![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unpopular opinion: gendered pronouns are wrong for English
2022-Nov-14, Monday 10:37 amHow about something new for the Moody Monday tradition? I think that gendered pronouns are ruining the (already too complicated) English language, and we should stop using them altogether, the same way we abandoned gendered titles for job roles. Simplification is good.
I think that a somewhat-hidden reason explains this new cultural kerfuffle. Emotionally, I have no vested interest in my gender "as other people see it". As a nearly-lifelong longhair male, I've been misgendered enough to know that I simply don't care. I don't view "the other gender" as awful or lesser, so the confusion doesn't twist my emotions. I likewise don't particularly care if people call me by the wrong name. I seldom correct anyone for that. I've been called a coworker's or sibling's name plenty of times. If I know someone is referring to me by any means, then I'll respond. The particular verbiage doesn't influence me positively. If they are using a reference that I think is intentionally wrong as an attempt to insult me, then I might feel an emotional response. As a rule, though, I simply don't feel one in response to verbalization. I understand that some people have experienced a journey in their life that makes them care deeply about gender, especially how others see them. I maintain, however, that it's simply unreasonable to expect other people to maintain a detailed model-in-their-head of anyone else. It smacks of egoism. As someone with an autism diagnosis, I know a thing or two about egoistic self-importance. I don't give you permission to live in my head, and that's probably why I seldom remember anyone's name.
The more prominent issue, though, is that pronouns are supposed to be used instead of the noun. They are supposed to be less accurate versions of the original... mere placeholders for convenience. The new trend in English culture, though, runs in diametrically the opposite direction. It's trying to turn pronouns into accurate depictions of people-as-they-see-themselves. We might as well append pronouns as additional components to names. "Hi, my name is Terry-he-him." Great, more syllables that I can immediately forget.
This pronoun usage destroys the very reason for one of the 8 parts of speech in English. Some languages have even more parts to their communication. I am intellectually opposed to this trend. Similarly, I learned some Spanish during middle school, and I never understood the purpose or relevance of "tu" versus "usted" for 2nd-person pronouns. Just pick one, because it simplifies interpersonal relationships. Why complicate this stuff? (Maybe it's another autistic perspective there.) Long ago, I tried using Xe vocabulary here in my blog for 3rd-person pronouns. It didn't stick. Too unwieldy. Again, don't complicate things. Simplify.
Now, I have 2 related solutions to propose together.
1) Everyone is "they". I'm unsure at this point if I'm willing to concede that pronouns should even indicate 'number'. "They" already has a rich history of singular use. If necessary, then we conveniently have "one" to provide that distinction. But as a general rule for all occasions, with no cause for personal insult when used: Everyone is "they".
2) Adopt the Spanish protocol of 'familiarity', used in that language with 2nd-person pronouns. Maybe it's time we implement it in English for 3rd-person pronouns. With this corollary rule, then anyone with a strong interest in their own pronoun would be able to keep it, and people who are closest to them could display their closeness by using pronouns individually chosen by their target.
Rule #1 still reigns supreme for simplicity's sake and the common peace, but Rule #2 is a reasonable compromise, I think. Haters would still get to violate Rule #2 by choosing inappropriate pronouns to misgender someone, but their decision would also violate Rule #1 thereby explicitly exposing the intention in their choice of language. Does that plan give everyone a good outcome?
Read more about how I came to this position...
When I last worked as a programmer, I had to stand up in my cubicle and look down the hall at cubicle nameplates so I could address an email to my coworkers. I worked fulltime for half a decade with these people, and I still didn't know their names. At my last job, I had to look back at previous emails with my supervisor in order to remember their name/email. If I couldn't consistently remember the given name/noun of these people that I encountered frequently, then why would anyone think that I'd remember their 3rd-person name/pronoun?I think that a somewhat-hidden reason explains this new cultural kerfuffle. Emotionally, I have no vested interest in my gender "as other people see it". As a nearly-lifelong longhair male, I've been misgendered enough to know that I simply don't care. I don't view "the other gender" as awful or lesser, so the confusion doesn't twist my emotions. I likewise don't particularly care if people call me by the wrong name. I seldom correct anyone for that. I've been called a coworker's or sibling's name plenty of times. If I know someone is referring to me by any means, then I'll respond. The particular verbiage doesn't influence me positively. If they are using a reference that I think is intentionally wrong as an attempt to insult me, then I might feel an emotional response. As a rule, though, I simply don't feel one in response to verbalization. I understand that some people have experienced a journey in their life that makes them care deeply about gender, especially how others see them. I maintain, however, that it's simply unreasonable to expect other people to maintain a detailed model-in-their-head of anyone else. It smacks of egoism. As someone with an autism diagnosis, I know a thing or two about egoistic self-importance. I don't give you permission to live in my head, and that's probably why I seldom remember anyone's name.
The more prominent issue, though, is that pronouns are supposed to be used instead of the noun. They are supposed to be less accurate versions of the original... mere placeholders for convenience. The new trend in English culture, though, runs in diametrically the opposite direction. It's trying to turn pronouns into accurate depictions of people-as-they-see-themselves. We might as well append pronouns as additional components to names. "Hi, my name is Terry-he-him." Great, more syllables that I can immediately forget.
This pronoun usage destroys the very reason for one of the 8 parts of speech in English. Some languages have even more parts to their communication. I am intellectually opposed to this trend. Similarly, I learned some Spanish during middle school, and I never understood the purpose or relevance of "tu" versus "usted" for 2nd-person pronouns. Just pick one, because it simplifies interpersonal relationships. Why complicate this stuff? (Maybe it's another autistic perspective there.) Long ago, I tried using Xe vocabulary here in my blog for 3rd-person pronouns. It didn't stick. Too unwieldy. Again, don't complicate things. Simplify.
Now, I have 2 related solutions to propose together.
1) Everyone is "they". I'm unsure at this point if I'm willing to concede that pronouns should even indicate 'number'. "They" already has a rich history of singular use. If necessary, then we conveniently have "one" to provide that distinction. But as a general rule for all occasions, with no cause for personal insult when used: Everyone is "they".
2) Adopt the Spanish protocol of 'familiarity', used in that language with 2nd-person pronouns. Maybe it's time we implement it in English for 3rd-person pronouns. With this corollary rule, then anyone with a strong interest in their own pronoun would be able to keep it, and people who are closest to them could display their closeness by using pronouns individually chosen by their target.
Rule #1 still reigns supreme for simplicity's sake and the common peace, but Rule #2 is a reasonable compromise, I think. Haters would still get to violate Rule #2 by choosing inappropriate pronouns to misgender someone, but their decision would also violate Rule #1 thereby explicitly exposing the intention in their choice of language. Does that plan give everyone a good outcome?