[graeme]

I feel like you're making a good argument but have chosen a singularly poor example. Use of "they" is most justified when the gender is unknown. Barack Obama is a very known male.

At some point, we may use "they" for everyone, even if known. But at present, it's not accepted even for cases when gender is unknown.

It's likely better to argue for its usage in unknown cases first before making a case for its usage even when gender is known. The latter is a far more radical proposition.

(I use "they" when gender is unknown".)

[A_COMPUTER]

Consider that like Chelsea Manning, at some point in the future Barack Obama may announce she has always been a woman. Also like Chelsea Manning, at that point you would be obligated to alter all past and present references to Barack Obama as "she," or else be guilty of a hateful and cruel misgendering slur. So as a matter of practicality it's probably easier just to use the singular-they in every case so you are being respectful. On the other hand, it still wouldn't be considerate to leave it at "they" if Barack Obama had clearly stated her preferred pronouns, so you might have to change it anyway so now I am not actually sure what advice to give.

[davidtanner]

You sound very unlike someone concerned about trans issues and very much like a pedant with poor intentions.

[A_COMPUTER]

Fine, I'll say it plainly. Using singular-they in all cases is in my mind a reasonable accommodation if you live in a world where there are two or more genders and you are obligated to use someone's gender-identification rather than their society-assigned gender. But during the Chelsea Manning trial, a group of serious people very "concerned about trans issues" demanded unreasonable accommodation, that all references to Manning as "he," even ones made in the past and which referred to her when the world identified her as male, had to be altered. My point is that using singular-they in every case, even if you think it could be a reasonable accommodation, is already not good enough for a significant number of people, both people that will still demand that you retroactively erase all reference to prior gender, and people for whom "they" is offensive and demand you memorize and use everyone's personal pronouns.

I was not intending to mock trans people, I was mocking extremists in that group. It's really fucking annoying when you were for gender-neutral pronouns your whole life, took shit for that because nobody wanted to use "clumsy grammar," then you get shit from some trans people who claim that you're erasing their identity:

<quote>Look, if you take gender neutral pronouns and start using them for people that aren’t gender neutral, you are appropriating my and other non-binary people’s pronouns, whatever way you cut it. You’re also erasing and devaluing both binary and non-binary trans* people, who have to fight every single day to be recognised and treated as their gender. This smacks of that whole ridiculous ’gender is irrelevant’ shit. That sentiment ‘gender is irrelevant’? Yeah, it’s trans* erasure.</quote>

I am not the pedant. These people are the pedants. But these are the people you are going to be dealing with when you talk about what pronouns you should use in writing, so you better be aware of it.

[davidtanner]

I'm a trans woman and I do agree that anyone who was demanding that all previous written instances of using "he" for Manning be altered is going too far.

On the other hand, once she informed people about her true gender and pronoun preferences then there ought to be no use of "he" in media to refer to Manning. At most, I'd support using "nee" and a reference to her old name for the sake of continuity.

Make no mistake about it, pronoun issues may seem trivial to those not affected, but it's often a deeply distressing and systemic problem for many trans people.

Overall, I like your post. You might be interested in reading about Spivack pronouns - yes, the same Spivack that wrote the well regarded calculus text.

[dasil003]

Do you realize that you just jumped headlong onto the slippery slope of complete subjectivity that can only lead to a paralyzing inability to set a coherent thought to paper?