Staff Reports
A recent article published by a major news website has unveiled the depths of absurdity that some progressive ideologies have reached. This piece, a so-called “Guide to Neopronouns,” reads more like an entry from the world of nonsense literature than a serious contribution to linguistic or social discussions. Pronouns, traditionally a straightforward part of language, are being expanded—or mutilated, some might say—into a new realm with these so-called neopronouns. It’s as if the left woke up and decided that reality needed a makeover, but instead of opting for common sense, they went straight for abstract gibberish.
You have to marvel at this fixation the left seems to have with self-identification. We’re told neopronouns like “Ze” and “Zir” are the latest frontier in personal expression. But let’s be clear, this isn’t an expansion of language—it’s the creation of an alternate universe where words have no real-world reference. It’s like they’ve taken a creative writing exercise and are demanding everyone else take it as gospel. What’s more, they roll out these new terms with the solemnity of introducing a groundbreaking scientific theory, conveniently ignoring that most people still adhere to the timeless, commonsensical understanding of gender.
Then, they trot out a so-called expert who solemnly asserts that refusing to let people self-identify through these neopronouns is exclusionary. Well, it’s worth stating that no one is stopping anyone from calling themselves whatever they fancy. Anyone is free to perceive themselves however they like—that’s the beauty of freedom. However, demanding that others must play along with this self-imposed branding exercise is where the line must be drawn. Self-identity, as subjective as it is, does not oblige others to join in the fantasy.
The most entertaining segment of the article is where they attempt to put these pronouns into real-world sentences. It’s like reading a passage out of a whimsical children’s book, full of invented words and amusing scenarios, except these are grown adults suggesting we incorporate this into everyday language. Imagine being expected to use “Leaf” in place of “he” or “she,” or “ze/hir” for pronouns like “herself.” Dr. Seuss would be proud of such creative exploits, except he never asked us to adopt them in earnest.
What neopronouns really spotlight is the left’s remarkably potent narcissism. It’s not so much a reflection of identity as it is an exhibition of the ego. It’s less about inclusivity and more about demanding others participate in this charade where personal whims get elevated to societal requirements. In choosing to champion this cause, they inadvertently demonstrate a level of self-obsession that might as well border on the delusional. What neopronouns reveal isn’t innovation or progression; rather, they showcase the depth of self-absorption that is mistaken for radical advancement.
In the end, what is perhaps most telling is that this whole neopronoun episode is only a symptom of a broader trend. It’s a trend that demands conformity to increasingly bizarre norms under the guise of progressivism. It calls on everyone not just to accept a new word, but to accept a reimagining of the fabric of reality itself. This isn’t about being closer to truth or fostering understanding—it’s about indulging eccentricity veiled as identity politics. It’s a swing and a miss for common sense, and it’s high time we call it for what it is: an exercise not in progressive thought, but in performative absurdity.
