No, I will not use your Pronouns

Courtesy, not compulsion

Adam Gulamhusein
Politically Speaking
11 min readNov 17, 2020


Image from Anthony Grand on Unsplash of the US Constitution

Truth in the night

The dogma enforced in schools, by the media, and by friends, is one that has formed its foundation on postmodernism and intersectionality. There have been many antecedents for the imposition of such beliefs to what has now become a societal dogma, but its impact has never been more present than in the 21st century. Unfortunately, this is the case, but those who are alive today live in a world that is predisposed to the sharing of information and collection of historical data; such a predisposition allows us to better question normalcies that have encroached on the rights and freedoms of individuals.

This dogma — characterized by political correctness and distorted perspective — is pervasive in our society and must be questioned. Thankfully, the access we have to information allows citizens to challenge such ideas and the accompanying narrative. A narrative that tells people what to say and how to say it; arbitrarily defining what is right and what is wrong.

Saying the right thing means something very different to a variety of people; is saying the “right thing” being kind, or being truthful?

Kindness is often determined by politeness, friendliness, and generosity — such traits can often be admirable, but can also be driven by weakness. After all, how many decisions are made out of fear of conflict? Additionally, the fear of saying “no”, of argument, and of judgment can be justified with “kindness” (such traits align with highly agreeable people — an undesirable trait when striving for successful careers) and can lead down a path that is harmful to everyone involved. One of the most quintessential, and clear examples of this, were policies of appeasement instituted by the Allies that were a precursor to WWII. Such policies were made in mind of previous conflicts — primarily, WWI — and put the world’s proverbial head in the sand. In the effort to “appease” someone else in a manner that could be considered “polite,” “friendly,” and “generous,” the Allies were dishonest and missed their chance to prevent the deadliest conflict in human history.

Kindness and honesty are not mutually exclusive, but they certainly are not mutually inclusive. You can be kind, without being honest. The opposite also holds true. The former, however, is often counterproductive.

This point is proven almost every day in the lives of every person on this planet. When you procrastinate, are you being “kind” to yourself? After all, work is often difficult, tedious, and frustrating — avoiding such a task would be less burdensome for you in the present. However, work can also be enjoyable, impactful, and meaningful. Honesty would force you to address such challenges, but produces far more benefit than kindness would. Kindness would just delay the inevitable and place a greater burden on your future self.

If the Allies were honest — with their people, and with themselves — would they have come to the same conclusion as Winston Churchill, who called the appeasement of Hitler: “an unmitigated disaster”?

The fallaciousness of such “kind” thoughts lead to self-destructive behavior.

“One may sometimes tell a lie, but the grimace that accompanies it tells the truth” — Friedrich Nietzsche

“Progressive” has become regressive

The political Left has propagated such fallacies. So-called “progressive” ideas hinge on political correctness and the presupposition of kindness. In this pursuit, there has become a disregard for anyone, or anything that does not “sound good” by attributing standard pejoratives (i.e. “bigot”, “racist”, “homophobe”, etc) to such people or things.

Democrats, and “The Squad” are proponents of such an idea as evidence by what Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez (AOC) declared last year:

“It’s more important to be morally right, than factually correct” — Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez

Many of the world’s most brutal dictators and genocides occurred under the guise of being “morally right”, but did not care about the truth. The absence of objectivity is (and was) used to further these claims and agendas. This is continued by the Left in many Western countries but was made particularly evident after the Canadian federal government passed Bill C-16. The bill declares:

“The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.”

Video from Egale Canadian Human Rights Trust summarizes Bill C-16

This law is defended under the premise of pluralism, but such legislation is an indictment of free speech and individual freedoms. Hate speech laws were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States — after all, the government deciding what is deemed lawful and unlawful to speak is a recipe for disaster. There is no exception to free speech in a free world. Such laws infringe on individual rights; laws that support “political correctness” are passed for those same people who vary along emphasized tracts of human intersectionality at the expense of those who do not.

This is not scrupulous, it is sanctimonious.

For those who have religious, scientific, familial or any other belief system which dictates to them that someone else is a man, and not a woman, or vice versa, they must forego such beliefs to comply with the government. While constituents are accustomed to being lied to by their governmental representatives, they are not accustomed to (and should never have to be accustomed to) enforced dishonesty by the government.

Why should the government compel me to forego my beliefs in an effort for me to say what they would like me to?

There is a difference — a critical difference — between courtesy and compulsion.

The great irony, however, is that such laws claim to be pluralistic, but do not encourage diversity of ideas — or, rather, a difference of opinion — when it varies from what the government, media, and schools would like you to say. This façade of pluralism has been perfectly captured by various interactions between students and teachers whose opinions differ. Interactions such as when:

  1. A 17-year-old Scottish student was kicked out of his class in 2019 after he told the teacher that “there are only two genders”. The student was further suspended by the school for three weeks following the contentious interaction with his teacher. Soon after, he was expelled.
  2. A Pennsylvania college student attending Indiana University was barred from attending the class in 2018 after he challenged a teacher on her stance regarding gender identity and the gender wage gap (which has been disproven). After doing so, he was barred from the class (which was a graduation requirement) and put in front of the university’s Academic Integrity Board (AIB).
  3. Hundreds of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson’s colleagues petitioned to have him fired in 2016, after his staunch opposition to Bill C-16. The letter asserts that the university “publicly condemn transphobic, homophobic, misogynistic, and racist discourses.” It also asserts that the professor has not complied with “the law, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and University Policy” and “that his position as professor would be at risk if he did not change his [behavior].”

Indeed, a façade of pluralism on a foundation of tolerance — which is only cohesive to conflict.

There is only so so much an individual can tolerate before resentment builds and conflict brews. There is no acceptance; no acceptance of those who have different ideas and/or of those who hold different beliefs. This is not pluralistic.

There is no malevolence in my intention, but viewpoints that are simply honest, have no longer been encouraged by our government— or, perhaps more importantly, by our society— as evidenced by “cancel culture” and legislation like Bill C-16.

This is not progressive, it is regressive.


Photo by Chromatograph on Unsplash of the Karl-Marx-Monument in Chemnitz, Germany

Conflict theory as presented by Karl Marx hinges on Marx’s identification of two different classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The former are defined as the individuals that own the means of production in a society (i.e. business owners), and the latter are defined as the people who don’t (i.e. employee of a business). In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto that identified these two classes and determined that the bourgeoisie exploited the proletariat based on both groups financial well-being. Such a description is still used today by collectivists. Business owners — people who own the means of production — are also the ones who put down the initial investment, incur the risk, and make labor productive which allows them to reap greater benefits. This is all ignored in the Marxist worldview.

Marx proposed that there will be inevitable conflict over the means of production due to this exploitation; conflict which would result in revolution and the dismantling of this perceived hierarchy. Such a distorted worldview is disconcerting and still applied today outside the field of economics — just as Marx discarded every other factor in his determination, those who follow him apply such a proposal to other dimensions of humanity; dimensions emphasized by identity politics.

The postmodernist identifies the infinite number of dimensions in which an individual’s humanity can be categorized, while intersectionalism takes certain dimensions and emphasizes a select few — race and gender being the most typical. This neo-Marxist interpretation replaces the traditional bourgeoisie and proletariat (those who were categorized based on their role in the production of goods in a society) with whomever they decide is the “oppressor” and the “oppressed”. This interpretation still prevails even though the individuals that would fall in each group are categorized into a class despite the varying circumstances of those who make up that class.

The postmodern intersectionalist disregards the evident truth that the global minimum of intersectionality is individuality, and therefore, that the individual is the ultimate minority. The emphasis on certain dimensions among which people vary, and consequential disregard for ideas and people who do not vary along such dimensions, is harmful to everyone.

Gender conflict theory is commonplace in politics today and is evidence of the perpetuity and prevalence of such ideas. These ideas replace the traditional bourgeoisie with men, and the proletariat as women: treating men as oppressors and men’s activity as inherently destructive. This belief is held strongly by those on the Left and is also ultimately dishonest.

What is commonly dismissed among the proponents of such an idea, is that any hierarchy creates winners and losers. The collective pursuit of any valued goal demands such a creation because there will be those who are more successful in their pursuit and those who are less so. The inevitable outcome of these created hierarchies of success is a difference in outcome. The postmodern intersectionalist will compare such outcomes based on their emphasized dimensions and attribute found generalizations in outcome based on that singular factor.

Again, we see every attribute of an individual’s humanity and the corresponding consequences of such factors dismissed; factors which are more consequential to the discussed outcomes — not less — than those attributes emphasized by proponents of intersectionality.

The term “patriarchy” is defined by Shaw & Lee’s (2012) textbook, Women’s Voices: Feminist Visions (5th edition) as:

“Social (political, economic, religious, cultural) system where men have power over women”

If we are discussing the system — which criminal and family courts are a part of — then you would expect to see men favored; the opposite is true. Women receive clear benefits in both criminal and family courts and also compose the majority of university graduates with a rate that has been increasing over the past 50 years.

However, there are still clear disparities in differences between outcomes for both genders and this is attributed to the patriarchy — the clear oppressive structure that we live in today that favors men.

It is proposed by various individuals and institutions, that such differences must be eliminated. The American Association of University Women even state on their website:

“Pay equity will continue to be an AAUW priority until the gap is fully eliminated. We hope this latest edition of The Simple Truth motivates and empowers you to join us in this cause.”

The proposed idea of equity is the basis for equality of outcome — an idea that will harm men and women. The gender wage gap does not take into account profession, hours worked, education, or any other important factor. If all of these factors play no role, then you can force equal outcomes on everyone.

Differences in various industries are also attributed to the patriarchy continue to disregard important factors in the reason for the difference. These reasons have been illustrated by a variety of different research groups and studies that include:

  • A study from 1997 to 2012, by the Pew Research Centre, found that the percentage of women aged 18 to 34 who said that marriage is one of the most important things in life rose from 28 to 37 percent. In contrast, the number of young men who said the same thing declined from 35 to 29 percent
  • The Pew Research Centre also found that among never-married adults who were aged 30 to 59, men are three times as likely as women to say they do not ever want to marry (27% vs 8%)
  • The Association for Psychological Science found that as enforced gender equality increased — as in Scandanavian countries — the disparity between representation in STEM fields grew. This is even though women performed just as well or better than their male counterparts who chose to go into STEM fields academically

Such findings are often concluded to be results from the ever oppressive patriarchy that forces women into stereotypical gender roles, but this still does not explain the fact that mens’ interests tilt toward things while womens’ interest tilts toward people, as was found by a meta-analysis published in PubMed. It has also been found by numerous studies that there is a stark difference in the Big Five personality traits (openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and extraversion) between the average man and woman.

It is of critical importance to note that this does not, under any circumstance, apply to every individual woman or every individual man. Many individuals defy such statistics — and there are many of them: Marie Curie, Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher, Candance Owens, and Ronda Rousey are just some of those women across the world and in history which have not followed the majority.

However, because gender conflict theory and equality of outcome focus on the generalizations of a class, it is important to determine whether those generalizations arose from a patriarchal structure, or are indeed the consequence of choice. Due to the expanse of accessible evidence, the latter proves true. This choice is not irrational either, as it was found that (generally) women are more happy at work than men.

Capitalism works because the economic system maximizes incentive which optimizes competition and drives the best to society. The proposed Marxist-communist system removes incentive and competition, which centralizes power in the hands of the state. There is no need for innovation, progress, or competence; more often than not, the individual is sacrificed for the state as seen in the Holomodor. The neo-Marxist takes a similar stance. There must be the dismissal of everything — including choice, quality, and competence — to force equality of outcome.

Proponents of such ideas are found on the Left and claim to be scrupulous when they are only sanctimonious; claim to be progressive when they are regressive; claim to be helpful when they are hurtful.

Moving forward

There is a clear pattern that is being established — one that diminishes objectivity and truth.

The idea of being compelled to use someone else’s pronouns even though you do not believe in what you are saying is just one example of how honesty is being suppressed. Hate speech laws in general — which do not allow free speech — has seen support from the Left. Not every Democrat supports this, and not every Republican is opposed, but these issues typically fall along party lines.

Other social issues such as race and gender conflict theory also tend to fall along party lines and have also elicited disregard of those who do not hold such beliefs. These ideas continue along a path that shows contempt for anyone or anything that disagrees with it — including facts and logic. The guise of “sounding good” has not allowed us to be truly pluralistic because it does not allow openness of discussion from both sides of an issue and is done in an effort of supporting distorted perspective and untruthful narratives.

Move up, move passed, and move forward; passed the dogma presented by the media, friends, and schools.



Adam Gulamhusein
Politically Speaking

TEDx Speaker | HYRS Alum (Neurosurgical RA) | TKS Student | SHAD Alum | 2021 Calgary Brain Bee Winner