you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

This sounds ridiculous in English as well, because the "neutral" pronoun is also a plural pronoun.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Also it's just grammatically confusing if you're talking about a group of they/thems. When you use "they" in that case it's not going to be clear whether you're referring to one "they" or the entire group of "theys". It's just so stupid to use a plural pronoun for a known singular entity. The singular they is only supposed to be for an unknown person/group for a reason. 🙄🙄🙄

[–]wafflegaffWoman. SuperBi. 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is interesting that they didn't choose "it" instead, which is the actual neutral singular pronoun. Many people already use that term to refer to a living creature whose sex is indeterminate—until they learn which sex it has, at least. So it's less weird than using a plural pronoun in a singular sense. "It" fits the NB use case exactly.

Except for the part where it implies a possible lack of personhood and therefore a lack of self, ego, etc. precisely because it leaves out the presence of a biological sex, which objects and some living non-mammals do not possess. But so does "they" unless they are forgetting that "they" is also used to refer to groups of inanimate objects.

Basically this use of "they" is simply illiterate. They want the acknowledgement of their personhood which "she" and "he" confer while pretending to be neither of those sexes.

[–]TransspeciesUnicornI sexually identify as a mythical sparkly equine 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It feels like it's basically the same principle behind the "Royal We". It's not about being literate or making sense, it's about indicating elevated status. European monarchs used the "Royal We" to indicate their status as royalty, enbies are using "they" to indicate their status in the new trans/enby priest class. So of course they wouldn't use "it" -- that doesn't convey any sense of specialness.

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah... this reminds me of how, in French, "vous" is both the plural and "formal singular" form of "you".

But of course such usage makes zero sense in English...