Transgender pronouns: a megalomaniacal delusion.
Maybe you've noticed: for some time now Instagram and Linkedin have been aligning themselves with the transgender ideology and suggesting you add "your pronouns". More and more frequently, you can read on social networks in the bio of so-called transgender people - or those who consider themselves "good allies of the trans cause"-, terms like She, Her, They or Iel. According to trans activists asking for a person's pronouns is very important, even mandatory, making you a "transphobic" person if you don't accept the pronouns they assign themselves. Portrait of a megalomaniac injunction by Anissia Docaigne-Makhroff.
I
You
She / He / We
We
You
They
This is the list of personal pronouns in the nominative form, which we learn in the first grade. Then come the personal pronouns in other modes: me, you, him, her, etc. Then come the interrogative pronouns (who, what, when), demonstrative pronouns (those, this one), possessive pronouns (my, my, their, ours, etc.), and so many others. Pronouns, as their name suggests (for the noun), are those little words that allow us to replace nouns in the construction of sentences so that we don't have to repeat the names of each protagonist endlessly.
So, if I talk about Simone Veil, I can say that SHE was a great politician of the 20th century, that SHE gave HER name to the law authorizing abortion in France in 1975, a law that SHE carried under HER ministry, that SHE was also a survivor of the death camps, that HER children and even HER grandchildren became lawyers. And that SHE should not be confused with Simone Weil, who is almost HER namesake, but a different person.
In a few lines, I was able to describe a few things about this person's life, mentioning his name only once. Thanks to the pronouns, I didn't have to repeat his name nine more times, and you still understood who I was talking about.
So pronouns are very useful in grammar. It's so obvious that we don't think about it most of the time. It's part of the first grammar lessons in elementary school, but it's so pervasive in all our exchanges that it seems almost absurd to make it the subject of a grammar lesson.
Yet, this lesson seems more than necessary in 2022, as transgender claims have gained ground in activist, media, digital, cultural, political, and even educational and professional spaces.
Indeed, there is no longer a "social" network that does not suggest to its users to indicate, in the margin of their name, "their" favorite pronouns. In all militant spaces, and in more and more university and even professional spaces, meetings are introduced by a round table discussion where each person declares his or her "favorite pronouns.
A feminist friend of mine was challenged nearly two years ago on Twitter by a user asking her for "her" pronouns. She answered, forbidden, that she preferred to be polite with strangers.
Transgenderism and its pronouns: A delusion from North America and the English-speaking world
The mania for "giving away your pronouns" comes from North America and the activist world, specifically the LGBTQIA+ community, which can be summarized as T for trans.
The idea is the following: since sex does not exist as a biological, material, immutable, observed and verifiable datum, or as a spectrum, it can in no way be a cognitive support to identify individuals at the risk of sinking into hate and fascist discourse.
So if I see in front of me an adult, human individual with a developed chest and a round, swollen belly, I cannot assume that this is a pregnant woman. No, it could very well be that this person "defines" himself as male or "non-binary" or something in between as "half-boy", and it is perfectly forbidden for me to describe what I see: a pregnant woman, at the risk of "denying the existence" of this person and therefore of pushing him to suicide, and therefore of being the author of a mass genocide.
According to transgender ideology, the notion of sex must be replaced by gender identity (which must be distinct from gender expression), which is not material, not observable, certainly not biological, can only be declared by the individual "concerned", and should never be subject to any verification.
Since trans identity is now reduced to gender identity, defined by Minister Moreno as an individual feeling, and no form of transition is required as a prerequisite for claiming to be trans, this leads to aberrations: obviously male men, with big beards and big voices, who make no effort to erase their masculinity, nor the social (gender) codes of masculinity, can claim to be trans "women" without having to provide any proof or hint of their aspiration to be perceived as women.
Other men transidentified women, but with a compromising passing, demand to be treated as full women even though they do not fool anyone.
It is precisely because of the calamitous passing of a significant number of trans-identified men that the mania of " favorite pronouns " has imposed itself first within the LGBTQIA+ community, then in other activist and academic spheres, and finally in the digital and media world, until it has invaded the whole society.
Indeed, in order not to offend the ego of MtFs (male to female) who are undoubtedly not women at all, which jeopardizes their credibility, especially when they claim that they suffer the same violence as women, because they are considered as such, the strategy of pronouns allows to assume that nobody can know if one is dealing with a woman, a man, a "non-binary" person, or whatever.
If individuals no longer define themselves in relation to their sex, to their body, but in relation to an indefinable and indescribable personal feeling, and which only shows through the "favorite pronouns", then we can deduce that nobody really knows who are women and who are men, since an adult human female can just as well invoke that she is not a woman, and ask to be talked about by using the pronoun " he ", however reserved for the masculine gender, or even the neuter plural " they ".
Thus, the pronoun strategy can only work with the help of the average person, who has no connection to the trans community, to validate the idea that without this indication in the margins of the names, the public has no way of knowing if they are dealing with a man or a woman.
The delusion is complete when female icons such asEmma Watson actively participate in this masquerade and thus endorse the transgender fantasy that without the she/her mention in the margin of her @'s on social networks, we didn't know she was a woman.
One could be satisfied with underlining the absurd and eminently bourgeois character of the LGBT struggle for pronouns. But behind this new fashion that seems anecdotal and anodyne, there is in reality an extremely aggressive ideological strategy that responds to a totalitarian, misogynistic and transhumanist logic.
"Choosing pronouns": a totalitarian and ruthless logic of school children
The pronouns-mania stems from a totalitarian logic first of all in its essence. To try to impose to the others the way in which they have the right to speak about themselves in their absence answers a megalomaniac will to the possible.
Indeed, the pronouns advocated by the transgender movement are those of the third person, that is, they are used to refer to a person in his or her absence . When I am speaking to someone in a standard discussion, the pronouns we use to refer to each other are "I" and "you" or "you" depending on how familiar we are.
The pronouns "he/he", "she" and even "iel", "al", or "ael.le" are only used when referring to an individual who is not being addressed.
We do not choose our pronouns because we do not choose how others speak of us in our absence. We don't have the means to control the way our entourage (family, friends, friendships, professional, associative, activist) talks about us in our absence. Of course, to learn that someone close to us or not so close to us has broken sugar on our backs in front of a group of friends, or on the contrary of adversaries, is quite unpleasant. But there is nothing we can do about it. It's hard to understand and digest when you're in middle school, high school, and even sometimes in your adult experiences, but that's the way it is; and maturity, the path to emancipation, requires accepting it and learning to let go and even free yourself from what others think and say about you.
The transidentitarian movement, on the contrary, flourishes in the capitalist and liberal society of the retouched, filtered, overly made-up "instagrammable" image, a new form of reality TV in short, which cheats even in its name to make the public believe that appearances, relationships that respond to scenarios written in advance, provoked and overplayed clashes, the masquerade of happiness condensed in flash videos of a few seconds, all this would constitute "reality".
Reality becomes not what is, but what we present to others through social networks. Didn't the Instagram platform recently add a new feature named that allows to publish "reels"? But what is real in micro video clips where the scenarios and soundtracks are always the same, in Australia as in India through Brazil and Spain?
"When men cannot change things, they change words," said Jean Jaurès. Unable to change men into women, and women into men, since sex is an unchangeable biological and material reality, trans-identifiers work to change the meaning of words such as "woman", "sex", "gender", "feminism", "intersectional", and even pronouns.
If in the common sense, pronouns are gendered according to the sex of the persons they refer to, from now on trans activists claim that they are only the reflection of the self-determination of the individuals, without any consideration for the perception that the others have of this individual, and which result from the animal instincts that we are all endowed with.
Thus, trans-identifiers manipulate both everyday vocabulary and grammar to prevent individuals from trusting their instincts when it comes to identifying the people around them. Indeed, my instinct that tells me that a male individual with a full beard, a deep voice, a strong bone structure, a flat torso and narrow hips is a man that I will logically gender using the pronouns he/it to refer to him, this instinct that stems from social learning but also from animal sensory capacities (I see, I hear, I smell and these senses allow me to distinguish between males and females) would be transphobic. To call this man "Sir" is not polite, but a fascist reflex, if I have not first ascertained how he feels.
The transidentitarian logic thus leads us to distrust what we perceive, as animal and social individuals, since saying what we see could be equated with a hate crime. Thus, it has been several years that on the digital platforms Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and Twitter, it is impossible to write "Trans women are men". Do the test at home, you will see. The algorithm systematically censors this sentence, which nevertheless only describes a biological reality, observable and verifiable by everyone.
"The fear of a [pro]name only increases the fear of the thing itself. Dumbledore on Lord Voldemort or "the one whose name must not be spoken", in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, JK Rowling.
The strategy of the trans-identifiers to impose the " favourite pronouns " to the whole world also answers a totalitarian logic. Indeed, on social networks, hordes of soldiers claiming to be from the LGBTQIA+ community organized themselves to massively harass certain public personalities who had nothing to do with the trans community in order to enjoin them to indicate she/her or he/him in the margin of their @.
I myself was contacted two years ago by a person on Instagram, when I didn't have more than 500 followers, who asked me to put my pronouns in my account description, to show my support for trans people. This person strangely did not agree to communicate with me using " your majesty ", which proves that he is aware of the megalomaniacal delusion that he imposes on others.
Megamining and gaslighting: when transgender people urge us to "respect the pronouns" of criminals
The megalomania becomes even more dangerous when the pronoun delusion does not only concern teenage girls with a bad skin or autogynephiles in need of attention, but is imposed on us when it concerns notorious criminals.
Thus, in recent years, an alarming number of press articles mention criminal "women" who have committed atrocities (sexual violence, murder). However, if we take a closer look, we realize that these women are not criminals: they are transidentified women, sometimes after convicted of the crimes they have committed. However, if a feminist has the audacity to denounce these press articles that create confusion about the sexual identity of the aggressors, rapists, and murderers, who, all over the world, are overwhelmingly men, she will be the one accused of hate crimes by the LGBTQosphere!
The transidentitarian movement being a masculinist movement by essence, it uses all the stratagems of aggressors to turn the guilt around when men commit crimes. Gaslighting, a method well known to feminists and especially those who fight against male violence in the couple and the family, which consists in confusing the mind of a victim to make her lose her bearings, is used against women who dare to say male violence.
The steps of DARVO are seen in the insistence of trans-identifiers on forcing feminists to refer to perpetrators of misogynistic crimes as "women" when it is obvious that they are men like any other.
"The crime committed by the transidentified man becomes more serious in the eyes of transidentitarians than the crime committed by the transidentified woman (or "non-binary"). The community then turns against those who have the audacity to say that they know that 86% of murders are committed by men, 99% of rapes(cf. Lucie Peytavin in Le coût de la virilité, éditions Anne Carrière).
The masculinist trap that seemed so innocent when it came to Emma Watson's Instagram account is closing in on women.
Neo-pronouns and the disconnection of trans-identified youth from the materiality of the world
Another alarming aspect of the pronoun trend is the subcategory of neo pronouns. As the name suggests, these are "new" pronouns, discovered, brandished and promoted by the youth of the trans-identity movement, who are not short of imagination in terms of grammatical innovation.
Indeed, we see the emergence of all sorts of neo pronouns: they/them, zey/zem, iel/ielle, ael, eul, ol, al, which are the fruit of teenagers' desperate efforts to distinguish themselves from others as individuals and to construct an image and a personality of their own. The overflowing imagination of these young people to mark the language of their original "gender identity" shows once again the confusion they make between identity and personality.
More worrisome is the confusion when neo-pronouns take the form of words such as " tree/trees " or even emojis.
This shows the incomprehension of the grammar and therefore of the language of a whole generation of the metaverse that was born with high-speed internet, grew up with touch screens and OK Google services, and whose members see themselves not as a human, animal, physical body and mental entity, but as a digital projection that could be manipulated like a video game avatar.
This shows the disconnection of this connected generation with the tangible, material reality.
Right to respect for private and family life: when pronouns are required at work
That teenagers feed each other a craze - which would be no worse than the Tecktonik craze in my day if it didn't go hand in hand with hormone treatments and mutilating surgeries on healthy bodies - is one thing. That adults are embracing this same craze and incorporating it into professional spheres to play it woke and progressive is another. The ease with which big business has welcomed trans-identifying demands into their social policy, when women have been fighting for decades to get equal pay and parental leave passed and enforced, should alert anyone with common sense to the capitalist and liberal interests of the trans movement.
But under the guise of progressivism, we see a majority of Anglo-Saxon groups imposing an electronic signature policy with the employee's pronouns, or recruitment procedures that require the candidate to indicate his/her "gender identity" and "preferred pronouns.
However, this intrusion of trans-identitarian claims into the professional sphere jeopardizes the fundamental freedoms of employees, and first and foremost the right to respect for one's private and family life, protected by Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Indeed, whether one considers gender identity under the prism of transactivism, which invokes that it is part of the continuity of the movement for the rights of LGB people, i.e. homosexual or bisexual, or whether one considers, as I do, that gender identity responds to an ideology based on a metaphysical belief that one can be "born in the wrong body", requiring its employees to publicly indicate their "gender identity" constitutes a violation of the right to respect for one's private life.
Would we imagine for a moment that an employer would require its employees to add their sexual orientation to their electronic signature, or that a candidate for a permanent job would be asked about his or her religious or spiritual beliefs?
This would undoubtedly constitute a serious infringement of the employees' right to privacy and a ground for discrimination, and the labor court would not fail to sanction the company that would risk demanding or even asking its employees, without any clear obligation, to indicate such sensitive information that clearly relates to their private life.
Perhaps, following the British example of Maya Forstater who obtained the condemnation of her ex-employer who refused to renew her employment contract because of her critical positions on gender by the court on the basis of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is the labor code that will allow us to get out of this collective delirium.
How about choosing your adjectives?
While we wait for a court decision to bring common sense back into our most banal exchanges, there are other avenues open to us to counter the trans-identitarian offensive to colonize everyday language, even in pronouns.
And since it is on the field of grammar that trans activists brings us, let's play the game until the end. If we can choose our pronouns in the third person, can we also choose other grammatical elements? If I can choose my gender, can I also choose my number? And demand that from now on, we speak of ourselves in the plural, to support our perception of ourselves?
Can I also choose my epithets? Can I demand that, in accordance with my self-perception, each person who speaks of me in my presence or absence specify, after my first name and pronouns, "funny and free"?
If this seems shocking, foolish or just plain stupid, you have a simple and effective analogy to demonstrate how megalomaniacal the pronoun delusion is.
