It just seems incredibly odd for there to be so many lines in a book about gender insisting that there is no way to refer to someone (in the English language, at least) without implying gender. She even mentions the possibility of using „it“ at one point!
I’m liking the book otherwise, but every time the narrators ponder about pronouns without even considering „they“ I have to ask myself if there is any point in ignoring it or if she genuinely just forgot. I don’t think it’s possible for her to have not known about it considering how well-read she was and how long it’s been in use.
The singular version of “they” is “one”. Fite me.
it only works in passive constructions.
‘one bites the dog’ is a legit sentence, but in English it is passive/detached/non-agenic. one is not actively biting the dog here and now, it is a statement of possibility or frequency.
that construction works in other languages, for sure though. because they aren’t english and their use of ‘one’ does not have the same non-agentic interpretation. but that isn’t how english works, formally or colloquially. one is not a nominative pronoun in english, but it’s legitimate in dative or accustive cases, if it’s replacing him/her/it.
It just sounds unfamiliar. It’s perfectly grammatical, comprehensible, and avoids the ambiguities I deal with speaking with and about singular “theys” ten times every fucking day. In the realm of neopronouns, you’re not going to find one better.