[flagged]
It works perfectly. It is inoffensive, a drop-in-replacement, doesn't elongate sentences or any other such negative side effects.
It's real known words not just freshly invented. And it's even semantically correct.
The they/them swap is the most elegant implementation I am aware of.
The consensus in English-writing guides like the APA or Elements of Style is about staying true to a person's self-identified pronoun while preferring specificity over ambiguity. In a case where you don't know - "they" is perfectly acceptable. In a case where "they" is an explicit self-identity - it's the only correct option. In this case, where he literally calls himself "Mr", it's stylistically incorrect to choose a more ambiguous pronoun where "he" is the correct one for someone calling themselves "mr"
It's a coherent thing to argue for, I'll give you that, but it's also.. kinda arbitrary? And one can make an equally convincing case for statelessness in the sense that just because one word carries metadata, doesn't mean that the other words around it must react to it.
Is it possible that you have a good point about inclusive writing in general, but you just happened to hop on the wrong case to make your stand, didn't realize that we're talking about an explicit "mr"?
Isn't a strawman something I would make up that you would have said to then attack it?
The idea being
> it's stylistically incorrect to choose a more ambiguous pronoun
And my disagreement being with the assessment that it is "incorrect". It's not. That's an arbitrary choice and pointing to "authorities" there changes nothing about the arbitrary-ness.
__
In fact, I went all in on good faith there by validating that idea as one coherent way to see this topic.
I just fundamentally disagree with it and brought forward my equally valid and coherent way to see this topic.
Which got countered with a "this is just a strawman" (which is false, as that is not how strawmans work) followed by a direct attack
> but you just happened to hop on the wrong case to make your stand, didn't realize that we're talking about an explicit "mr"?
And now you show up and.. uh.
__
Yeah anyway. The direct attack there alone is enough to lose any moral highground. So even if I had been doing what I was accused of (which I clearly did not), that would be a less worse offense?
Idk.
I don't see why de-gendering people would be less upsetting than gendering them correctly, and THAT is clearly seen as absolutely unacceptable by many. One can't claim a moral high ground if one is just as obnoxious as ones opponents.
Far from it, it only creates confusion and injects ideologically charged "pronoun language" into the discussion. If you feel the need to make clear that yes, the person you're talking about can be a man as well as a woman - something which most people realise and the ones who don't won't anyway no matter which words you use - use something like s/he or "he or she". The first form is just as short, is not ideologically charged and does not create ambiguity.
Haha what the fuck. Who implemented that oh my god.
Genuine question though. That cannot be grassroots, can it? Because it completely defeats the purpose of that. Did this just come up because someone _had_ to translate the english culture war during news reporting?
You may genuinely not know the gender of an online nickname, and, frankly, you also don't really have to know? Why share this metadata in the first place.
I kinda see your point regarding "it pulls in culture war", but, to be fair, it's "they/them". Language that - in this very usage - predates the culture war by centuries.
So.. idk I think you might be wrong here.
"There is an entity named doob, and they are responsible for this thing" at least to me kinda solves the exact thing (attribution, "where to ask questions") it needs to solve, while simultaneously encoding the least amount of metadata possible.
(Okay technically the entity is named mrdoob as an opaque string, but "there is an entity named doob" was more fun to type)