Sickening isn't it. And do you know what's coming next? Uterine transplants from teen girls who've been brainwashed into having hysterectomies into mentally ill autogynephiles who get off on the idea that they can gestate and give birth. The "trans" groomers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center recently gave a talk and discussed the research now going on into making this perverted pipe dream a reality. But don't take my word for it. You can get this vile garbage directly from the horse's mouth. Just follow the link below. The part about uterine transplants from women to men starts at 25:13. And you thought Brave New World went too far.
It won’t ever be a reality. All of a male body is male. A uterus will not function to carry a child in a living male body. To get this to work in a mouse they killed a crap ton of female mice before realizing they literally had to stitch the female mouse to the male so her blood could still pump to her uterus implanted in the male mouse’s abdomen. The baby mouse was then cut from his abdomen.
Whoever decided to try this hates females beyond imagination. Living males cannot tolerate the hormone levels of an actual female, much less a pregnant one. The uterus doesn’t function without those hormones and the baby doesn’t grow.
You are correct that lots of girls will be brainwashed into sterilization in attempts to appease some man’s fettish to have a uterus. They might be talked into giving up their fertility with trans ideology, or maybe they’ll just be promised woke nirvana if at 16 or 18 they agree not to bring any more children into the world because “climate.” In the end taxpayers will foot the bill for these grotesque experiments that make Mengele appear to have had ethics by comparison. Sad how far we have fallen in our search for enlightenment.
NCmom, a couple of weeks ago I stumbled across an article The Art of Making a Baby written by a group called futureof.org. The article proposed that after the artificial womb is developed, the baby would be conceived by in vitro fertilization. Then the embryo would be transferred to the woman who would carry the embryo/fetus for only three months. Then the fetus would be delivered by Caesarian section and transferred to an artificial womb for the remainder of its gestation.
The article didn't discuss men carrying the babies in transplanted uteruses. But would something like this proposed Mengele worthy nightmare be possible?
I’m not sure if it’s possible. That’s more likely than a man actually carrying a baby. That said - how many 6 month babies will die attempting to “transfer” the child? How disabled will the brain development of a baby in a fake womb be? Most humans will want to have their own children the natural way. These sick f**ks trying to play baby God are going to kill a lot of humans discovering they aren’t actually a baby god. It’s sick.
But scientists have been testing artificial wombs with animals like lambs for several years now. And we know that billionaire autogynephiles like the "m to f" Martine (nee Martin) Rothblatt, who founded United Therapeutics which produces genetically modified organs like pig hearts for xenotransplants into humans, will continue to push the transhuman envelope. Rothblatt, who has an MBA, JD, and PhD (in Medical Ethics!!!), founded Sirius XM radio. He's a brilliant, polymath, an evil genius.
Rothblatt reportedly had some connection to Jeffrey Epstein, who as you may remember wanted to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating 20 women at a time at his ranch in New Mexico. But the ultimate goal of Rothblatt goes way beyond "transgenderism" or even transhumanism. He seeks a posthuman future where biological humans no longer exist and everyone will load their "mind files" up to the cloud to live as ones and zeros somewhere out in cyberspace.
Have you heard of EctoLife - the AI-run baby growing factories that look like something out of the Matrix? Russell Brand does a hilarious segment on an otherwise horrifying idea, which looks to be only in the conceptual stage right now. And I thought I'd seen it all. Silly me. Here's Russell:
Yes, TeeJae. EctoLife is still in the conceptual stage and exists only as computer graphics. But every modern invention we use today once existed only in the conceptual stage, too. And the article I linked to before had some horrifying photos of a baby growing in the EcoLife factory.
But thank you so much for the link to Russell Brand's video that included the video from EctoLife. It was very funny and scary, too.
Dawn supplied small gametes, ergo, Dawn is dad, not woman and not mother. Dawn is trying with his pronoun badges and moralizing, to gaslight and compel speech. i am surprised at you for platforming this bilge, Colin.
The short answer is no. This is not about being polite, because when transgender activists insist on someone using their chosen pronouns there is no politeness involved, it is an extreme ideology that will cancel, destroy and humiliate you for not bending to their delusions. Just I would never acknowledge that someone who says they are Black or Asian when they are clearly not, I will not call someone she who is clearly a he. The childish and in some cases near violent reactions some transgender activists have when they are not called by their preferred pronouns hinges on narcisissm, that is just another facet of their mental condition or illness.
I am amazed it took me a decade to realize I don't owe someone born with a penis the right to my immutable biological identity to make said man or boy feel better. There is absolutely nothing kind about men and boys invading the sports and private spaces of women and girls (or the other way around). It is entitled and selfish. Entitled selfish people by definition want others to bend over backwards to appease their wishes and wants, but they aren't entitled to it, and I have no moral responsibility to coddle the delusions of those who seek to deny objective reality at a very real cost to children and women.
To be clear, I don't care if a man dresses up like a woman so long as that person stays out of sex specific places where a women might be visibly naked (even momentarily), vulnerable to males due to the location, sports, domestic violence shelters, prisons, summer camp cabins, overnight fieldtrip rooms, dorms, etc. Everyone is free to "present" however they choose so long as it doesn't involve uncovered genitals or compulsive covering of faces and follows the dress codes of wherever that person is going.
I have no right to walk up to an atheist stranger and demand they declare Jesus literally rose from the dead after 3 days and force all taxpays to foot the bill for Bible study in every public-school classroom.
Likewise, people who believe in transgenerism have no right to demand I declare men can be women and I am irate my tax dollars are being used to teach children in public schools this belief system.
Many Christians are as convinced the resurrection of Jesus is real as the most convinced trans person is convinced that he or she was born in the wrong body. Until everyone is required by law to walk around proclaiming "he is risen" all the time I will not be bullied into knowingly using the wrong pronoun to describe another human.
One of the most risible things about this column is the framing; "Pronoun Throwdown", as though this is all just some sort of a funny game, just an amusing little intellectual exercise. Maybe for Colin and other males it is, but for women who are living with the consequences it is not amusing at all, and it matters one hell of a lot.
Pronouns are Rohypnol, everyone should read this essay. To use wrong pronouns rewires your brain. When you read an article that uses transwoman or wrong pronouns for a man translate it back to reality man him he in your head and just see how your perception are righted. It's a real eye opener to the power of language. Try it!
Thank you for this. I am in the midst of requesting that pronouns be removed from my artist’s bio in a program for an upcoming performance (I didn’t include them when I submitted my bio; they were injected after the fact). I get nervous sticking my neck out like this, but, to use your words, I do not wish to become an “unwitting node” in some matrix I want no part of.
Good luck. And I mean than in all sincerity. I hope they simply remove the pronouns for you. And I hope you don't suffer any negative backlash. People shouldn't be punished for simply choosing not to participate in this belief system.
thank you! I’ve been deliberately vague about my reasons for requesting they be removed (“personal preference”), so, for all they know, I’m questioning my “gender identity” and am not ready to settle on any at the moment!
I would say if they're truly interested in equality and inclusion (which we all know they're really not, but...), then they should respect EVERYONE'S preferences, including those who DON'T want to list their pronouns. Simple as that.
Good luck. You don't even have to explain your reasons when you ask them to remove the pronouns. Aren't the good woke people supposed to check with you first and not assume anyway?
It’s inane. the text of my bio is littered with “he”, so the “(he/him)” has no informational value; it is nothing but a political signal. It’s like being forced to put a political bumper sticker on your car.
I will never use a wrong sex pronoun under any circumstances. To require me to do so, by law or by something referred to as "kindness," is a wicked form of mind control. I will not bow to anyone else's self delusion.
I will not participate in the evil that "transgenderism" promotes: doctors who slice off the healthy breasts of 12 year old girls; teachers who convince five year old boys that they can be girls, women prisoners who are raped or beaten by their male cellmates; men who invade women's rest rooms; and men who enter women's sporting contests.
I reject the anathema that is "transgenderism" in all its forms. And nothing will ever change my mind.
So in this melange you posted a piece from Don Ennis admonishing women to "be kind"; the same Don Ennis who thinks TERFs should be beaten and raped? The same Don Ennis who says that female sexual assault survivors are "weaponizing their trauma" because they don't want to undress in front of a strange man? The same Don Ennis who routinely abuses female posters here? You lost all credibility with this when you chose to prioritize the views of a man who hates women.
I think the very poor quality of Don's argument adds to the strength of this compilation. The fact that he of all people is telling women to be kind is a cherry on a cake of his idiocy, a nail in the coffin of his ideology. I thought it was brilliant to include him.
Oh! That's Scary. I'd never read anything else from Ennis so I didn't realize how verbally abusive his writing on other platforms was. Although I did see right through the shallow rhetoric used in his essay here.
I refuse to call my ex-husband and any other man who ideates a female persona "she," out of self-respect for what I and other mothers are going through with female erasure and mother erasure. I was required, during the process of my divorce (NY state, 1995-98--why so long? The judge was waiting to see if Neddy did anything illegal) I had to say "my spouse" and we used the name instead of pronouns in the documents. Individuals ideating into the opposite sex are not acting on an inborn biological marker which suddenly emerges as "phenotype." They are responding to sexual stereotypes in society, social contagion and/or childhood sexual/physical abuse. It is, as Dr. Stephen B. Levine testifies in the malpractice cases, "a psychiatric illness." It is unwise to promote a dangerous path which manifests deeper mental illness or cancer or liver failure only 10-20 years later. We must do everything we can to prevent children from being lured into this path.
I found this symposium very helpful in clarifying my own thoughts and practices around the pronoun issue. Thank you for putting it together, Colin, and for gathering such an articulate diversity of viewpoints. And thanks to all the participants. I am most aligned with Kara's take. But I appreciated the opportunity to read all of you. It gave me some things to consider.
I am with those who will use alternative pronouns in social situations where physical sex isn’t important. Just as I’ll call a coworker “Bill” even though his legal name is William, or refer to a Catholic priest as Father even though he’s not my father and he doesn’t play any kind of spiritual leadership role to me as a non-Catholic. It’s still his title within his belief system and I can acknowledge that. But what I absolutely don’t want to do is say anything that implies I have a belief in this system. I will not list my pronouns. When it is relevant, mostly in matters of law, medicine, and privacy, I will refer to someone’s physical sex. I refuse to pretend there is no such thing as physical sex. I also can’t promise that I won’t internally roll my eyes at someone’s use of a pronoun that would not traditionally apply to them, but I’ll keep it to myself. I will support a parent’s decision on what pronouns to apply to their child, as much as it disturbs me to watch parents make what I believe to be a bad decision. It’s not my place to decide that for someone else’s family. It’s not my place to decide for an adult how they want to present themselves to the world or what they want to be called, even if I think they’re making a self-destructive choice.
When it comes to my own minor child who’s been sucked into this cult-like ideology, I will NOT be using alternate pronouns. The “not my business” argument doesn’t apply in this case. She needs someone in her life who still lives in reality and I can only hope that she’ll someday realize this is not in her best interests and find her way back to reality. If she’s a mature, independent adult, supporting herself, and she still wishes to be called by different pronouns, I will probably eventually do so since I believe adults have the right to determine that for themselves. But I hope it never comes to that.
I forgot to mention that I strongly believe there should be no legal requirements to use a person’s preferred pronouns. I am a little less certain about a workplace - certainly if I persisted in calling Bill “William” after multiple requests not to, to the point where it became clear I was doing it just to antagonize him, I would expect professional repercussions. I’m not sure pronouns should be different. However, if we are discussing an employee’s use of a sex-specific space like a restroom or locker room, or an employee’s use of a program that is intended to assist an underrepresented group like women, I should be allowed to refer to the fact of their physical sex without repercussions.
In my company (30 people), we have those who use pronouns and those who do not. It all works. Nothing is mandated and never would be. Mutual respect both ways.
Where I have seen mandated pronouns abused is in Chicago schools. Specifically Chicago Public Schools, Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, Latin, Lab, Parker and other Chicago schools where you are a pariah if you do not agree to use them or share your own. This is so wrong with children. It actually made my middle son into an arch conservative (far more so than me) as he fought back.
In Chicago, it's ironic that it's perfectly OK to bring butt plugs and anal beads into a classroom (as a dean or teacher), but refusing to share your pronouns or refusing to validate others is grounds for being ostracized or worse.
And don't get me started on the gender neutral bathrooms at Lane Tech (largest high school in the city) where my oldest son went. I think we're actually creating GI problems with kids who hold it in because they don't want to use the toilet among those of the other sex. Yes, parents are actually picking up kids (or kids are driving or bussing home) to go number two.
Appreciate reading a broad range of perspectives. How do you reconcile the obligation to be kind with a reluctance to support deception is a good question. I think I would favour avoiding pronouns altogether when dealing with trans people who are not abusive towards others. Don’t feel the need to extend that same kindness to people who abuse other people’s rights.
There simply is no obligation to be kind, especially when it involves coercive speech. The left has pushed for decades this idea that "speech = violence" and we are truly starting to see the fruit. Dawn wants everyone to believe that the use of trans pronouns are a simple act of kindness, but then turns around and assumes that anyone who chooses not to participate in his delusion (and it is 100% a delusion) is committing some act of violence against him.
The truth is not kind to those who would twist it for their own purposes.
Dawn misuses the word "kind." He really means "be nice," which is a terrible thing to be (look up the etymology of the word "nice") Nice people don't take keys away from drunks who want to drive. Nice people don't yell "keep your hands to yourself" when they see a man groping a teenager on the metro. Nice people don't rock the boat. But kind people do. (It is a mistake to be nice, but seriously sinister to tell other people to be nice to you!) His poor children.
Yeah, well , there goes any pretence about being kind. Dawn (notice how I avoided a pronoun) had to immediately grovel and apologize about posting this piece on a “transphobe’s” Substack.
Isn't it interesting how quickly Don Ennis and cronies are to misgender ACTUAL WOMEN when they don't like what women say. To dehumanize them with nauseating pablum about how "women support other women" as if women are a monolithic entity that does no wrong, a fairy fantasy group where there is no competition, no anger, no disagreement. You can only be a WOMAN if you are all in agreement and in lockstep. It's pathetic and disgusting and positively Victorian. Women are all nice and sweet to one another! Sure. You are BORN a woman and Ennis was not. FACT. And Ennis misgenders women and threatens them regularly with beatings and rape. Ennis participates in rape culture. Where does Ennis get off CLAIMING to be a woman when Ennis pulls this crap that doesn't align with what he claims women are? As if Ennis would know for sure. Ennis is a fake and a fraud, and a raging misogynist. And you don't have to be a woman to make this plain, and if you do, it doesn't make you any less of a woman. Being born with the right chromosomes makes you a woman. Full stop.
re: "Dawn's" 'it costs nothing to be kind': Sure, it costs nothing - except my self-respect and grip on reality, but I'm just an actual woman, so what can those be worth?
I'm going to go with the late, great Magdalen Berns, here - I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar.
I don't understand why people keep trotting out the Shakespeare-Dickinson fallacy, and why so many people latch onto it. Saying "someone left their umbrella here" about an individual whom you cannot identify or whose sex is unknown is very different from saying "Tom left their umbrella here" about a relative or friend whose existence and sex are known to you. Yes, people have used the former construction for centuries, as shorthand for "her or his" when the person is unknown; the subject of the sentence is "anyone" or "someone" rather than a person's name. It makes no sense that we're expected to refer to people we actually know the same way we would to someone who's completely unknown or hypothetical.
I've made this point repeatedly about the fallacious notion that the "singular they" has historical precedence. It does not. The only "singular they" which can be identified is the use when the noun is ambigous - "Someone left their umbrella". In fact, "someone" can be plural. It's a completely ambiguous noun.
"Dawn is a single mom"
False. Dawn is a single dad. "mom" and "dad" are sexed nouns, equivalent to pronouns.
Women now called birthing parents or birthing bodies but Don is "mom"???
Sickening isn't it. And do you know what's coming next? Uterine transplants from teen girls who've been brainwashed into having hysterectomies into mentally ill autogynephiles who get off on the idea that they can gestate and give birth. The "trans" groomers at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center recently gave a talk and discussed the research now going on into making this perverted pipe dream a reality. But don't take my word for it. You can get this vile garbage directly from the horse's mouth. Just follow the link below. The part about uterine transplants from women to men starts at 25:13. And you thought Brave New World went too far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBK0VGqd-ww&t=1532s
It won’t ever be a reality. All of a male body is male. A uterus will not function to carry a child in a living male body. To get this to work in a mouse they killed a crap ton of female mice before realizing they literally had to stitch the female mouse to the male so her blood could still pump to her uterus implanted in the male mouse’s abdomen. The baby mouse was then cut from his abdomen.
Whoever decided to try this hates females beyond imagination. Living males cannot tolerate the hormone levels of an actual female, much less a pregnant one. The uterus doesn’t function without those hormones and the baby doesn’t grow.
You are correct that lots of girls will be brainwashed into sterilization in attempts to appease some man’s fettish to have a uterus. They might be talked into giving up their fertility with trans ideology, or maybe they’ll just be promised woke nirvana if at 16 or 18 they agree not to bring any more children into the world because “climate.” In the end taxpayers will foot the bill for these grotesque experiments that make Mengele appear to have had ethics by comparison. Sad how far we have fallen in our search for enlightenment.
Yes. It's infuriating and tragic.
NCmom, a couple of weeks ago I stumbled across an article The Art of Making a Baby written by a group called futureof.org. The article proposed that after the artificial womb is developed, the baby would be conceived by in vitro fertilization. Then the embryo would be transferred to the woman who would carry the embryo/fetus for only three months. Then the fetus would be delivered by Caesarian section and transferred to an artificial womb for the remainder of its gestation.
The article didn't discuss men carrying the babies in transplanted uteruses. But would something like this proposed Mengele worthy nightmare be possible?
https://futureof.org/medicine-1-0/art-making-baby-pregnancy/
I’m not sure if it’s possible. That’s more likely than a man actually carrying a baby. That said - how many 6 month babies will die attempting to “transfer” the child? How disabled will the brain development of a baby in a fake womb be? Most humans will want to have their own children the natural way. These sick f**ks trying to play baby God are going to kill a lot of humans discovering they aren’t actually a baby god. It’s sick.
Extremely sick and scary.
But scientists have been testing artificial wombs with animals like lambs for several years now. And we know that billionaire autogynephiles like the "m to f" Martine (nee Martin) Rothblatt, who founded United Therapeutics which produces genetically modified organs like pig hearts for xenotransplants into humans, will continue to push the transhuman envelope. Rothblatt, who has an MBA, JD, and PhD (in Medical Ethics!!!), founded Sirius XM radio. He's a brilliant, polymath, an evil genius.
Rothblatt reportedly had some connection to Jeffrey Epstein, who as you may remember wanted to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating 20 women at a time at his ranch in New Mexico. But the ultimate goal of Rothblatt goes way beyond "transgenderism" or even transhumanism. He seeks a posthuman future where biological humans no longer exist and everyone will load their "mind files" up to the cloud to live as ones and zeros somewhere out in cyberspace.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-baby-ranch-transhumanism-scientists.html
Have you heard of EctoLife - the AI-run baby growing factories that look like something out of the Matrix? Russell Brand does a hilarious segment on an otherwise horrifying idea, which looks to be only in the conceptual stage right now. And I thought I'd seen it all. Silly me. Here's Russell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvCtUNNeWuw
Yes, TeeJae. EctoLife is still in the conceptual stage and exists only as computer graphics. But every modern invention we use today once existed only in the conceptual stage, too. And the article I linked to before had some horrifying photos of a baby growing in the EcoLife factory.
But thank you so much for the link to Russell Brand's video that included the video from EctoLife. It was very funny and scary, too.
Good point!
Absolutely right, Mark. Since the genetic material Dawn contributed was sperm, Dawn is the father of his children.
Dawn supplied small gametes, ergo, Dawn is dad, not woman and not mother. Dawn is trying with his pronoun badges and moralizing, to gaslight and compel speech. i am surprised at you for platforming this bilge, Colin.
The short answer is no. This is not about being polite, because when transgender activists insist on someone using their chosen pronouns there is no politeness involved, it is an extreme ideology that will cancel, destroy and humiliate you for not bending to their delusions. Just I would never acknowledge that someone who says they are Black or Asian when they are clearly not, I will not call someone she who is clearly a he. The childish and in some cases near violent reactions some transgender activists have when they are not called by their preferred pronouns hinges on narcisissm, that is just another facet of their mental condition or illness.
I am amazed it took me a decade to realize I don't owe someone born with a penis the right to my immutable biological identity to make said man or boy feel better. There is absolutely nothing kind about men and boys invading the sports and private spaces of women and girls (or the other way around). It is entitled and selfish. Entitled selfish people by definition want others to bend over backwards to appease their wishes and wants, but they aren't entitled to it, and I have no moral responsibility to coddle the delusions of those who seek to deny objective reality at a very real cost to children and women.
To be clear, I don't care if a man dresses up like a woman so long as that person stays out of sex specific places where a women might be visibly naked (even momentarily), vulnerable to males due to the location, sports, domestic violence shelters, prisons, summer camp cabins, overnight fieldtrip rooms, dorms, etc. Everyone is free to "present" however they choose so long as it doesn't involve uncovered genitals or compulsive covering of faces and follows the dress codes of wherever that person is going.
I have no right to walk up to an atheist stranger and demand they declare Jesus literally rose from the dead after 3 days and force all taxpays to foot the bill for Bible study in every public-school classroom.
Likewise, people who believe in transgenerism have no right to demand I declare men can be women and I am irate my tax dollars are being used to teach children in public schools this belief system.
Many Christians are as convinced the resurrection of Jesus is real as the most convinced trans person is convinced that he or she was born in the wrong body. Until everyone is required by law to walk around proclaiming "he is risen" all the time I will not be bullied into knowingly using the wrong pronoun to describe another human.
One of the most risible things about this column is the framing; "Pronoun Throwdown", as though this is all just some sort of a funny game, just an amusing little intellectual exercise. Maybe for Colin and other males it is, but for women who are living with the consequences it is not amusing at all, and it matters one hell of a lot.
Pronouns are Rohypnol, everyone should read this essay. To use wrong pronouns rewires your brain. When you read an article that uses transwoman or wrong pronouns for a man translate it back to reality man him he in your head and just see how your perception are righted. It's a real eye opener to the power of language. Try it!
I’m with Kara and Sall. These women don’t put up with any nonsense or bullshit, and we should follow their lead.
Thank you for this. I am in the midst of requesting that pronouns be removed from my artist’s bio in a program for an upcoming performance (I didn’t include them when I submitted my bio; they were injected after the fact). I get nervous sticking my neck out like this, but, to use your words, I do not wish to become an “unwitting node” in some matrix I want no part of.
Good luck. And I mean than in all sincerity. I hope they simply remove the pronouns for you. And I hope you don't suffer any negative backlash. People shouldn't be punished for simply choosing not to participate in this belief system.
thank you! I’ve been deliberately vague about my reasons for requesting they be removed (“personal preference”), so, for all they know, I’m questioning my “gender identity” and am not ready to settle on any at the moment!
I would say if they're truly interested in equality and inclusion (which we all know they're really not, but...), then they should respect EVERYONE'S preferences, including those who DON'T want to list their pronouns. Simple as that.
Good luck. You don't even have to explain your reasons when you ask them to remove the pronouns. Aren't the good woke people supposed to check with you first and not assume anyway?
It’s inane. the text of my bio is littered with “he”, so the “(he/him)” has no informational value; it is nothing but a political signal. It’s like being forced to put a political bumper sticker on your car.
Exactly right! No one expects us to include the political party or religion we identify with next to our name, so why gender? It's all so ludicrous.
I will never use a wrong sex pronoun under any circumstances. To require me to do so, by law or by something referred to as "kindness," is a wicked form of mind control. I will not bow to anyone else's self delusion.
I will not participate in the evil that "transgenderism" promotes: doctors who slice off the healthy breasts of 12 year old girls; teachers who convince five year old boys that they can be girls, women prisoners who are raped or beaten by their male cellmates; men who invade women's rest rooms; and men who enter women's sporting contests.
I reject the anathema that is "transgenderism" in all its forms. And nothing will ever change my mind.
So in this melange you posted a piece from Don Ennis admonishing women to "be kind"; the same Don Ennis who thinks TERFs should be beaten and raped? The same Don Ennis who says that female sexual assault survivors are "weaponizing their trauma" because they don't want to undress in front of a strange man? The same Don Ennis who routinely abuses female posters here? You lost all credibility with this when you chose to prioritize the views of a man who hates women.
I think the very poor quality of Don's argument adds to the strength of this compilation. The fact that he of all people is telling women to be kind is a cherry on a cake of his idiocy, a nail in the coffin of his ideology. I thought it was brilliant to include him.
Agree. I hope he reads the comments so he knows I won’t coddle his delusions nor will I wear his fear on my face.
"I think the very poor quality of Don's argument adds to the strength of this compilation."
Not if the context of his other remarks isn't included.
Oh! That's Scary. I'd never read anything else from Ennis so I didn't realize how verbally abusive his writing on other platforms was. Although I did see right through the shallow rhetoric used in his essay here.
I feel the same. His essay was painful to read. If I was grading him I’d give him a D-
And the same Don Ennis who apparently thinks Chaucer’s first name was Gregory.
I refuse to call my ex-husband and any other man who ideates a female persona "she," out of self-respect for what I and other mothers are going through with female erasure and mother erasure. I was required, during the process of my divorce (NY state, 1995-98--why so long? The judge was waiting to see if Neddy did anything illegal) I had to say "my spouse" and we used the name instead of pronouns in the documents. Individuals ideating into the opposite sex are not acting on an inborn biological marker which suddenly emerges as "phenotype." They are responding to sexual stereotypes in society, social contagion and/or childhood sexual/physical abuse. It is, as Dr. Stephen B. Levine testifies in the malpractice cases, "a psychiatric illness." It is unwise to promote a dangerous path which manifests deeper mental illness or cancer or liver failure only 10-20 years later. We must do everything we can to prevent children from being lured into this path.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKOicaZZ_kg&t=8s
I found this symposium very helpful in clarifying my own thoughts and practices around the pronoun issue. Thank you for putting it together, Colin, and for gathering such an articulate diversity of viewpoints. And thanks to all the participants. I am most aligned with Kara's take. But I appreciated the opportunity to read all of you. It gave me some things to consider.
I am with those who will use alternative pronouns in social situations where physical sex isn’t important. Just as I’ll call a coworker “Bill” even though his legal name is William, or refer to a Catholic priest as Father even though he’s not my father and he doesn’t play any kind of spiritual leadership role to me as a non-Catholic. It’s still his title within his belief system and I can acknowledge that. But what I absolutely don’t want to do is say anything that implies I have a belief in this system. I will not list my pronouns. When it is relevant, mostly in matters of law, medicine, and privacy, I will refer to someone’s physical sex. I refuse to pretend there is no such thing as physical sex. I also can’t promise that I won’t internally roll my eyes at someone’s use of a pronoun that would not traditionally apply to them, but I’ll keep it to myself. I will support a parent’s decision on what pronouns to apply to their child, as much as it disturbs me to watch parents make what I believe to be a bad decision. It’s not my place to decide that for someone else’s family. It’s not my place to decide for an adult how they want to present themselves to the world or what they want to be called, even if I think they’re making a self-destructive choice.
When it comes to my own minor child who’s been sucked into this cult-like ideology, I will NOT be using alternate pronouns. The “not my business” argument doesn’t apply in this case. She needs someone in her life who still lives in reality and I can only hope that she’ll someday realize this is not in her best interests and find her way back to reality. If she’s a mature, independent adult, supporting herself, and she still wishes to be called by different pronouns, I will probably eventually do so since I believe adults have the right to determine that for themselves. But I hope it never comes to that.
I forgot to mention that I strongly believe there should be no legal requirements to use a person’s preferred pronouns. I am a little less certain about a workplace - certainly if I persisted in calling Bill “William” after multiple requests not to, to the point where it became clear I was doing it just to antagonize him, I would expect professional repercussions. I’m not sure pronouns should be different. However, if we are discussing an employee’s use of a sex-specific space like a restroom or locker room, or an employee’s use of a program that is intended to assist an underrepresented group like women, I should be allowed to refer to the fact of their physical sex without repercussions.
In my company (30 people), we have those who use pronouns and those who do not. It all works. Nothing is mandated and never would be. Mutual respect both ways.
Where I have seen mandated pronouns abused is in Chicago schools. Specifically Chicago Public Schools, Bernard Zell Anshe Emet Day School, Latin, Lab, Parker and other Chicago schools where you are a pariah if you do not agree to use them or share your own. This is so wrong with children. It actually made my middle son into an arch conservative (far more so than me) as he fought back.
In Chicago, it's ironic that it's perfectly OK to bring butt plugs and anal beads into a classroom (as a dean or teacher), but refusing to share your pronouns or refusing to validate others is grounds for being ostracized or worse.
And don't get me started on the gender neutral bathrooms at Lane Tech (largest high school in the city) where my oldest son went. I think we're actually creating GI problems with kids who hold it in because they don't want to use the toilet among those of the other sex. Yes, parents are actually picking up kids (or kids are driving or bussing home) to go number two.
Appreciate reading a broad range of perspectives. How do you reconcile the obligation to be kind with a reluctance to support deception is a good question. I think I would favour avoiding pronouns altogether when dealing with trans people who are not abusive towards others. Don’t feel the need to extend that same kindness to people who abuse other people’s rights.
There simply is no obligation to be kind, especially when it involves coercive speech. The left has pushed for decades this idea that "speech = violence" and we are truly starting to see the fruit. Dawn wants everyone to believe that the use of trans pronouns are a simple act of kindness, but then turns around and assumes that anyone who chooses not to participate in his delusion (and it is 100% a delusion) is committing some act of violence against him.
The truth is not kind to those who would twist it for their own purposes.
Dawn misuses the word "kind." He really means "be nice," which is a terrible thing to be (look up the etymology of the word "nice") Nice people don't take keys away from drunks who want to drive. Nice people don't yell "keep your hands to yourself" when they see a man groping a teenager on the metro. Nice people don't rock the boat. But kind people do. (It is a mistake to be nice, but seriously sinister to tell other people to be nice to you!) His poor children.
Dawn Ellis is abusive towards JK Rowling at the top of his substack today.
Yeah, well , there goes any pretence about being kind. Dawn (notice how I avoided a pronoun) had to immediately grovel and apologize about posting this piece on a “transphobe’s” Substack.
Isn't it interesting how quickly Don Ennis and cronies are to misgender ACTUAL WOMEN when they don't like what women say. To dehumanize them with nauseating pablum about how "women support other women" as if women are a monolithic entity that does no wrong, a fairy fantasy group where there is no competition, no anger, no disagreement. You can only be a WOMAN if you are all in agreement and in lockstep. It's pathetic and disgusting and positively Victorian. Women are all nice and sweet to one another! Sure. You are BORN a woman and Ennis was not. FACT. And Ennis misgenders women and threatens them regularly with beatings and rape. Ennis participates in rape culture. Where does Ennis get off CLAIMING to be a woman when Ennis pulls this crap that doesn't align with what he claims women are? As if Ennis would know for sure. Ennis is a fake and a fraud, and a raging misogynist. And you don't have to be a woman to make this plain, and if you do, it doesn't make you any less of a woman. Being born with the right chromosomes makes you a woman. Full stop.
Helpful Summary:
1. Don't tell me what to say, also depends.
2. Lying is bad and has affects that go beyond the present moment.
3. Don't tell people what to say, also be nice, also depends.
4. Be nice, also being nice and lying aren't actually contradictory.
5. Consider being nice because people are crazy.
6. As long as you know who I'm talking about does it really matter?
7. Being nice isn't actually nice because lying is bad.
8. I'm nice sometimes, but draw the line at the age of eighteen, basketball, and delusional people.
Perhaps unreasonably short, but even so, I think they're reasonably fair. Also, this piece has an excellent title.
re: "Dawn's" 'it costs nothing to be kind': Sure, it costs nothing - except my self-respect and grip on reality, but I'm just an actual woman, so what can those be worth?
I'm going to go with the late, great Magdalen Berns, here - I'd rather be rude than a fucking liar.
I don't understand why people keep trotting out the Shakespeare-Dickinson fallacy, and why so many people latch onto it. Saying "someone left their umbrella here" about an individual whom you cannot identify or whose sex is unknown is very different from saying "Tom left their umbrella here" about a relative or friend whose existence and sex are known to you. Yes, people have used the former construction for centuries, as shorthand for "her or his" when the person is unknown; the subject of the sentence is "anyone" or "someone" rather than a person's name. It makes no sense that we're expected to refer to people we actually know the same way we would to someone who's completely unknown or hypothetical.
I've made this point repeatedly about the fallacious notion that the "singular they" has historical precedence. It does not. The only "singular they" which can be identified is the use when the noun is ambigous - "Someone left their umbrella". In fact, "someone" can be plural. It's a completely ambiguous noun.
Excellent point! Thank you.