This Mockery of Language I: The Farce of Shifting, Customizable Pronouns

When Words and Pronouns Mean Whatever To Advance Transgenderism and Radical Gender Theory

I. A Brief Summary of the Scourge of Descriptivist Grammar and Usage and the Decline of Prescriptivist Grammar

Since the 60s and especially since the 90s, English departments, other humanities departments, and, as a result, dictionaries and grammars of varying degrees of authority as well as generations of English teachers have unleashed an insidious contagion on our language and culture—that being the descriptivist menace. Descriptivist grammar emphasizes that a lexicon or grammar must only set out to describe or catalog language however it is written or spoken.  This descriptivist approach explicitly eschews what its proponents regard as “value judgments.”  Much of the motivation behind advancing descriptivist grammar stems from the concern that prescriptivist grammar disadvantages or stigmatizes people of color and other marginalized people because such people have less access to education, among other factors. Such motivations are documented widely. In “Why Linguists Should Not Be Trusted On Language Usage,” Mark Halperin not only offers an increasingly rare defense of prescriptivism, he offers a skeptical critique of the descriptivist contagion as well. Focusing on an essay by Stanford linguistic Professor Geoffrey Nunberg ,“The Decline of Grammar.” Halperin describes descriptivism’s “democratic objection” to prescriptivism thusly; that prescriptivism is an insidious effort “to foist the linguistic practices. . . of the educated, affluent, fortunate members of society on the less educated and affluent members of society. . .” Matters of race, what would today be regarded as “systemic racism” in modern leftist parlance, flows from the overlap between these two classes and “the white and nonwhite portions of the population. . ..”

This author intends, at some point in the future, to set forth a more thorough rebuttal of the descriptivist scourge that has become so pervasive. But for now, this brief summary must suffice. The favor for overt descriptivism is so pervasive that it is increasingly difficult to find scholarly articles or treatises[1] that criticize or reject this overly descriptivist approach in favor of prescriptivism.[2] It is of note that because of this descriptivist menace, “irregardless” has largely been sanctioned by many dictionaries as a word. So has the use of the word “literally” as a vague, general intensifier, rather than to denote that something— often, expressed in a figurative sense—is actually used in a literal sense.[3] The misspelling of “all right” as “alright” has similarly been elevated into the pages of various lexiconic authorities.

This context is vital to understanding how the pronoun wars, and to a great extent the misuse and redefining of the word “gender,“ came to such prominence. Descriptivists assert that a language is a living thing. Never mind the rate of change as sanctioned, influenced, and regulated by authoritative dictionaries or grammars, or that a language can not only evolve but also devolve, which is also a change.  Widespread acceptance of that underlying premise that presupposes the descriptivist objection is absolutely essential if a movement is to change something so intimate to a language as its pronouns: a truly radical endeavor rarely if ever before seen in history. Quite ironically, advocates for these radical changes are not describing natural changes in certain dialects, but decreeing a desired change in pronoun usage and other words for ideological ends and motivations, which others then attempt to adhere to in affinity to such ideology. In this way, the gender radicals are, in fact, adhering to the very prescriptivist model they pretend to shy away from, except that prescriptivist grammar seeks to standardize and regulate long-standing usage that has existed over many years and centuries. As Andrew Doyle explicates, that “this usage has not caught on with the general public” has not prevented “staff at online dictionaries from updating their definitions in accordance with their new creed.” This blatant, naked “re-engineering [of] words and their meaning to suit their ideological” leanings permanently discredits any such claim that their “role as recording the inevitable evolutions of the English language. . ..”

II, The Folly and Madness of Customizable Pronouns: Lingusitic Chicanery in Service of Transgender Nuttery and Radical Gender Theory

Words and particularly pronouns do not have customizable meaning. Customizable meaning in words, including pronouns, defeats the very purpose and nature of language.  A language is simply a system of communication composed of words, which are formed by a particular sequence of letters, as that particular sequence of letters forming a word is signified by an oral pronunciation in spoken language, denoted by each letter or syllable; that system of words is governed by rules of syntax and grammar, all of which are commonly understood through centuries of development and regulated and refined by authoritative dictionaries and grammars that delineate and govern this collectively understood convention.  Within such a parameter of a commonly understood and sanctioned system of words, imagine if someone wanted to “customize” the meaning of “cat” or “square” to signify not a “cat” or “square,” but a “dog” and “circle” respectively. If any number of people started doing this, use of these words (and any other words that were subject to such folly) would be quickly rendered unwieldly. Every time or at least very often someone wanted to discuss or write about “cats,” that person would have to clarify whether the word in any given context signifies what we know the word “cat” to mean, and not what we refer to as dogs.  A critical, fundamental aspect of language is that it is, to a very large degree, commonly understood by and agreed to by way of convention and social contract.  This very hallmark is what allows us to communicate with each other without constant referral to specialized dictionaries pertaining to a region or sect or continually conferring to each other what a given word is intended to mean in any particular instance or utterance.

Just such a farce and mockery of language has been instigated, to some degree, by the gender zealots in their demands of how society is to use pronouns on a customizable basis per the demands of anyone so inclined.  They would have everyone introduce themselves with their own individual, “customized’ pronouns, using “she” to refer to a man and “he” to a woman if anyone should so fancy. They have also, as is well known, introduced an unending array of rosters and charts of made-up neo-pronouns, with each fantasy pronoun signifying every imagined “gender” they believe exists on a non-existent gender spectrum. And as everyone introduces and imposes these customized pronouns on every new interaction with every person they encounter—including in email signatures, linkedin profiles, biographical profiles on company or institutional websites—each person is expected to learn, remember, and honor these demands (not requests, but demands.) Multiply the absurdity of just an exchange by the number of persons an individual is likely to be introduced to in a year, a decade, a lifetime. That is the breadth and scope of the asinine travesty that transgenderism and the gender cultists seeks to afflict on us all; regrettably, they have succeeded in doing so to some small degree.

Languages simply do not—and cannot—work this way.   Knowledge of a foreign language, particularly one with gendered articles such as French, Spanish, German, Italian and so on, further demonstrates how unworkable this scheme is. Neither gendered articles nor the pronouns used in their place are customizable. If they were, a student of one of these foreign languages could simply aver that he thought “die Frau” (the woman) in question identified as a “er/ihn/ihm” (he/him). A student who uses die for das Boot or das for der Zug is wrong. Similarly, the pronoun charade would not pass muster on day one of an A1 section of any ESL class. Nor should it be countenanced in our everyday lives.

The Pronoun Chart Featured In This Author’s Copy of the Oxford Duden, Purchased During his Second Year of High School German Some Years Ago. No option to customize is denoted.

Gender zealots have often conflated their pronoun lunacy with names. If someone named Robert preferred to be called Bob, it would, they maintain, be rude and unkind of someone not to respect his wishes.  That is an actual argument this author and many others have encountered.  Pronouns—and indeed words altogether—are not names.  People can change names.  As people grow older they can adopt nicknames, go by a middle name, or go by a diminutive (Danny for Daniel or Jim for James) or prefer not to take a diminutive and prefer one’s formal name when they went by a diminutive as a child, such as when little Billy decided he prefers William.  A poor, idiotic analogy that should not withstand the briefest scrutiny, and yet it persists.

As stated, a language is a convention and system of communication universally understood by those who speak that language. The universality of it—that we all more or less know what words mean and that we use those words correctly and in conformance to our collective understanding and usage to the best of our ability—allows us to use language quickly and efficiently.  This is an important, indispensable aspect in many facets of life. Aside from the exigency of war, disaster, or other urgent matter in which people simply do not have time to ask each and every person about “preferred pronouns,” efficiency of language is important in so many things we do in everyday life, from communicating in relation to deadlines for work or school, communicating to arrange a meeting or gathering promptly, to a seemingly endless number of things about which people communicate with another in furtherance of everyday goals, chores, and projects in which time and efficiency matter, and matter a great deal.  Any obligation that imposes the constant need to confer with one another whether generally understood meanings apply in a given particular case is untenable and unsustainable.

III. The Singular They: An Obliteration of Meaning and Clarity

The rise of the so-called singular “they” is even more insidious than the advent of customizable pronouns generally. Over the centuries, it must be conceded that “they” has been used, properly or improperly, for certain pronouns that are singular in form and conjugation, but denote a plurality, or at best could mean either singular or plural but are singular in form and conjugation. Classic examples include “Each student who attends Berkeley Academy shall be issued a school uniform, which they wear with pride.” Or “every pupil in Mrs. Higgins’ class hates their music lessons.” “Each” and “every” are singular in form and conjugation, but both denote a plurality. Another example would be “any student who receives a failing grade will be placed on probation and their parents notified of potential expulsion if their grades do not improve.” In this instance, any student is singular in form and conjugation, but the context could refer to one or more students, or none at all.

Before the feminist movement, such linguistic aberrations were often and preferably avoided with the use of the “generic he.”[4]  Seemingly unaware that the pronoun “he” does, by definition, include the usage as a generic, non-gender specific pronoun, such literary flair of a more cultured, civilized way of speaking and writing has regrettably only been stigmatized more and more since the 1960s. It is not unheard of for such perfectly acceptable usage of the generic “he” to receive demerits on an English or other paper for school or university, and could well be ill-advised in modern work settings.

Quite remarkably, and wreaking much havoc on our language and culture, the use of the so-called singular “they” described above, which had always been used for pronouns singular in form and conjugation—but denoting a plurality or uncertainty as to number—has now been used as a vehicle to advance the unprecedented use of “they” for a known individual of a known sex or gender.  Of course, one is not assigned sex or gender at birth, just as gender is not some radical departure from sex, but is a synonym, a different word used to mean substantially the same thing, not terribly unlike “dozen” and “twelve” as different words that mean the same thing.

This absurd experiment invites even more dysfunction and chaos in the language we use, as it infuses a distinct lack of clarity every time it is used.  Anyone who has read an article or other composition in which the author customizes pronouns for adherents to the transgender and gender delirium knows how difficult such prose can be to read, this even when the utterance uses the pronoun “she” in reference to a man or “he” in reference to a woman.  Such utterances are even less clear and more grating to the reader’s mind when the so-called singular “they” is used. This is because such usage has simply never been done before, because the pronoun “they” is a third person plural pronoun.

That use of “they” in such instances obliterates clarity and precision, and begets much confusion is incontrovertible. Take for example this sample sentence, reminiscent of an article this author read recently that entertained such folly in regards to a woman who insisted people use “they/them” pronouns to refer to HER.  “That morning at the gym, just as their spin class started with the usual members in attendance, Sarah looked over and saw him standing there outside the window, hoping he would notice them.”  The sentence informs the reader that Sarah is in a spin class, with other members in attendance.  Using the absurd convention demanded by the gender zealots, the pronoun “them” in the last clause could either refer to Sarah, or it could refer to other members of the spin class. In point of fact, it should only refer to a plurality, ie all those attending the spin class with Sarah. By properly gendering Sarah, a woman, with ‘she/her pronouns,” such confusion and lack of clarity is avoided.

Another critical defect with this absurd formulation is of course the lack of agreement between Sarah and how the pronoun “they” is properly conjugated in the third personal plural. Example, “Robert and George stated that they are going to be in attendance at this evening’s proceedings.” (emphasis added to illustrate proper conjugation that we all should have learned as toddlers).  “Sarah stated they are a member of the spin class” is nothing other than fucked-up English, a linguistic abomination that should embarrass any ESL student. The correct conjugation for a singular noun is “is,” of course.  Note also the lack of agreement between the plural conjugation (are as opposed to is) with the singular form of member; i.e., “Sarah stated she is a member of the class,” or “they are members of the class”—NOT “Sarah stated they are a member of the class.”

Any person with even the barest semblance of a classical education, who demands that language be precise, that people speak and write with clarity, eloquence, and grace, should be utterly incensed at such linguistic monstrosities being perpetrated not just on our English language but other languages as well.  “Incensed” is an understatement, given the homicidal rage and sadistic malevolence that might understandably overcome those who actually care about the language we use. Sadly, the far-leftist sort have set forth even more grotesque, monstrous butcheries of the German language, inserting asterisks and eschewing different nouns between male and female (eg Lehrer and Lehrerin).

Alas, the prognosis of what is in store for the future of our language and culture is poor.  The universities have been thoroughly corrupted, institutionally and ideologically.  The result is that generations of so-called English teachers now abide by this kind of nonsense.  Gone are the snooty grammar nazis who not only knew the rules of grammar and usage well, but would diligently and incessantly task their students to know and abide by them, dutifully correcting any such errors with a certain level of intimidation that comes only from such erudition. Instead, our schools are inundated with cretins like Marta Schaffer, who teaches her students that proper grammar and usage, that speaking and writing well are tantamount to “white supremacy.” In a generation or two, with each generation indoctrinated with this school of “thought,” what institutional basis will there be to save not just English but other European languages beleaguered and tainted by these trends?

Such a precarious situation is, of course, part of the bitter harvest that comes from being endowed with something so lackluster, so cowardly, so utterly ineffectual as the mainstream conservative establishment as the appointed opposition to modern liberalism and cultural Marxism. Among many other flaws, each of them seemingly fatal, mainstream conservatives have regarded matters of culture—including the arts, humanities, and even the language arts—in quiet if not open contempt and disdain.  And so, since before World War II, with the importation of the Frankfurt School and its terrible legacy, Cultural Marxism has inexorably marched through the institutions of culture, education, and ultimately the very institutions of power themselves.  And with no effective resistance to stop it, Cultural Marxism is now dominant, having infiltrated all the cultural and political centers of power.  How our culture is to be saved, how these nefarious elements are to be extracted and expunged from our cultural and educational institutions, is a most difficult and seemingly intractable problem.  But any such reversal begins by stating and enunciating a firm, cogent rebuttal to their terrible, destructive ideas and their insidious, intolerable influence on our language and way of life. Any such reversal could begin with this very essay and others like it.

---

[1] One of the best essays in defense of prescriptivism is arguably the late David Foster Wallace’s “Authority and American Usage.” Language and Human Nature by Mark Halpern is also generally recommended, as are the writings of the late Robert Fiske, editor of the Vocabula Bound series and writer of several books.

[2] Of course, descriptivism and prescriptivism are not mutually exclusive to one another in an absolute sense.  A dictionary should accurately describe the meaning of a word and how it is used, provided that the meaning and usage are long-standing, widely accepted, and, put bluntly, correct. Just because a word is often misspelled or used incorrectly does not mean such errors should be sanctioned in authoritative dictionaries.  To do so erodes the clarity and precision of our language and interferes with our collective ability to speak and write clearly and eloquently.

[3] “Literally” should never be used figuratively or as a vague, non-descript intensifier. A proper use of “literally” used to specify that something often referred to figuratively is used “literally.” A classic example would be this exchange:

“My stomach is killing me.”

“Oh, do you have a bad stomach ache?”

No, my stomach is literally killing me.  I was diagnosed with terminal stomach cancer and I do not expect to survive beyond six months.”

To use the word “literal” or “literally” when something is not often used figuratively is a misuse of the word, no matter how ubiquitous it is among those wanting of even the barest semblance of a classical education, and to use it when no figurative meaning could be construed is redundant and defies one of the maxims of eloquence, to speak or write with clarity and precision, and to avoid words that are redundant or extraneous. “That is indeed a Porsche” or “I actually did say” should always be used rather than “that is literally a Porsche” or “I literally just said” because a car could never be a Porsche figuratively, just as one could never say this or that figuratively.

[4] Oxford defines he as “A. pron. 1. The male person or animal, OR the person or animal of unspecified sex, previously mentioned or implied or easily identified. OE.(emphasis added)