Wednesday, July 11, 2012



Pronouns must be abolished?

George Leef over at NRO’s Phi Beta Cons had a teasing link to this exciting news earlier today:

    "Harvard has appointed Vanidy “Van” Bailey as the College’s first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. Bailey, the assistant director for education at the University of California, San Diego, will assume the new position on July 16."

Alas, this long overdue shattering of the BGLTQ ceiling was marred by the Harvard Crimson’s grossly insensitive coverage:

    "An earlier version of this article used the pronoun “she” to refer to Vanidy “Van” Bailey, the newly appointed director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. In fact, Bailey prefers not to be referred to by any gendered pronoun."

So America is now the first nation in history in which people take on six figures of debt for the privilege of entrusting their education to persons with no pronouns. That seems likely to work.

Source


29 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how the gay community so furiously fights for their identity as gay, yet they insist on remaining ambiguous about their true sexual identity.

Sexual identity is not about how you feel about yourself or how you choose to identify yourself. With some extremely rare physiological exceptions, it is based completely on one's XX or XY chromosomes: If they're XY, you're a guy. If they're XX, you're a chick. It's science at its purest, and is indisputable.

Bird of Paradise said...

More speech control by Big Bad Brother

Anonymous said...

"It's science at its purest, and is indisputable."

Since when do conservatives embrace science?

Anonymous said...

2:12, what other myths do you believe? Many scientists are conservatives. moron.

Anonymous said...

Well I can fully support this. I feel it as far more approriate to use It instead of He or She. So this seems to work for everyone!

Anonymous said...

Hey Miss, I think you need a good shtupping, then STFU.

Anonymous said...

She's the man!
(in its relationship)

Anonymous said...

If you go over to Moonbattery.com you can see a picture of this freak. And don't make the same mistake i made in thinking it was Buckwheat from the old Our Gang comedy series.

I can't help but wonder how many more letters will be added to their titles. (LGBTBGLTQ) I would think that simply using "freaks" would suffice.

"Political correctness is a far greater threat to our freedom and liberty than is terrorism..."

Anonymous said...

"Many scientists are conservatives."

The shitty ones - Intelligent Design advocates, those who deny climate change, etc.

You are quite funny about the myth comment - religion, god, the bible are ALL myths. You sure got balls, my friend.

Anonymous said...

No one is denying climate change - the ice age and other changes in climate are well documented. What is questioned is whether the climate change is man made. Please explain what man did that caused the last ice age, or what man did to bring the earth out of it?

Anonymous said...

"No one is denying climate change"

LOL

Anonymous said...

If you mean "man made global warming", then say it!

Please show one example of someone who denies that the climate changes - you know, summer, fall, winter, spring ...

Anonymous said...

3:09 AM Seasons are not variations in "climate" but part of the overall regular climate in any one area; but of course there are overall actual changes in climate over periods of time, whether or not caused by human activity - and that includes average temperature changes that sometimes lead to "ice ages" of varying intensity or contrasting warm periods.

Anonymous said...

@4:04 - true, I feel like an idiot, but sometimes I get lazy.

Anyway, the point is the same. Dear troll, please show one example of someone who claims that the climate has never changed or can't change. Now, if you want to talk about "man-made global warming", or its exaggerated effects, being a hoax, there you will find plenty of takers.

And wtf are you posting about this in this tread about the stupid bitch?

Anonymous said...

4:30 - Regarding "And wtf are you posting about this in this tread", it's known as hijacking the commentary. READ the comments, starting from the top, unless you use the "sometimes I get lazy" excuse, and then you might understand. Only fools respond to trolls as you have done. LOL.

Anonymous said...

Since.when is the sexuality of students any of the business of the university? No this is about promoting the gay lifestyle as normal. Religious groups which criticize the lifestyle will be branded as "intolerant" . If you believe in evolution it is still abnormal because nature would not "create" animals whose behavior prevents them from reproducing. It is counter to evolution. So either way it is not natural.

Go Away Bird said...

Anon 2:12 conservatives ecept science its you narrow minded liberals that reject scientific facts and enbrace Junk Science that pushes this GLOBAL WARMING bunk

Anonymous said...

The Mr. Misspeller said, "conservatives ecept science"

If so, why do conservatives believe in god? There are absolutely NO scientific facts to prove its existence.

Anonymous said...

Liberal insanity proudly on clear display. And they let these freaks be near children to brainwash them too. Enablers. Liberals are sick freaks.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure SHE will do a horrible job. I hope SHE doesn't get HER way. We still have the freedom to call HER a HER in our country. SHE has already failed by taking offense to a normal way of describing a person. I hope SHE doesn't cry after reading this about HER.

Anonymous said...

2:36, scientists are men, men will lie, cheat, steal. scientists are not above you or I. Grow up and quit being so naive.

Anonymous said...

Now they need to put the director of muslim student needs in the same office---than let the games begin, i bet the gallows would be set up in about 5 minutes.

Anonymous said...

Just refer to it as "It". Or maybe a new pronoun "Pat" (from SNL).

Anonymous said...

Anon836 spewed, "men will lie, cheat, steal."

Sounds like your buddies on Wall Street. You grow up and quit being so delusional.

Anonymous said...

It makes me laugh when I hear, "The high today broke a record. It was the highest it has been in 86 years!" Of course, people completely fail to connect the fact that 86 years ago, it was just as hot, and since then, it has been cooler than it was 86 years ago.

So much for the man-made climate change argument.

Anonymous said...

7:12 AM - Clearly being homosexual is not counter to 'evolution' since history and the modern experience shows it has existed throughout the world's population (and so is natural in that sense). Part of the reason maybe that the actual attempts at suppressing homosexuality is counter-productive as it encourages homosexuals to marry and have children (and thus pass on any genetic pre-disposition there may be to a homosexual outcome) rather than live the lives they might have preferred not having children.
However there are of course other reasons why homosexuality may appear in such complex societies that humans have developed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:10 AM, yes, homosexuality has always existed in one form or another throughout history. But in almost all societies, it has been considered abnormal or deviant. The only real difference between the present and the historical past is that because of advances in communication (aka, the Internet) a minority voice can be heard louder than in history past. So just because someone can now be more readily heard, does it automatically follow that their deviance should suddenly be considered equal in all areas?

Most people, including many who are staunchly against homosexuality, would agree that legislating more rights for "civil unions" would be fine. But stop with the continued insistence on re-defining "marriage" into something that it is clearly not. We keep getting the 50% of marriages fail" thrown in our face as though it's some criticism of conventional marriage. But that also means that 50% of marriages are successful. And as a husband of one woman for over 20 years, I would not have it any other way. Why? because i hold the covenant of marriage sacred. Twisting marriage into something it is not is very dangerous.

Anonymous said...

1:55, you're in denial

Anonymous said...

7:31 AM : your obvious obsession is between the definition of "marriage" and "civil union", when both may amount to the same thing. You clearly want to belong to a superior category. However, if you regard "marriage" a superior and sacred thing, there is nothing to stop your religious institution performing any kind of marriage ceremony it likes. But if it wants an official and legal sanction it must go to the state, and the state has the right to regard "marriage" and "civil union" as the same thing, which is what it is in practice.
Yes, there should be more fuss made about preventing divorce and multiple re-marriages (and thereby collecting confused and traumatized step-children along the way) than trying to preventing some couples marrying just once (most of whom will have no children to "traumatize")!