• @PugJesusOPMEnglish
    12•1 month ago

    He, she, or they works well enough for most circumstances. Do we really need to broaden it beyond that?

    I would say probably not. I expect (and hope, I suppose) that things will sort themselves out more or less that way. We live in a time of great reconsideration of gender norms, and it’s not absurd to see experimentation in such a period. I use neopronouns (nounself style excluded) as a courtesy, because I understand it brings comfort to many who use them and it’s not much trouble simply to do so, but they/them is what I hope we all eventually settle on as standard for NB gender identities.

      • @PugJesusOPMEnglish
        6•1 month ago

        They/them is not used exclusively to refer to neuter things, so enbies not being gender neutral is irrelevant here. ‘They’ is a useful and pre-existing catch-all.

          • @PugJesusOPMEnglish
            4•1 month ago

            … why?

            Is that any more absurd than “reducing males to he/him” or “reducing females to she/her”?

            It’s language, not a campaign medal. You don’t need a separate example for every instance.

            • @[email protected]English
              5•1 month ago

              The whole point of pronouns, I would argue, is to not need a separate set for every instance.

              Otherwise you may as well just use Dan/Dan/Dan’s/Danself conjugated for each name.

              Pronouns:

              • Are (generally) shorter than names, because there’s less need for them to be unique and they’re used more frequently.

              • Can be used even when you don’t know specifics about a person or object, or they don’t want to give out their name.

              • Everyone knows how to conjugate them, so once you know someone is a ‘they’, you can readily extrapolate to them, their, theirs.