New York’s ‘Pronoun’ Law Defies Science and Ignores Logic


The six year old girl who is a father of seven children.

In my inquisitive years, I traveled around the nation not driven by mere wanderlust, but by the desire to learn and see just what the nation was all about. Now that I’m old, I see that this nation no longer knows what it is about.

On one blistering summer day cruising through Illinois, a stifling stench crept into my car even with the windows tightly closed. It was a dairy farm smell, but I saw no dairy farms. While gassing up I asked someone what the smell was all about. I was told it was the Chicago Stock Yards, now closed since 1971. I exclaimed that I was glad I left it behind and I couldn’t wait for the odor to subside.

The biggest surprise came when someone asked me the direction I was traveling, then laughed out loud and said, “You haven’t left it behind, the yards are still about twenty miles ahead of you.”

It was the smell of bull dung, which to this day has never been paralleled, except in the recent social engineering changes made to the nation by people who believe that subjectively declaring something to be true is all that’s needed to change laws, mores, folkways, traditions, protocols, nature, scientific evidence, the constitution, the Bible and any remote semblance of common sense.

The discrimination laws of New York have now been updated to impose a whopping $125,000 fine for using the wrong pronoun to describe a transgendered person. Willfully calling a former male “he” can get you a hefty $250,000 fine in the city that has long since gone to sleep.

It is a law that begs to be tested and the NYC Commission on Human Rights and Mayor De Blasio, will no doubt see this social engineering nightmare coming under scrutiny when and if the nation leans back toward conservatism following the 2016 elections.

In the interim, we see that the psychiatric professionals who once declared homosexuality as a mental disorder have completely changed their minds. LGBT, along with its array of various extended acronyms, has successfully curbed any counseling to deal with homosexual tendencies on a state by state basis.

The Constitution has been trashed on free speech about homosexual and transgendered people, not by what it says, but curiously – by what it does not say. If the framers failed to mention it – it must be perfectly OK! Intentions have been lost to liberal inventions, but along with that specious victory, the truth has been battered and left for dead.

Assuming that the silence of the founders meant that men may marry men is the equivalent of believing in ghosts; we can’t prove that they are not real, but we don’t create laws guided by the word of departed souls – or do we?

With the help our self-appointed exegete and theologian in chief Barack Obama, we have decided that the moral laws of the Bible, specifically those dealing with what the Scripture calls the “abomination” of homosexuality, are all now relegated to the realm of meaningless, powerless, anachronistic and obscure passages that no one should take seriously.

While the Bible warns that ignoring these “obscure” passages can cost our eternal destiny, we think we have moved up from ancient myths and meanderings of the religious and pious to the more enlightened discoveries of the empiricists.

The final waltz into full-blown hypocrisy is accomplished by ignoring what modernity has proclaimed is the new substitute for the Bible and the Constitution: science.

It is science that says no matter what pronoun you use or how many hormones you take, or even what mind set you adopt – when your DNA is tested, it will tell no lies. Clothing, makeup, haircuts, hormones and mind sets cannot change the outcome of anyone’s DNA testing. If you were born a man, DNA will not lie for you.  It cannot.

The question that begs to be asked is this: if science has dispelled the myth of religion, why don’t we believe it when it addresses the matter of transgenderism? True empiricism cannot be charged with hypocrisy, but we can, and the indictment against us is forthwith.

It is the great King Solomon who offers the sagacious trio of scripture passages, timeless, inscrutable and well able to speak to ancient or modern man. To wit:

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Prov 14: 12)

“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.” (Prov 14: 15)

“A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident.” (Prov 14: 16)

The purveyors of the new morality may not be unable to discern moral truth, but they are fully “confident” in their error. For the morally challenged, perhaps it would be more effective to quote Christian apolegeticist Josh McDowell, rather than Solomon.

It is alleged that Josh was the first to say, “I’d rather know a few things for certain than to be certain about a whole lot of things that just aren’t so.”

Forcing the social engineering of liberal-minded hyper subjectivism on our citizens against the clear evidence of science, is not mere error, it is wholesale hypocrisy. It is not civil; it is silly. Will we change the definition of pronouns to follow? Is it safe to say that now, a pronoun no longer takes the place of a noun, but rather it takes the place of a brain?

If science is the new deity for today, then not only have we given up the God of the Bible, but we are not even true to our latest deity du jour.

For this writer, these so called human rights laws are too much like approaching the stockyards - yet one again.

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


  1. DCM7 says:

    “The discrimination laws of New York have now been updated to impose a whopping $125,000 fine for using the wrong pronoun to describe a transgendered person. Willfully calling a former male ‘he’ can get you a hefty $250,000 fine”
    While I don’t totally trust the famous “urban legends” site Snopes, it has a reasonable-sounding article (from Dec 28) pointing out that the above statement is not technically accurate. Of course, even granting that, there is still no reason for people with gender confusion to be humored or shielded from reality — much less for such to be coded into *any* kind of law. (And, of course, there is actually no such thing as a “former male.”)

    “if science has dispelled the myth of religion, why don’t we believe it when it addresses the matter of transgenderism?”
    The answer, of course, is not that there is any inconsistency in the acceptance or rejection of science. It is *always* rejected, and replaced with false science, when it doesn’t tell people what they want to hear. Real science lines up with Christianity, and doesn’t “dispel” it in any way, just as real science addresses “transgenderism” contrary to how political correctness deals with it.

    • Bob Ellis says:

      As you have noted, several years ago Snopes unfortunately proved itself unreliable, giving favor to Leftist propaganda over facts.

      However, even if we take Snopes at its word on this, it’s still more than correct enough.

      For instance, an individual who simply mistakenly uses the wrong pronoun when referring to a transgender individual will not be fined under the new law. However, a person who intentionally and repeatedly refuses to use an individual’s preferred pronoun would be subject to fines (that could reach as high as $250,000 for multiple violations) under the the law

      I refuse to play politically correct BS propaganda games. I will not call a woman a man or a man a woman. Bruce Jenner is still a man, regardless of whether he chops off his penis and injects himself with hormones. His DNA proves that he is a male, just as the penis he was born with does.

      Words aren’t sufficient to describe the pathetic and dark level of a culture that seeks to criminalize the truth and laud a lie.

      • DCM7 says:

        I’ve noticed one particular common Snopes trick: Taking a blatantly foolish rumor that came from some sort of “right wing” source (or at least can be attributed to such), and presenting it in such a way as to imply that ALL “right wing” positions on the subject at hand are at the same misguided level.