I have a question: do any of you guys get upset seeing this “gender inclusive” language all the time? Expressions like “s/he said” or “he/she,” and so on. I just read something today written by a friend of mine – in a profession where such diction is more or less required – and I simply couldn’t take it. I found it difficult to read, as if it were a kind of “fractional feminism” or “fractional misandry”. I grew up during the age when “he” simply was understood in certain contexts to mean any human person, male or female. Now it’s a form of expression designed to show that one’s “consciousness” has been “raised” and that one is “sensitive.” As far as I’m concerned, this is really not just a war on men through the use of language (hence the reduction of sex to gender), it’s really a disguised war on freedom of speech and expression. I’ve made a deliberate resolution never to use gender inclusive language and to stick to the old usage; I say “mankind” rather than “humankind” because it p~~~es off the feminazis and betas.  But anyway, does anyone else out there notice this, and have any of you noticed that men who buy into this type of social engineering via “gender inclusive” language tend to be betas?

RULE: Women that play this card, exclude them from EVERYTHING.

I’m at the point of excluding from my intimate circle anyone who falls for this linguistic misandry, man or women. I don’t have many women friends in my close circle of friends at all. But I increasingly find myself at loggerheads with most men who’ve bought into this nonsense and won’t fight it. What it is being used for is a “litmus test” to see if one is “on board” with the social engineering agenda behind it. Oppose it or refuse to use it, and your job, in certain circumstances, is at risk, and hence, it’s a subtle war on freedom of speech and expression. And feminism was behind it, we need to remember that.

I’ve made a deliberate resolution never to use gender inclusive language and to stick to the old usage; I say “mankind” rather than “humankind” because it p~~~es off the feminazis and betas.

George Carlin did a great piece on “soft language”. Its’ in the archives.

Having to do with “gay pride day” I just saw a picture on Twitter a few days ago: “This as-yet gender-unidentified 7 year old” and that’s when I knew the insanity is off the charts. It was clearly a 7 year old BOY…. but these f~~~ing freaks called him “gender-unidentified”. Holy f~~~ing hell for even THINKING like that.

it’s not “gender-unidentified”.. its a BOY.

• It’s not “gender” it’s SEX – as in: “the male SEX” and “the female SEX”.
• It’s not bathroom tissue.. it’s toilet paper.
• It’s not “landfill”…. it’s garbage dump.
• It’s not “I don’t believe in marriage”…. its’ “I refuse to sign a marriage contract”.

The whole SJW “gender” s~~~ is soft language for s~~~stains who have such delicate sensibilities they can’t even say what something ACTUALLY IS without freaking out. They are nucking futs.

http://www.mgtow.com/video/life-through-the-eyes-of-a-sjw/

That is why using plain lingo like “MAN” instead of “guy” actually makes them a little nervous and uncomfortable. Use the direct language and their tiny fragile brains will explode. Directness truth and honesty with no apology is the equivalent of dropping a bomb on them. Enjoy the s~~~ out of it.

it’s not “gender-unidentified”.. its a BOY. • It’s not “gender” it’s SEX – as in: “the male SEX” and “the female SEX”. • It’s not bathroom tissue.. it’s toilet paper. • It’s not “landfill”…. it’s garbage dump. • It’s not “I don’t believe in marriage”…. its’ “I refuse to sign a marriage contract”.

Hear hear!  This is the other insidious side of this whole linguistic-social engineering agenda, in that they have to rob children of their innocence by sexualizing them at an early age, and by equating “gender”(a linguistic characteristic) with “sex”, they deliberately sow confusion in children’s minds. Here’s another thing that bothers me that the feminists don’t complain about, which shows what a double standard reigns in all of this. Do a search on a famous actress (feminine gender of the word “actor”) and oftentimes you will see an actress labeled as “A British/American/Canadian actor”. So, they use the masculine gender to refer to a fully mature female actress, yet insist on the “gender inclusive” form for pronouns and pars pro toto usage. Goal? I suppose that it’s all to break down sexual roles and distinctions, to create the fiction of real “equality” when it does not exist by the linguistic sleight of hand of a “linguistic” equality. And it’s handy, as I said, as a litmus test of whether or not you’re on board with their agenda. I say we have to consciously and deliberately fight it.

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/04/linguistic-social-engineering/

Holy s~~~ people raising children as gender neutral.  I didn’t even know this is happening.

I honestly think it just goes to show how fragile and pathetic women are nowadays.