CMV: He, she, they. That's all the pronouns you are getting.

Pronouns are always dealing with a spectrum. A "he" can be used to describe both masculine as well as feminine men and similarly for she and women. The singular they is also covering a spectrum, the spectrum of all people that do not identify with either gender or those that identify with both to differing degrees. Therefore they is sufficient to describe alternative gender identities.

A neutral pronoun to replace all gendered pronouns would be fine, but it sort of sounds like you want a culture where we keep the binaries and use the neutral for everything else. That's a bit like dividing races into white and non-white, and I think the problem with that is immediately clear. It presents the same sort of problem with gender identity as well.

If we'd decide that new pronouns are necessary to describe or be inclusive to specific non-standard gender identities, we would very likely end up with a sheer infinite amount of pronouns. Since the argument for further pronouns would not be based on scientific facts but rather on feelings of individual people, the argument why some new pronouns are okay and others aren't would be a very difficult one to make. The result would be that we would have to allow anyone to pick or create their own pronouns.

What makes you think we'd actually end up with infinite pronouns? It's possible (maybe), but likely? Do you have any reason to believe it likely, other than your own prejudices? Do you even know the underlying justifications for pronouns like the examples you give in your post? I suspect you're speaking from a position of profound ignorance here.

Since we'd have a large number of new pronouns people would very likely get confused, since they'd not only have to remember a name and a face but also the specific pronouns of a person AND incorporate those into everyday speech. The result would either be that people would start inadvertently giving offence or our speech patterns would change to rely far more on using names instead of pronouns.

This sort of argument is deployed against any sort of move toward PC at all, so it's not particularly forceful. We see conservatives whine about not knowing what the preferred term for black people is, for example. Also, reasonable people would not expect you to remember the preferred pronoun of an occasional acquaintance, nor would the occasional slip be taken as grave offense. I'm speaking from experience here. This is a lot of pearl-clutching over a non-issue.

Having a wide range of new pronouns would actively harm the English language by making it less clear. Encountering unknown pronouns would confuse people and make it difficult to imagine what kind of character is being talked about.

As other posters have pointed out, other languages have a multitude of pronouns and those languages seem to do fine. As well, if you're really concerned about the clarity of English and not just concocting post hoc justifications for your knee jerk anti-trans view, you should be campaigning to change the other, far more confusing parts of English.

/r/changemyview Thread