23 Replies to “Ze, Zhe, or Zher, or Jail Time”

  2. So “Hurricane Honeypot Harvey Swinestein” is in real trouble now…?
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  3. I don’t know how Californians expect to use such absurd fake pronouns with a burgeoning Mexican population.
    All Romance languages, including Spanish, use a surfeit of gender inflections in the grammar.
    Leftists have so little vision. They are so blind.
    Life for them is perpetually littered with unexpected consequences like so many carefully buried landmines, obvious to others but a mystery to them.

  5. The first time this law is enforced, the courts will strike it down as unconstitutional. The prosecuted individual might even be able to get damages.

  6. Meet the sponsor of this law:
    Democrat. Male. Gay (of course). San Francisco based. Militant (gay, not violent militant). Tall and Skinny (really noticeably). Likes to dress up in alternate clothes and walk around in public. Named Weiner … approves and likes the sex pics of his namesake in NY though not his sexual preferences. (maybe they’re related?)
    Weiner’s office states “the law does not create any new criminal provisions, but rather creates “new rights within an existing structure.” This in spite of the FACT that the new law DOES create new criminal provisions.
    It’s something in the water in California…. must be. So,so glad I left there because it seems to be contagious.

  7. This kind of law has already been signed and is in effect in Ontario, except it doesn’t affect health care workers — it affects everybody! Another difference — you don’t get a criminal trial, you get run through the Orwellian Human Rights system, where there is no legal aid, and where the defendants always lose.

  8. When I saw this story at BB yesterday, it was headed by a perfectly apt photo.
    http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/10/10/california-law-calling-transgenders-wrong-gender-pronoun-send-jail/
    How could anyone, Dem or Rep, know how to properly address “that”?
    All that this forced signalling BS accomplishes is the further fracturing of US society and ensuring another generation of rich lawyers and persecuted conservatives. If they were really smart, they would open Political Correctness Tribunals like Canada’s own Human Rights Commissions. That way, California legislators could operate OUTSIDE THE LAW and use it as yet another weapon to attack any troublesome righties with.
    I am happy I have fond memories of visiting California in the past, because I have no interest in experiencing the current version of it.

  10. What makes this law ridiculous and at the same time especially pernicious is that it is linguistically counter-intuitive: personal pronouns are general substitutes for more specific nouns. This turns the whole thing on its head by creating a vast category of “proper pronouns” and forcing speakers to memorize not only someone’s name but also their particular bespoke pronoun.
    Language just doesn’t work this way: you might forget that the fellow down the street is named Ted but you don’t forget that Ted is “he” because that’s how English operates and you don’t have to be conscious of it to use it (you won’t forget “he” as you might “Ted”).
    This is a law that English speakers are doomed to break simply by speaking. Frankly, it’s probably unenforceable in the long run. Good.

  12. California is competing with Ontario to be the most progressive (post modern nihilistic) jurisdiction in NA. Jerry Brownout makes a good fascist.

  13. I favor using the universal pronoun “fu” for these people. I’s sure the bright people here will get it.

  14. “All Romance languages, including Spanish, use a surfeit of gender inflections in the grammar.”
    My French being rudimentary 50 years ago, I have always wondered how the “gender neutrality” in law is interpreted in French where every noun, verb, adjective, adverb, … hell virtually every word has gender. The law requires bad English but don’t touch the French.

  15. So, I had a post and link lost in filter-land, not sure what phrase or whatever got it caught. Ha, but I think I am one of the few here who has mentioned this that wasn’t convinced it’s a great conspiracy against them, though.
    Basically I was linking to a BB article with what I thought was using a totally apt photo. What are you supposed to address someone as when you are seeing a dozen conflicting clues working against each other? For example, someone with a bushy beard, muscular arms and breasts in a negligee. This is an unworkable law.
    Nope, this agenda exists to further stress society, to reinforce the victim mentality of particular groups and to keep another generation of grievance lawyers rich.
    My captcha… WINERY CHURCH … point me to there Sunday School!

  17. “All Romance languages, including Spanish, use a surfeit of gender inflections in the grammar.”
    It’s not a “surfeit”. It’s simply a feature of the language.

  18. Yes … but …
    If you bake cakes for a living … you are (evidently) NOT allowed to ignore things you find unattractive.

  19. “My French being rudimentary 50 years ago, I have always wondered how the ‘gender neutrality’ in law is interpreted in French where every noun, verb, adjective, adverb, … hell virtually every word has gender.”
    You can’t do “gender neutral” in French. Every noun and pronoun is either masculine or feminine. So even if you did invent personalized pronouns akin to ze, zhe or zher, they’d still have to be either masculine or feminine.
    Instead, the French PC trend is to use “inclusive language”.
    For example, rather than just say “tous les Canadiens” when you mean all Canadians, you’d say “tous les Canadiens et toutes les Canadiennes” (or, if you want to be really PC, “toutes les Canadiennes et tous les Canadiens”). Or when you’d want to say something like “…all those who…”, you’d ordinarily have said: “…tous ceux qui…”. Now, to be “inclusive”, you’d say: “…tous ceux et toutes celles qui…”

  21. did anybody catch the irony in the wording of the law:
    “preferred name or pronouns” after he or she is “clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.”
    (from the link).
    ummmmm, not a ze zhe or zher in sight. soooo the authours of said law are at the very, very least HYPOCRITES.
    lot of THAT in leftoid land. I like the Fwench angle on this, still more hypocricy exposed.
    is the actual *pronunciation* of the newly minted pronouns ALSO mandated?
    what year is it?

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation