patrick.net

If you want to clarify your gender of reference, why not just put Mr or Ms in your bio? If you truly require pronouns beyond the ones God has ordained for man and woman (see the King James Bible, Genesis 2:21-23), fine put them in your bio so we know to include your full name in our prayers, but otherwise never speak of you.

https://notthebee.com/article/this-chick-says-out-loud-what-every-employer-thinks-when-they-see-pronouns-on-a-resume

And they will try to force you to comply with their demand to deny reality. They will try to get you fired, like they tried with Dr. Jordan Peterson. They will try to change the law.

Anyone with pronouns in his or her description really does suck.

https://euphoricrecall.substack.com/p/say-no-to-pronouns

Say No to Pronouns
And yes to reality. ...

Activists claim that playing the pronoun game is just a way to be polite and inclusive. I disagree. I believe that this ostensibly benign practice is really about forcing people to conform to a regressive set of ideas — gender ideology — that’s upending age-old verities and harming society by sexualizing children and dramatically curtailing freedom of speech and thought. To understand why, one must be familiarized with gender ideology’s dogma. ...

When asked for your pronouns, decline.6 Nobody has pronouns. The concept is inherently illogical. You can’t “have” a pronoun any more than you can have any other word. Pronouns aren’t things to be owned. They’re not accessories. They’re parts of speech, and you don’t get to coopt language to serve your pet ideologies. ...

To bend the knee is to legitimize this regressive set of beliefs that forces a subjective and manipulable view of one person’s self to become a defining reality for everyone else. Far from an innocuous act signaling support for inclusion, playing the pronoun game serves as an implicit endorsement of gender ideology and all of its radical tenets.

These ideologues need to be reminded that there are no “personal truths.” There is only reality, and it exists independent of our wishes to the contrary.

Booger says

This woman is saying what everyone is thinking:
https://youtube.com/shorts/JZ0YZvC6u-Y?si=RD0uZPt3ZNoKUJ7H

For sure.

I instantly trash resumes of people with pronouns in their bios. I appreciate that these people are self-identifying and saving me a lot of trouble down the road.

Thank you for this public service @socal2 !

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-can-a-ms-charity-teach-us-about

Recently, a heart-wrenching story went viral which inadvertently revealed a great deal about the patient “advocacy” industry.

Briefly, this video focuses on Fran, a 90 year-old woman who had spent 60 years of her life continually volunteering for the national Multiple Sclerosis Society and multiple MS supports groups because her (now deceased husband) had MS and had received numerous accolades over the years for her exemplary service. Recently this 90-year-old noticed people were starting to put pronouns after their names, didn’t understand why this was being done and then asked someone to explain it to her (but was confused by the explanation(. A few days later she was notified that she needed to leave the organization because she was “not inclusive” and therefore she was violating the Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) standards of the organization.

After I heard about this, my immediate thought was “wow, that’s really mean.”

This story has gone viral, and individuals who learned of it are typically stating one or more of the following:

•The National MS Society is a reprehensible organization.

•The National MS Society’s priorities have become political rather than to help individuals with MS.

Since then, the organization chose to internally double-down on that decision and then publicly reaffirmed that decision, their president has stepped down, and its page listing the non-profit’s board of directors was also recently taken down. As best as I can tell, a large boycott is forming against the organization and this decision will ultimately cost them a lot of money.

"You're not important enough to tell me how I am supposed to talk to you."

It's a good thing one of them wasn't named Spartacus - imagine the arguments. . .

Trump banned pronouns on government email.

https://markbisone.substack.com/p/the-shock-market-crash

Whatever else these government employees may or may not do, I suspect their actual jobs are to demand pronouns, gross out colleagues, and yammer on and on about their narcissistic fantasies. As a bonus, their behavior might serve to smoke-out the last sane operators on the Deep State payroll, and force them into unwinnable “civil rights” zugzwangs.

CIA Analyst: “Jerry keeps deadnaming me! He refuses to call me Jesusfuckingchristyourlordandsavior. Says it’s against his ‘religion’, or something stupid like that.”

H.R. Admin: “Well, I can kind of see his point…”

CIA Analyst: “But that’s my legal name!” ...

It sounds like a kid’s game. In a way, it is. But it also betrays an ancient schoolyard axiom: “Nobody gets to pick his nickname.” Our identities aren’t fully self-created or unlimited. They are bound by the perceptions of others around us, and they all get to have their say. The fat kid in your class may want everybody to call him Hercules, but chances are they’ll call him Chunk. Or, if they call him Hercules, it won’t sound the way he wants it to. Kids are natural experts at irony.

Is that kind? Depends. Men bust each other’s balls constantly, in order to form stronger bonds. That said, there will be times you won’t like what you’re called. My only advice is to do the best with what you’re given. ...

But all the name-games and pronoun-putsches are a bit of a side gig, for the people who think they’ve been imbued with a Divine Right to our blank checkbooks. Their main function is to draw maximum attention to their peculiar interests, and then force us all to classify those peculiarities as objectively superior to the norm.

They will still dangle words like “tolerance” and “justice”, of course, but the truth is that these concepts passed out of frame long ago. They were never there to begin with, actually: beyond the peculiarities themselves, these chat-o-cratic theythems have been trained in a neo-Marxist belief structure which divides the world into binaries: oppressor and oppressed, dominant and submissive, master and slave. ...

When I say “peculiarities,” I refer not only to the Fab Four — the LGBT of the Unending Acronym — but to all the pansexual frogs, the polecular paramours, the NXIVM-style bondage cults, and, who knows, consensual cannibalism (Yes, I know. That already happened. We’ll get there, people).

In pursuing their paramoralistic BDSM strategy to the bottom, they will eventually filter out not just us Christian bigots, but all bigots, everywhere. And of course, lurking in the sub-basement of the sub-basement are those human-shaped things, who think 3-year-olds can consent to being molested.

Anyone who says, “But we’ll never get down there, Mark,” apparently hasn’t been paying attention. ...

The MIMIC (military-industrial-media-intelligence complex) has been on this secret sabotage mission since before most of their alphabet agencies even had names. They aren’t married to any one tactic, so to speak. They’ll attack the family structure with the nearest weapon to hand. The arrival of the Trans Phenomenon — 600-gendered horde of hehers and sheshims and theythems and its — just constitutes their latest battlefield innovation, and one which dovetails neatly with the ongoing ecomonic assault.

In a recent article, Harrison Koehli of Political Ponerology introduced us to economist Mikhail Khazin, and his theory of productive market labor versus financialized global capitalism. The former is mostly based on manufacturing and voluntary exchanges that are bounded by scarcity, the latter mostly fueled by derivatives, interest and fully financialized “assets”. What both Khazin and Koehli recognize is that the final line of defense against the latter is the traditional family structure. ...

Therefore, for the financiers to keep their wealth and power, traditional society has to be deconstructed. To achieve this goal, the proponents of liberalism push their agenda forward on many fronts, yet the main attack has been launched against the society’s most fundamental institution — the family. Traditional family has always been founded on conservative principles because children are expected to obey their parents, learn what is right and what is wrong, respect the elderly, etc. Additionally, Christian morals remind them that “you shall not charge interest to your brother.” That is why, as Khazin wisely observed, “juvenile courts, gay-pride events, same-sex marriages and other initiatives have been deployed to weaken family structures and other conservative institutions. These actions have a conceptual goal: to create a society in which dominance of the financial elite and their wealth-generating methods would face no opposition.” ...