Hollywood star Elliot Page comes out as trans (deadname Ellen Page)

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

It's great to see more positive representation for my community, although can news outlets please stop referring to him using his deadname in the literal headlines? Like, I get it makes it a little less confusing, but it doesn't make it right.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

The only film of theirs I've seen is Juno

Pronoun cringe. (Unless Elliot is pretending Ellen is someone completely different, instead of an earlier phase of his life.)

Elliot said that he uses he/they pronouns so they can be used interchangeably.

Slightly less cringey.  I'm fine with using they/them/their in the singular when the gender is unknown but not as a non-binary singular gender.  In that circumstance I personally prefer ey/em/eir. Still, I'm not the grammar Czar.

As lots of people here have said, singular they has been around for a while. And as someone who is genderqueer herself, in my experience I've never seen any enby use neopronouns (pronouns other than he/she/they, think xe and ey and whatnot) other than when their gender is very far removed from the traditional gender ideas of masculinity, femininity, androgyny, etc.

People have tried inserting neopronouns into regular English speech, but it just seems forced and shoehammered in. They is more natural and is therefore much more common in day-to-day English speech.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

Good for him!

Though I will say when it comes to the dead-naming discussion, I think using it depends on context. If you were to intentionally call Elliot "Ellen" it would come across as offensive, or at least dismissive. But to refer to the fact that Elliot used to be Ellen, I don't think it's negative.

Additionally in my interaction with trans people even if they prefer one pronoun to another using "they" has always seemed just as acceptable too, even if they aren't necessarily non-binary.

I think it depends on "before" or 'after". Like for products before 2015 I still say "bruce jenner" and after 2015 I say "Caitlyn jenner" I think it's important to refer to how a person was at the time when it comes to things like movies and shows

The thing is that you always refer to someone with the name that they prefer, even if referring to an event in the past when the person in question wasn't out or using any of the names they go by today. Sure, it may seem weird to say that "Caitlyn Jenner won two gold medals in the men's decathlon" or whatnot, but that's the way it works. For example, here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article about Christine Jorgensen, a trans woman, and her life before being publicly known as transgender. Keep in mind that throughout the entire of the article she is referred to using her chosen name and she/her pronouns, even when referencing parts of her life where she was in the closet.

Christine was born George William Jorgensen, Jr., the second child of carpenter and contractor George William Jorgensen, Sr., and his wife Florence Davis Hansen. She was raised in the Belmont neighborhood of the Bronx, New York City. [...] Christine graduated from Christopher Columbus High School in 1945 and was soon drafted into the U.S. Army at the age of 19. After being discharged from the Army, Jorgensen attended Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica, New York, the Progressive School of Photography in New Haven, Connecticut, and the Manhattan Medical and Dental Assistant School in New York City. She also worked briefly for Pathé News.

I understand where you're coming from, it may seem a little confusing to refer to someone using names that they didn't go by at the time, although that's how it works, as well as how most trans people, including me, go about that stuff, especially as most trans people were usually never okay with using their deadname to begin with.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

The only film of theirs I've seen is Juno

Pronoun cringe. (Unless Elliot is pretending Ellen is someone completely different, instead of an earlier phase of his life.)

Elliot said that he uses he/they pronouns so they can be used interchangeably.

Slightly less cringey.  I'm fine with using they/them/their in the singular when the gender is unknown but not as a non-binary singular gender.  In that circumstance I personally prefer ey/em/eir. Still, I'm not the grammar Czar.

Eh, it's becoming more common. I'm pretty sure it's even been recognized by Webster's and/or the OED?

They're descriptive dictionaries, not prescriptive ones. The reason I find the use of "they" as a non-binary gender singular pronoun to be cringey is that "they" is already in wider use as an indeterminate gender singular pronoun. Ideally, the indeterminate gender singular pronouns should be distinct from those of any gendered singular pronouns, and if they aren't going to be distinct, then there's no reason to change from the existing traditional practice of using the masculine pronouns as the indeterminate pronouns.

They doesn't have any real sort of gender associated with it. He and she obviously do, although they doesn't carry the baggage that the others do, leading to it becoming more and more commonplace for non-binary folx to adopt it. They can still be used as an indeterminate gender singular pronoun for when the subject's gender is vague or unknown as when people actually use they for themselves (hehe...themselves), it still doesn't "determine" their gender per se. This is further backed by the fact that there are quite a few binary people, most admittedly trans, who use they as an alternative to she or he.

[KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸]

The only film of theirs I've seen is Juno

Pronoun cringe. (Unless Elliot is pretending Ellen is someone completely different, instead of an earlier phase of his life.)

Elliot said that he uses he/they pronouns so they can be used interchangeably.

Slightly less cringey.  I'm fine with using they/them/their in the singular when the gender is unknown but not as a non-binary singular gender.  In that circumstance I personally prefer ey/em/eir. Still, I'm not the grammar Czar.

Eh, it's becoming more common. I'm pretty sure it's even been recognized by Webster's and/or the OED?

They're descriptive dictionaries, not prescriptive ones. The reason I find the use of "they" as a non-binary gender singular pronoun to be cringey is that "they" is already in wider use as an indeterminate gender singular pronoun. Ideally, the indeterminate gender singular pronouns should be distinct from those of any gendered singular pronouns, and if they aren't going to be distinct, then there's no reason to change from the existing traditional practice of using the masculine pronouns as the indeterminate pronouns.

They doesn't have any real sort of gender associated with it. He and she obviously do, although they doesn't carry the baggage that the others do, leading to it becoming more and more commonplace for non-binary folx to adopt it. They can still be used as an indeterminate gender singular pronoun for when the subject's gender is vague or unknown as when people actually use they for themselves (hehe...themselves), it still doesn't "determine" their gender per se. This is further backed by the fact that there are quite a few binary people, most admittedly trans, who use they as an alternative to she or he, with Elliot Page himself being an example.

Folx?  Folx!!!!!!!!!!!!
That;s not just cringey but ridiculous. At least when a  person uses "they" to refer to themself aren't creating spellings out of whole cloth,  (Which might seem odd for me to hold as an objection since I support the use of ey and em, but those at least have some history behind them and their formation is analogous to how the Middle English "hit" became "it".)

Folx isn't inherently trying to be explicity gender neutral, it's just a dumb alternative to 'folks.' I myself am personally against rxmoving vowxls frxm wxrds as it's incrxdibly stxpid, nxt to mxntion hxrd to prxnounce.