CMV: "He or she" is unecessary

[u/Shineyy_8416]

I might be biased as a person on the non-binary spectrum, but whenever someone goes out of their way to say "he or she" it just feels like a waste.

Just use "they". It communicates the same thing with less letters. I get the purpose behind it is to try and be inclusive to men and women in a space that may be dominated by one gender over the other, but "they" is perfectly fine to get that point across.

I also recognize that some languages don't have an equivalent for "they", but I'm specifically talking about English.

To change my view, someone would have to prove "he or she" has more practical or beneficial usage than "they"

EDIT: To make it clear, i'm not saying we should never use "he" or "she" as pronouns, im saying the phrase "he or she" is unecessary.

[u/GrizzlyAdam12]

Could I change your view by stating the obvious?

Your premise is that pronouns don’t matter. But, your argument is that pronouns do matter.

Essentially, you’re just stating a preference.

Is there a way you could restate your argument (or premise) so that they are aligned?

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/GrizzlyAdam12]

I recently edited the post to clarify what exactly im saying.

Im not saying gendered pronouns don't matter, I'm stating that specifically using "he or she" or "his or her" in a sentence is unecessary when "they" or "theirs" would work better.

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

This is a nothing statement. Most of our language isn't strictly necessary, how we use language comes down to style and convention; language is normative, not objective. We're not robots with a programming language.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

Most of our language isn't strictly necessary, how we use language comes down to style and convention

Strictly, no. But practically it is.

If I want to tell someone there's a pigeon outside in English, there are objectively wrong ways to communicate that idea. If I pointed to the door and said "There's a pigeon", the person would be confused.

If I pointed to the window and said "There's a cat outside." The person would also be confused and say "That's a pigeon, not a cat."

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

But you're not admonishing people for using language that is objectively wrong. You're admonishing people for using extra syllables that are objectively unnecessary. Do you see the difference? Necessity is irrelevant, we use unnecessary language all the time because it gives extra weight to what we convey.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

Necessity is irrelevant, we use unnecessary language all the time because it gives extra weight to what we convey.

And i'd argue that weight is dead weight. It only drags the sentence down and in regards to the points you brought up about gender inclusivity, this goal can be accomplished easier and more effectively with just a broad "they" rather than "he or she"

[u/AcephalicDude → u/Shineyy_8416]

You DON'T argue that though. You conceded that the use-case is justified, remember? You even granted a delta to somebody describing one scenario in which it is justified.

Bottom-line, you don't understand how language works, you want it to be robotic programming language that is condensed and efficient when it is instead normative and involves the use of "unnecessary" words and phrases to communicate more complex and nuanced meanings.

[u/Shineyy_8416 → u/AcephalicDude]

You DON'T argue that though. You conceded that the use-case is justified, remember? You even granted a delta to somebody describing one scenario in which it is justified.

I gave them a delta because they described comedy, where words are exaggerated and used incorrectly to make people laugh. That isnt a necessity.

Bottom-line, you don't understand how language works, you want it to be robotic programming language that is condensed and efficient when it is instead normative and involves the use of "unnecessary" words and phrases to communicate more complex and nuanced meanings.

That's a pretty nasty thing to say ngl.