I have always tried to respect peoples choice on pronouns. I never really had any objections to it as long as it was one of the standard language pronouns (he, she, they).

But as I sit here reflecting I keep coming to the conclusion that it shouldnt exactly work that way. We should of course have the right to pick whatever gender we want (including non-binary). Likewise we have the right to demand of people they use the language that matches our gender (which may be different from our sex). What we dont have a right to do is dictate to them what language they use, or what pronouns for that matter.

If a woman is addressed by a person it is my right as the speaker addressing them to decide if i want to use "She, ma'am, lady, hey you" whatever I want to express what i want to express. ma'am showing more respect than she, etc. No one has a right to dictate to me how I address anyone, but you do have a right to demand I treat you like the person you are, and the gender you are.

For the most part that wont be a problem. I think most people who are not CIS-gender would be ok so long as they are addressed according to their gender. I think the times this might get offensive to some are 1) when people want to use exotic pronouns like Xir, they wont get what they want and probably be mad about it 2) when addressing non-binary people there are two gender-neutral pronouns considered acceptable in english "they" and "he" (yes he is gender-neutral in some contexts, and masculin in others)... the non-binary case could be problematic when a gender-neutral "he" is used because some people dont know its gender neutral and may erroneously assume it was used to represent male gendering. That said, thats a matter of education.

@freemo gendered language was a mistake. There's apparently a language that has "ö" as all the pronouns, avoids all problems on all sides of that topic. Shame that trying to shoehorn this type of gender neutrality into gendered languages usually ends up incredibly cursed and nobody bar radical activists wants to actually use it.

@Amikke I disagree, genered language has far more utility in the arts than non-gendered language as it has the ability to be more expressive in more ways.

@freemo sure, every overcomplication of a language has the ability to be more expressive, one of the reasons why adapting an artificial language as common isn't a well liked idea. This particular case causes more problems than it's worth though. It's kinda like with languages where every noun is gendered, for native speakers it's natural and positive due to more expression, for everyone else it's pointless and stupid even if it has some charm. And I say that as a native speaker of one of them.

@Amikke

sure, every overcomplication of a language has the ability to be more expressive.

If it serves a function in expressing certain ideas more accurately then it has utility. Therefore it wouldnt be an overcomplication (that is when something is complicated without benefit)… what you meant to say is an increase in complication.

@freemo @Amikke

English speakers are lucky. In Spanish, gender appears everywhere. Even tables and forks have gender. If gender in pronouns is hard, try speaking a language in which all adjectives have gender.

It’s not the only language with that kind of trouble; and it is very likely others have it worse; but it is the one I speak.

@jgg @freemo yeah, same with Polish. Why is death female or a tooth male? No clue, it just is. It’s weird to some kids learning it but then we get used to it, grow up and have it ingrained in our minds.

@Amikke @freemo

Funny. Both of your examples are exactly the same in Spanish (la muerte, el diente).

@jgg @freemo I assume they’re similar more often than not, we spent thousands of years interacting with each other after all, unlike the bloody islanders :p

@Amikke

They are… exception gendered languages that gender objects are, as you say, overcomplicated (adds complication with no or minimal utility). In english the gendering is obvious by appearance and thus doesnt add any additional complication.

@jgg

@Amikke

By the way the act of calling something “he” or “she” when the correct pronoun is “it” is so special and out of the ordinary in english that when someone applies it, say to a ship by saying “she”, this is called “personification”. It is done to show a closeness or respect to the object. It is never proper english and can be done with any objects. Its just very common among sailors because their life is so closely dependent on the ship keeping them safe.

@jgg

I don't want to call birds and some other animals "it", it sounds horrible 🥺
Like if they're some background objects of inanimate nature.

I'll better call a bird "they" if i don't know what sex they are.

@lonelyowl

You dont call them it, that wouldnt be proper english.

The rules in english are is something has gender, but you dont know which gender it is, then you are to use he which is gender neutral. You may also use "they" which has been valid from before modern times too.

We do the same with humans, if you talk about a person but dont know their gender, you should default to a gender neutral "he" or if you prefer to be more explicit "they".

This has always been the english grammar rules.

@Amikke @jgg

I've been taught at high school english lessons that it is correct to refer to animals as "it", and also have seen usage of such language constructions on the internet. Well, maybe my school lessons wasn't correct 😀