Less Than Human
An Argument for Prescribing “It” to Certain Transgender “People”

1,767 words

When considering some of the more tragic, unnerving specimens of the transgender craze, the pronoun question comes to play, even for those who correctly refuse to misgender as the term is properly understood, i.e. using he/him pronouns for a person born male and she/her pronouns for a person born as female. Particularly in relation to some of the more horrific “female to male transgender” specimens, referred to with disdain as “pooners” in Internet parlance, such deluded persons have destroyed so much of what makes a person female that “she/her” pronouns feel even more out of place than “he/him.” For that reason, this short essay advocates using “it,” at least in instances where a person has obliterated most signals that convey their natural born sex.

The convention of customizable pronouns advocated by transgender and radical gender ideologues must of course be rejected, just as the so-called “singular they”–particularly in relation to a single, known individual–must be rejected out of hand. This position is based on firm, grammatical principles that stem across languages. Gendered articles and pronouns are not customizable or something one makes up in foreign languages (i.e., der, die, das in German). “This Mockery of Language I: The Farce of Shifting, Customizable Pronouns” sets forth the array of reasons condemning the so-called “singular they,” including begetting confusion on whether “they” means she or he or they, as well as the problem of subject verb agreement. Consider a hypothetical young woman named Maggie, who, taken with the transgender craze plaguing our society, wants to use “they/them” to express her “gender non-binary” “identity.”

Introducing Grammar Cat. He understands and insists on basic principles of grammar that should not elude even ESL students in an introductory A1 course.

People who play along with her charade utter sentences such as those found in this statement:

Maggie said they are going with a group of friends to the cocktail party. They hope Curt, that cute guy they met the other day will see them there.”

“Are” is the proper conjugation for a plurality, not a single person. Beyond that, the second sentence in particular begets confusion in a number of ways. Does Maggie hope that Curt will see her alone among a group of friends, or does she hope he will see both her and her friends, (they) or does this mean that they (Maggie and her group of friends) hope that Curt will see them, that is Maggie and her group of friends?

For these and other reasons, the so-called “singular they” is the most absurd folly that could be imposed on a language, and it is distressing that our cadre of teachers, English and other humanities departments across our universities, as well as editorial staff in dictionaries, grammar manuals, and various usage guides have not balked on this preposterous idea, all in service of the insidious, evil transgender ideology that is destroying people’s lives and further undermining the fabric of civilization.

That stated, in examining and contemplating more egregious specimens of the transgender craze, sometimes neither “she/her” nor “he/him” pronouns seem appropriate. And that is why this humble grammarian prescribes “it” to be used, at least in instances where someone has obliterated so many signs of that person’s true sex they no longer appear as the gender[1] they were born as but still are not the sex they covet, as none of them are tautologically.

One point of clarification is in order. When transgenders think they are transitioning sex—or gender—they are of course doing no such thing. Consider Ellen Page, who dares to try—but fails miserably—to harken to Marlon Brando wearing a tank top on the cover of its new book Page Boy. Or consider the images the before and after captioned below. Once a very beautiful young woman, this creature has obliterated most, but not all, of what made this individual a woman. The shoulders, hips, hands, neck, smaller bone density are just some of the physical tales that signal female, which of course clash the poor attempt to counterfeit male features, including the removal of her breasts.

Even the most deceptive transgender “female-to male” is not a man, but simply a counterfeit of a man. Buck Angel, the one-in-a-million female-to-male that would deceive many even in person (that is unless someone were to have this creature strip nude) is not a man. This person has simply obliterated, through horrific surgeries and the intake of hormones and other extreme measures, most of what makes this individual female while counterfeiting signs that manifest “male.”

While this creature has obliterated most tells of its female sex, many signs remain. These in conjunction with very poor attempts to counterfeit the male sex coveted render it something less than male or female.

That is the essence of transgenderism. They do not change sex or gender, nor do they transition. They simply obliterate what physical features they can which signal the sex one is born as while hopelessly counterfeiting some signs of the sex they covet in vain. They invariably are unable to conceal or obliterate some contingent of “tells” that conflict with the counterfeit sex—or gender—they wish they could be. By obliterating most of what makes such an individual female, but still failing to become a man by any stretch of the imagination, these “persons,” if one can call them that, become something less than human. And by so reducing themselves to a state that is less than human, they deserve nothing other than absolute inhumanity, if only that could be meted out. That loathsome state, perhaps best described as subhuman transgender vermin, is well signified by using the pronoun “it.” As we address our pets as he or she if we know the sex of a cat or dog, using “it” denotes they are lower than animals, at least in regards to beloved pets. Setting heated rhetoric aside, “it” is the gender neutral pronoun.

It cannot be stressed enough how crazy these people really are. A man who mutilates his penis through so-called gender-affirming surgery to create a very poor counterfeit of a vagina has negated so much of his humanity as to cease to be human in many important ways. That is apparent to most male readers who contemplate the very idea in relation to their own male bodies. Women who remove their ovaries, have their breasts lopped off, sterilize themselves, and destroy the ability to ovulate, as well as undergo man-made horrors beyond most people’s imagination by way of the “neo-penis”, have destroyed not only so much of what makes them women but their own humanity as well. Very often, they are right that she and her will not do as pronouns, but they are not men, and given the myriad problems with the so-called singular they, “it” is the best pronoun choice.

But “it” is not always the best pronoun choice. In the vast majority of “male-to-female” transgenders, whose presence conveys many “male” signs, “he” is still the best choice, as “he” signifies not only the intrinsic male essence they were born as but the number of male “signs” that the viewer sees at an instant, often including:

• Adam’s Apple
• shoulder to hip ratio that is male
• male cheekbones
• male hairline or male pattern baldness
• male pheromones
• larger hands
• denser bones
• large, ugly male feet
• what remains downstairs if one is in a dressing with a such a person or, God forbid, has sought intimate relations.

Using “he/him” pronouns is appropriate for most troons, because most male-to-female transgenders have much more difficulty in concealing or obliterating a greater number of features which signify “obviously male.”

Aside from correctly denoting the male essence they were born with, using “he/him” pronouns not only conforms to sound principles in grammar and logic, but expresses overt defiance with transgender lunacy, as it tells the transgender person that despite all their effort to deceive people into thinking he is a woman, anybody with an IQ above 60 can readily see he is a man. The same principle applies to those “pooners” who have not obliterated most tells that they are a woman, such as this supposed “gay” “female-to-male” specimen[2] who, although not very attractive, is obviously female with few if any tells that signal “male.” “She/pronouns” are the correct, natural choice.

Those against transgender lunacy must not indulge the farce of customized pronouns, in furtherance of the evil, insidious transgender and radical gender ideologies. Nonetheless, referring to creatures like Ellen Page in its current state as “she her” does not work very well. “It” is the best choice, signifying how desexed the creature is while connoting transphobia through dehumanizing such loathsome creatures. Perhaps most importantly of all, to the extent some young people caught up in this poison can still detransition with little to no permanent damage, using pronouns according to these principles in grammar, logic, as well as transphobia not as a character flaw but as a righteous ethos helps foster an environment that stigmatizes this lunacy and deters people from continuing with what is plainly a life-ruining decisions. For those who can be saved, this is the best sort of “tough love” imaginable.

Transgender ideologues and their enablers blather on incessantly about “transphobia,” hate,” and “intolerance.” Unfortunately, they have not (yet) experienced any such thing. But with luck, a severe unrelenting backlash is coming which will show them and their enablers what true and righteous intolerance is. Correctly denoting the very real ways they are less than human by using “it” is a simple linguistic and rhetorical tool to signify some semblance of that transphobia and intolerance of the intolerable, while still adhering to sound principles in grammar and logic.

Please see Richard Parker’s new Substack page, The Raven’s Call, featuring essays and other writings with a unique, hard-right perspective. Please also follow him on Twitter/X at @astheravencalls.

Notes

[1] As discussed at length in “This Mockery of Language: Gender redefined,” gender is properly defined as sex or sex as expressed by cultural expressions. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles defines the word gender in pertinent part: “Gender n. LME. 3 The state of being male, female, or neuter; sex; the members of one or other sex. Now chiefly colloq. or euphem. LME b Sex as expressed by social or cultural distinctions.” (emphasis added).

[2] What does “gay female-to-male transgender” really mean? Is this a straight woman who does not like feminine gender roles who desires straight men? Or does she think that by identifying as a “gay male” she can convince homosexual men to take a romantic or sexual interest. Utterly bizarre and nonsensical.