this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
236 points (92.1% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
1417 readers
58 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They/them is not used exclusively to refer to neuter things, so enbies not being gender neutral is irrelevant here. 'They' is a useful and pre-existing catch-all.
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".
... 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.
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.
Well exactly because they/them is a catch-all and there aren't just he/hims and she/hers
let enbies express themselves too!