WHICH IS NOT TO SAY that singular they "shouldn't" be used (a moot point, since it is and will be) but rather that we should acknowledge the newness of its usage and ease people into it, not gaslight them by saying "Oh, it's always been this way." If you want to sell people on the idea, point to how the ADS, dictionaries, etc. have all accepted and standardized this *new* usage in addition to previous ones.

Introducing singular "they" as a new word or usage doesn't taint it somehow, as if it is no longer valid English because of it. People can learn new words. Dictionaries add new words all the time. If people say "oh that's new so I won't use it," remind them of "blog." Or "fleek."

As a sidenote, saying "identities are valid only if they have historical precedent" is really questionable and it should be okay for people to identify with categories and labels that maybe didn't exist ten years ago. This isn't really related to previous toots except I think the two ideas (historicity of language and historicity of identity) frequently interact and bounce off of one another.

You can thank the cultural appropriations of the early gay rights movement for that one I guess though.

@u2764 gay rights? what about gay lefts ha ha haha

@u2764 also english is a living language. There is that too.

@u2764 tbh it's not just "unknown" but just generally unspecified/unspecific

@u2764 hey can u say "hey bip u rock u my favorite on the webistes" its for my new zine that im putting out

@romariorios "It" is an inanimate pronoun and the animate/inanimate distinction is generally older and stronger in English than the male/female one—although you'll still hear people using "it" sometimes when referring to, for example, babies.