5040

No pronoun is generally for folks questioning. I’m with Adam on this. Generally the folks who use neopronouns are pretty out there, and not in the good way, and it’s likely an online-only thing.

5041

If one is going with something like “He/They” as pronouns, I feel like that person is deliberately fucking with people. Can’t keep it semi-simple, no we gotta switch things up even more. Next, it’ll be all about which pronouns get capitalized.

(Sorry, I’m a cranky former English major. Changing grammatical rules doesn’t sit well with me.)

5042

I can say from experience with seeing folks transition, often a she//they or he/they indicated someone who is thinking about it, but hasn’t gone through with it, or isn’t entirely sure about it, so they are hedging.

Often folks worry about not getting enough effect from transition, or running out of money, so they hedge just in case it fails. It’s rarely an attempt to fuck with folks.

Sonicfox for example uses he/they, though they asked for the FGC to use they to normalize non-binariness and most honor their wishes.

5043

I don’t even understand what he/they is supposed to mean.

5044

That they’re ok with either set of pronouns.

5045

But isn’t it usually in the form of “he/him”, indicating for example, male pronouns?

He/they doesn’t fit that usage.

5046

Focusing on the “no pronouns” in a list clearly meant to be all inclusive of every possible option in order to say just call people by what they prefer is an odd focus.

5047

It’s a shortened way of saying he/him or they/them, because well, Twitter space is limited.

It’s largely a social media abbrevaiation.

5048

Yeah, if this is the archetype of a stupid liberal said thing, then liberalism looks kind of okay.

5049

I think the focus is because that’s the one that’s dumb.

It’s trivial to accommodate someone and just let them choose from existing pronouns.

But when you want to alter the fundamental structure of the language by removing pronouns entirely, you are asking everyone else to treat you not as an equal, but as someone who is deserving of special, elevated treatment. The same goes for folks who make up words for themselves.

The reality is, you aren’t that special (unless you are Prince).

5050

So, no pronouns. Like Bob Dole. Sure, he didn’t apply it universally but you can bet when Bob Dole talked about Bob Dole he did not say “I”, he said Bob Dole. If Bob Dole asked others not to say “he said” but “Bob Dole said” when reporting on him while it might be an odd request it doesn’t seem like one that would be hard to try and honor.

5051

This whole thing reminds me of The Maestro in Seinfeld.

5052

No pronouns actually make the most sense to me or more accurately a single pronoun for everyone, for the anti-case look at gendered languages like Spanish where the general pronouns are still male pronouns. But to also fall on the wrong side of history, I’m not a fan of “they” as a singular simply because it’s been doing a lot of work as a plural for a long, long time, specific use cases notwithstanding. I’d prefer a novel pronoun, I guess.

5053

I have a number of international employees that all have three part very traditional Christian names but many go by nicknames. That’s what they prefer. In a basic attempt to show respect to others if someone prefers to be called “Rikrik” instead of Mark I call them “Rikrik”.

5054

Just a linguistic note. Using “they” as the singular ungendered pronoun is not a new thing. It’s always been used in both individual and singular contexts. It’s being doing work as both for an equal amount of time.

For example:

“Ask someone if they know the way to Carnegie Hall.”

The request isn’t to ask only a man or only a woman so the singular ungendered pronoun they is used.

5055

I’m aware, those specific use cases, but it feels a bit of a shoehorn to make it do duty as a replacement for he/she. In your example the nonspecific nature of “someone” does a lot of work, in regular speech they is much more of a plural pronoun. Not to say I won’t come around, but it bumps against my brain. “Where’s Bob?” “They are over there.” That “are” is a linking verb that is generally confined to the plural illustrates the idea. “They is over there.” sounds wrong, yes?

5056

Just curious, do you have a first language that is gendered? Since for a language where one has to, for example, gender verbs or other elements of speech to match the subject, the conceptual difficulty makes sense. English is probably one of the easiest languages to refer to an individual in a consistently genderless manner.

In the singular case, you still say, “they are”. This is because English hates consistent rules and just goes with whatever sounds good at the time.

Did you find someone to give us directions? Yes, they are right there.

5057

There is a call for you.

Really? Who is it?

I don’t know, they won’t say.

What do they want?

They want to speak to you.

Can you ask them if they are able to hold for a minute, I’ll be right with them.

That’s a perfectly ordinary exchange in English.

5058

True, but still with a level of abstraction. Bob’s right there waiting, I just wouldn’t say, “Hey, they are waiting to to talk to you.” I’d say, “He’s waiting to talk to you.” Again, not to say I won’t come around. I would prefer another pronoun that functions the same, I suppose, rather than obfuscate “They.”

5059

Well there’s “it”, but that doesn’t sound great either ;)