PORTSMOUTH, OH – “People even make up new, unique terms for nonbinary and gender-neutral family members all the time to help describe the unique relationships they have with their relatives,” proclaims a LGBTQ Nation journalist.
Yes, we are living in clown world whereas reporter Daniel Villarreal and the radical trans cultists encourage families to invent their own unique gender-neutral words. What’s next on the propaganda prattle pushers agenda of idiocy?
A Guide to Inclusive Gender-Neutral Family Terms is the title of his commentary, but there’s a mismatch. If every gendering family makes up their own gabble – how is that inclusive to people outside their circle of relatives and friends? It’s more like kin-spin, clan-span, trans twaddle or bunk-junk jargon – gender gibberish.
Children, especially, need a common language to communicate with playmates, pediatricians, teachers, and others that do not accept unscientific gender ideology and that adhere to factual biology. Once again, it’s more confusion for a child’s developing brain. So, kids will have to carry around a transgender translation dictionary. Argh.
“It’s intellectual freedom when a journalist can understand that 2 + 2 = 4; that’s what Orwell was writing about in 1984. Everybody here applauds that book, but nobody is willing to think about what it means. What Winston Smith [the main character] was saying is, if we can still understand that 2 + 2 = 4, they haven’t taken everything away. Okay? Well, in the United States, people can’t even understand that 2 + 2 = 4.” –Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
And the LGBTQ pawns will try to enforce gender gibberish, other than pronouns, into the public school systems. Creepy Joe Biden, Richard Rachel Levine, and the demoralizing Democrats will probably call it a civil rights issue.
“As more LGBTQ+ people marry and have families, they’re welcoming a growing number of nonbinary, gender-neutral, and gender-expansive relatives. But the titles used for relatives tend to be old-fashioned and heavily gendered,” Villarreal surmises.
So, use double-talk to try to validate the fairy tale fallacy of gender theory – backed by zero hard science. Nonbinary babble for the woke.
Throw out our historical terms of endearment: mother, momma, father, dad, sister, brother, grandma, grandpa, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew and replace with supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
For many people, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious and the 1964 movie Mary Poppins are inextricably linked. Indeed, it was this movie that popularized the word. The songwriters, brothers Richard and Robert Sherman, have “explained the word as originating in the same way they, like many others, used to make up humorously big, nonsensical words as children.” (emphasis added)
The opinion piece’s gender gibberish continues, “While some of the newer family terms below may require a bit of explanation so others can understand them, using these terms regularly will help normalize them, making them more widely accepted in the mainstream.”
This is me chuckling about the new weird words that need explaining (transplaining) to others. Ya think? Oh, use repetition and more repetition – an old brainwashing strategy to “normalize” wacky words.
There’s nothing normal about transgenderism. It’s a mental health disorder. And individuals deserve evidence-based and compassionate treatment – not harmful drugs and risky sex reassignment surgeries.
Moreover, lots of families have cute pet names or silly idioms for each other, but it’s kept within the household.
Use slang and not correct English in mainstream. Really? The militant LGBTQ brutes are becoming the pronoun police and enforcers of using concocted words.
So, am I wordphobic or a trans language bigot for not using gender gibberish?
In summary, the unhinged gender ideology cult movement is fabricating their own pieces of language to accommodate a mental illness, confuse and brainwash children, and force their own choices onto to society.
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?” –George Orwell, 1984