There’s over 60 Different Genders?

Thanks go to Joe for this comical find….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to There’s over 60 Different Genders?

  1. Pie Guevara says:

    I am shocked, SHOCKED that this community mocks the LGBTQQICAPF2K+.

    Have you no heart?

    Some of you may recall that I predicted this lunacy at least five years ago with my own extended acronym (which eventually came came true). Perhaps this is my only claim to fame in these pages (and likely accidental).

    Thank you Joe!

  2. Joe says:

    There’s over 60 Different Genders?

    Yes. Actually 64.

    The term “transsexualism” was coined by Magnus Hirschfeld, the founder of Berlin’s Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, whose lifespan coincided with that of the Weimar Republic. Hirschfeld categorized 64 genders, so it’s really déjà vu all over again.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/linh-dinh/genitalia-as-social-constructs/

    And you better get each one right or the PC police and Libby will come looking for you! Hey, don’t laugh. Twenty years ago could you have ever imagined this?

    You can be fined for not calling people ‘ze’ or ‘hir,’ if that’s the pronoun they demand that you use

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

  3. Libby says:

    See, you guys don’t get out enough … which causes you to go all hyperbolic over stuff like this. Here’s the deal … since all these folk are no longer required to live in the closet … and they are not … when they present themselves for medical care, they are entitled to set out their situation and their preferences, and to have this information considered in a respectful and professional manner.

    That is all this legislation requires. And anybody who giggles “he/she” in their presence should be kicked round the block … professionally and fiscally.

    On the other hand, we have in our office a person who wishes to be referred to as a “they”. I, as an eternally avowed English Major cannot do this. I can see wanting to avoid the “it” … but they are just going to have to do some more work on this. No singular entity gets to be a “they”. But we’ll work it out.

    • Tina says:

      You’ll work it out how?

      These are not people making a simple request of their doctor or care provider.

      These are militant agitators and their goal is manipulation and spreading division and chaos.

      Americans have tolerated and adjusted to many things in the last fifty years. On balance we do our best to treat people with respect, especially in professional situations.

      The agitators have nearly reached the end of their rope with this one. It’s extreme to the level of the impossible, as you have rightly pointed out, Libby.

      As an alumnus of UT, I’m embarrassed; as a college English major, I’m outraged. One wonders if the UT English department was consulted. Maybe they have drunk deeply from the well of political correctness and aren’t bothered by this, but they should at least have objected to the chart’s assertion that “they,” “them,” and “theirs” are appropriately used as singular pronouns. No, they are not. …

      It’s not a matter of us needing to get out more.

      It’s a matter of recognizing the absurd…and noticing the self absorbed.

      • Pie Guevara says:

        Tina, if you really expect Lippy to recognize the absurd it brings me sorrow. Lippy is the absurd. Can the absurd recognize the absurd? Perhaps, but not in Lippy’s case. Nor the dead Quentin Colgan’s, nor the now silent Chris.

      • Libby says:

        “These are militant agitators and their goal is manipulation and spreading division and chaos.”

        No, this … the above … is YOU over-reacting. There is an element of the absurd here, as in most human endeavor. So? Don’t you have any sense of humor at all? Imagination?

        And then, some empathy would be good. Tina, when fifty years have passed without anybody getting barb-wired to a fence and beaten to death … you will be free to object to the current level of “self-absorption” (with a “p”).

        Chill.

        • Tina says:

          “No, this … the above … is YOU over-reacting. There is an element of the absurd here, as in most human endeavor. So? Don’t you have any sense of humor at all? Imagination?”

          Oh silly woman. You have already observed activism in your own office. Just wait, you could be fired if you don’t comply. Why? Because the firm could become the target of an expensive lawsuit if you don’t.

          Individual examples in individual settings isn’t the point. The point is this will be pushed to form legislation that forces compliance. Nothing funny about government using it’s power to force and control speech and opinion.

          Where’s the sense of humor in these very confused people? They live as victims, victims of their own creation and choice!

          “…some empathy would be good.”

          I have empathy for individuals who find themselves victims, reduced to imaginary genders to define them, in this ridiculous fadish trend. They will be used, politically just as the left has used every other minority!

          This is serious activism and serious activism requires push back. A sense of humor can’t stop the governments freakish need to control every aspect of our lives.

          CA latest bid for absolute control:

          California’s Democrat-dominated legislature is moving to require “gender diversity” on the boards of publicly-held companies, which would have to appoint individuals self-identifying as female.

          In May, the California State Senate passed SB 826 on a party-line vote. The bill mandates that by the last day of 2019, California’s 445 publicly-held companies must pay a fine unless they have at least one female — defined as “an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

          By the last day of 2021 — if the bill becomes law — California corporate boards with five or fewer directors must have a quota of at least two self-identifying females. Corporations with six or more board members must have at three least self-identifying females to avoid a fine.

          The California Secretary of State would be empowered to set regulations and issue fines equal to the average compensation of a corporation’s directors for the first violation, and triple the average compensation for any subsequent violations.

          The quota demand for “women” on these boards will be followed by expansion to cover all “genders” designated by radical lefty activists…count on it!

          We aren’t talking about simple requests in small settings nor are we talking about water cooler humor at that level. We are talking about jack boot thuggery to force speech and control choices.

          You try very hard to diminish and dismiss our concerns but you miss the mark every time!

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Hyperbolic? Dear, sweet, English Major moron Lippy, I love this lunacy. I relish it. The only thing you need to work out is what you refuse to exercise. Your brain. I pity your students, if you have any.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *