|this thread, although comic in intent, has thrown up some interesting thoughts on genderless or gender-inclusive pronouns. It occurs to me that this might be a decent launch-pad for a discussion at a slightly higher level of the same questions.|
So...perhaps a decent launch-pad might be the consideration that it was established, but not really addressed, that if the use of genderless or gender-inclusive pronouns was in some way "wrong", so was the use of the pronoun "they". However, the champions of "they" seem to be arguiong that it is better to be wrong in a particular way, id est the way that involves "misusing" words rather than inventing new ones. That's a pretty interesting position in itsef. Also, nobody seems to have twigged yet that the "correct" (although not, of course politically correct) universal pronoun is, of course, "he", because men do things. Therefore, when a man loves a woman, he don't need nobody else, but if somebody climbs into this thread, he should climb out as quickly as he can. If somebody else is giving birth, she is protected by the specificity of action.
So, why gender-sensitive pronouns, which gender-sensitive pronouns, and are there broader linguistic and extra-linguistic implications at work here?