The argument is, that it’s a nickname you are using a as a pronoun.
I’d word the problem something like… Inserting completely new words into a language can be very difficult, and inserting them in place of existing words is even harder. If a significant portion of the speakers will not accept them, they essentially will not become part of the language. Stretching the meaning of “woman” to include transwomen too? relatively easy, transwomen already fill most of the requirements people have for the meaning of the word. Adopting loanwords for new concepts, something like schadenfreude? also relatively easy, since it did not have a word before and people can quickly grasp the concept.
But if I say something like “uiminen” means swimming in English, will enough people adopt it and use it instead of “swimming”? Absolutely not, why would they? Replacing something like pronouns is even harder than that, since they not only have solid meanings, they are associated with a rigid role in the English language. Does that mean you cannot use them like it? also absolutely not, of course you can. But you cannot force the change you are using to become part of the English language, since a lot of people refuse it as it breaks the existing rules harshly and they have no reason to accept that.
You can obviously try to make “it’s a pronoun, not a nickname” true, which is what you are doing, and which the commenter above is arguing against. But as things stand, the majority of the language speakers will take the side of “it’s a nickname you are using as a pronoun”, which means that’s the reality of it inside what constitutes as the English language.
That is besides the point. Languages are tools of communication, and you and your circles are using it however you want, which is how languages evolve over time. They are calling it a wrong use of the English language, and telling their opinions why they think so. That is a linguistic argument. Having differing opinions about what is a correct use of words, does not fit the definitions of “gatekeeping”, as you are not prevented from using English the way you want to. If your use of words is not being understood or is refused to be used by others, that is not preventing you from doing. It is a failure of communication.
“I refuse to use it because It is harder” is not an argument, that I have made. What I have pointed out is, that it is especially hard to get people to use neopronouns, since they break the commonly accepted English grammar. The difficulties stemming for example from discrimination, are only one of the issues, that affect people’s opinion about their usage. Ignoring that and claiming it is all because of discrimination or gatekeeping, is either misunderstanding the arguments, or resorting to ad hominem.
The argument is, that it’s a nickname you are using a as a pronoun.
I’d word the problem something like… Inserting completely new words into a language can be very difficult, and inserting them in place of existing words is even harder. If a significant portion of the speakers will not accept them, they essentially will not become part of the language. Stretching the meaning of “woman” to include transwomen too? relatively easy, transwomen already fill most of the requirements people have for the meaning of the word. Adopting loanwords for new concepts, something like schadenfreude? also relatively easy, since it did not have a word before and people can quickly grasp the concept.
But if I say something like “uiminen” means swimming in English, will enough people adopt it and use it instead of “swimming”? Absolutely not, why would they? Replacing something like pronouns is even harder than that, since they not only have solid meanings, they are associated with a rigid role in the English language. Does that mean you cannot use them like it? also absolutely not, of course you can. But you cannot force the change you are using to become part of the English language, since a lot of people refuse it as it breaks the existing rules harshly and they have no reason to accept that.
You can obviously try to make “it’s a pronoun, not a nickname” true, which is what you are doing, and which the commenter above is arguing against. But as things stand, the majority of the language speakers will take the side of “it’s a nickname you are using as a pronoun”, which means that’s the reality of it inside what constitutes as the English language.
And yet everyone around bun is fine with it. “It’s harder” is the exact same argument people have against ze and they pronouns.
That is besides the point. Languages are tools of communication, and you and your circles are using it however you want, which is how languages evolve over time. They are calling it a wrong use of the English language, and telling their opinions why they think so. That is a linguistic argument. Having differing opinions about what is a correct use of words, does not fit the definitions of “gatekeeping”, as you are not prevented from using English the way you want to. If your use of words is not being understood or is refused to be used by others, that is not preventing you from doing. It is a failure of communication.
“I refuse to use it because It is harder” is not an argument, that I have made. What I have pointed out is, that it is especially hard to get people to use neopronouns, since they break the commonly accepted English grammar. The difficulties stemming for example from discrimination, are only one of the issues, that affect people’s opinion about their usage. Ignoring that and claiming it is all because of discrimination or gatekeeping, is either misunderstanding the arguments, or resorting to ad hominem.
I disagree.
Well, then we have to just agree to disagree. Nonetheless, thank you for the discussion.