In the latest episode of the political circus, the chatty world of modern gender identities took center stage. A lively conversation unfolded, featuring individuals proudly sharing their ever-evolving identities. It was an introduction to terms like “trans masculine” and “gender queer,” sprinkled with a dash of “fluid” identities. For the uninitiated, “trans masculine” refers to people who fit under the non-binary umbrella yet present in a masculine manner. If you’re scratching your head wondering how many more flavors of identity can be introduced, you’re not alone.
There was a whirlwind of pronouns: he, they, she, you name it. The discussion painted a colorful picture of identity as a mix-and-match game. Yet, amid all the labels, the conversation turned toward grammar. One participant mused about the use of “they” and “them,” playfully contemplating the unusual idea of using “it” as a pronoun, though it’s widely viewed as inappropriate for humans. They suggested adopting “it” not as an insult but as a badge of honor, possibly to reclaim the term from its grammatical roots. It’s like flipping through a dictionary and asking, “Why not add a little spice?”
Though some may find charm in this rainbow of identities, for others, it is nothing short of bewildering. In a society that seems to be spinning its wheels in the mud of identity politics, one can’t help but wonder: is this where our focus should be? Should all of civil society be oriented around the latest jargon of self-identification? Maybe the word salad approach is just a clever way to disguise a cry for clarity—and perhaps some plain, old-fashioned help.
The commentary also touched on the broader cultural shift over the last decade. The “absolute insanity” of allowing the fringe to dictate the rules of engagement, or in this case, the language, raises a significant query. How did the most unstable and fragile parts of society become the compass for our social policies? Is labeling oneself with fluid pronouns really the kind of progress that deserves center stage, or is it a sign of society’s indulgence in distraction over meaningful development?
In a closing note of irony, some pin the hope for sanity’s revival on figures like Trump, seen by supporters as the unlikely hero in this veritable play of identity chaos. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left navigating through the storm of new terminologies. As the talkative tide of modern gender identities surges, perhaps the need of the hour is less about pronouns and more about reorienting toward the real issues affecting the backbone of the nation.
