> Oh, objecting to my 'hir,' eh? Fine, I don't give a shit. It's my choice
> to use this pronoun the way I wish. I don't do it in things I publish, or
> in things I edit for other people to publish, so don't be dissin me for my
> diction. I use the pronoun 'hir' not cuz it was intro'd to me by the love
> of my life (as a matter of fact, I rejected it for that every reason) but
> because I encountered it in ann Atwood novel. -Woman at the Edge of Time-
> was good stuff for me. I recommend it to whoever. I've heard it
> categorized as something 'feminist' and I'd like to see if any of you
> who've read it would like to challenge that categoriztion I sure would.
> It's simplifying to say something is a femenist work these days unless
> that is -all- that it is. Any thoughts or debates about this?
Yeah, it's not a f*ckin pronoun. It's not even a word.
Neologisms are useful, but only when they add value to the language.
To add another term that simply applies yet-another-form-of-sexism to
an already obstuse language is collectively pointless, pretentious, and
a zero-sum-game.
Get off the horse.
You ask us *not* to diss your diction, but then you go on to justify your
usage?
Weak grounds, methinks.