Hard no on that one — just because someone declares "I have no gender" doesn't make it so, any more than if I were to declare that I have no eye color.
> is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant!
Agreed — but in formal writing, confusing readers by appropriating the plural is not the way to fix it.
"Hard no" because of your personal beliefs and bigotry, rather than fact.
Gender is a social construct, and people are free do identify as they please. If someone decides they don't identify as binary male or female, that's their choice. It doesn't mean they declare "I have no gender," it means they don't declare to be "male" or "female."
The fact that you foolishly and arrogantly try to equate an irrefutable, immutable physical attribute like iris pigmentation, with something as ill-defined, fluid, and personal as gender, shows you're neither engaging in good faith, nor able to get past your own bigotry to even make an intelligent argument.
Once again, you're the only one being confused here, so the fake outrage and trumped-up claims of confused readership don't fly.
Hard no on that one — just because someone declares "I have no gender" doesn't make it so, any more than if I were to declare that I have no eye color.
> is longer and harder to say than the more inclusive variant!
Agreed — but in formal writing, confusing readers by appropriating the plural is not the way to fix it.