Paper 14 Patriarchy's Veto Power, Name-making , and ...

ut
When patriarchy renamed fem (wo) man, my question, unanswered to date
is, how did it succeed to put the name fem out of usage? Command and obey?
Force? Violence? Veto power comes in many ways, shapes and sizes.
The day the Sumerians named the phallus Supreme Creator was the day
name-making was put on the one-way track of bias.
The Sumerians used a sign in 9000 BCE to name the phallus Supreme
Creator1. Not evidence, not reality, not what's observable in reality. No, seeing that
the mushroom amanita muscaria, resembled the erect penis was the sign that the
phallus was Supreme Creator, and named as such. A sign is just a sign, not the
basis upon which to make a name.
A sign? Seeing the shape of a coffin in one's tea leaves is the sign that one's
mother is dead? I witnessed this once with my own eyes. It was surreal.
Since 9000 BCE making names specifically addressing our species, the
species that evolved capable of making and using speech, deteriorated into a freefrom-regulations-and-rules process for making true-to-reality names. Over 10,000
names embedding male-bias infuse bias in the language about our species.
We speak the way we do because we believe, and trust, the names we use are
correct, true-to-reality, not error-based male-biased names. But we believed in the
false names because we didn't know they were error-based male-biased names.
There was no choice in the matter. Patriarchy put many names out of usage, e.g.,
fem, and the masses had to use the prescribed names. For generations. Period.
The greatest sociological issue in names is that they carry the presumption of
existence of the thing named. With magic imposed in the sound, make the name
angels, repeat it, and today, many believe angels exist. Today, around the globe, a
guru (?) invented the myth that diluted bleach is good for the body, many parents
are making their autistic children drink diluted bleach - given a fancy name- as a
magic cure for autism! Millions of Syrian refugees are not a big enough problem.
Fem, named as (wo)man, carries the presumption that she actually exists as a
(wo)man. In defining the name as precisely as possible, (wo)man is a man that's

not a man. The premise being man in reality entails only being male, irrefutable,
was never articulated. And hasn't been articulated at any time in history, not even
by well-educated male scholars in the past 200 years.
In renaming fem (wo)man patriarchy took away fem's birthright to make
names, and by so doing, took away her birthright to name herself as she is in
reality, a fem. Silence became her best attribute in mankind.
A birthright is a natural essential right one has due to the fact of being born
in possession of a mind by being born into the species sapiens, the species that
evolved with the capabilities to develop complex language to communicate, a right
possessed by everyone born into sapiens.
In patriarchy birthright went to the firstborn son. The privileges the father
possessed was the birthright of the firstborn son. As one who wasn't male-by-birth
fem had no birthright.
As fem and man though, everyone has the inalienable birthright to use ut's
mind to the best ut can educate and train it to be. And this includes the experience
of name-making by definition.
So, as speech-user ut has the birthright to correct, evidence-based names
carrying truths made by a speech-maker. This means the name-maker has the
responsibility to make correct, evidence-based names carrying truths. This is
what's missing in the names patriarchy's Lords made to develop language, the
language that ought to inform ut to make informed choices in situations needing
an expression of normative behaviour just weren't there.
Bias imposes bias, falsehoods. It does not inform.
Making names holds a heavy responsibility. It's not a question of who makes
a name. It's a question of making names made to carry the weight of evidence,
what is seen in reality as existing, and how they relate to other cause-and-effect
situations with other names relating to new logic, or neologic, with the language
already in use.
If patriarchy wants to accuse anyone of neologism, all they need to do is
look at the name (wo)man. This name was made up just to make a name biased to

support slavery and feudalism, control by patriarchy. It's a name made for the sake
of a name. Like angels, it applies to nothing existing on the planet.
What patriarchy actually did with biased language was to redirect the mind
from being a species possessing the talent for making speech to being a species of
two-men-of-opposite-sexes-permanently-in-error with bias.
Trust in our fellow-sapiens was lost.
The most basic character in being sapiens is that everyone born into the
species of sapiens, has by definition, the birthright to contribute to the development
of language. But like there are few washing machines makers, and many washing
machine users, so too, there are few name-makers ... and seven billion name-users.
The equation is not one that scholars have looked at.
Name-makers are hard to find. Name making is not an industry. Names don't
get made in a factory. They come from one with a mind. Name-making arises when
someone, seeing something new, makes a sound for the first time to satisfy the
need for it to be named. Everyone born into the species of sapiens has a mind. The
birthright to feed the mind with the nutrition it needs to function well is necessary.
Facts, truths and logic, etc., are the foods the mind needs for making true-toreality names to develop a language useful for rational and moral communication.
Essentially then, what patriarchy did to name-making was remove the rules,
laws and regulations concerning specifically the species that evolved with the
capabilities to make names to develop a language that carried facts and truths
about ourselves as a species. Belief in the false embedded bias replaced the facts
and truths about ourselves, corroding the mind with a crust of lies.
Nothing frees us from our responsibility to change false language. Just like a
house can be rebuilt, names can be remade. It takes courage and political will. And
gives our species the choice to get back on the right tracks after 11000 years of
single-track bias.
One example of a name that should have been in use for at least 1000 years
is ut. The Latin symbols uterque and uterus, in use for a long time, contain the
morpheme uter. In uterus it includes both mother and foetus. In uterque it means
each of both, both at once, every, each one, either, etc. The moment I saw this

symbol I saw a solution to the grammatical law he, which I called talking and
writing in the he-gear, when it is a question of unknown gender.
The Anglo Saxons have a tradition of doing the chop-chop on foreign
symbols. I chopped off the 'er' in uter, which left ut. Ut is an economical thirdperson pronoun replacing the sticky problem of he and/or she. Ut, by definition,
includes both he and/or she, as both, each one, etc. Ut is adaptable to all situations
needed in communication. Ut's, possessive, utself, inclusive, etc. It has a tinge of
feme bias, in uterus, but the feme has few opportunities to level the playing field in
bias. No permission is needed from patriarchy to put this useful third person
economical and inclusive pronoun into usage. (/y/ t, continental 'u' sound)
Everyone born into the species of sapiens has a birthright to contribute to ut's
species due to the very fact of being born into the species of sapiens having a mind
that evolved with the capabilities of making and using speech. Have fun.
1, John M. Allegro. 1970. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Gnostic Media.