Why you shouldn’t use “preferred pronouns” and other ideological language

The forced evolution of language is a key aspect of the LGBT movement’s colonization of culture. Those of you paying attention will have noticed that all sorts of new terms have cropped up in the past few years – new pronounsneo-pronounsnew genders, and more. These terms are not part of the natural evolution of language, but are a top-down imposition, dictated by ideologues to the elite class, who obediently begin using them in politics, academia, and the press. 

One of the most succinct responses to this shift in language came from the late comedian Norm MacDonald, when he was attempting to explain to another comedian what the definition of the term “cisgender” is. “Cisgender” is a term used by activists to describe a male who “identifies” as male. Or as Norm put it: “It’s a way of marginalizing a normal person.” 

I’ve written on aspects of this agenda before – especially the issue of preferred pronouns. By adopting someone’s “preferred pronouns” or agreeing to declare your own, you are granting tacit approval to an entire ideology. Pronouns are premises, and by offering yours, you are affirming theirs – that is why Jordan Peterson fought so hard over the issue and was ultimately willing to lose his job. He realized that this was, in fact, a very big deal. The activists who insist it isn’t a big deal to force us all to do this think so, too – it’s why they respond with such viciousness when someone politely declines.

Biological male is the only kind of male. Sex and gender are not, as the trans activists claim, separate things.

Despite this, most so-called conservative media outlets have gone along with the trans agenda. The Daily Mail, the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and others – all use female pronouns to refer to trans-identifying males, and vice versa. At times, readers are treated to the schizophrenic experience of reading an article making the case against gender ideology which uses the very pronouns that affirm the premises of that ideology. To call male swimmer Lia Thomas “she” while complaining that he is allowed to compete against women, for example, is to make your own argument ridiculous. Trans activists understand that, which is why they have placed such an emphasis on pronouns in the first place. 

But I’ll admit that in this space, I have frequently emphasized the identity of various trans-identified people by using what I thought to be clarifying phrases such as “biological male” or “biological female.” Riley Gaines, a female swimmer who competed against Thomas and has since become an advocate for sex-segregated spaces and women-only sports teams, recently made some comments that have me rethinking that usage. Even that phraseology, Gaines observed, cedes too much territory to the trans activists. 

“The whole term of calling ourselves ‘biological females,’ I think it is so crazy and it took me a while to come to this conclusion really because it is true,” Gaines said. “We are biological females. But adding that word biological, or cis – it’s admitting there is an un biological alternative. And there is not. We are not biologically females. Well, we are. But I am done referring to myself as a biological female. I am done with the nonsense. I am done with the pandering.” 

Gaines is right – and I hadn’t thought about it that way. It isn’t that biological males don’t exist – it’s just that biological male is the only kind of male. Sex and gender are not, as the trans activists claim, separate things. A few years ago, I would never have thought to include the “biological” qualifier – and the reason I have recently is in response to the activist manipulation of language. I’m with Gaines on this one. 

2 thoughts on “Why you shouldn’t use “preferred pronouns” and other ideological language

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *