A student at a Pittsburg university wrote about his school’s pronoun policy, denouncing it in an article on Red State. Here is the policy:
Any individual who has been informed of another person’s gender identity, pronouns, or chosen name is expected to respect that individual. Point Park University fosters a community of inclusivity for every member at the institution. Misgendering, continued misuse of an individual’s pronouns, or using an individual’s deadname after being informed of a chosen name could result in a violation of the Policy on Discrimination and Harassment for gender-based discrimination.
So if you call someone by their legal name you can be disciplined. If you use proper English, you will be disciplined. A pronoun is a word that takes the place of a noun. Pronouns exist so that you can refer to an object without having to name it. Having to learn and remember each person’s preferred and personal pronouns completely destroys the need for pronouns in the first place. Why not simply refer to everyone by name?
Still, the nutcases demand that we bow to their demands. Refusal to do so, according to them, is literally violence. Literally. If I refer to someone who looks like a woman by using the pronoun ‘she’- according to the insane left- I am committing a violent act which makes legitimate the use of force in self defense. Check out this clip to see what I mean:
They claim that this is because transgender women (men who claim to be women) who are also black have the highest rate of violence perpetuated against them. This is because of math. Since the number of black men who believe themselves to be women is so small, any act of violence against one of them has a disproportionate effect upon the RATE of violence.
If there are only two cats in my neighborhood, and one is struck by a car, the RATE of cats being struck is 50 percent. If there are 200 dogs in my neighborhood, and 90 of them are struck by cars, the RATE of dogs being struck is 45 percent. That doesn’t mean that cats are more likely to be struck by cars, it means that the one who was struck was a statistical anomaly.
Regardless, that wouldn’t give me the right, if I owned a cat, to declare that driving a car near my cat was an act of violence which allowed me to shoot everyone who drives a car near my house. This is why I remain so opposed to so-called hate crime laws. It should be illegal to commit an unprovoked assault upon another person. It shouldn’t matter WHY I committed the assault. That isn’t how “hate crimes” work. To declare that a person who assaults another because of some characteristic is somehow more heinous than a person who commits the assault for no reason at all is ridiculous and leads to one inevitable conclusion:
It allows any person who possesses that characteristic to use it as a cudgel to subjugate anyone with whom the disagree. “You only disagree with me because you are xxxphobic.” This is what the entire cancel culture has become- using some claimed characteristic as a sword with which to attack your enemies.
The problem here is that there is also only one possible outcome from the course that is being followed here- this all inevitably ends with real violence. One or both sides will eventually move to use actual violence to prevail and eliminate the other.