I think personal pronouns are ridiculous. In fact, I think they’re so ridiculous that I have a physical reaction every time I merely think about the idea. My blood pressure rises and so does my pulse rate. And, for someone like me who has heart issues, either or both of those things could be fatal.
The company I work for has a policy of “inclusiveness” which means I’m supposed to use someone’s personal pronouns, so I don’t hurt their feelings. And, since I live in California, there are actual laws forcing me to do so.
But, being forced to refer to a “he” as a “she” could be the death of me.
So, the next time I meet with my cardiologist, I’m going to ask him for a letter exempting me from using anyone’s personal pronouns.
It makes sense, right? Companies give medical exemptions for lots of things. Why not a medical exemption against having to deal with stupidity?
If I refuse to use someone’s personal pronouns, and I want to keep my job, I’d be forced to take “sensitivity and inclusiveness” training. Because, as they see it, if I don’t want to reinforce the delusions of a man who believes he’s a woman, there must be something wrong with me. But, the man who believes he’s a woman? That’s considered perfectly normal.
I’d say the chances of my employer, or the State of California, allowing me to continue to refer to a dysphoric man as a “he” is close to zero. But using someone’s personal pronouns is detrimental to my health.
Which means that, in the eyes of many people, my life is worth less than someone else’s feelings.
And that got me to thinking. Is there some hierarchy of rights? If you have two opposing rights, which one takes precedence? Is one right considered more important than the other?
As we so often do when this type of occasion arises, let’s refer back to the Founding Fathers. I think we can all agree that Thomas Jefferson was a pretty good writer. And, we should all be able to agree that he, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, agonized over every word of the Declaration of Independence. After all, their lives were on the line.
In other words: Before John Hancock literally put his John Hancock on the paper, he made sure it said exactly what he wanted it to say.
So, when they said “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, I think we can take it for granted that’s what they meant. They didn’t say “liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness”, which would have been alphabetical. Nor did they say any of the other four possibilities.
They said, and meant, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.
That means that the order of precedence is, “life” first, followed by “liberty”, followed by “the pursuit of happiness”.
So, my life should take precedence over anyone else’s pursuit of happiness. Which means that in a battle between my blood pressure and someone else’s delusion, I would win.
At least that’s the way it should be.
Let’s take a look at the case of Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. As you may remember, Jack was sued by a homosexual couple because he refused to make a wedding cake for them.
The case ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court. And SCOTUS rightfully sided with Jack. Since this wasn’t a life-threatening event, “liberty”, in this case Jack’s right to refuse service to anyone, won over “pursuit of happiness”, which any reasonable person would agree applies to one’s ability to buy a cake.
But we’re not done with Jack yet. What you may not know is that Jack was also sued by Charlie Scardina because Jack refused to make a cake to celebrate Charlie’s decision to pretend to be a woman named “Autumn”.
This past week, the Colorado Court of Appeals held up the decision of a lower court stating that Jack violated Charlie’s rights by not making him a cake.
Let’s go over this again people. “Life” beats “liberty”, “liberty” beats “pursuit of happiness”. Jack should be completely safe in refusing service to anyone he wishes for whatever reason. It’s not like Jack’s in charge of anything life-threatening. It’s just a cake.
Even if Charlie claims that he’ll just die if he doesn’t get the perfect cake, he’s not really going to die. He’s just going to be disappointed. Worst case, his feelings will be hurt.
And it’s not like Jack doesn’t want to make a cake for Charlie solely to make himself happy. That’s just a side benefit.
The reason Jack didn’t make a cake for Charlie is because it’s his cake shop and he can sell, or not sell, a cake to anyone he damn well pleases. In case you’re unclear on the concept, that’s what “liberty” means.
Jack will undoubtedly appeal, and it will undoubtedly eventually end up at the Supreme Court. Will Jack win this time? It’s anyone’s guess. Because there actually isn’t an order of precedence for rights. There should be. But there isn’t.
No, what we have is our justice system essentially playing rock-paper-scissors with our rights to see which one comes out on top. Whether or not Jack eventually wins his case will be due to the collective whims of whoever’s on the Supreme Court when his case is heard.
But let’s get back to my problem.
There is no diagnosis as “trans”. Even my son, who has drunk his fill of the dysphoric Kool-Aid, will agree with that point. Pretending to be a woman is a choice, not a medical condition. Granted, it’s not going to be a choice made by any reasonable and rational person. But it is a choice.
If the Woke Left believes that pretending to be a woman, or a man, is perfectly normal, then they must also believe that the people making those choices are sane enough to decide for themselves.
Which means that someone makes the decision to pretend to be a woman knowing full well what the consequences may be. And one of those consequences may be that you don’t get the cake you want because a courageous baker won’t reinforce your delusions.
There is, however, a diagnosis for congenital heart failure. And congenital heart failure is as serious as…well…a heart attack. And it’s NOT a choice. OK, to be fair, I did choose to eat decades of butter and bacon. But the damage is already done. I no longer have a choice. OK, to be fair, I have chosen not to eat butter or bacon anymore. But, like I just said, the damage is already done.
I know full well the potential consequences of having too much stress in my life. So, I live my life by trying to reduce the amount of stress in it.
“Life” beats “liberty”, “liberty” beats “pursuit of happiness”. But, unlike rock, paper, scissors, it doesn’t loop around to where “pursuit of happiness” beats “life”. Life beats everything.
Which means that I shouldn’t be forced to use someone’s personal pronouns or to pretend that a man can become a woman.
Because doing so could literally kill me. And my life is more important than anyone else’s feelings.
