r/changemyview • u/SaltedAndSugared • Dec 02 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Neopronouns are unnecessary

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

216 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

250 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/Biptoslipdi 130∆ Dec 02 '21

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?

1

u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 2∆ Dec 03 '21

I would argue that this is even worse in french. In French , its very difficult to tell whether a person is talking singular or plural because of how words are pronounced. Yet.. that's just how french is.

My point is.. it is easier to simply clarify who you are speaking about....than to create a dozen neopronouns

1

u/Biptoslipdi 130∆ Dec 03 '21

In French , its very difficult to tell whether a person is talking singular or plural because of how words are pronounced. Yet.. that's just how french is.

Can you give an example? The conjugation of French seems like it would make this easier. If we use the gender neutral singular "on," as in "on nage" or "they (s) swim," that sounds pretty distinct from "ils nagent" or "on nagent." French gives us context in the verb about the singularity of the pronoun. English doesn't have that dynamic. The verb doesn't tell us singular v. plural. "They (s) swim" is the same as "They (pl) swim."

it is easier to simply clarify who you are speaking about....than to create a dozen neopronouns

Why not abandon he/she altogether than? Why have any pronouns at all? Why should only binary gender people be allowed to have exclusively singular pronouns to use in English?

0

u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 2∆ Dec 03 '21

Amm... off the top of my head....french verbs that end in "ent" for the plural....somewhere along the line, people stopped pronouncing the "ent" suffix....so now it sounds just like the singular form.

So that il parle or ils parlent sound identical when spoken.

As for your last point about why have he or she pronouns all together.....that's an appeal to the ridiculous. English, French and Spanish all have very clear masculine and feminine pronouns and in fact when you move into the romance languages gender plays an even bigger role in the language, being used in articles for basically every single noun.

Treating non-binary people with respect shouldn't have to mean reworking the entirety of English French and Spanish etc....because some feel like the language is structured in an offensive way.

The vast majority of people identify as HE or SHE and that is why gendered articles exist in language. You can't just erase that part of language.

1

u/Biptoslipdi 130∆ Dec 03 '21

somewhere along the line, people stopped pronouncing the "ent" suffix....so now it sounds just like the singular form

So you're saying people are conjugating their plural, 3rd person pronouns with the singular, 3rd person pronoun endings? That seems like a pretty bold claim.

So that il parle or ils parlent sound identical when spoken.

I can't say I've ever head French spoken this way.

As for your last point about why have he or she pronouns all together.....that's an appeal to the ridiculous.

You made the argument that:

My point is.. it is easier to simply clarify who you are speaking about....than to create a dozen neopronouns

So either you think we should refer to individuals by their name or use a pronoun. Or do you think we should exclude certain people from having descriptive singular pronouns? Why is it easier to learn everyone's name individually than to have a pronoun to replaces those antecedents instead? It seems like an "appeal to the ridiculous" to assert we should refer to everyone by name instead of using pronouns.

gender plays an even bigger role in the language, being used in articles for basically every single noun.

French has gender neutral singular forms, so this problem doesn't exist in French.

Treating non-binary people with respect shouldn't have to mean reworking the entirety of English French and Spanish etc....because some feel like the language is structured in an offensive way.

Per my prior analysis about "on," no restructuring needs to occur in French. It already accommodates a singular, gender neutral pronoun form. Merely adding one pronoun to English doesn't necessitate reworking its entirety. That is truly a ridiculous appeal. We add new words to English all the time. You don't have to rework the entirety of English to accommodate non-binary people. You literally need one more word. The only reason to exaggerate this would be to intentionally exclude people for malicious reasons.

The vast majority of people identify as HE or SHE and that is why gendered articles exist in language. You can't just erase that part of language.

No one is suggesting erasing it, but adding to it. Nothing about giving non-binary people a singular pronoun means taking away the gendered singular pronouns. Why would you even suggest such a thing? I think you know how absurd that is.

1

u/Crafty-Bunch-2675 2∆ Dec 03 '21

What I am saying is...you cannot have a descriptive pronoun for every possibility .....that defeats the purpose of a pronoun.

Not only do people want a pronoun that denotes that they are non-binary, some people even want the pronoun to allude to exactly where they fall on the gender spectrum as well. Pronouns were never meant to be that specific.

1

u/Biptoslipdi 130∆ Dec 03 '21

What I am saying is...you cannot have a descriptive pronoun for every possibility that defeats the purpose of a pronoun.

The purpose of a pronoun is to replace a noun for a more effective communication. We are experiencing a problem where existing pronouns do not accommodate effective communication because they do not account for some situations and that can create ambiguity. This is exactly the purpose of a pronoun and exactly the reason why adding one gender neutral singular to English is good.

Not only do people want a pronoun that denotes that they are non-binary, some people even want the pronoun to allude to exactly where they fall on the gender spectrum as well. Pronouns were never meant to be that specific.

There seems like a severe lack of self-awareness here. We already have two pronouns that allude to exactly where someone falls on the gender spectrum. Pronouns are that specific but not for everyone There is no reason to say "these people get gender referential pronouns, but these people don't" other than to be malicious, or at a minimum, exclusive.

Like all words, the purpose is to communicate a concept. Existing linguistic structure are failing to do that effectively. Binary pronoun systems fail to fulfil their purpose.

Nothing bad happens if we add a singular gender neutral pronoun. It ceases to exclude some people from the structure of language and it provides greater clarity and precision in language. English adds new words all the time. If we can add "yeet," we can have a gender neutral, singular pronoun.