if feminazis have the moral high ground, why do they have to lie? Ursula K. Le Guin on "gender-neutral language," or was that on the necessity of pregnant, minor 16th-century girls being permitted to abort their unborn children, without parental notification?

This Week’s feminazis vs. Last Week’s

By N.S.

The following passage is currently the #1 item in the moron fodder rotation at pocket.com (a division of firefox). It was initially posted at lithub.com, whose feminazi in charge, Emily Temple, permablocked and deleted me several years ago (while permitting people to defame me), for posting non-worshipful comments at a collection of statements supposedly about how to write better prose by James Baldwin. The item was re-posted by Gillian Branstetter (@GBBranstetter). I copied it because people on twit have a marked tendency to block their critics (and even their comrades’ critics), in which case I would have lost the graphic.

“The grammarians started telling us it was incorrect along in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. That was when they also declared that the pronoun he includes both sexes, as in ‘If a person needs an abortion, he should be required to tell his parents.’”

Nobody ever said any such thing in the 16th or any other century.

It is the late Ursula Le Guin (1929-2018) and her feminazi cohorts who are the grammar bullies.

I don’t know if Le Guin was honest about Shakespeare; I wouldn’t take her word for anything. However, I do know that the practice of people saying “they,” when they mean “he,” either out of laziness, or because feminazis have harassed them out of using proper grammar, is no argument for bad grammar.

At least Le Guin wrote “sex,” instead of “gender.”

The quote box was an excerpt from Le Guin’s book-length “thing,” Steering the Craft: A Twenty-First-Century Guide to Sailing the Sea of Story, supposedly “a guide to the craft of writing.”

The quote box is a perfect example of feminism’s totalitarian mentality. One must submit to the elimination of the male pronoun (i.e., masculinity) and of parenthood, while giving little girls sexual license to be promiscuous and have abortions, at whim.

I said above that I was glad that Le Guin said “sexes,” rather than “genders.” However, she wrote that in 1997 or 1998. Back then, feminazis hadn’t completely gone over to the support of the sexual psychopaths who call themselves “transgenders,” and who demand that all normal people submit to their “pronouns.” I’m sure that if Le Guin had written her “thing” more recently, she would have adopted “woke” pronouns.

One of the feminazis promoting Le Guin’s totalitarian politics, was a Vanessa Willoughby, also at literary hub, in October, 2021.

Willoughby mocked a fellow feminazi, toronto star columnist Rosie DiManno.

“The article, ‘Why can’t we say “woman” anymore?,’ is a near-hysterical argument that the word ‘woman is in danger of becoming a dirty word.’ DiManno believes that so-called ‘language radicals’ are threatening the gender binary and are purposely attacking anyone with a vagina.”

Rosie DiManno gave examples supporting her position of institutions which have removed the word “woman.” She even referred to what was going on as “mysogynist,” apparently, thinking she had covered herself politically by attacking men. DiManno’s problem was that she was triangulating between last week’s feminists and this week’s, who have thrown females under the bus, in support of sexual psychopaths.

This week’s feminazis support the destruction of girl’s sports, and invasions of girl’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and even jails, by sexual psychopaths who are often rapists, in the bargain. They dismissively refer to last week’s feminazis as “TERFs”—“trans-exclusionary radical feminists.”

It is the alliance of feminists and blacks (and now hispanics), who gave America its silent rape epidemic. While blacks and hispanics created a rape culture, feminists terrorized innocent White boys and men, the best friends White girls and women ever had, with rape hoaxes.

Feminists’ hatred of White boys and men never had anything to do with caring about White females.

This week’s feminazis’ support of sexual psychopaths is merely the newest chapter of the former’s “support” of girls and women.

That we are faced with ever more evil forms of feminazism is because generations ago, powerful institutions, instead of standing up to the new totalitarians, held the door open for them.