Posted on

WALSH: You Get Your Own Name. It Can Be Whatever You Want. But You Don’t Get Your Own Pronouns.

Twitter informs me that today, October 16, is a Holy Day of Observation known as Pronouns Day. Following the sacred traditions of our ancestors, Pronouns Day provides the LGBT crew with yet another opportunity to lecture the world about how we are all supposed to think, speak, and behave. That is a very good thing because they did not get enough of a chance on International Transgender Day of Visibility (March 31), Lesbian Visibility Day (April 26), International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (May 17), Harvey Milk Day (May 22), Pansexual and Panromantic Visibility Day (May 24), Pride Month (June), Bisexuality Day (September 23), Bisexual Awareness Week (September 23 – September 30), National Coming Out Day (October 11), National LGBT Center Awareness Day (October 19), Spirit Day (October 20), Intersex Awareness Day (October 26), Asexual Awareness Week (October 23 – 29), Transgender Day Of Remembrance (November 20), Pansexual/Panromantic Pride Day (December 8), and Transgender Trisexual Tricyclists on Trampolines Awareness Day (December 19). I only made one of those up. The point is, LGBT folks apparently need a lot of days dedicated to themselves, and that is where Pronouns Day comes in.

At first blush, it may seem odd to have a day set aside for a grammatical construct. Why not a Verb Day or an Adjective Day or a Preposition Day? Well, I’m sure we’re headed in that direction, as the English language becomes more and more subjectivized and people are increasingly encouraged to make up their own grammatical rules as they go. Besides, it might take a whole day to learn all of the wacky and wild new pronouns that have been invented out of whole cloth in recent years. The ever-growing list includes such gobbledygook as “ze,” “hir,” “xemself,” “ver,” “xyrs,” “perself,” “(f)aerself,” “xem,” “xex,” and “zelfself.” I made two of those up but you can’t tell which ones, and that’s the point. None of these are words. They are just random letters and sounds blended into a linguistic frappe. We now live in a culture where a sentence like the following is supposed to mean something: “Ve went to the store with per and met xem and ze got into xyr car and drove home.” You have no idea what I was just conveying there, and neither do I. Mainly because I was speaking gibberish.

This is the problem with the whole idea of people claiming their own pronouns. A pronoun, again, is a grammatical construct. It must be deployed according to the laws of grammar, not the fickle whims of the individual to whom it refers. If I am standing on a table, and you want to communicate to someone else about the fact that I am standing on the table, you will say “he is standing on the table.” It would be grammatically incorrect to say “she is standing on the table,” as “she” denotes a human female, which I am not. It would also be incorrect to say “they are standing on the table,” as that indicates more than one person on the table, which there is not. And it would be incorrect to say “xe is standing on the table,” as that suggests that there is some sort of space alien on the table, which there is not.

In a similar way, if I am standing on a table and I insist that my preferred preposition is “off,” it would make no sense for you to respect my preferences and tell everyone that I am standing off the table. I may prefer the word off — whatever it means to prefer a certain word to another — but that doesn’t change the objective fact that I am indeed on the table. Prepositions, nouns, verbs, and pronouns are meant to convey objective facts about reality. If they are not going to perform that function, then they no longer perform any function at all. And meaningful, useful words have been reduced to impotent nonsense.

But shouldn’t we just be polite and call people by their preferred pronouns, anyway?

Answer: No. And here’s why.

First, you don’t generally call someone a pronoun when you’re speaking to them. If you want to address a person directly, you use his or her name. And a name can be whatever you want it to be. If a woman says her name is Fred, or a man says his name is Sally, I will call her Fred and him Sally. Names are, by definition, personal and basically arbitrary. Pronouns are more objective and also, generally, more distant. You are usually called by a pronoun when you are not physically present for the discussion. So when someone insists on a preferred pronoun, he/she is trying to prevent you from using proper grammar even when he/she is not in the room with you. He/she is essentially saying, “Whenever you refer to me, even if I am 10 thousand miles away, you must abandon the rules of grammar and parrot whatever nonsense I assign to you.” That’s not only absurd — it’s also arrogant in the extreme.

Second, using an incorrect pronoun (incorrect as in a pronoun that does not properly convey objective reality) is not only nonsensical but also dishonest. If I say “she did this and that” when I really mean “he did this and that,” I am lying. I may be lying with the best intentions, but a lie is a lie.

But doesn’t grammar and language evolve over time?

Yes, it does. However, language evolves according to coherent rules and standards. That’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about people making up their own rules individually, which isn’t evolution, but devolution and collapse. Language is being destroyed, not simply changed or modified, by LGBT activists.

Besides, we aren’t talking merely about changes in language. If we all decide to start using the word “xem” instead of “him,” fine. It seems a little weird and Dr. Seuss-y to me, but there is no reason why the word “him” has to always be “him.” Different languages have their own words for “him.” And sometimes those words change. That’s okay. But the LGBT lobby isn’t asking us to exchange one word for another. Rather, the lobby is asking (demanding) that we pretend to believe in entire new categories of human existence.

“Xem” isn’t a new word for “him.” “Xem” is supposed to be a completely separate sort of person — neither a her nor a him. But nobody can even begin to explain what a “xem” is, exactly, and how it differs from her or him. They only say “some people identify as xem.” But identify as what? What is that? What does it mean to identify as that? Tell me about the experience of discovering that you are a xem. What does a xem do differently? What are the biological markers of a xem? And how does a xem differ from a xyr or a zer or a vim or a dabbadabbadoodlefim? It is one thing for me to suggest that we start calling elephants “shmelephants” from now on. It is another thing for me to insist that there are separate creatures called “shmelephants” who are entirely distinct from elephants. We have moved now from language to biology, and I am going to have to provide some kind of proof that these mythical shmelephants exist and are indeed different from elephants.

Nobody can provide any proof for any of these claims or any coherent answers to any of the questions I have posed. We are supposed to just accept their assertions, however incoherent, and timidly cooperate as they mutilate our language and make nonsense out of everything. But I am not willing to provide my cooperation. And I make no apologies for that.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

Posted on

WATCH: GOP Rep. Andy Biggs DENIED ACCESS to Schiff’s “Secret Chamber” Where He is Running Unauthorized Impeachment Inquiry


Congressman Biggs

Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) said Wednesday he was denied access to House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff’s “secret chamber” where he is running his unauthorized sham impeachment inquiry.

“I was just denied access to Adam Schiff’s secret chamber where he is running the unauthorized impeachment inquiry of President Trump,” Biggs said shortly before he called for Adam Schiff to be condemned and censured. Over 160 members of Congress have co-sponsored Biggs’ motion to censure Schiff.

“Chairman Schiff and Speaker Pelosi are intentionally running Soviet-style hearings to deprive the American people of representation,” he added.

Rep. Biggs told a gaggle of reporters that Pelosi and Schiff are running ‘Soviet style’ impeachment hearings to block Minority members of the House of Representatives from sitting in and listening to testimonies.

To further add to the secrecy surrounding the testimonies, Biggs said the Democrats won’t even release to the GOP representatives the transcripts from the hearings.

If the full House were to vote on the impeachment inquiry, it would give every member of the House access to the hearings — this is one of the reasons why Pelosi refuses to bring the vote to the House floor.

WATCH:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) confirmed to her Democrat Caucus on Tuesday that there will be no formal floor vote to officially launch an impeachment probe against President Trump.

Fox News host Sean Hannity said it’s because Pelosi simply doesn’t have the votes to support her impeachment probe.

That may be true, but the Democrats are using the secret impeachment circus to deny Trump basic due process.

Pelosi and her fellow Democrat coup plotters are moving full steam ahead with secret impeachment proceedings ‘to keep President Trump and his lawyers in the dark,’ as Adam Schiff previously stated.

And so Schiff can selectively leak to the media…

The crooked Democrats on Tuesday changed the rules again in their sham impeachment inquiry.

The Dems shifted the closed-door interviews to depositions in order to limit the questioning to one attorney per round.

Another reason why Pelosi won’t hold a full House vote on the floor is because she will expose vulnerable red-state Democrats who are up for a tough reelection in 2020 — Pelosi knows the majority of Americans do no support impeachment.

The post WATCH: GOP Rep. Andy Biggs DENIED ACCESS to Schiff’s “Secret Chamber” Where He is Running Unauthorized Impeachment Inquiry appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

Netflix is the next big company showing off its woke hypocrisy

Big corporations like the NBA and Blizzard Entertainment have been struggling to square their woke politics at home with their silence on human rights abroad. Video streaming service Netflix is now also on the verge of displaying a very similar kind of hypocrisy.

A few months ago, Netflix’s chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, announced the company might pull its productions out of Georgia because the state had passed a pro-life heartbeat law. Furthermore, he promised Netflix would work with the ACLU to fight the law in court. Here’s the NY Times report from May:

If unchallenged, the law will go into effect in January 2020. Should that happen, Netflix, which has productions in the state including the series “Stranger Things” and “Ozark,” along with the coming film “Holidate,” is suggesting it might consider boycotting, too.

“We have many women working on productions in Georgia, whose rights, along with millions of others, will be severely restricted by this law,” Sarandos said in a statement released Monday, and first reported by Variety. “It’s why we will work with the A.C.L.U. and others to fight it in court. Given the legislation has not yet been implemented, we’ll continue to film there — while also supporting partners and artists who choose not to. Should it ever come into effect, we’d rethink our entire investment in Georgia.”

Today, CNN Business reports that Netflix’s stand on abortion won’t play as well in some of the foreign locations where it is now producing shows. So the question is whether CNN will decide to stay silent on abortion when it does work abroad:

The company has been expanding its global footprint to places like the Middle East, where abortion access is restricted. Eventually, it will have a choice to make: does it apply those values consistently, or risk looking hypocritical? Netflix declined to make Sarandos available for an interview with CNN Business. But some think a strong stance in Georgia could put pressure on the company to apply the same standards globally…

Even as it was putting out the statement about Georgia’s heartbeat law, it announced a new show that would film in Egypt, which outlaws abortion unless a woman’s life is at risk. It also has two original series filmed in Jordan, which severely restricts abortion rights as well.

If the Georgia law eventually goes into effect and Sarandos and Netflix make good on the threat to pull out of the state, the company could open itself up to criticism for staying in regions like the Middle East. How will it draw those lines? Netflix did not respond for a request for comment on that question.

“As we get into Netflix being available around the world, we get into human rights issues,” Hardart said. “Georgia is a microcosm of what will happen around the world.”

The Georgia heartbeat law was set to take effect on January 1, 2020, but a judge has blocked it. That was considered a win by Planned Parenthood and, presumably, by Netflix. But Planned Parenthood isn’t opening abortion clinics in Egypt or Jordan. Netflix is filming shows there. So will the company attempt to pressure those governments as well or is this another case where woke politics stops at the border?

The fact that Netflix’s Sarandos isn’t interested in answer questions about it suggests to me he is probably watching the meltdown at the NBA and Blizzard Entertainment and has decided not to volunteer for the same treatment. But they can’t dodge the question forever. It’s absurd that major companies have to issue what amounts to foreign policy statements now, but that seems like an inevitable outcome when woke politics becomes a corporate focus.

The post Netflix is the next big company showing off its woke hypocrisy appeared first on Hot Air.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com

Posted on

AWKWARD: Barack Obama Endorses Justin Trudeau Ahead of Canada’s Election – Ignores Joe Biden

This was awkward.

Barack Obama on Wednesday inserted himself into Canada’s election and gave far-left Prime Minister Justin “Blackface” Trudeau an unusual endorsement.

“I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He’s a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term,” Barack Obama said in a tweet.

Twitter users immediately accused Obama of foreign election meddling, but they also pointed out that he still has not endorsed his former Vice President who is now running against Trump for the White House — Joe Biden.

In fact, it was reported by The New York Times that Barack Obama cautioned Biden against running in 2020 and said, “you don’t have to do this, Joe, you really don’t.”

Twitter users mocked “poor” Joe Biden on Wednesday after Obama passed him over for Trudeau.

Trump was right. Obama pulled Joe Biden out of the trash heap when he chose him to be his Vice President.

The post AWKWARD: Barack Obama Endorses Justin Trudeau Ahead of Canada’s Election – Ignores Joe Biden appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Posted on

George Soros, Kimmel, O’Donnell, Others Throw Money Behind McConnell Challenger

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has had a smorgasbord of problems to deal with in the last few months, including death threats. Now, big-name liberals from mega-donors to media elites and Hollywood circles are trying to oust him from office by packing his primary challenger with campaign cash.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Posted on

Horrifying Report Says Girls Hold in Urine, Don’t Drink, Skip School To Avoid Boys in Gender-Neutral Restrooms

Can unisex bathrooms lead to bladder infections for young girls? Because of how they’re being implemented in the United Kingdom, at least one doctor thinks so.

The Daily Mail reported Sunday that young girls have become so intimidated by the prospect of using gender-neutral bathrooms that they’re taking drastic steps to avoid using them — up to and including staying home from school.

The report said parents and students had shared their apprehension about using the bathrooms, an increasingly commonplace thing in the U.K. in spite of parental petition drives.

“With a growing number of both primary and secondary schools installing unisex toilets, some girls are risking infections by refusing to urinate all day,” the outlet reported.

“Others are so fearful they have stopped drinking liquids at school.”

TRENDING: CNN Didn’t Disclose That Audience Member Who Set Warren Up for Viral Soundbite Was Maxed Out Donor

Menstruating girls have even said they’re staying home from school because they’re afraid of feeling “period shame.”

Others said they simply didn’t feel safe using the bathroom with boys.

“The trend for single-sex toilets is driven by the wish to be more inclusive of children who identify as transgender and wish to use the same facilities as the opposite sex,” the Daily Mail reported.

“But last night, doctors and politicians called on schools to halt the move towards unisex toilets to prevent any further harm to female pupils,” it said.

Do you think unisex toilets are a bad idea?

0% (0 Votes)

0% (0 Votes)

One doctor told the outlet that the effects of the gender-neutral bathrooms go beyond just the psychological.

According to Dr. Tessa Katz, holding urine or not drinking during the day, if done regularly, could lead to infections of the urinary tract or bladder.

“The psychological effects of girls not feeling safe enough to use mixed-sex toilets is also concerning,” Katz said.

This comes as unisex bathrooms have become a major cultural issue in the U.K., with the Royal Institution of Great Britain — a science education organization — sponsoring a set of debates at schools on the subject.

“Hundreds of schools are expected to download the RI’s debate kits, which give pupils different roles to play, from concerned father to transgender teenager, to reflect a wide range of perspectives on what is a sensitive topic,” iNews reported in April.

RELATED: Transgender Who Called Mispronunciation of Name ‘Violence’ Spent 10 Years in Prison for Actual Violence

In case you wondered how the topic was going to be handled, the Royal Institute’s head of education removed all doubt.

“We tried quite hard to avoid this topic,” Dom McDonald said. “But the more we thought about it, the more we thought this topic crystallized many questions around identity and genetics; nature versus nurture; and social, ethical and moral considerations. …

“Those of us who are middle-aged are a long way behind the thinking of people who are 15. That doesn’t make us wrong or right, but we really wanted to give kids the sense that their opinions in this sort of area are valid. We wanted to show children that they can have useful, interesting opinions about science or topics relating to science without needing to be a scientist.”

The mind boggles at the implications regarding that statement. McDonald said changes in how young people perceive gender were “the biggest visible change in social mores” he’d seen during his life.

Apparently, this change isn’t quite so complete, as the Daily Mail’s report showed. And it’s not just the female students who are feeling unsafe. Their parents aren’t quite on board with the idea, either. At one West London primary school, parents are collecting signatures against a changeover to gender-neutral bathrooms.

“The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over,” the parent of 4- and 8-year-old girls at Deanesfield Primary School in South Ruislip said.

The Daily Mail also reported that “Stephanie Davies-Arai, from the parent campaign group Transgender Trend, said schools were being misinformed by ‘trans activist’ organizations that they were breaking equality laws if they did not make toilets unisex.

“She said there were clear exemptions under the current equality laws that meant it was perfectly legal to have single-sex toilets.”

Conservative Party Member of Parliament David Davies agreed.

“If girls are not comfortable sharing toilets with boys, then schools should make provision for them, rather than saying girls have got a problem,” Davies, who has been a vocal critic of the push toward gender-neutral bathrooms, said.

The Daily Mail said Davies has “backed feminist claims that transgender rights are overriding those of women.”

At the point which these concerns are considered prejudicial, yes.

The objections to unisex bathrooms have always had little — in fact, nothing — to do with transgender individuals. They’ve had everything to do with the predations of those who would look to take advantage of unisex restrooms to put others, almost universally female, at risk.

That should never happen just so politicians and school officials can seem “woke.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via The Western Journal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com

Posted on

Beto Says He Would Send Cops to Collect People’s Guns

Former congressman and Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke (D., Texas) said during a Tuesday appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he would send law enforcement to people’s homes to seize their guns if they did not turn them in under his proposed mandatory buyback scheme.

"Let’s just assume there’s a rancher in Texas that says ‘I’m not going to do this because this is an unjust law and it’s unconstitutional.’ What’s the next step?" asked host Joe Scarborough. "I think that’s what we need to concede because there will be people who don’t turn their guns back in. What’s the next step for the federal government there?"

"I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," O’Rourke said. "In that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm, to make sure it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else."

O’Rourke’s remarks follow his declaration at September’s primary debate that "hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." During Tuesday night’s debate, O’Rourke promised "other consequences" for those who would not voluntarily surrender their firearms. Now, it appears those "other consequences" include law enforcement being sent to take guns away.

Recent polling indicates that O’Rourke’s unprecedented plan netted him zero added support. O’Rourke is currently polling under three percent, and has languished at the bottom of the pack for the past several months, despite this and other recent policy shifts.

The post Beto Says He Would Send Cops to Collect People’s Guns appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Posted on

Warren Repeatedly Dodges Question About Middle Class Tax Hike to Finance Medicare for All

Democratic presidential hopeful Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren took part in the CNN/New York Times sponsored debate in Westerville, Ohio on October 15, 2019. (Photo by /AFP via Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) – Democrat presidential front-runner Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) refused several opportunities Tuesday night to answer a yes-or-no question about whether she plans to raise taxes on most Americans to pay for her “gold standard” Medicare for All plan.

“You have not specified how you’re going to pay for the most expensive plan, Medicare for All,” one of the debate moderators told Warren. “Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, yes or no?”

Warren responded: “So I have made clear what my principles are here, and that is costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations. And for hard-working, middle-class families, costs will go down.”

Warren added that no one should have to worry about how they’re going to pay for their health care, especially after a dire diagnosis.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg challenged Warren on her (non)answer:

Well, we heard it tonight, a yes or no question that didn’t get a yes or no answer. Look, this is why people here in the Midwest are so frustrated with Washington in general and Capitol Hill in particular. Your signature, Senator, is to have a plan for everything. Except this.

No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this Medicare-for-All plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in. And the thing is, we really can deliver health care for every American and move forward with the boldest, biggest transformation since the inception of Medicare itself.

But the way to do it — without a giant multi-trillion-dollar hole and without having to avoid a yes-or-no question — is Medicare for all who want it. We take a version of Medicare. We let you access it if you want to. And if you prefer to stay on your private plan, you can do that, too. That is what most Americans want, Medicare for all who want it, trusting you to make the right decision for your health care and for your family. And it can be delivered without an increase on the middle-class taxes.

Warren, asked to respond to Buttigieg, said “Medicare for All is the gold standard.”

“It is the way we get health care coverage for every single American, including the family whose child has been diagnosed with cancer, including the person who’s just gotten an MS diagnosis. That’s how we make sure that everyone gets health care.

“We can pay for this,” she said, then repeated: “I’ve laid out the basic principles. Costs are going to go up for the wealthy. They’re going to go up for big corporations. They will not go up for middle-class families. And I will not sign a bill into law that raises their costs, because costs are what people care about.”

Buttigieg responded that American people want “a choice.”

And the choice of Medicare for all who want it, which is affordable for everyone, because we make sure that the subsidies are in place, allows you to get that health care. It’s just better than Medicare for all whether you want it or not.

And I don’t understand why you believe the only way to deliver affordable coverage to everybody is to obliterate private plans, kicking 150 million Americans off of their insurance in four short years, when we could achieve that same big, bold goal — and once again, we have a president — we’re competing to be president for the day after Trump.

Our country will be horrifyingly polarized, even more than now, after everything we’ve been through, after everything we are about to go through, this country will be even more divided. Why unnecessarily divide this country over health care when there’s a better way to deliver coverage for all?

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), taking credit for writing “the damn bill,” said under his Medicare for All bill, “Premiums are gone. Co-payments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of-pocket expenses are gone…At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their health care bills.

“But I do think it is appropriate to acknowledge that taxes will go up. They’re going to go up significantly for the wealthy. And for virtually everybody, the tax increase they pay will be substantially less — substantially less than what they were paying for premiums and out-of-pocket expansions.”

The moderator returned to Warren: “Senator Warren, will you acknowledge what the senator just said about taxes going up?”

Warren repeated: “So my view on this, and what I have committed to, is costs will go down for hardworking, middle-class families. I will not embrace a plan like Medicare for All who can afford it that will leave behind millions of people who cannot…(She changed the subject).

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) chimed in:

At least Bernie’s being honest here and saying how he’s going to pay for this and that taxes are going to go up. And I’m sorry, Elizabeth, but you have not said that, and I think we owe it to the American people to tell them where we’re going to send the invoice.

I believe the best and boldest idea here is to not trash Obamacare but to do exactly what Barack Obama wanted to do from the beginning and that’s have a public option that would bring down the cost of the premium and expand the number of people covered and take on the pharmaceutical companies. That is what we should be doing instead of kicking 149 million people off their insurance in our years.

And I’m tired of hearing, whenever I say these things, ‘Oh, it’s Republican talking points.’ You are making Republican talking points right now in this room by coming out for a plan that’s going to do that. I think there is a better way that is bold, that will cover more people, and it’s the one we should get behind.

 

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.cnsnews.com/

Posted on

Bozell & Graham Column: The Incredible, Vanishing ‘Whistleblower’

The partisans at The Washington Post pretended in a front-page “news” article on Sunday that somehow President Trump was losing his marbles in “rage,” going “beyond his often-untethered bounds.” Post readers were supposed to be highly disturbed about his mental state when he held a raucous rally in Minneapolis and said supposedly crazy things like the Democrats are carrying out “a brazen attempt to overthrow our government.” What is this attempt to impeach and remove Trump, if not an overthrow of the president?

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/