Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hey all! I'm an 18 year old college student living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Vegan, atheist, gender nonbinary.

Welcome unicyclist!
What drove you to become a vegan? I'd be happy to hear your story. Also, what pronoun would you like to be used when referring to you? I believe xhe is the proper term?

Welcome to the forum. Do you ride the unicycle?
How'd you find us? I'm glad you did. I hope you like it here.

Thank you for being so welcoming! I wasn't sure what to expect when I joined the forum.

Cirion: Thanks for asking about my pronouns . There are many different gender neutral pronouns out there; I use singular they/them/their.

I've been vegetarian for 4+ years before going vegan because I was (and still am) grossed out by dead things. I've contemplated going vegan for a while, but it was an abstract thought until I saw a couple of Gary Yourofsky's speeches. I went vegan the next day. I don't agree with his tactics, but he did convert me. My main reason for going vegan was to stop contributing to animal suffering. I also wanted to see if I can do it-- being vegan is not as difficult as I expected it to be.

brimstoneSalad: I do ride a unicycle. I wasn't trying to brag, just couldn't think of a different username...

I've been following TheVeganAtheist on YouTube for a while before I went vegan. I'm not sure why I decided to join the forum, but I'm glad I did.

unicyclist wrote:There are many different gender neutral pronouns out there; I use singular they/them/their.

Those are plural, though, so it will usually just come across as poor grammar (which is probably a perception you don't want).
It's better to use "it" which is the existing gender neutral singular pronoun. We use the word with babies "Is it a boy or a girl?" etc.
"It" has gotten a bad reputation/connotation since the word can be seen as dehumanizing, but I think it just needs to be reclaimed as an acceptable pronoun.

unicyclist wrote:I don't agree with his tactics, but he did convert me.

I've been hearing that quite a bit. It seems like some people just need a kind of provocative push.
I suppose it depends on what audience he reaches. If people aren't close to coming to that conclusion, he probably pushes them away, but if they're almost there, his asshole tactics might give them the little push they needed.

unicyclist wrote:brimstoneSalad: I do ride a unicycle. I wasn't trying to brag, just couldn't think of a different username...

Just curious; I didn't see it as bragging.
How small of a wheel can you practically ride with?

Welcome to our community,

I am also a vegan, atheist unicyclist.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Those are plural, though, so it will usually just come across as poor grammar (which is probably a perception you don't want).
It's better to use "it" which is the existing gender neutral singular pronoun. We use the word with babies "Is it a boy or a girl?" etc.
"It" has gotten a bad reputation/connotation since the word can be seen as dehumanizing, but I think it just needs to be reclaimed as an acceptable pronoun.

Singular "they" is just about as plural as singular you. It's grammatically correct to say "you are" to one person. I personally see it as an evolution of language rather than a corruption of its purity. I do agree that "it" should not be stigmatized/dehumanizing, but what pronouns one uses is a matter of preference.

brimstoneSalad wrote:How small of a wheel can you practically ride with?

I wouldn't go with anything smaller than 20 inches in diameter unless you're trying to pedal really fast and barely move. 24 or 26 is best for an average size adult.

Jebus wrote:I am also a vegan, atheist unicyclist.

Cool!

Have you seen this amazing unicyclist?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3596GJ_dM38

unicyclist wrote: Singular "they" is just about as plural as singular you.

Not even remotely. "They" as a singular pronoun is still widely disputed, and seen as a grammatical error. Singular you is never seen as a grammatical error.
The last time anything like "you" was distinct as plural and singular in English, it was two words: Ye and thou. Thou being singular and Ye being plural. "You" is something of a fusion of the two (although we might also blame the printing press for turning "th" into "y").
"You" is much more singular than it is plural; so much so that many dialects reject the plural usage and coin new words to pluralize you. E.g. y'all or yous.

Anyway, the important point is that it IS seen as an error, and perception is extremely important in grammar. Communication is first (avoiding ambiguities, clearly conveying ideas), but perception is a close second.

Singular "they" is not useful in conveying ideas or avoiding ambiguities; instead it creates them. The distinction between singular and plural is so apparently important that, as mentioned, many dialects have even re-pluralized versions of 'you'. Which, interestingly, would make "Ya'll" and "yous guys" more grammatically correct than using "they" as singular, since it's more conducive to communication and mutual understanding ("oh, the speaker is clearly addressing multiple parties").

unicyclist wrote: It's grammatically correct to say "you are" to one person.

The correct usage would have been "thou art", we use are because we have dropped "art", not because "you" is inherently plural.
We also say "I have", but he/she/it has. "I" isn't and has never (as far as I know) been plural.

The rules of usage aren't all inherently consistent, so you can't necessarily draw conclusions from that, but it is counter to optimal communication and commonly seen as incorrect to use "they" as a singular pronoun.
We already have one: it.

unicyclist wrote: I personally see it as an evolution of language rather than a corruption of its purity.

Purity is meaningless, but so is "evolution". What's the point of language? Communication. If something is more conducive to those ends, it's probably a good step. Introducing a new plural for "you" may reasonably regarded as a positive form of adaptation, so maybe we shouldn't frown on people saying "yous". Losing an unambiguous plural, on the other hand, is not. It creates confusion.

unicyclist wrote: I do agree that "it" should not be stigmatized/dehumanizing, but what pronouns one uses is a matter of preference.

It's not just a matter of preference if it harms usage though.
Is it a matter of preference to use "literally" to mean "figuratively"? Because, if we do, we no longer have a word to mean "not figuratively"; language has suffered a loss of a once useful term.

Not everything in language is just up to personal preference. Language serves a purpose, and usage can be congruent or hostile to that purpose.

Welcome to the forum, Unicyclist. I'm also a vegan atheist living in the Bay Area. I'm 22 years old and a recent graduate of UC Santa Cruz (Earth Sciences B.S.), now looking for a job. Hope to see your insights on various discussion topics.