I am the farthest from being an example of good grammar and proper English and sentence structure that you can get.  I am certainly not an English major.  In fact, the non-sense below took me about 5 weeks to research and write.  There were numerous select, edit, cut, re-writes, adding sentences here, taking away sentences there.  Thus now I have a piece to show I do have an extremely strong opinion on the pronoun phenomena that finally seems to be fading. 

Here is my general position on “pronouns”.  Improper pronoun grammar undermines communication by sacrificing clarity, precision, and shared truth for ideology.

We can all agree language exists to transmit ideas accurately between people.  Pronouns are its most efficient shorthand: they replace nouns so we don’t repeat “the doctor” or “the suspect” in every sentence.  Our English grammar has evolved strict rules for them—he for males, she for females, it for objects, and they for plural groups or, historically in limited cases, an unknown singular antecedent.  Period.  Hardstop.  Mike drop.  When these rules are deliberately broken—especially when enforced by social, institutional, or legal pressure—the result is not “inclusivity.”  It is a fog of confusion.  And fog is dangerous wherever precise communication matters.

Thought Number 1.  – Ambiguity destroys reliability

Standard grammar connects pronouns to observable, biological sex (or plural number) so listeners instantly know who is being referenced.  Replace that anchor with subjective “preferred pronouns” and sentences become probabilistic guesses.  Further, considering various people and various groups use different versions and applications of their “pronouns”, one would need a key code to translate.

“The surgeon examined the patient and then they recommended surgery.”  Who recommended it—the surgeon or the patient?  In a medical chart, legal transcript, or emergency dispatch, this is not a thought experiment.  It is a vector for error.  Hospitals have already documented cases where pronoun policies created confusion in handoffs; pilots and air-traffic controllers reject similar ambiguity because lives are on the line.

“Alex said they would pick up the kids.”  One person or several?  The listener must now store extra mental context or risk assuming the wrong referent.  Multiply this by every conversation in a workplace, classroom, or courtroom and cognitive load skyrockets. Communication efficiency collapses.

Thought Number 2. – It forces reality-denial into the operating system of thought

Communication is only possible because speakers share a model of reality.  When grammar is hijacked to assert that a 6’4″ male with a beard is “she/her,” the pronoun no longer points to the person; it points to a claim.  The listener is coerced into endorsing a falsehood every time they speak.  This is not neutral.  It is compelled lying.  It is a sign of manipulation, power, and control of the pronoun advocate over the listener and speaker of proper English.

Read 1984 by George Orwell.  He warned in that controlling language controls thought.  Once “he” can mean “she” on command, truth becomes negotiable.  We have already seen the downstream effects:

Prisons placing biologically male inmates in female facilities because policy demands “she” pronouns, resulting in documented assaults.

Schools punishing teachers for using biologically accurate pronouns, teaching children that observable sex is optional.

Sports governing bodies rewriting rules around “she” to include males, erasing female categories.

Improper use of pronouns erodes the shared factual baseline required for honest discourse.

Thought Number 3.  – It scales: from personal quirk to societal fracture

A single person demanding “xe/xem” or “they” for a visibly male individual is merely eccentric.  When institutions adopt it as policy—HR departments, universities, governments, newsrooms—it becomes compulsory.  Dissenters are labeled bigots, fired, or sued.  The language itself is now a loyalty test.  Shared vocabulary fractures into tribal dialects: one group speaks standard English; the other demands constant mental translation.  Cross-group understanding becomes impossible without translation layers that themselves introduce distortion.

Historical precedent shows what happens when grammar is subordinated to politics.  French revolutionaries reformed spelling to signal loyalty; Soviet newspeak redefined words to make dissent unsayable.  Modern pronoun mandates follow the same pattern: they do not expand language; they police it.  The danger is not hurt feelings.  It is the quiet death of the common tongue that lets engineers coordinate, doctors diagnose, judges adjudicate, and neighbors cooperate.

Thought Number 4. – Clarity has no substitute

I have read hear and there that advocates of pronoun freedom claim singular “they” is ancient English.  It is—for indefinite antecedents (“If anyone calls, tell them…”).  It was never standard for a known, sexed individual whose sex is obvious.  Neopronouns (fae, zir, etc.) have no historical basis at all; they are 21st-century inventions.  Treating them as equivalent to established grammar is like declaring “2+2=5” a valid arithmetic dialect.  It is not progressive; it is regressive to pre-literate babble.

Proper gram mar is not bigotry.  It is the minimum infrastructure for civilization-scale cooperation.  When we allow ideology to corrode that infrastructure, we make every subsequent exchange less trustworthy.  In medicine, law, aviation, engineering, and everyday trust—clarity is safety.  Sacrificing it for pronouns is not kindness. IT IS RECKLESS.