In an extremely blunt way, it’s correct. It obviously extends beyond grammar, and I have an entirely different stance on how 3rd person pronouns should be handled in English that described, but the premise is solid. Take where you would typically use gender, and, like, don’t. Obviously you would still have biological sex for things like medical records, but it wouldn’t be tied to who you are as a person, it would just be a letter on a paper somewhere.
Responding here since I didn’t know how to ping you in the other comment, in a sort of blunt way, you’re correct. Everyone would simply just be, not categorized into gender and the associated social expectations that come with it
No, that would be quack genetic modification. Not my area of expertise. Eliminating the social categorization of gender as a whole.
No need to call anybody a quack. I’m just trying to understand your controversial opinion.
Social categorization is incredibly vague, so it’s still not clear to me what you feel should be abolished.
I think he is trying to say everyone should become a they/them and he wants to abolish he/she genders?
I’d be surprised if his most controversial opinion is related to grammar.
In an extremely blunt way, it’s correct. It obviously extends beyond grammar, and I have an entirely different stance on how 3rd person pronouns should be handled in English that described, but the premise is solid. Take where you would typically use gender, and, like, don’t. Obviously you would still have biological sex for things like medical records, but it wouldn’t be tied to who you are as a person, it would just be a letter on a paper somewhere.
Responding here since I didn’t know how to ping you in the other comment, in a sort of blunt way, you’re correct. Everyone would simply just be, not categorized into gender and the associated social expectations that come with it