• Of Course We Do

    In a society where gender equality is promoted, there are several circumstances where a gender-neutral pronoun would be useful. One such example is when one is speaking of a person of unknown gender in the third person. "They" is not just cumbersome, but also implies multiple people being present as its reason for not stating gender. Also, from a purely literary viewpoint, you cannot explore an idea without the words to do so. Speculative fiction has allowed for the sharing of many interesting ideas, but until there is a gender-neutral pronoun in the English language, English speaking authors will not be able to hypothesise about a truly gender neutral society without dehumanising all its inhabitants with the term "it".

  • Very convenient in a variety of situations.

    It is cumbersome to write gender neutral text, since "it" generally is used for objects and thus not universally accepted as personal pronoun. Also, use of a gender-neutral pronoun can have the desirable consequence of emphasizing that personhood is a more basic thing than gender. It can be used for political reasons, but also for purely practical reasons.

  • Duh. It already does have several!

    They are called "indefinite pronouns". Google it. Perhaps the question should be "should people be more familiar with the English language". Please rephrase the question so that we understand what you are really wanting to debate. You can create however many new pronouns you want but will people really use them?

  • Yes we should follow Sweden's example

    We should follow the example of Sweden referring to all children neutrally.
    Children need time to find themselves and maybe they don't even want to define themselves by a societal concept of gender and opt out of it or maybe they would realise they were trangender or maybe they would realise they were their assigned birth gender. Whichever way, I think many will become more tolerant of people of all genders and no gender

  • English "should" be anything we make it

    I think English should have a gender-neutral pronoun because there are enough people who would like it. Not everyone has to use it, but it might happen. Language evolves. There is no reason we can't or shouldn't, like we do with dogs, force Nature's hand a little one way or another.

  • They told me what you think I should say about them.

    The headline of my arguement contains 5 different gender-neutral pronouns: they, me, you, I, and them. In fact, all of our pronouns, with the exception of he/she and their derivatives (e.G. His/hers, him/her, etc.) are gender-neutral. So the question "Should English have a gender-neutral prounoun?" is silly. We have a bunch.

  • We already have one

    The word "It" is a gender neutral pronoun which is broad enough in its scope to cover the needs of the word. The only reason this word is not used is that people for some reason take offense to being referred to as an it, when in fact we are all by definition "it"s. I think it would be much easier, as well as much more appropriate, to simply encourage a paradigm shift away from the idea that "it" is a bad word and to begin using a totally appropriate word for this purpose rather than trying to find a perfectly acceptable word which in no way offends the sensibilities of anyone, because coming up with new words is hard and most likely someone will have a problem with any word you propose.

  • We Already Got One

    English already has the word "it." This word fits the definition entirely well. It may be contended that "it" disrespects its subjects, but surely all that takes is some getting used to. Creating a new word of whole cloth would have to take even more getting used to, right? Furthermore, the idea of a deliberately redundant word in the lexicon, especially if it is only there for political reasons, is impractical and displeasing to me.

    "It" is already in the common parlance relating to animals of indeterminate sex, so it is hardly exclusive to objects. Each argument here carries, in its own way, strangely anti-animal sentiments, and I believe that to be the larger and more pressing issue. Even if you resolutely detest any effort which happens to place you in any category shared by an animal, that association would fade with use, and humanity would own the word, as people would have much more cause to speak of humans than to speak of animals. A great deal of use would also be required to make any brand-new word seem comfortable. Few liked the term "tweeting" at its onset, and it was charged with far less normative force. To me, "it" is not only the more sensible path, but also the path of least resistance.

  • We have one

    "It." I need forty nine more words to submit this. Q w e r t y u i o p a s d f g h j k l z x c v b n m q w e r t y u i o p a s d f.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Ragnar says2013-07-21T13:55:03.427
Religion would really benefit from this. (whole point, six words... Nowhere near the 50 required)
nordmarj says2013-07-21T14:47:56.157
Well, I see your point: God is above such worldly categories as gender. But I don't think Christianity would benefit since it advocates strict gender roles and a two-gender system among humans.
Ragnar says2013-07-21T15:03:16.860
1. Not all Christians would agree. 2. The FSM is certainly neither male nor female, yet in the English language we are forced to refer to his noodly appendage.