Censoring Gender Pronouns: No Disrespect Intended

Sometimes I just have to sit back and marvel at the level of stupidity some people engage in. Take for instance a recent measure Berkeley City Councilmember Rigel Robinson and City Manager, Dee Williams-Riley, introduced on July 16th of this year. The Councilmember proposed eliminating all gender related terms and descriptions. That means no more "he", "she", "him" or "her" pronouns, but wait...there's more.

Also included with the proposal was a list of terms that he wants removed from all government documentation and usage. For instance, terms like "manhole", "policeman", "chairman", and "manpower" are now to become "maintenance cover", "police officer", "chairperson", and "human effort" or "human power". By the way, In some locales, there are proposals to fine you if you don't comply with these changes.

In addition, words like "salesman", "craftsman" and "journeyman" are to be replaced with "salesperson", "craftsperson", and "journeyperson". "Maiden" (as in maiden name) is now going to be "family name", which isn't too bad I suppose. However, "fraternity" and "sorority" are now going to "social group", but if it pertains to college clubs, then it will be "Collegiate Greek system residence". "Heirs" are going to become "beneficiaries" while "watchmen" become "guards", but there's more silliness to come!

"Men and women" are to be removed and replaced with "people". "Master" is now "Skipper", "Captain", or "central". The term "sportsmen" is out. In its place is "hunter" (in California, I'm sure the term "brute" or "animal abuser" can be substituted). Both "sister" and "brother" will become "sibling". Out too will be the use of phrases such as "sir" and "ma'am" which won't play here in the South.

You will be expected to ask beforehand how someone wants to be addresses such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Miss" or perhaps "Moon Visitor 12" since undoubtedly someone is not going to want to be limited to the mere two gender roles nature has bestowed on us (I believe we're up to 74 "genders" now). People will be identified by their non-gender specific roles in documents rather than "he" or "she".

I should point out that while this ordinance was introduced in a city council meeting, the notion of using non-gender related terms is spreading to businesses. Signs are being posted asking patrons not to refer to someone as "Sir" or "Miss" or using a gender specific pronoun in calling someone (I suppose adjectives such as "fat son of a bitch" which uses two gender defined terms while "damn bitch", or "lazy bastard", which use one each, are still perfectly acceptable).

Given how tied we are to the commercial world and all the products we buy, some items are going to have to change. For instance, Gordon's Seafood is going to have to lose the beaded fisherman while StarKist Tuna will have to change the name of its mascot, "Charlie" to something gender neutral. I suppose the same will hold for "Uncle Ben" and "Aunt Jemima". "Mr. Clean" will have to become "Gender Free Clean". Gone will be "Mr. Coffee" as well, along with a long list of other gender specific products.

Then there's the matter of entertainment. With today's recycled ideas, particularly comic book heroes, it looks like there needs to be a lot of changes starting with "He-Man", "She-Ra", "Batman", Batgirl", "Wonder Woman", "Superman" and "Supergirl", and "Hellboy". We need to do away with "Ant-man", "Aquaman", the "Scarlet Witch", the "Watchmen", "Ironman", and especially the "X-Men" which is quite gender specific.

However, to their credit, the folks over at Marvel must have seen this coming. They recently took the progressive step of taking one the most uber-macho Norse gods, Thor, who was also a super popular superhero, and turned him into a female. That's right. Odin's son was given a "gender reassignment" by the good folks at Marvel. How well this is going to play remains to be seen, but it's not expected to go over too well. No word yet on Dr. Jane Foster. Meanwhile, we await the introduction of gender neutral and transgendered super heroes.

Of course, if you haven't guessed by now, I'm joking, at least about some of this. However, what the Councilmember Robinson and others have done are very real, and it is spreading. We've seen where male athletes have entered women's sports as "transgendered" athletes and completely dominated their competition. There have been naturally born female athletes in MMA and wrestling who've not only be decisively beaten, but severely injured by their much more powerful "Y" chromosome carrying "female" opponents.

The situation has become so bad, that female athletes have started refusing to compete against these "transgendered" individuals, and rightly so. They have appealed to the various sanctioning bodies and demanded that "something" be done; perhaps create a separate league for these individuals or to require them to compete at heavier weight classes to even the odds a little. Meanwhile, female athletes are increasingly refusing to compete against transgendered competitors; not because they are transgendered mind you, but because they still have their masculine strength and speed, and that creates an unfair and often unsafe advantage.

In terms of businesses, the line between male and females has started to blur. In some places (such as New York, Chicago, and San Francisco) it's not uncommon to see guys wear makeup or instead of cologne, using perfume. Guys getting manicure and pedicures aren't uncommon, nor are seeing guys at spas getting facials. It's not over unusual to see guys wearing styles traditionally identified with women (including certain fabrics and colors).

Certain television shows such as "Rue Paul's Drag Race", "Project Runway", "Under the Gunn", "Project Accessory" and many many others have essentially "normalized" homosexuality (one of the biggest icebreakers was "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" which was about how to teach straight males to dress well). I guess you could even say "gay is in". Today, it's seen as no big deal. In fact, in some cities being straight can actually hold you back professionally. Who would have thought?

We've read or heard about dozens of gay actors and actress from the "Golden Era of Hollywood" who would never in a million years come out; it would have instantly destroyed their careers. Same goes with musicians, writers, producers, directors and so on. Nowadays, some of the most popular and powerful individuals in Hollywood (and Broadway) are gay; individuals such as Jodie Foster, Zachary Quinto, Neil Patrick Harris, Robin Roberts, Jim Parsons, Elton John, Wanda Sykes, and countless more.

Personally, I have no particular issue with individuals who are gay. Unlike some, I don't think people "choose" to be gay, at least not per se. I think you are born with that tendency already there. Why that is I have no idea. Science has reported that testosterone levels throughout the world have been on the decline. Plus, we have to remember that with a increasingly old population, testosterone levels decrease at a rate of about 1% per year after age 30 (testosterone peaks at about 20 years of age). But testosterone levels may have nothing to do with it since it's only one part of the gender equation.

I think one of the main reasons is simply acceptance. It was kept in the "closet" for so long, and now it's out, and with it, a certain power in numbers. According to Gallup, around 4.5% of the US population is gay, that is, LGBTQ, which is less than what many American's think, especially if your opinion is based on the corporate media's projection of gay influence in America. Naturally, that figure doesn't include those who've "experimented" or with those who support gays in some way.

Nevertheless, we've become a much more open society, and with that, there has been a trend toward a more socially liberal society (this trend basically got started in the late 1950's and has continued since despite periodic---and brief---shifts to the Right socially). Given the Millennials are strongly trending Left socially while their younger siblings may be headed even further Left, we can expect this to continue for some time to come.

Socially conservative (including those who identify as religiously conservative) will remain a vocal opponent, however, their numbers are on the decline and expected to continue in that direction for the foreseeable future. Of course, there will be pockets around the country where conservatives will dominate the political and cultural landscape and all things gay will remain more or less suppressed.

As for me, while one's sexual orientation makes little difference to me, I will continue to address males and females accordingly (as an aside, I believe there are two genders--male and female. What you do with yours is your business, but that doesn't mean I have to go along with you). At the same time, don't attempt to force me to conform to something I disagree with. If you have a problem with that, then you have my apologies but not my sympathies. If you chose, for whatever reason, to openly live as someone of the opposite gender, I commend your courage.

However, I was brought up to say "please" and "thank you" as well as "no sir" and "yes ma'am". If I interact with someone who is obviously a female, I will treat them accordingly, which means opening doors, pulling out the chair, and all of the other things you'd expect from a Southern gentlemen. Obviously that means referring to you with the appropriate feminine pronouns. By the same token, if you are by all indications a male, then I will treat you accordingly, and includes using all the gender appropriate grammar. Where I come from, that's the proper thing to do. No disrespect intended.


Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Berkeley City Council Votes to Ban Gender Specific Words

Berkeley Municipal Code Revision Related to the Use of Gender Neutral Language

Gay Hollywood: 41 Out and Proud LGBT Stars

Why modern men are losing their testosterone

Americans Still Greatly Overestimate US Gay Population

Reading the Signs: Understanding the True Meaning of Protest Signs

Recently we had "Day Without Immigrants" protests & marches. Not unsurprisingly, there were signs like "Immigrant Rights" or "Humans Aren't Illegal". Whenever we read an article or see a news report, you can bet that most are using terms like "undocumented immigrant" as a matter-of-fact. Most of us don't even notice it anymore, even though that they are not simply random words. They are designed to create a subtle psychological impact on us and how we process the situation being presented. The use of slogans and phrases to influence or manipulate how people think and react to a given event is an ancient art and an integral part of warfare just as much as marketing, it's counterpart, is in the consumer world. It's key to presenting a specific perspective or creating a certain attitude, be it toward an enemy on some battlefield or developing brand loyalty. It can be used to sway people toward or away from some objective, such as a manufactured future enemy just as well as why one brand is healthier or brighter than its competitor. During wartime, propagandists often search for powerfully emotional themes and vulnerable groups within enemy ranks and the civilian populations. They, in effect, are searching for a weakness in the enemy society that allows them to exploit and divide their forces.

Bolshevik leader Vladimir Ulyanov, better known as "Lenin", was strong proponent of the use of slogans, before, during and even after the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, including "Peace Bread Land" and "All Power to the Soviets" ("soviet" is the Russian term for worker committees). According to Lenin, slogans were designed to persuade people to join your cause, while at the same time, providing a simple, short, and easily conveyable explanation of what and why you were doing something. The slogan, "Peace Bread Land" for instance used just three words to define its domestic policy. "Peace" referred to withdrawing their troops from the Eastern Front and ending its war with Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I. "Bread" of course stated their goal of providing food to the millions of starving Russians , and "Land" implied giving the peasants the land (or at least some of it") on which they had been toiling as serfs for the wealthy. The slogan, "All Power to the Soviets" was directed mainly to factory workers, but also to the ordinary soldier and sailor, as well as the peasants. It called for the creation of worker's committees ("soviets") which would seek to manage the needs of each. Naturally, it didn't matter whether they, the Bolsheviks, actually intended to carry through with their pledge or how they intended on even doing so! It's only objective was to persuade in a easily understood and memorable way.

The true master of propaganda, and the individual by whom everyone else is measured, is Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment, Paul Joseph Goebbels. While the Nazis were politically right of center compared to the left of center Bolsheviks (later Communists), the methods they used were similar with the exception that they were refined to a sharp edge. Everything was stage managed, from the use of radio (they even distributed small radios to every family so they could listen to broadcasts), to sports and political events (the concept of political commercials, for instance, can be traced back to "The Triumph of the Will, which was filmed and directed by Leni Riefenstahl). They even politicized sports, starting with the 1936 Olympics, which was held in Berlin, with the film "Olympiad" , also directed and filmed by Leni Riefenstahl. According to Goebbels, propaganda had to simple , easily understandable, and plausible.

To help him do this, all slogans, like with the Communists, needed to short and catchy phrase such as "One Germany, One Reich, One Leader". Pictures too needed to catch the eye (and memory), and so they made use of certain colors and images. Music was incorporated to convey a mood too. The message had to be subtle and believable. It had to be presented "as if" it was understood; where the viewer and listener would make the desired leap or connection in their own mind without have to be told. Name calling, as childish as it seems, is used to anger, humiliate, and dehumanize your opponent. Lastly, it always incorporated obvious truths, especially ones that could be easily verifiable, therefore making the propaganda portions virtually invisible to the populace. But Germany wasn't the only country to use propaganda. So did Great Britain and the United States, especially through the use of movies (Hollywood produced dozens of propaganda films during the war. Hollywood as well as radio and television networks continues to put out films with subtle political and social agendas). After the war, Japan produced a whole movie genre warning of the dangers of nuclear war and/or radiation (ever hear of "Godzilla" or "Mothra"? They were all about radiated animals).

So, does any of this sound familiar? It should. It's where we got the concepts of "spin" and "alternative facts" today. We see examples of it every day thanks to the marketing and advertising industry, from commercials for products or services to the TV and print news programs and articles to politically oriented commercials. It's used in just about everyone social movement you can think of. It's even incorporated into many of TV shows we enjoy every night. I suppose you can think of it almost as the creation and maintenance of an alternative reality, and that brings us back to the beginning...the protests and the signs.

What we are witnessing are not random spur of the moment "pop up" protests. They are organized. Someone is underwriting them, and whoever that is, they have a specific political agenda; perhaps an attempt to either change immigration laws or more than likely, to simply make borders and national sovereignty obsolete. Therefore, they gloss over or blatantly ignore current realities, such as the signs reading something like "Equal Rights for Immigrants". As everyone knows, all immigrants have "equal rights" with all other citizens. They are subject to the same laws and the same benefits as everyone else. However, that's not their intent with this sign. The originator of the slogan is obviously attempting to blur the distinction between ordinary immigrants who came here legally and the illegal immigrant who didn't, and, therefore, are not entitled to the same protection and guarantees. When you read the sign, it's suppose to create a question in your mind and make you think everyone isn't being treated fairly. It's supposed to make you react emotionally (as does most propaganda) and want to side with their position.

How about " No Human is Illegal"? Again, the anticipated emotional response would be "hell no, we're free". But what they aren't saying is this isn't about some form of human slavery. It's about individuals who have and are acting in a criminal matter (i.e.: they broke federal immigration law and they are likely using taxpayer based services, again criminally since they aren't entitled to those services). Therefore, in mixing both a truth with a lie as Joseph Goebbels suggests, logic should tell you that, no, humans aren't illegal but their actions are sometimes. A sign which reads "Welcome Immigrants" isn't necessarily being directed to someone who has gone through the legal process for immigration, but may be aimed at those who "jumped ahead of the line" and came here illegally, thus hurting the chances of those trying to do it the right way.

Having a "Day Without Immigrants" is equally ridiculous since America is a nation of immigrants. If it was actually intended as written, all of us would have taken the day off! But, of course, it wasn't. Again, it's about confusing or blurring the terms "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" and attempting to using them interchangeably the way some people do "socialism", "fascism", and "communism", which are separate and distinct terms for different forms of government. Calling someone "undocumented" seems to imply that they merely left their green card or passport in their other pants or purse back home. It's not. It means these are individuals who willingly and knowingly decide to break the law, however, by calling them "undocumented" simply sounds nicer; friendlier and takes the seriousness of their actions out of the equation. It's like calling a drug dealer a "unlicensed pharmacist " or saying that a bank robber was making an "unapproved withdrawal"; it downplays the crime. "Love Trumps Hate" makes a claim that their actions are just and right while trying to equate President Trump's with what's unjust and wrong.

All of these phrases are being used to manipulate the conversation on illegal immigration. The techniques aren't new, but how they're being spread, by social media, is. By controlling the terms of a conversation and the meaning of the terms used, it is easy to control its direction. If one can do that ,then by default they control the outcome of the conversation. Don't allow them to control the conversation by controlling its terms. Challenge them at every step; correct them when and wherever---especially when it's coming from the media, be local or national. Our future depends on it.


Marxist Internet Archive: V.I Lenin "On the Slogan for a United States of Europe"


Psywarrior: Joseph Goebbels: Propaganda Principles


How Propaganda Works