Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Recommended: Thoughtful post by @FullSizeTabby on recent events in the House and their significance.
The real struggle that the left likes to conceal under the rubrics of rights, fairness, hate and identity is not whether men are permitted to wear dresses and emulate feminine modes of behavior and expression, but what we are allowed to think and say about such a choice or psychological journey.
American culture and law are about trying to provide each other with the widest possible personal sphere within which to pursue happiness as we perceive it. If you choose to join a goofy cult, that is your right as an American. My right as an American is to think that's nuts and say so. I am not required to applaud whatever you choose to do within that sphere of personal freedom.
Incoming Rep. McBride is a biological male who prefers to live, dress and act as a woman. With the possible exception of some specific times and places, he has a right to do that. He does not have the right to dictate how the rest of us think about it. Specifically, we are not required to state or otherwise accommodate or defer to a belief that he actually is a woman. Deferring to that nonsense is why males increasingly dominate women's sports.
The silly declaration of required pronouns is also a form of tyranny. "He, She, They" are third-person pronouns usually used when the referred person is not around. You have a right to reasonably request that you be addressed by a full name, not by nicknames, and not "hey, you" or "sweetcheeks," etc., but you don't control how others discuss you in your absence. Perhaps the safest personal policy in such politicized environments is to use the name and avoid pronouns altogether. "Rep. McBride said...," Rep. McBride's earlier statement...," instead of guessing whether he/his or she/her is to be used.
The issue brilliantly and concisely skewered by Ricky Gervais [language warning]:
Discussion (15)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
WARNING:
.
.
.
.
[profane graphic redacted by moderator]
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
"It" should solve the problem of persons who object to being referred to by their actual biological sex (not "gender," which I was taught is a grammatical, not biological, term).
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
"It" is deemed problematic, an incorrect pronoun. Perhaps "the entity"/"the entity's" should be used as a generic substitute.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The use of that term for these folks could be judged an insult to “things”, since that pronoun has always been theirs! :-)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
No. "It" and "the entity" dehumanize the person. While it is tempting to say they deserve dehumanization as something that can't figure out if it is male or female probably has trouble thinking of itself as fully human, I still know that person is human. Mentally ill and delusional. Sick. But still human.
As the post says, just don't demand that I reinforce the sickness.
You're seeing five of 15 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.