this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
235 points (92.7% liked)

A Comm for Historymemes

1416 readers
312 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Lemmy.world rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My only comment is that at least you only have to learn it once (or, well, thrice), not for any given conversation.

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

Once pronouns become unique and personalised instead of generic, you lose the advantages of having them in the first place, and may as well refer to everyone by name every time. It'd be less confusing, especially if you're re-using existing words as pronouns.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

enbies are not gender neutral and have their gender as well! hence neopronouns.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

they/them is what I hope we all eventually settle on as standard for NB gender identities.

This part is the one I'm referring to. I'm not opposed to they/them — it's good, but I don't think it's fair to reduce enbies to just "they/them".

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

... 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] 5 points 3 days 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Well exactly because they/them is a catch-all and there aren't just he/hims and she/hers

let enbies express themselves too!