| If he identified as 'he' then, then he get's a 'he' when I'm discussing facts about the story when they did that action, objectively. We don't alter history because of how someone possibly may have felt at the time. We don't know how 'he or she' may have internally identified back then. Esp. because we're talking actual, objective facts, and not 'to them' or whatever, I think it's reasonably to use the gender that they used to identify to the world at that point. I also think it's a little absurd the level of linguistic policing we have to get in. I think that we're only scratching the surface of how far you could take it. Point - your language is fairly 'gender binary normative' - and a bunch of people are now even offended by that. There's so many ways to 'identify'. The Uni of Oxford student union is now recommending that you haver use 'gendered pronouns' i.e. 'he/she' until the person you are talking about has specifically expressed to you their gender preference. Meaning - that person with a big beard, beer belly, deep voice name 'Joe' - you can't say 'he' - until he has specifically told you 'he prefers' 'he'. Or you're 'not being respectful'. It's getting absurd. Manning seems to identify as a 'she', I'll have no problem referring to her as 'she' if I see her or talk about her presently - but I'm really not interested in being policed or moralized beyond that. |