Yes, you read that correctly, for Mr. V.T., a regular reader here, has contributed an article that convinces me, more than anything else, of the folly of turning over tax money to tenured radicals and progressives in our non-education social engineering experiment called American quackademia. You'll have to read this to believe it, and no manner of my high octane speculation, or even of my anti-edublither rants, can possibly unravel the noodle-baking nonsense that has taken its grip on Tennessee (where's Braxton Bragg when you need him?). Here's the story, in all its goofy glory:
Now, we all know what "encouraging students" to do certain linguistically and socially wacky things means: it means that the blithering idiots advocating such nonsense will put pressure on the students, from grades, to subtle passive aggressive techniques in the classroom (which the progressives excel at, but you'll have to wait a bit for my book on that particular subject), to "coincidental" denials of financial aid, and so on.This is inspite of there being "no official policy" to use such "language" according to the article. But for anyone experiencing Amarikuh's trendy campuses, we know better. All it takes is one "professor" buying into such nonsense, and the social engineering game is afoot, for the right to academic freedom suffers nowhere more acutely than it does on the modern Amairkuhn quackademic campus (see my earlier blog about "micro-agression"). The real rub here is that once again, linguistic matters, such as the masculinity, femininity, or neutrality of a pronoun are to be confused in typical Amarikuhn fashion with the actual sexuality of the object:
“Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth.”
For the first week of classes, Braquet is also asking teachers to ask everyone to provide their name and pronoun instead of calling roll. “The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses,” ze said.
“These may sound a little funny at first, but only because they are new,” Braquet said. “The she and he pronouns would sound strange too if we had been taught ze when growing up.”
Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask. “’Oh, nice to meet you, [insert name]. What pronouns should I use?’ is a perfectly fine question to ask,” ze said.
The real rub here is what it always is in progressive social engineering: the majority culture - for whom sexual binaryism(good grief! they've got me doing it now) - is to make way for the minority imposing its will on the cultural expression itself. Dr. deHart and I certainly wrote about this "third sex" phenomenon in our book Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, and while we certainly advocate tolerance for such people (for like it or not, there are such people), we nowhere advocated gutting the English language in the service of a cultural or political agenda disguised as a linguistic one. The end result, as one progressively tinkers with language to satisfy all such demands, would be a complete loss of all communication. It is equally, I would argue, a mistake to assume that all homosexual people, or all transgendered people, are on board with such radical agendas, which is itself a form of discrimination that is implicit in all such trendy programs against a segment of the very community they claim (falsely) to represent. In fact, I know a few such people myself, and doubt very much they want to pepper their writing or speech with such babelish blithering phylogenetically-impaired lunacy, because they are not on board with the cultural and political agenda that it signifies.
All this brings me to my modest proposal. Stop funding such nonsense, and fire the people promoting it, if they are in faculties or administrations. Students are there to learn, not to be experimented with in pursuit of some political or cultural agenda. And since we owe a debt to China and all the Chinese who made our transcontinental railroad system possible in the nineteenth century, perhaps they can find jobs helping the Chinese to build their silk road and, since we're in economic warfare mode, perhaps they can propose new gender-neutral ideograms for the Chinese language, thus making communication impossible and impeding the project in just enough time for Amairkuh to complete its pivot to the Pacific.
And that brings me to my serious point, for as I noted, the real agenda here would appear to be not about "gender neutrality" (whatever that really means in the addleminded heads of those promoting it), but rather to cut Americans off from the past altogether, for imagine the result if such nonsense were to become widespread and accepted. Within one generation, it would no longer be possible to read Shakespeare with reasonable comprehension, or Locke, or Berkeley, or Hume, or Hobbs, or Bentham, or... You get the picture. Within one generation of the widespread adaptation of such nonsense, reading these authors would be similar to reading Old English, barely comprehensible, at best, and at worst, an ugly "transgendered nose" in the unisex tent for further "linguistic experiments", including that of the outright modification of historical texts in order to suit modern whims and fads, "transgendered" or otherwise.
See you on the flip side...