We don't have to bow down and play that "unreality game" - Granite Grok

We don’t have to bow down and play that “unreality game”

preferred pronouns

So, we now have another Transracial person in the news: “I’m not white Hispanic, I’m black!” Well, given that “white Hispanic” really only became a thing when the MSM decided.

2+2=5

Former police union president now identifies as transracial, claims he feels black

For most of his life, the former head of a Miami police union, Javier Ortiz, identified as a white Hispanic man, but at a city commission meeting on Friday, Ortiz told commissioners said that he is now black. “I’m a black male. Yes, I am,” Ortiz said, adding, “and I am not Hispanic. I was born in this country. That’s how I feel.”

TransStupid.  Sure, pal. Just join up with Rachel Dolezal (aka, Nkechi Amare Diallo), born a blonde Caucasian – a person of pallor. The other 2+2 that we are to believe that one is born one sex with that sex determined at conception is a full-fledged member of the other physical sex.

I won’t belabor the point here as I’ve been writing about gender dysphoric individuals and its political agenda for a while now. Most of it has surrounded the idea that our Rights to Free Speech and Freedom of Conscience are under attack.

Gilford School Board’s Policy JBAB originally had verbiage in it that demanded that free citizens use only speech demanded and specified by Government (“a student has the Right to be called by their preferred name and pronouns” – you WILL do so!) and that we aren’t supposed to believe our lying eyes.

The whole agenda is to move the argument from the reality of biological sex to “feelings”.  Feelings are fine but should never be a determinate of policy.  And now, when confronted with this sexual 2+2=5 of the Transgender language coerced speech, the Fifth Circuit Court said “No!“:

Fifth Circuit To Inmate: Don’t Hand Us No Lines And Keep Your Faers To Faerself

Do prisons and courts owe inmates — or anyone else — the use of their preferred pronouns? Thanks to a strange appeal to the Fifth Circuit this week, the answer is no, at least in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — maybe. Norman Varner is in the middle of a 15-year sentence for possession of child pornography, but he now wishes to be known as Katherine Nicole Jett and identifies as female. A lower court had ruled against his effort to get his name changed on his committal to prison, and Varner/Jett had appealed — and added a motion to demand that the courts and prisons refer to Varner/Jett by his now-preferred pronouns.

That last part seems to be the modus operandi of the Left – you MUST use our terminology, our phrasing, and our language when address us and other “marginalized” and put upon people being oppressed.  You see, once that happens, when the Right slowly begins to use the Left’s demanded speech, we lose. You see, language defines the debate and, ultimately, results in coerced thought. Change thoughts and thinking, you change Politics.  And they’ve been doing this for a long, long time.

Sidenote: I saw this happening when a fundamental plank of the NH GOP came under attack:

  • We believe that traditional families are the foundation of strong communities, and that family life best nurtures love of country, faith in God, morality and concern for others
  • Recognize marriage as the legal and sacred union between one man and one woman  as ordained by God, encouraged by the State, and traditional to humankind, and the 190 core of the Family

Favorite words of the Left such as “inclusion” and “exclusion” were used as proxies for fairness and in attempts to paint those that honor traditional marriages of one man and one woman as being bigots and closed minds.  I stood there, shocked, realizing what had just happened.  The Left’s language made an incursion into the heart of the NH GOP and NO one said a thing.

Change the language, lose the Culture and loose political war.

Back to the news:

The Fifth Circuit overturned the original ruling on the name change, deciding that the court didn’t have the authority to even entertain the motion in the first place. On a 2-1 decision, Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan went at more length to make clear that the normal application of English pronouns would be sufficient for courts and other government officials, although they can individually choose on pronouns for themselves. Not only has Congress not passed any such statutory requirement, compelling use might indicate bias — and besides, the question then opens up a “three-dimensional galaxy” of uncertainty in compelled speech (via PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil):

While conceding that “biological[ly]” he is male, Varner argues female pronouns are nonetheless required to prevent “discriminat[ion]” based on his female “gender identity.” But Varner identifies no federal statute or rule requiring courts or other parties to judicial proceedings to use pronouns according to a litigant’s gender identity. Congress knows precisely how to legislate with respect to gender identity discrimination, because it has done so in specific statutes. … But Congress has said nothing to prohibit courts from referring to litigants according to their biological sex, rather than according to their subjective gender identity.

And then there’s a bunch of legal cases talking about this issue – go to the link and read them if you need. In essence, it says the same thing that the Minnesota Police were told:

Minneapolis Police Receive Mandatory Training on Gender Pronouns

Officers in the Minneapolis Police Department were required to sit in on a lecture about the “infinite number” of gender pronouns, a source told The Minnesota Sun.

“Infinite Number” – who in their right Normal mind wants to deal with that?  I can’t even reliably recall peoples’ names that I know? And the Court said, effectively, the same thing:

Third, ordering use of a litigant’s preferred pronouns may well turn out to be more complex than at first it might appear. It oversimplifies matters to say that gender dysphoric people merely prefer pronouns opposite from their birth sex—“her” instead of “his,” or “his” instead of “her.” In reality, a dysphoric person’s “[e]xperienced gender may include alternative gender identities beyond binary stereotypes.” DSM-5, at 453; see also, e.g., Dylan Vade, Expanding Gender and Expanding the Law: Toward a Social and Legal Conceptualization of Gender that Is More Inclusive of Transgender People, 11 Mich. J. Gender & L. 253, 261 (2005) (positing that gender is not binary but rather a three-dimensional “galaxy”). Given that, one university has created this widely-circulated pronoun usage guide for gender-dysphoric persons:

preferred pronouns

I didn’t even know four of them! Infinite, eh?

Where would this all end, the majority wondered. In contempt demands that would grind the legal process to a halt for no good purpose, they concluded:

If a court orders one litigant referred to as “her” (instead of “him”), then the court can hardly refuse when the next litigantmoves to be referred to as “xemself” (instead of “himself”). Deploying such neologisms could hinder communication among the parties and the court. And presumably the court’s order, if disobeyed, would be enforceable through its contempt power. … When local governments have sought to enforce pronoun usage, they have had to make refined distinctions based on matters such as the types of allowable pronouns and the intent of the “misgendering” offender. See Clark, 132 Harv. L. Rev. at 958–59 (discussing New York City regulation prohibiting “intentional or repeated refusal” to use pronouns including “them/them/theirs or ze/hir” after person has “made clear” his preferred pronouns).4 Courts would have to do the same. We decline to enlist the federal judiciary in this quixotic undertaking.
Note, however, that this does not prevent courts or government officials from choosing on their own to use someone’s preferred pronouns. Duncan writes up front that the courts also lack the authority to compel the use of biologically appropriate pronouns either, and that some courts have done so — “purely as a courtesy to parties” before them. However, ‘[n]one has adopted the practice as a matter of binding precedent,” Duncan points out, “and none has purported to obligate litigants or others to follow the practice.” The majority opinion in this appeal would not compel use in either direction; it establishes, rather, that people can choose for themselves which pronouns to use.

…In a way, this validates the majority’s concern over bias if pronoun use was to be compelled. The petitioner in this case has no factual basis to claim that equal justice cannot be reached without the use of his preferred pronouns, except to say that he would “feel that I am being discriminated against based on my gender identity.” Feelings do not trump objective facts, however, nor do they trump statutes.

I’ll summarize in three words: utter linguistic chaos (or if you want, mayhem (based on the intent). Either way, the culture will change and not to our liking.

To that last bolded line above, nor should it trump the enumerated Right to Free Speech and Right to Conscious. I know, a bit confusing to go back to the Hot Air link, read it, and come on back.

Simplified – yet another attempt for force coerced speech upon someone. Forcing it up a court, if it were to relent and given into that force, wouldn’t just change the Culture but change the Legal Foundation. And given that Progressives have more and more squeezed the notion of The Civil Society out of the picture, all that is left if Government and Individual.

Yet again, as in all totalitarian societies, that’s how it works. If we lose the Constitution and the Rights that are supposed to protected, what is left?

The death of 10,000 cuts. Just by talking.