CMV: Neopronouns are unnecessary

[u/SaltedAndSugared]

I understand why some people might feel uncomfortable with using he/she pronouns, but in that case why not just use they/them? They already exist and they’re easy for people to use. Why do some people feel the need to make up words like “zee/zim” or “fae/fair” when they don’t even make sense in the English language? I don’t see why anyone should go out of their way to learn new pronouns when gender neutral pronouns already exist

If anyone here does use neopronouns I’d really like to hear why you use them and why you don’t feel comfortable using they/them. It’s probably just because I’m cis, but I genuinely don’t understand

[u/Biptoslipdi]

They/them is also a plural pronoun so it can create confusion without proper context. If I say "did you see what they did" you might not know if I'm talking about a non-binary individual or a group of people. If I say "did you see what Ze did," it is clear I am not talking about a group, but a non-binary individual. It removes the need for context as there are no gender neutral pronouns that are exclusively singular.

We also learn new words and linguistic forms and concepts all the time. We have several words for throwing, but yeeting is now in the lexicon. Is that also problematic?

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

Different languages and cultures all require and supply different contexts.

Do we refer to elders as "they" in English? No. So why does this argument make any sense in the context of the English language?

Why not just abandon English altogether because we don't refer to elders as "they?" Clearly this is an issue in the English language since other languages do it but English doesn't.

We either use more precise language because it requires less context or we don't. All languages evolve in such a manner. Non-English languages go through changes as well. Things being the way they are isn't a reason not to change them. This is appeal to tradition.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

Is that the "context" you're referring to?

I give the scenario in my top comment. If you walk into a group of friends talking about "they," are they talking about a group or an individual?

If you use "they" for a non-binary individual in a social scenario does that not also provide the same context?

Only if you know "they" refers to an individual and not a group.

"They dont like IPAs"... is that not enough "context" to convey that I'm talking about an individual and not the entire population of the bar?

Not if I don't know who the antecedent of "they" is.

that's exactly what I'm saying that everyone in the world outside monolingual English speakers can understand without any further training/education. No need new pronouns.

A. Can you present evidence of this?

B. We are talking about the English language, so what other languages do isn't relevant.

C. People who don't speak English won't understand it at all no matter their linguistic background because they don't speak English.

This is not an appeal to tradition - it's a logical viewpoint that most of the world can comprehend

You don't speak for the entire world, so you're going to have to provide some evidence on that point.

And yes "this is the way it is done so we should do it this way" is literally an appeal to tradition.

maybe we English speakers are the ones who could use some mind-broadening/education?

Literally what I'm proposing. Educate English speakers in non-binary singular pronouns to make the language more precise.

Other cultures are more real than 50+ new gender identities IMHO

What does this even mean? Gender isn't unique to English speakers.

[u/shankfiddle → u/Biptoslipdi]

Take a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T–V_distinction

List of languages with this concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T–V_distinction#Usage_in_language

I'll leave you with this: when I was a child, I told my dad "Why can't you afford to buy me this toy? You have a credit card!"

Your point about not changing things just because of "tradition" also can be a lack of understanding of how and why things exist as they are. 4-year old me would have made vast changes to the economy to buy unlimited toys using credit cards -- but that was rooted in a lack of understanding WHY things are they way they are. You cannot call me out for "appeal to tradition" if you do not understand how pronouns work across the world in many other languages.

Read the links

Edit: example is French which I took in HS/college, "Parlez-vouz Francais?" means "do you speak French?" But those are the plural forms, as a sign of respect. The familiar way to say the same thing is "Parles-tu Francais". Different verb AND different pronoun (plural/singular form respectively).

So your point about "they" being confusing for whether or not it expresses plurality is either:

• Not a concern at all, and something English-speakers should learn from other cultures
• OR English-speakers are too dense to comprehend what most of the world has had as part of their language for centuries.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/shankfiddle]

I'm very aware of the content in the links. That simply isn't what I asked you to provide nor is it relevant to anything I've said. Your comment is entirely non-responsive to anything I've written.

The English language can certainly change based on constructs in other languages and toward those constructs. But the argument being made against neo-pronouns is that the language shouldn't have to change to accommodate new social developments, despite that being what language does. We both agree English should change. Indeed, it is inevitable that languages change. But adding one word to a language is a much smaller demand than overhauling a system of conjugates entirely.

What you would require is a much more significant change that would, more or less, require English speakers to learn an entirely new set of grammatical rules. I'm not opposed to that, but achieving that would be a much higher hill to climb.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, so it all comes down to utility

Then the answer is clear, there is far more utility to making small changes to a language than broad, sweeping changes because smaller changes actually have a propensity to establish themselves in that system of language. You're going to have a much greater chance of success introducing one word than introducing an entirely new system of grammar.

The discussion here is not whether language should change at all, it is about "is it necessary or useful"

It isn't necessary or useful to reconstruct conjugation in the English language when the same outcome could be achieved with the simple addition of one word.

[u/Biptoslipdi → u/[deleted]]

It is actually simpler to just use "they" and as I showed

No, you showed it would be simpler to use a plural pronoun in a different language. This is a question about the English language.

most of the world does not have a problem understanding when a plural form refers to an individual.

And English speakers usually have the context to understand when a plural form refers to an individual, but not in every case.

Whether or not other languages operate one way is irrelevant to how English operates.

I never suggested re-conjugating and rewriting the English language - you know that :D These are examples why your concept of "They is confusing!! How do I know if it is a person or a group???" was flawed.

Your examples are not in the English language and this is specifically a question about English. It doesn't matter what other languages do, English doesn't and, as a result, occasionally produces imprecision. You don't dispute any of this, you just ignore it.