Certain advocates of the rights of transgender individuals are becoming increasingly aggressive in demanding that the pronoun they be used in reference to those who wish it; others, who maintain that they do not conform to the “binary” use of the male or female singular pronoun, have also been making such claims. (Some advocates now maintain that there are hundreds if not thousands of genders.)

But I fear that this crusade runs up against an insuperable obstacle: They is and always has been a plural pronoun. End of story. So, unless you are unconsciously channeling Walt Whitman (“I am large: I contain multitudes”), you are committing a fairly blatant and elementary grammatical error.

This pronoun revisionism, in addition to reflecting expanded views of human sexuality, can be seen as an extension of the admirable desire to rid the English language of the sexist bias (i.e., the use of the masculine singular pronoun to cover everyone) that has been inherent in the language almost since the beginning and which has rendered women essentially invisible in such formulations as “To each his own.” But the removal of sexist language can be done (chiefly by using plural pronouns and verbs) in a way that does not violate the basic principles of grammar. That cannot be said for the use of they in the singular form.

It has been argued that we have by common consent eliminated or amended many other derogatory terms that refer to racial, sexual, or other minorities. I hardly need point to the N-word, and there are countless others whose very existence testifies to a deep-seated xenophobia, misogyny, and other distasteful traits among those who used (and continue to use) them. But this analogy is not a good one; those words are inherently pejorative, but no one can make such a case for the humble pronoun.

As for me, I prefer the masculine singular pronoun, but if you want to use any other pronoun in referring to me, go right ahead. What is it to me? I would humbly argue, however, that doing so might result in a certain ambiguity and confusion—and thereby defeat the very purpose of language, which is communication.

I am well aware that certain people don’t feel comfortable using “he” or “she,” and they argue that their feelings should be taken into account. Fine, but what about the feelings of others? This whole issue indicates that language is a sensitive issue for everyone, not just one side. How this dilemma is to be resolved is a quandary. I would support the creation of a new (singular) pronoun for those who feel it applies to them.

Let me be clear: I am fully in support of transgender rights and find the increasing prejudice to which they are subjected (extending to the passing of discriminatory laws in certain, where else, Republican states) appalling and contemptible. My complaint is strictly from the standpoint of grammatical sanity, and I get just as annoyed over many other bad usages that have proliferated lately:

1. The rampant and unapologetic use of the split infinitive (I suppose Shakespeare should have written “To be or to not be: that is the question”).
2. The misuse of “like” for “as” or “as if” (again, Shakespeare should apparently have titled his play Like You Like It).
3. The erroneous insertion of “of” after “all” (the proper usage is “all the time,” not “all of the time”).
4. Most egregiously, the failure to harmonize subject and verb in such expressions as “There’s things I need to tell you.”

I do not have space here to delineate the sources of these errors. And I hope you will spare me the formulaic plea that “Language has to evolve!” Of course it does; I am happy to use “Google” as a verb because there is a real need for it in today’s society. But the above errors are purely a result of ignorance and a failure to learn grammar at an early age.

Let us be clear on what it is these pronoun revisionists are actually advocating. They are not wishing to use “they” when speaking of themselves; I presume they are content to use the first-person singular pronoun. And they are not even advocating it for others who are addressing them directly; the second-person singular pronoun is surely adequate for the purpose. No, they demand it of everyone else in the world who may care to address or refer to them in the third person (assuming there are such people).

In so doing, I suspect—and it grieves me to say so—they are venturing into fascism. Fascists are those who are not content to do or not to do something; they want everyone to do or not to do it. An anti-abortionist is a fascist because she not only doesn’t wish to have an abortion herself; she wants no one to have an abortion. A religious bigot is not satisfied with worshipping the god of his choice; he wants everyone to worship that god. To be sure, the pronoun revisionists are not anywhere close to this level of infamy, but the mindset appears to be disturbingly analogous.

It is my regretful conclusion that many of these pronoun follies are being advocated by first-world persons who have way too much time on their hands and take themselves way too seriously—and who are also engaging in an unhealthy culture of victimhood. With so many other alarming issues facing us—from the climate apocalypse to the brazen actions of the GOP in laying the groundwork for stealing the 2024 presidential election—the focus on pronoun follies does not seem a good use of one’s time.