Part 1 of Preferred Pronouns: Are "Preferred Pronouns" Perilous?

 

Note to the reader:  This article will have considerable repetition - because these ideas about "preferred pronouns" are new; include neurology, linguistics, biology, history, psychology, etc.; and may be hard to take past insistent political noise - in order to offer different lenses to view the topic through.  The aim is to remove emotional reactions so we can all start looking much more closely and seriously at "preferred pronouns," with the repetition, inviting the reader to explore their own scientific and logical reasoning to the subject.

 

For the first time in human history, pronouns have been criminalized.  

 

How very curious!  

 

Which pronouns?  The appropriate ones that fit the biologic facts of the person being referred to.  

 

Also highly curious.

 

Preferred pronouns fit within a broad series of anomalous and show-y transgender behaviors that other people react to.

 

["anomalous" ... adjective

1. Deviating from the normal or common order, form, or rule.
2. Equivocal, as in classification or nature.
3. Deviating from a general rule, method, or analogy; abnormal; irregular.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.]

 

But the "preferred" pronoun is unique in four ways. 

• It is NON-visual. 
• It is the least reacted to of transgender behaviors. 
• It demands others' participation.
• And it may be permanently harmful. 

 

1.  People strongly react to transgender males claiming to be female and entering and winning female sports events, 

 

2.  People intensely react to transgender or transvestite males reading to toddlers at the public library, often about whether they would like to be a boy or girl, or are they sure they are  a girl or boy,

 

 

 as well as react strongly to drag queens cavorting with the children physically or teaching them to pole dance or to put dollar bills into performing drag queens's underwear.

 

3.  People strongly react to the dismissal of parental objections (by labeling the objections as bullying or hate speech) to Drag Queen Story Hour sessions between their little children and grown men dressed as women, or to their elementary school age children being taught about sodomy and having to put condoms on dildos.

"A whistle-blowing former public school teacher .... spoke of relay races where 10- and 11-year-old girls are trained to put condoms on a prosthetic male erection as the boys watch on."  Kids as young as 11 years old are trained in how to engage in oral and anal sex and taught to experiment with bisexuality by public school teachers.

4.  People strongly react to celebrities promoting their children as transgender, and thus promoting transgenderism to the culture.

 

 

 

5.  AND people react to the fact that people can lose jobs for NOT using false pronouns ("she" for a male, "he" for a female, "they" for a single person, etc.) and that in some places, NOT using the "preferred" pronoun has now been criminalized with fines.

 

 

That bears repeating because while the visual elements of transgender behavior is most reacted to, it is the non-visual, less emotionally disturbing "preferred pronouns" that those behind the LBGTQ leadership use to demand PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and ....

 

NOT using FALSE pronouns :

• has been criminalized,
• has led to loss of jobs,
  
• has ended social connections,
• has even destroyed family connections. 

 

Based on their entangling people in crimes who are simply speaking normally, in economic disaster, and in heart-breaking social and family losses, "preferred pronouns" deserve much more attention.

 

 

The preferred pronoun -, the abnormal pronoun, the untrue pronoun - is the least emotionally charged of the transgender orbit of behavior and one that is even becoming normalized in the culture (with commercial mugs at Target and other major chain stores and online, showing the pronouns people "prefer") yet not using it can actually be damaging - professionally, socially and to families.

 

But "preferred pronouns" are also a neurologic threat.

 

Pronouns are part of syntax.  Syntax is a very deep neurologic function and within it, pronouns have special functions within the brain. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070817205522.htm

 

"New research suggests that pronouns may play a far greater role than simply replacing a proper name in a sentence [.... and] that pronouns help keep the brain’s complex circuitry and limited memory system from being overloaded.

"Using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), psychology researcher Dr. Amit Almor and colleagues studied the brain activity of 21 adults, ages 19 - 34, who were asked to read sequences of sentences to compare the brain’s response to pronouns versus proper names.  ....

“The brain lit up with activity when proper names were used, including areas that are not associated with language,” Almor said. “We saw considerable activity in areas of the parietal lobe that involve spatial processing that was absent when pronouns were used.” [All emphasis is by this author.]

"Almor is the first researcher to use brain imaging to explore the neurological underpinnings of humans’ preference for pronouns. ....

"The brain responds to proper names by creating a representation of the person in the mind, drawing from various parts of the brain to construct complex visual, sound and other information associated with that person. Every time the name is repeated, the brain responds by activating a process that creates a new representation of the person.

"The brain initially holds each created representation in memory. The integration of these multiple representations requires effort that can disrupt the brain’s ongoing processing of what it hears during spoken conversation.

"Pronouns, while faulty for their potential ambiguity, don’t cause the same disruptions in the brain that proper names do when used in the right context.   In fact, they allow the brain to move easily from one thought or sentence to another. This seamless transition allows a person to digest more fully the meaning or intent of the thought being conveyed without the neural circuitry interference that proper names cause, said Almor.

“ 'We are at the mercy of our memory system, which is limited,' Almor said. 'The more items or representations we hold, the more effort we need to spend so as not to lose information.  Pronouns let us avoid that juggle in our brains. I expected to find activity in classic language areas of the brain. I was surprised to see activity in the spatial areas, but it makes perfect sense.'

Almor says American Sign Language uses a similar system to protect the brain from such “juggling.” In ASL, a person will sign a proper name on first reference and then point to a specific location in the air, as if “placing” that name on an invisible computer desktop. Instead of re-signing the name, which causes the brain to create a new representation of that person, the signer will point to where he or she had “placed” that name so that the other person will understand to whom he or she is referring.

“ 'Language has evolved to meet our brain’s needs, and sign language is no different,' said Almor. 'In fact, although sign languages are often studied through comparison to spoken languages, in this case sign language may show the internal working of the brain’s language ability more transparently than any spoken language.'

“ 'Our study suggests that, just like signers, English speakers place people that were previously mentioned in space, although in the case of English speakers, this space is a ‘virtual’ brain space.' "

Now watch the problem with "preferred pronouns"

1.  "Pronouns, while faulty for their potential ambiguity, don’t cause the same disruptions in the brain that proper names do when used in the right context."

But "preferred pronouns" are all intentionally in the wrong context.

2.  "[T]hey [pronouns] allow the brain to move easily from one thought or sentence to another. This seamless transition allows a person to digest more fully the meaning or intent of the thought being conveyed without the neural circuitry interference that proper names cause."

But what happens to neural circuitry when the reference of "preferred pronouns" is to something:

• actually wrong or false, and
•  when the :preferred pronoun" itself is highly charged politically and emotionally?
  

3.  " 'The more items or representations we hold, the more effort we need to spend so as not to lose information.  Pronouns let us avoid that juggle in our brains '  "

 

But what happens if the "preferred pronouns" themselves bring in highly unusual "items and representations" that might tend toward making people lose other information or distract them from it?  What if "preferred pronouns" thus complicate or even overload the job of the brain rather than simplifying it? 

(The images below are an example of "items and representations" that "preferred pronouns" reference.)

 

 

4.  "American Sign Language uses a similar system to protect the brain from such “juggling.” .... Instead of re-signing the name, which causes the brain to create a new representation of that person, the signer will point to where he or she had “placed” that name so that the other person will understand to whom he or she is referring."

 

But what if the "preferred pronouns," in not fitting the biology of the person, are pointing AWAY from the person allegedly being referenced and instead toward highly charged representations and/or to an entire intensely emotionally loaded political paradigm?

 

5.  " 'English speakers place people that were previously mentioned in space, although in the case of English speakers, this space is a ‘virtual’ brain space.' "

 

But what if "preferred pronouns." in not fitting the person being referenced, can find no virtual space, or are  creating a second space in the brain, one for false references?

 

As we can see, pronouns aren't a superficial thing or just something "preferred" - as in a minor or irrelevant social nicety.  Pronouns are core neurologically.  

 

In English we already have over 100 normal pronouns to help us reference people and things.  They were accumulated naturally over time to ease referencing.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/List-of-pronouns.htm

 

There are allegedly over 70 new "preferred pronouns" that were recently INVENTED (by whom?) and forced on the public under threat of various significant punishments.  Here are only a very few of them (leaving off the pronouns he and she and they that are biologicallyor numerically false references

 

HE/SHE	HIM/HER	HIS/HER	HIS/HERS	HIMSELF/HERSELF
zie	zim	zir	zis	zieself
sie	sie	hir	hirs	hirself
ey	em	eir	eirs	eirself
ve	ver	vis	vers	verself
tey	ter	tem	ters	terself
e	em	eir	eirs	emself

 

To get specific, the "preferred" (or wrong) pronoun is a lie.  But it is not just any lie but one using pronouns which play a major role in language that affects the brain in particular ways. 

 

Pronouns work at the level of syntax.  Syntax structures speech itself.  And pronouns have a unique role in that structuring.

 

Thus "preferred pronouns" are not "just any ole words" added to vocabulary or "just a preference" of one word over another.  No, they operate as part of syntax with pronouns performing a highly specific job. 

 

Normal pronouns, based on studies to understand their neurologic function, appear to play to streamline representations in a way that helps the brain manage limited storage. 

 

Do "preferred pronouns" which are lies of biological referencing or lies of plurality or which reference nothing known (e.g. zee")

• mess up the simplifying referencing that normal pronouns do?
• complicate referencing in general?
• alter how the brain must now store information?
• create a bifurcated storage system?
• overload rather than streamline storage?
• affect thinking itself?

 

"Preferred pronouns" are syntactical LIES that are being implanted or embedded neurologically, and even into very young children and teens whose brains are not fully developed..

 

This may be the first time in human history, people are being forced to lie to other people at the level of syntax.  Totalitarian governments have forced people to lie about facts or speak fawningly of leaders or rejectingly of good people.  Fascist governments and cultural revolutions are known for such manipulation of people's words.

 

But "preferred pronouns" are a manipulation or control at a syntactical level that negates a PRIMARY fact of life - who is male, who is female.  They also negate what is singular, what is plural (in terms of people) and who is even being referred to.

 

As bizarre as this demand for a public lie is, it is backed up now by criminalization of those who won't lie. 

This manipulation of syntax relates to what exists in the world, and thus to perception itself. 

 

Pulling this out of the realm of LBGTQ or sex/gender a moment, imagine forcing everyone to refer to multiple things they see as though they were singular, or vice versa.  One might then understand that the brain could be affected as the person would be lying about their innate perception. 

 

So it is actually quite serious to twist syntax which relates us to the world we are in and informs us of it. 

 

"Preferred pronouns" are bizarre because:

• they are forced lies. 
• the lie is at the level of neurologically-built-in syntax
• the lie is about reality
• the lie is about perception
• not using them - NOT LYING - is criminalized
• even just referring through syntax to the reality of human biology is legally punished
  

 

Syntax! 

People are being forced to use a neurologically deep part of speech. wrongly.  How, out of that constant abnormal messaging to the brain, do people then generate a normal life?

 

"Preferred pronouns" distortion of syntax becomes serious as it becomes clear that it affects people neurologically. 

 

We might assume those claiming "preferred pronouns" to represent themselves would be affected, but are those forced to commit these syntactical lies also neurologically affected?

 

The LBGTQ leadership (or those behind it), insist that transgender people should cut off from those who won't use the lying "preferred pronouns," so those who may already be confused about themseoves and isolated and often rejected, now lose even close relationships with family or friends who are honest and will not lie to them. 

 

It's relevant to note that they are not being pushed to cut off from family members or friends out of being rejected by them for transgender feelings.  The push to cut off family and friends who may not be rejecting them, is about their refusal use "preferred pronouns" which the LBGTQ leadership defines as not accepting them "for who they really are."  So the reality of loving them, the fact of caring for them, or the connection of living with them don't matter.  Only using "preferred pronouns" defines accepting them.  The LBGTQ leadership (or those behind them) promotes cutting those friends and family off for that reason alone.  What does this do to the already minimal life of those with transgender feelings?

 

Why are "preferred pronouns" so crucial to those pushing transgenderism?

 

What is going on?

 

Amit Almor's work on pronouns (above) suggests that the brain attempts to handle limited memory storage by using pronouns once the person has been identified.  Logically, false pronouns would not ease the memory issue.  Logically "preferred pronouns" as lies or inventions ("zee, zer") with no built-in reference to others, may even create a dual or multiple storage situation.  Is Jim now Jane?  Does using "she" for Jim make that easier for the brain or does the brain now have to deal with both Jim and Jane?  Or if Jim, claiming to be Jane, chose some completely unique "preferred pronoun" detached from the simplicity of male/female biology, what is the brain to do?  Is "zee" a reference to a letter?  Is "they" for a single person a reference to others or denial of that single person's existence or a reference to multiple people within that person?  What is the brain to do?

 

And what of the person (Jim/Jane) whose brain it is?  Is there confusion in using pronouns that lie about Jim's/Jane's biology or in inventing pronouns that have little or no meaning to others in terms of referencing himself or herself, or is Jim/Jane perhaps personally losing self-reference altogether through "they" or "ve"?

 

In all this, can we begin to see how the lies of "preferred pronouns" might be harmful?

 

Go to 53.16 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WeJ_syJtnU to hear Mark Christopher, the Chief Judge of the Federal Postal Court (whose jurisdiction is worldwide), describing a movie and the injury done to people linguistically.  The identical issue exists with the pronouns. 

 

When we went and watched this movie, called "Malignant," which is a recent movie, it was portrayed as a horror film.  In doing the research, we realized that the Pharmaceutical Industry were trying to destroy and create a separation between your subconscious and your conscious mind so they are at war with each other, what they call "poisoning the spirit" so the spirit will attack your own body, .... that you're soulless.

 

"In doing so [in the film], it was a Pharmaceutical Industry with chemical lobotomy, which is still happening in the form of vaccines.  They don't want your subconscious mind, your spirit, to fuse with your body and your conscious mind because when that happens, you will have the power, the strength, and the intellectual capacity of a natural creature.  

 

Look at any natural creature outside of your window.  It has thousands of times more skills than you do.  It has all the navigational skills that you lack, not because you are less than them, it's because somebody hurt you LINGUISTICALLY, on paper, lied to you, vaccinated you, gave you death injections, got you smoking death sticks, and the rest of it.  So the movie made that very clear." 

(Emphasis by this author.)

 

It is the linguistic lie that is relevant here and its potential to create an on-going struggle between the unconscious mind and the conscious mind.  Mr Christopher says that interferes with the ability of the mind and body to fuse with the soul.  Perhaps the movie suggested this as well. 

 

If one thinks logically about it, if you are male ('he') and telling yourself, and others are telling you through using wrong pronouns, that you are female ('she') or plural ('they") or something unheard of ("zee"), how would your unconscious mind handle that unceasing barrage of non-truth at the core of your very being?  Even if your conscious mind thought the lie were true or was okay to go along,, would the subconscious mind buy the lie or would it out of some more fundamental and essential "knowing," reject it?

 

Two entities are involved with the lie - those being referred to with false pronouns, and those who are doing the referring.  Are they each harmed?

 

Perhaps studies showing neurologic/physiologic evidence of the impact of lying, might help one consider more closely that being forced against one's will to use a pronoun that does not match one's own perception of another's biology - might be experienced as a lie. Or in the case of the person being referred to, would the non-matching ("preferred") pronoun be experienced as a lie they are supposed to accept as truth?

 

So, is there support to lend to what Mr. Christopher said - that the conscious and subconscious mind would not be at peace with lies - is there hard evidence that lies negatively affect our minds and bodies?

 

Brain imagining offers some supporting evidence that there is:

 

"Symptoms of anxiety arise because lying activates the limbic system in the brain, the same area that initiates the “fight or flight” response that is triggered during other stresses. When people are being honest, this area of the brain shows minimal activity. But when telling a lie, it lights up like a fireworks display. An honest brain is relaxed, while a dishonest brain is frantic. 

 

[This refers to the brain of people telling lies, not to the brain of people exposed to lies but it indicates that the brain is reactive to lies.

".... In addition to short-term stress and discomfort, living a dishonest life would seem to take a toll on health. According to a 2015 review article, constant lying is associated with an array of negative health outcomes including high blood pressure, increased heart rate, vasoconstriction, and elevated stress hormones in the blood.

"Other studies suggest that long-term effects could be minimal since it appears that we get more comfortable with lying the more we do it. In other words, we develop an unsettling tolerance to being devious. 

[Please note the verb "appears" and then note the adjectives "comfortable," "unsettling," "devious," which are all personal interpretations by the writer of the study - with the word "devious" being the writer's negative moral interpretation.]

"Brain imaging experiments conducted by Tali Sharot at University College London show that the brain adapts to dishonest behavior. Participants showed reduced activity in their limbic system as they told more lies, supporting the idea that each lie makes lying easier.

[This is yet another interpretation.  It doesn't tel us what is actually occurring in the brain.  Could the brain, with more and more lies, have become confused about what was true or real?  Could the brain have become fatigued?  Could the brain have had to in some way protect itself against its franticness?  The author's moral interpretations tell us only about the author's emotional reactions to lying.]

In addition, the findings support the adage that small acts of dishonesty can escalate into larger ones.

[The author moves now from moral interpretations to predictions and we have lost all hold of brain activity.  These long term studies suggesting some adjustment the brain may be making to lying, conflicts with the physiologic studies showing "high blood pressure, increased heart rate, vasoconstriction, and elevated stress hormones in the blood."  So, is the brain actually adjusting or under severe stress?  The personal, moral and now social interpretations all break away from what is sought here - facts about the brain's reaction to telling lies.]

"If our brain can cozy up to lying with enough practice, it would explain society’s disdain for dishonesty and why people hesitate to give liars a second chance. These strong social rules and the penalties that come from breaking them might be what really keeps us honest at the end of the day." 

[The personal interpretation becomes more florid in "cozy up to lying."  And that becomes the  leaping off point into various "explanations" of society, penalties, etc.  All of these ignore what matters .... the impact of lies on the human brain and the relation to the brain's "frantic" (fight or flight) behavior.]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pleased-meet-me/202001/the-truth-about-lying-and-what-it-does-the-body

The studies appear to indicate that the brain is struggling to cope with lies, and long-term, the body is highly stressed by telling lies.  This does not address the impact on the person who is being lied to constantly (or lying to themselves) but it does suggest a negative physiologic impact on people in demanding that the public use "preferred pronouns" which are lies about another's biology.  Pronouns, which perform an essential neurologic task, are being significantly warped away from what is true or real, and then their use is forced (by whom?).

Here is another place to look for an innate biologic sensitivity to lies.

 

"Plants Are Experts at Detecting Lies" 

From "the Secret Life of Plants."  The reader is encouraged to read the full excert of which this section is but a part (https://www.pureinsight.org/node/1496).

"Generally for experiments involving lie detectors, electrodes are connected to a suspect and then the suspect is asked meticulously designed questions. Everyone has a clear-headed side, which is usually called "conscience." Therefore, no matter how many reasons and excuses one gives, when lying or committing a bad deed, that person knows clearly that it is a lie, a bad deed. Hence, the body's electric field changes, and this change is what is recorded by the equipment.

"Backster did an experiment in which he connected the lie detector to a plant and then asked a person some questions. As a result, Backster discovered that the plant could tell if the person was lying or not. He asked the person what year he was born in, giving him seven choices and instructing him to answer "no" to all of them, including the correct one. When the person answered "no" to the correct year, the plant reacted and a peak was drawn on the graph paper.

"Dr. Aristide Esser, the director of medical research at the Rockland State hospital in New York, repeated the experiment by asking a man to incorrectly answer questions in front of a plant the man had nurtured and cared for since it was a seedling. The plant did not cover up for its owner at all. Incorrect answers were reflected on the graph paper. Esser, who had not believed Backster, saw for himself that Backster's theories were correct."

Brain imagining and studies with plants both indicate that biology reacts to lies.

 

Yet those behind the LBGTQ leadership are pushing everyone to lie and continuously.  with "preferred pronouns," to people who may (or may not) be transgender, and have even arranged criminal fines and severe personal losses for those who refuse.

 

The transgender movement, a part of deconstructionism which asserts there is no actual truth - each person has his or her own truth - is having a powerful effect in detaching people from reality .... and "preferred pronouns" play a major role in that.  The following comments by a depressed boy who believes that everything about him has been assigned to him - his name, his nickname, his pronouns, even his gender.  Did choosing his "preferred pronouns" lead to a sense of everything about him being chosen, with nothing real or inherent? 

 

This boy's account supports Mr Christopher's assertion that linguistics is affecting the conscious and subconscious minds' ability to be at peace with each other.  When linguistics itself (syntax) is a lie, what does that do?  Mr. Christopher might say of the boy below that "somebody hurt him LINGUISTICALLY."

 

https://themighty.com/2021/03/dont-capitalize-name-pronouns-identity/

"My name is joshua. My pronouns are they/them/theirs and joshua.

"I am neuro-queer and gender-vague.

"I also have no name; or pronouns; or neuro-type; or gender; and i am no-one.

"Having a break-down woke me up to the understanding that my identity has been largely shaped by external sources.

“My” given birth-name is Joshua, and “my” given nick-name is Josh.

“My” given pronouns are he/him, and “my” given “sex/gender” is male/man.

"And so on.

"I didn’t choose these things as fundamental parts of my identity. I agreed to them."

 

 

He is saying one either "chooses" or "agrees" to elements of one's identity and none of it happens naturally.  And yet one thing is a fact and was not assigned to him or chosen by him.  He is male.  But he isn't male by virtue of his own decision or someone else's imposition of that designation, but because he has xy chromosomes.  No one assigned that to him unless God was present to direct the coming together of a specific sperm and a specific egg.

 

No amount of "believing" otherwise, or feeling otherwise, or any political line of thought or argument, or any wardrobe of clothing, or any sadness, or rage, or any drugs, or even any surgery, can ever change his xy chromosomes which are what make him male.

 

His xy chromosomes give him his first immediate truth about himself in life, which came to him by nature, or naturally.  They were not chosen or assigned.  He came into the world, through and through, male.  That truth of himself is one on which he could build a REAL life, one that is not "gender-vague."  

 

The wrong pronoun, however, in not fitting the biology of the person, in being a lie, may be affecting children, teens, and young adults) in a way that not only might destabilize that foundational fact of being male (or female), but may create such a disturbance between the conscious and unconscious mind, that it prevents their mind coming together and fusing with the body and soul to complete a full, normal, human being with all the normal powers such a completely unified human being would naturally have. 

 

Lost in the dramatic VISIBLE transgender activities, the lies of seemingly irrelevant "preferred pronouns" are doing physiologic harm .  Is that unseen harm intented?

 

Has an effort been made by those behind the LBGTQ  movement to ensure that mentally sound, self-knowing, soul-connected people fail to develop, and, instead, people become fragmented at a neurologic level?  Does a young person being perpetually flooded with lies about the core reality of themselves by all those around them (however well meaning those around them might be) leave that young person's conscious and subconscious minds in constant conflict?  Does that perpectual conflict affect their souls abililty to solidly merge with their bodies and minds?

 

How would it be possible for "preferred pronouns" to have such a deteriorating impact on the solidity of a person?

 

Gandhi says very simply:  

 

"Truth is God."

 

"Preferred pronouns" which do not fit the biology of the person referred to, are NOT truth. 

Could they even be considered ANTI-truth? 

In using Gandhi's view of God as Truth, could "preferred pronouns" be ANTI-God? 

 

Through "preferred pronouns," children and young people are being swamped in lies about their physical reality.

 

Who could possibly build a sane, whole, solid life on that?