• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    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.

    • rxin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      deleted by creator

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.

        • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.

        • rxin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          deleted by creator