Talk:Neopronoun

Opposition & Support

Should separate sections be made for views that support or oppose the use of neopronouns? From what I can see, there should be at least a mention that some people disagree with the idea of these pronouns. In several of the sources cited there is some mention of individuals disapproving of neopronouns. --Roundish (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember well enough how much material there is, but that makes sense to me. I would suggest one section titled "Reception". Cheers, -- irn (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It should also be noted that they aren't allowed on Wikipedia biographies. Tazuco (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find that anywhere, so I didn't include it, but I didn't know that. Are they really not? --Roundish (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Roundish it doesn't specify in WP:GENDERID, but just as in Leslie Feinberg who uses ze/hir (along with she/her and he/him), it's apparently not encouraged. A notable example is Keiynan Lonsdale who said tree uses treeself pronouns (a form of nounself pronoun). Tazuco (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you using tree/treeself pronouns? As far as I know, the MoS does not allow neos. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 01:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Please cite where does WP:MOS say anything about neopronouns? There's only speculations— Tazuco 16:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Also MOS only talks about articles, not talk pages — Tazuco 16:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Is tree a pronoun? Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 17:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's being used as a pronoun, as Lonsdale requested. I have to agree with Tazuco, though, the MOS doesn't mention neopronouns, nor does it apply to talk pages. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It is. Here's a guide — Tazuco 17:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Not an RS. Just because a website says so does not mean it is. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 19:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter? Were you going to put it to an article? — Tazuco 19:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Speculations? After reading that talk page, I see that if multiple reliable sources use it, then we use it. But they don't. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 17:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is this particular claim about Lonsdale so widespread? He does not use "treeself". There are tons of sources and discussion about this at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale. All he ever did was once say he's "tree" because he wants to call everyone "tree" because we all "came from trees" and "everyone's a tree" [1]. Thereafter he, unsurprisingly, called himself by ordinary masculine pronouns. He never gave any indication of being anything but cisgender or even mentioned gender, and I find this indistinguishable from trivialization of being transgender like "attack helicopter" and Gina Carano's beep/bop/boop, but people took it seriously for some reason. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are we talking about this now? I thought there was already a full discussion on this and the consensus was to use he/him pronouns. I see no reason for further discussion. And, Cranloa12n, it doesn't matter what she said on a talk page. That will probably never go into the actual article and talk pages are for discussion, which will include pronouns for other people that they think appropriate to use. Can we please cut this short because it has nothing to do with the original topic of this section, which was whether the public reception of neopronouns was worth covering. --Roundish ⋆tc) 12:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I was here only mentioning/showing a case in which a stance on neopronouns by WP community appeared, and as far as I know Keiynan doesn't mind using tree/trees, that's why I used. also because I treat noun-self pronouns seriously. Cisgender individuals can use different pronouns, notably Halsey and Melanie Martinez use they/them along with she/her, gender and pronouns don't always come together. — Tazuco 15:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

List of neopronouns

Should this article have a bulleted list of common neopronouns? We mention some in the history & noun-self pronouns sections, but there are more that are of note and not mentioned (eg. Spivak e/em/eir). Lokenstein (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

there's a list on Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns#Table of standard and non-standard third-person singular pronouns and Spivak pronoun. — Tazuco 16:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Too many of them. You can easily just make them up. Maybe only the notable ones. But that would be like 5 at most. Cranloa12n / talk / contribs / 21:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a whole list is not worth it. We could just add a See Also section if that is necessary. --Roundish ⋆tc) 21:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We can limit it to the ones that are already in Wiktionary — Tazuco 21:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Looked at it, seems like there are maybe 12 in there. But if we make a list of all neopronouns, limited to the Wiktionary ones, what do we do about the examples of Noun-self pronouns? I think we do need those examples to clarify what they are. I think a few more examples and then a See Also section should suffice. --Roundish ⋆tc) 22:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a small list of the most common ones (eg ~5) + a see also section would be good. Not sure what to do about the noun-self pronouns, as there are already a bunch in this section used as example, so it would be repetitive to add a list underneath (unlike the other neopronouns, where there's no example section but only historical facts) Lokenstein (they/them) | talk | contribs 09:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be lengthy. I have seen plenty of them; since one can just adopt almost anything for the pronoun, the list would be rather interminable; however, the proposal for the most frequently used would require a source that notes which are the most common, and I do not think we should add that until we have a source that resolves to delineate or define that with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the Gender census 2021 results could be used (cf. https://gendercensus.com/results/2021-worldwide-summary/)? There were 44,583 participants, 98% of which trans and/or non-binary. Some neopronouns listed are Xe - xe/xem/xyr/xyrs/xemself (3,425 people, 8.8% of the participants), Fae - fae/faer/faer/faers/faeself (2,477 people, 6.3% of the participants), Spivak - e/em/eir/eirs/emself (1,603 people, 4.1% of the participants), Ze - ze/hir/hir/hirs/hirself (1,589 people, 4.1% of the participants). Lokenstein (they/them) | talk | contribs 09:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Something like that could be valuable, though I have not heard of it before. It does illustrate some of the earlier points if you delve through the spreadsheet and see the exhaustive list of pronouns. Unfortunately, using the "neopronouns" sheet of the document would only give you, still, less than 200 people for each of the first three "aer," "ey," and "ve," with the rest arguably being covered in the "Noun-self pronouns," though one could argue that "Fae" belongs in there.

Still, "xe," "Spivak," and "ze," could work, as they are used far more often, and a few of them are listed in this very article, but that would still only give you a small selection that's already covered, and, in that case, I would argue we could include a small mention of the source and how many people use it as opposed to creating an entire section. It is a start, though. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have an explanation next to each pronoun for those of us that aren't familiar with the terms. 192.135.224.134 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lokenstein now there's no mention of xe/xem(/xyr), one of the most popular pronouns, in the article. LIrala (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes although it would be time consuming it would be worth it. 164.58.168.5 (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Notable users

I know Leslie Feinberg and Mel Baggs used ze pronoun. Were there more notable people using neopronouns? Could we add them to the article? — Tazuco ✉️ 16:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

References Errors

I have noticed some of the claims relating to the history of various pronouns are not supported by the material linked to as references. It may be an unintentional misinterpretation of, for example, the Rolling Stone article or it may be new errors introduced by reformatting.

If someone is able to check the facts given against those in the references it would strengthen the whole page and lend it more weight. It took me seconds to encounter date irregularities between the page and the first Reference and that really shouldn't happen. Keep up the good work. 🖤 Gothboyuk (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gothboyuk, I checked every date in the history section (excepting paid subscription references and downloads, of which there were maybe 3), and I didn't find any inaccuracies. Which ones were wrong? --Roundish ⋆tc) 13:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"It" and "one" being neopronouns.

The first line of this page states that it and one being used as pronouns are not neopronouns. I'd argue that this isn't the case; even though it/it pronouns are part of standard English, the consensual use of them for humans isn't. That's just my opinion, though. I think that this article shouldn't claim that they aren't neopronouns nor should they claim they are, since it's really a subjective matter. STIK2009 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@STIK2009: the use of "one" as a pronoun is very well attested historically, precluding it from being a neopronoun simply by not being a neologism or really being used neologistically to refer to people of unknown/nonspecific gender. However, I am under the impression (but do not know for sure!) that using "it" to refer to people is a more modern usage, so it may be worth explicitly stating that referencing people with "it" pronouns could be considered an example of a neopronoun, at least in comparison to the typical use. For that though, a good source describing this would be needed before that information is added since I'm mostly just speculating here. rtrb (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The source being used there defined neopronouns as those besides he, she, and they, so you appear to be correct as far as that source is concerned. That is also how I understand it - that even though "it" and "one" previously existed in English, using "it" for a person and "one" for a specific individual is a new - "neo" - usage, making them neopronouns as far as an individual's pronouns are concerned. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It has been used for persons for centuries. 2A0A:A541:5A30:0:B097:9819:83CC:DC5A (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

weasel words

Did any of the editors working on this article ever read the WP policy on weasel words? "Some people" might think that would be helpful. "Some people" apparently consider this article a dumpster fire.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:93D:4C7A:48F:C07 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

According to some Wikipedians, weasel words are more of a guideline. In 9/10 cases, many people would argue they should be removed. However, at times, our writing can only be as good as our sources. The Hill News does use similar vague phrasing. However, both it and the New York Times go on to quote individuals. I would advise against citing random individuals to make blanket statements, and this part of the section should be removed or rewritten. There is no reason why we should take Mr. Pegler's statement that neopronouns "make us look like a bit of a joke" and apply it as a broad criticism of the concept, when we no reason to believe that such a held belief might exist outside of a few people. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thon vs Ze - Reference Error

In the History section the current edit seems to be phrased either confusingly or just incorrectly. It states that 'Ze' was in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary from 1934 to 1961, then references a Rolling Stone article which attributes that fact to Thon, not Ze.

It seems to me like someone later inserted a statement about Ze being introduced in 1864 in the middle of a section talking about Thon. A sentence then begins with 'it' which suggests it's talking about Ze, but it's actually meant to be referring to Thon.

Given the article is locked, this simple error will need someone else to fix it. FeatureHistory (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

English

@BrightSunMan since you removed English from the first paragraph, could we reframe it then? Because in Spanish, elle is a neopronoun and, at the same time, the equivalent to singular they. So "they" is the neopronoun in such languages.

Saying "neologistic third-person personal pronouns" is enough, I guess. Or "beyond preexisting pronouns". Sometimes they is also translated as "it" (eg. Russian, see here) or "ze" (eg. Arabic). Then we can say after a dot that "In English, neopronouns are specifically beyond 'he', 'she', and 'they'." LIrala (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for replying late. I agree with your idea. I shall do what you suggested. BrightSunMan (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

List?

Can we have a list of neopronouns, at least? thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)