A basic nonphysical subanthropic exism will be termed "nonpersonative" here if the object is primarily something that is neither a person nor a group of persons invested with personality (while indirectly concerning a human subclass nevertheless). We will consider marriage and language as objects of nonpersonative manifestations of irrelevantism. This listing is definitely not exhaustive. Also technological exclusivism (X.617), for instance, is a form of nonpersonative exism, that is, exism re the technological development of a society. If aggrandizemental, this manifestation involves the institution of technocracy: the exclusive government or management of society by technical experts. Technocratic exism as a brand of technological exism is notorious for its exclusion of relevant nontechnical factors and the confusion of means and ends. But technological exism can be abnegational too, for example, when technology, or modern technology, is disposed of by people who pursue a variety of ends which can only be attained simultaneously with the aid of the very technology they want to discontinue, or prevent, the use of.

Not only marriage but also celibacy is the object of marriage-( and celibacy-)related or marital exclusivism (X.309). (The word marital is to be preferred to matrimonial for etymological reasons.) Marriage- and celibacy-centered exclusivism (X.309.0) is a unitary exism re the marital status of a human or anthropically conceived being, while marriage-( and celibacy-)based exclusivism (X.309.1) is a compositional exism re (someone or people with) a certain type of marriage or (someone or people living in) celibacy. Compositional marital exism can be quantitative or duration-based. In the former case it concerns the number of times someone is married or allowed to marry, in the latter case the duration of a marriage. The dimensional manifestations of quantitative marital exclusivism (X.619) for a trichotomous subdivision are: marriage-, celibacy-, monogamy- and polygamy-centered exclusivism. ('Marriage-centered' must not be confused with 'marriage- and celibacy-centered exclusivism'.) As mentioned before, these forms of exclusivism are intimately connected with quantitative relational and gender-based sexualism. The law of a sexist society may institutionalize the hybrid of these two sexualisms by giving men the opportunity to marry more than one wife (polygyny), while excluding women from having more than one husband (polyandry). It is often naively and erroneously said that a certain religion allows polygamy or 'plural marriage', but this is irrelevantist, truth-conditional phraseology when that religion allows only men to have more than one spouse (that is, polygyny).

Whether a marriage relationship can exist between one or more men and one or more women or not, it is always sexualistic in a relative orientational sense, if such a relationship can solely be formalized for people of a different gender. The ancient, biological argument that human beings of the same gender could not get children is, firstly, out of date from a medical-technical point of view; secondly, inconsistent if people of a different gender who could not get children either are allowed to marry nevertheless; and thirdly, out of place where children cannot only be produced physically by oneself, but can also be adopted physically or formally.

Aggrandizemental marriage-centered exclusivism is exism re married people on the basis of their marriage which is believed or felt to be good or better than celibacy (whether living together with someone, or whether having a sexual relationship with someone or not). The sentimental external abnegational component of the same exclusivism is uneasiness (possibly hatred, fear or ignorance) of unmarried people with married people or the institution of marriage. This involves misogamy. (Traditional language is so unsystematic as not to have a term for the hatred of celibacy.) The hybrid attitude of marital and sexual exclusivists is not only put into effect in the above affirmative ways, it is also manifested in the use of a title like miss for unmarried women only. In combination with etatic exclusivism the derogatory use of an expression like old maid is another manifestation of it. Miss was, or still is, a legal and official child, old maid a nonlegal, nonofficial child, of marital and sexual exclusivism. No child of either of these two parents has ever been legitimate, let alone a child of both of them.

Language is another object of nonpersonative irrelevantism we have mentioned. On the highest level, exclusivism on the basis of language must first be subdivided into inter- and infralinguistical exclusivism. Interlinguistical exclusivism (X.310) is, then, exism re the (form of) language of a particular community, whether that (form of) language is officially recognized or not. The object of interlinguistical exism need not be a 'language' in some sense of a standard, international or nonregional language (as in language-based exism); it may also be a dialect or regional variety of such a language (as in dialectal exism) or even an accent which is phonemically correct (as in accentual exism). (Accent-based exism does not concern a different pronunciation in the sense of an alternative choice of correct phonemes: this will be classified as an infralinguistic characteristic.) The object of dialect-based exclusivism is a dialect which is not officially recognized as "a language", or if it is, which is compared with other dialects of the same language. Some componential manifestations of language- and dialect-based exclusivism (X.1243 & 1242) are:

1. the belief or feeling that the language or dialect which a person speaks 'imself (and which may be recognized as an official language), or the languages or dialects of a group to which 'er own language or dialect belong, are superior to, or better than, other languages or dialects (self-aggrandizemental);
2. the exclusion or discrimination of other languages or dialects than a person speaks imself, because 'e believes or feels that 'er own language is superior (self-aggrandizing);
3. the belief or feeling that a particular language or dialect, or group of languages or dialects, is inferior in all or in certain fields (abnegational); and
4. uneasiness, possibly shame or ignorance, with respect to a person's own language or dialect (sentimental self-abnegational).

Infralinguistical exclusivism (X.311) can be exism re spelling (orthographical), pronunciation (pronunciational infralinguistical), vocabulary (vocabular), meanings (semantical) or, perhaps, other aspects of a language or dialect. Lingual exclusivism as a particular kind of operation of a componential, dimensional or integral exism is not a form of vocabular or semantical exclusivism, because its object is not a vocabulary or the meaning of a word, but another one which is only treated differently in the use of such a word. Moreover, the 'exclusion' of lingually exclusivistic words in a language or dialect is not an incident of vocabular or semantical exism, because this rejection is founded on relevant grounds. For it follows from accepting the principle of discriminational relevance that violations of this principle must be rejected.

Since all our communication has been assumed to take place here thru the medium of written language, we have already discussed the orthographical facet of inclusivity at a much earlier moment in time, namely in the Book of Instruments in the context of the cultural norms and values of linguistic systems (I.3.4). There it has been made clear what the inclusivistic position entails, and we therefore need not expatiate on this subject now. Much of what applies to spelling, applies to pronunciation, vocabulary and the meanings of words as well. What typifies infralinguistical exclusivism in general is the belief or suggestion that a language or dialect would be some kind of rigid, monolithic system of communicable propositions (almost) without any variants or options at all. It has been explained why this belief is untenable and the suggestion preposterous. It has also been argued that consistence is a very important criterion in questions of linguistic correctness. The emphasis on this requirement is certainly not exclusivistic, for consistence is also a criterion of relevance itself, at least in the norm of inclusivity. And just as consistence does not prove relevance, so consistent usage does not prove the correctness of a linguistic variant. It is therefore not always easy to find out whether the rejection of such a variant should be x-ed as a manifestation of infralinguistical exclusivism. However, in the absence of nonexclusivist teachers, dictionaries and encyclopedias it is one thing to look on exclusivist teachers, dictionaries and encyclopedias as co-advisors in these matters, and quite another thing to look on them as authorities.