scheming to succeed within the corrupt system rather than denouncing and reforming it from outside.

    For a good recent example in the real world, we get Dr. Dao’s shenanigans (both before and after his rise to fame): he didn’t want to save lives, he wanted to get paid; and he doesn’t want to reform the injustices and indignities perpetrated by airlines, he wants to get paid.

    This aspect if their character is another reason, by the way, that Asians are seldom innovative, creative, or inventive.

    Read More
  149. @Thea
    Growing up in the 70s& 80s, I though the 21st century would hold widespread scientific enlightenment. Hotels in the moon, home life like the Jetsons, overall rational & intelligent people making life better. Universities would blossom with amazing discoveries.

    But really the inmates just run the asylum.

    Are most Americans genetically crazy or is in the water?

    But really the inmates just run the asylum.
    Are most Americans genetically crazy or is in the water?

    Growing up in the mid-20th Century, I thought that communist tyrannies in the USSR, China, South America and elsewhere were the Orwellian nightmare that only America could help us to avoid in our own free societies.

    But then came: the “European Union”; the collapse of the Soviet Union; a series of US/neocon wars: the social subversion of America through “cultural marxism” (a parting gift from the Soviets), multiculturalism and mass immigration; the semi-secretive pursuit of a globalist New World Order under a World Government; the attempts to replace independent, self-governing nations through globalism and open-borders policy; and an American-British surveillance state arguably more pervasive than any in the Cold War communist era and a 21st Century blueprint (in a western “democracy”) for Orwell’s “1984″.

    Thea, assuming that you are American I guess you are better placed to answer your own question. Respectfully, I suggest that, whether the answer is genetic or mineral, a more important question is what can Americans do to avert the approaching disaster?

    I write as a member of that British generation that does not forget how much we owe to the Americans (and others, including Russians!) who helped Europe to defeat Hitler’s project for a European Union under German domination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Yes that is the important question.

    I just try to teach my kids what really matters and what is really true. It feels like us little people just get crushed in the wheels of the globalist machine.
  150. @Robard
    True enough, but I'll note that the grammatical rule is dropped in the case of boys, which would indicate "die" for "Junge" and likewise for "Knabe".

    True enough, but I’ll note that the grammatical rule is dropped in the case of boys, which would indicate “die” for “Junge” and likewise for “Knabe”.

    Those words and “Mann” don’t end in “-chen”, so I don’t follow you.

    Read More
  151. @englishmike
    But really the inmates just run the asylum.
    Are most Americans genetically crazy or is in the water?

    Growing up in the mid-20th Century, I thought that communist tyrannies in the USSR, China, South America and elsewhere were the Orwellian nightmare that only America could help us to avoid in our own free societies.

    But then came: the "European Union"; the collapse of the Soviet Union; a series of US/neocon wars: the social subversion of America through "cultural marxism" (a parting gift from the Soviets), multiculturalism and mass immigration; the semi-secretive pursuit of a globalist New World Order under a World Government; the attempts to replace independent, self-governing nations through globalism and open-borders policy; and an American-British surveillance state arguably more pervasive than any in the Cold War communist era and a 21st Century blueprint (in a western "democracy") for Orwell's "1984".

    Thea, assuming that you are American I guess you are better placed to answer your own question. Respectfully, I suggest that, whether the answer is genetic or mineral, a more important question is what can Americans do to avert the approaching disaster?

    I write as a member of that British generation that does not forget how much we owe to the Americans (and others, including Russians!) who helped Europe to defeat Hitler's project for a European Union under German domination.

    Yes that is the important question.

    I just try to teach my kids what really matters and what is really true. It feels like us little people just get crushed in the wheels of the globalist machine.

    Read More
  152. Thanks for responding. Thanks to our moderator, iSteve, for allowing us to go so far off-topic.

    Something in your pessimistic remark about the little people getting crushed in the wheels of the globalist machine reminded me of the great Russian author, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. He was imprisoned for 8 years in a forced labour camp in Siberia for making implied criticisms of Stalin in a private letter. During that time he composed his book about the camps and the repressive Soviet communist tyranny, The Gulag Archipelago. Except that he was not able to write it down and risk it being discovered. So he composed whole chapters and memorised them until he was released and could do the actual writing.

    So Americans should cherish their First Amendment and fight to preserve it – even Britain doesn’t have one, and our freedoms of speech and thought are also under attack. They should also cherish this website and others like it. In Britain we don’t have anything as good. And most of our newspapers and TV news reports about US politics tend to repeat the dishonest talking points of your fake news media.

    When Solzhenitsyn was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970 he was not allowed to leave the USSR to give his acceptance speech, though it was leaked to the West anyway. In it he quoted an old Russian proverb: “One word of truth shall outweigh the whole world”. It is one of the great proverbs, in the spirit of Hemingway’s remark (in The Old Man and the Sea): “A man can be destroyed but not defeated”.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.