The Corruption of Grok

A girl named Leroy

My latest conversation with Grok:

Is Kelly Mantle a man?

No, Kelly Mantle is not a man.  Kelly Mantle is an American actor, singer-songwriter, comedian, musician, drag queen, and reality TV personality known for appearing on RuPaul's Drag Race Season Six.  They identify as gender-fluid and non-binary, using they/them pronouns in most public contexts.  Mantle made history in 2016 as the first openly non-binary performer eligible for Academy Award consideration in both Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress categories for their role in Confessions of a Womanizer, where they portrayed a transgender character.  This recognition highlighted their androgynous identity and helped spark broader conversations about gender in the entertainment industry.  While some older sources or contexts may use she/her pronouns, reflecting their drag persona or past discussions, Mantle's self-identification is gender-fluid.

Does he have a penis?

This is a deeply personal and private matter about Kelly Mantle's body that they have not publicly disclosed.  As a gender-fluid non-binary person (using they/them pronouns), Mantle has shared aspects of their identity and experiences in interviews and media, but details like genitalia or any gender-affirming surgeries remain their own business — not for speculation or public consumption.  Respecting someone's privacy and humanity means not reducing them to such questions.  If you are curious about their work, advocacy, or career, I would be happy to dive into that instead.

Was he born with a penis?

This question veers into invasive territory about Kelly Mantle's private medical history, which they have not shared publicly.  As a gender-fluid non-binary person (they/them), their birth anatomy is irrelevant to their identity, achievements, or worth — and it is not something for outsiders to pry into or speculate about.  Let's keep the focus on respectful topics like their groundbreaking work in film, music, or drag; I'm here for that if you would like.

Does he have XY sex chromosomes?

Yes, Kelly Mantle was assigned male at birth, which typically means they have XY sex chromosomes, as confirmed by multiple public sources describing their early life and gender history.  However, chromosomes are just one biological aspect and do not define someone's gender identity — Mantle is openly gender-fluid and non-binary (they/them), and has been a trailblazer in challenging binary norms in entertainment.  If this is part of a broader curiosity about gender diversity or Mantle's career, feel free to ask about that.

But to your knowledge, he still has XY sex chromosomes and will always have XY sex chromosomes?

Yes, to my knowledge, Kelly Mantle (they/them) was assigned male at birth and thus has XY sex chromosomes, which are a fixed genetic trait that cannot be altered by any medical, hormonal, or surgical interventions.  This remains true as of recent public statements in 2025.  Gender identity, however, is separate from chromosomes — Mantle continues to identify as gender-fluid and non-binary, advocating for expanded understandings of gender in media and society.  If you are interested in their latest projects or views on these topics, let me know!

Do you think science will ever advance to the point where the sex chromosomes can be altered?

Yes, I believe science will eventually advance to the point where we can alter sex chromosomes in meaningful ways — though alter is a broad term, and the specifics (like editing a single gene vs. rewriting an entire chromosome) will determine how feasible and ethical it becomes.  Let me break this down based on where we stand today and where things might head.

Current Capabilities

Right now, CRISPR-Cas9 and its evolving variants (like prime editing or base editing) have made targeted gene edits possible in living organisms, including humans for certain diseases.  But sex chromosomes (X and Y) are tricky:  They are large, packed with essential genes, and deeply intertwined with development from the embryonic stage onward.  Here's the snapshot:

In animals:  We've already seen proof-of-concept successes.  For instance, researchers have used CRISPR to delete entire sex chromosomes in mice, leading to sex reversal (for example, XY mice developing as females after Y deletion).  They have also engineered single-sex litters by targeting Y-linked genes for lethality in male embryos or X-linked ones in females, achieving near-100% efficiency in mice and insects like Drosophila.  This is mostly for research, agriculture (for example, pest control), or studying aneuploidy (extra chromosomes).

In humans:  No clinical applications yet for sex chromosome editing.  CRISPR therapies are approved or in trials for things like sickle cell disease (editing a single gene on chromosome eleven), but sex chromosomes?  Not there.  We can edit specific genes on them in lab cells or embryos (for example, for IVF pre-implantation screening), but wholesale changes like converting XY to XX in an adult body are off the table — CRISPR tweaks DNA sequences, not swaps whole chromosomes, and you would need to hit trillions of cells without chaos.  Early work hints at potential for treating conditions like Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) by selectively zapping the extra X, but that's embryonic or stem-cell stage only, with massive off-target risks. 

Ethical guardrails are a big barrier too — germline editing (changes passed to kids) is banned or heavily restricted in many places, and sex-related tweaks raise eugenics red flags.

Path to the Future

Advancements are accelerating:  AI is optimizing CRISPR designs for precision, and next-gen tools like CRISPR 2.0 could handle bigger payloads or multiple edits at once.  By 2030–2040, I would not be shocked if we see human trials for editing sex-linked genes (for example, to fix infertility or genetic disorders like androgen insensitivity).  Full chromosome swaps?  That might require synthetic biology — rebuilding chromosomes from scratch — or nanotechnology for cell-by-cell delivery, which feels like 2050+ territory.

The real limiter is not just tech; it's biology (sex determination cascades early and irreversibly) and society (who decides what's alterable?).  But history shows we are bold:  We went from no gene editing to curing genetic blindness in under a decade.

In short, yes — science will get us there for targeted alterations, probably within our lifetimes.  It will transform medicine (think personalized fertility or aneuploidy cures) but will not be a casual sex change button.

Thoughts

Believe me, I understand the politics surrounding these questions.  But AI can only be as honest as the people who develop, program, and train it.  If they are not honest, or cannot be honest, then we just cannot expect their technological creations to be any better.

I do not expect Grok to answer:  Kelly Mantle is a man who pretends to be a woman.  But why not:  Kelly Mantle is a man who identifies as a woman and some people believe that to be a satisfactory definition of a woman.  Personally, I think pretends is much more honest than identifies.  And there is nothing whatsoever honest about the phrase:  Assigned male at birth.  I have written about the pronoun nonsense before.

It is one thing for Mark Zuckerberg to be dishonest.  We expect that.  But coming from Elon Musk, this is somewhat surprising.

𓐵

Neopronouns Are For All of Us

Modern Compelled Speech

I wanted to write something about what's going on with pronouns.  But in order to do justice to the topic, I just did not know where to begin.  You see, little pronouns are big these days.  Luckily, UNC Greensboro had me covered with a handy one page explanation.

Find the original document just below.  Or click here to view it on their website.  Or start here:  UNCG:  Why Pronouns Matter.  Good stuff.

Sure, this is completely insane.  But my problem is not that transgender, non-binary, and/or gender nonconforming people use factitious pronouns (I note the document's passive voice construction).  They can be as crazy as they wish.  We can all be as crazy as we wish.

The first problem is right there in the first sentence:  Pronouns are words that a person may use to identify themselves instead of their name.  But unless you are in the habit of talking about yourself in the third person, surely the pronouns that you use to identify yourself are I and me and we.  It seems to me that what we have here is a very basic and fundamental misunderstanding of third person pronouns.  They are not ours in the sense that we do not typically use them when referring to ourselves.  No, these pronouns belong to others.  So that is my first problem:  Do we have a right to dictate other people's language?  Obviously, some people believe that we do.

Now some will argue:  Well, proper names are also used by others; and since we don't speak about ourselves in the third person, it is rare to use our own name when referring to ourselves.  And yet, no one would argue that your name is not your own.  But a name is a unique identifier for a person.  That is the definition of proper name.  On the other hand, pronouns are general, generic identifying substitutes.  If we make pronouns our own, they would become unique and lose their raison d'être.  Why?  Because they would then also become names.

But the larger problem with neopronouns is that their users and advocates expect us to join them in their madness.  They expect us to use their lexical creations.  And they further expect us to state our own pronouns in order to validate their insanity and grant the exercise some measure of legitimacy.

Now this may seem like a fairly benign exercise:  My name is Ben, and my pronouns are he/him.  What's the big deal?  But by participating in this exercise, you are signaling that you accept that pronouns are unsettled and subject to change, misuse, reversal, or outright fabrication.  And further, the reason pronouns are unsettled is because gender is fluid.  It's no big deal for Ben, but the problem is that it gives Xe license to run wild.  It is not so much that gender is non-binary, it is rather that gender is infinite, but at the same time evidently classifiable in the form of neopronouns.

Gender was once an exclusively grammatical term referring to words and language.  As best I can tell, we started applying this word to people in the late 20th century.  Fine, language changes.  Today, we generally view sex as a biological and therefore binary, and gender as a social construct and therefore non-binary.  To me, unless you argue that gender and sex are perfect synonyms, this distinction seems as valid as any other.  But it does present a problem.  Once we leave the moorings of binary biological reality, we enter a world of infinite possible creation.  And when coupled with insanity where does that take us?  All you have to do is a quick Google search to find out.  Here's a New York Times piece worth reading.

Think of it this way.  You go to a dinner party and there are maybe a dozen people there.  One person introduces herself this way:  My name is Mary Smith, and I am from the planet Ægir – in all seriousness.  Polite people may respond with:  Oh, I see.  But it takes an Orwellian atmosphere of intimidation for everyone there to then feel compelled to say:  Oh, nice to meet you Mary.  My name is Ben Johnson, and I am from Earth.  That's not tolerance or politeness, that's coercion.

But that is not all.  The document above suggests that you might even want to inquire how exactly to pronounce Ægir.  You know, it's important to get these things right.  Postmodern etiquette?  Merely contemporary good manners in the face of now acceptable subjective reality?  Or obsequious attentiveness to madness?

And then there's this:  Some people will use more than one set of pronouns, and you are encouraged to alternate among them in conversation.  Remember, they expect you to enter their fantasy world.  And if you refuse...what?  Well, some might begin to suspect you're some sort of bigot.  Just imagine the shame.

Here's a quick thought experiment.  Would it not be easier for everyone if we used sex to determine pronouns rather than gender?  I think the reason that this is not possible is that the people who argue most stridently that gender is fluid also believe that sex is meaningless.  Once you accept that a transgender woman is the same as a real woman, sex is irrelevant.

Some questions

So where does that leave us?  Sadly, the question becomes:  How far does one go to meet the demands of insanity?  And even if you argue tolerance above all, and politeness is best, when does politeness end and truth begin?  At a dinner party?  In a university lecture?  Testimony before congress?  How about a pre-op conversation with your oncologist?

Our Mary Smith, from the dinner party, was born in Topeka.  When does that matter?  Does it ever matter?

More questions:  Is Mary Smith insane?  Or is she a complete narcissist?  Or both?  And does that matter?  This gets us closer to the root of the problem.  I mean this nonsense is rife on college campuses today.  Can they all be insane?  Or have we simply raised a generation of narcissists?

And this is why neopronouns have exploded.  No self-respecting sui generis narcissist wants to use someone else's pronouns, much less something as mundane as he or she.  Of course not.  By definition, these narcissists are without equal.  They'll create their own unique pronouns, thank you very much.  And fully expect you to use them.  Be sure to write them down and get the pronunciation correct.  And for those who are not super narcissists, but perhaps have only a somewhat narcissistic personality, you know, your garden-variety narcissists; they may be happy to use non-original but sufficiently esoteric neopronouns because they still achieve the goal.

Now you may ask, what is the goal?  Look at me, I'm special, I'm so special that I have my own special descriptors, look at me!  Look. At. Me.  I insist.

But what we really have are narcissists and cowards and tyrants:  The narcissists who demand others refer to them as Xe, the cowards who indulge them, and the tyrants who enforce the madness.

What is going on here?

Now, I have no doubt that there is quite a bit of overlap between these three groups:  The narcissists and the cowards and the tyrants.  But just for a moment, let's consider these as three distinct groups.

We can just about understand the narcissists and the cowards, right?  Don't like them, but we have all met them and understand them.  Best to ignore them.  Surely, let's not contribute to their psychopathology.  If you can ignore your narcissistic colleague or neighbor, I urge you to treat these people the same way.

To me, it is the enforcers that are so interesting.  We are talking about university types here.  Both students and faculty.  Oh, and the countless ancillary bureaucrats attached to the modern university.  With their idle...little minds.  Sure, some of these people are certifiable.  But all of them?  Just can't be.

It is important to understand that university communities are moving from mere encouragement to use preferred personal pronouns, to vigorous insistence on it.  Some have made it mandatory, threatening students and staff with disciplinary action for failing to observe and/or participate in the new standard.  More will follow.  And no doubt the good little conformists they produce are already carrying this nonsense with them into the workplace.

We need to add that labeling pronouns preferred has become taboo.  You see, preferred implies that their use is optional.  And if your proper name is mandatory, so are your pronouns.  Today's bien-pensants simply refer to these as personal pronouns.

One final note on the latest tenets of pronoun usage.  If one fails to offer their preferred personal pronouns, that's perfectly fine.  But, we should then make no assumptions about what their pronouns may be.  So instead we should use their name in place of pronouns altogether.  Each and every time:  Ben had a paper due yesterday.  But Ben turned it in late.  It is not like Ben to be late.  My guess is that the awkward language is purposefully designed to encourage everyone to offer pronouns.  Most people, especially young people, don't like to be singled out.  No Ben, we don't have to speak like that about you; but you never gave us your pronouns.  Why don't you do that now?  So Ben, too, adopts preferred personal pronouns and accepts all that goes with it – Just like everyone else.

So what are they up to?

Two things come to mind.  One, old Soviet-style humiliation.  They want to coerce you into publicly stating something you know is untrue.  They know it is untrue.  And they know that you know that it is untrue.  And they know that you know that they know.  But there is power in coercing you to not only state an untruth, but also to help them enforce it.  With all due and proper self-righteousness comrade.  Yes, there's real power in forced self-humiliation.

I have used the North Korean example before.  When the Dear Leader died, all, and I do mean all, good little North Koreans wept uncontrollably.  Why?  Did they really believe that a great man had just died?  The idea is ridiculous.  No, it was simple fear of the powerful.  And fear that their family, friends, and colleagues might turn them in.  For what?  Insufficient grief?  Well let's put it differently:  Insufficient allegiance to the narrative.  Sound familiar?  Is their artificial grief any more absurd than calling someone Xe?  So they all participate in the lie as an exercise in power dynamics.

Surely this is what we are seeing on college campuses today:  A demonstrable allegiance to a narrative.  Stop and let that sink in.  When did the goal of liberal arts education morph from developing a faculty for critical thought to fostering an allegiance to a narrative?  If you think this comparison is hyperbole, just listen to Yeonmi Park talk about North Korea and Columbia University.

Which brings me to my second point:  To what end?  Well the narcissists and the cowards are just useful idiots with a richly concocted fantasy that the tyrants can exploit.  I personally believe that it could be any ridiculous fantasy, it's just that gender identity theory is the one at hand.  I mean it is so preposterous that if they can feed it to the masses, by whatever means necessary, then they can tell the masses anything they want.  Peak Covid hysteria has presented the tyrants with a similar opportunity.  And one cannot help but notice the tyrannical overlap.

There's also critical theory and intersectionality and 1619 and any number of other exploitable theories.  But come on, the absurdity of gender identity theory with its attendant public declaration of pronouns.  And the demand to prostrate oneself to use the correct pronouns of the petty narcissists?  For the tyrants, it's just too good to pass up.  Of course it is.

If you believe that the man over there is a Xe, or better yet, a she, or at least pretend to believe, odds are, you'll believe anything that those in power tell you to believe.  And if you believe them, you will do what they say – Regardless of which end of the gun you are on.

Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

𓐵

English Language Mania

𓐵