• rxin@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    2·
    15 hours ago

    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”.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPMEnglish
      2·
      10 hours 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.nzEnglish
        2·
        3 hours 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@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        1·
        49 minutes 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!