I’ve never actually met someone irl who uses neopronouns, so I haven’t been able to test how I would actually respond. I tend to use they/them pretty often, including as a replacement for he/she, so I would probably use that unless there was a very strong preference not to. If I did refuse to use a neopronoun for some reason, I’m still not sure that that would qualify as treating them more differently than I would be if I used the neopronouns-- either I would be breaking their preferences or my understanding/usage of the language, there would be no way to behave entirely the same as the situation itself is different. It would certainly be kinder of me to use the neopronouns and for that reason I probably would, but I would not actually believe that to be more correct than using “they”, so I’m not really sure.
Do neopronouns typically convey a specific gender identity? It would make more sense to use them if they did, but afaik there is no consistent mapping of neopronoun to gender identity, which makes the argument for using neopronouns instead of “they” kind of moot-- if they do not signify gender then you would not be affirming someone’s gender by using them, only their language preferences.
Personally I don’t believe language preference is something that must be accommodated in the same way that identity is-- for example I have met cis people who acknowledge that they are cis mechanically but for ideological reasons refuse to be called cis. This makes no sense to me; if the definition of a term is valid then the term itself is. Same goes for pronouns, if they/them is valid (which it always is, since it’s gender and plurality agnostic) then I don’t think it makes sense to deny its use or mandate the use of another term. It’s nice to accommodate someone’s pronoun preferences, but I would not consider it bigoted to use non-preferred terms which validate someone’s identity.
I’ve never actually met someone irl who uses neopronouns, so I haven’t been able to test how I would actually respond. I tend to use they/them pretty often, including as a replacement for he/she, so I would probably use that unless there was a very strong preference not to. If I did refuse to use a neopronoun for some reason, I’m still not sure that that would qualify as treating them more differently than I would be if I used the neopronouns-- either I would be breaking their preferences or my understanding/usage of the language, there would be no way to behave entirely the same as the situation itself is different. It would certainly be kinder of me to use the neopronouns and for that reason I probably would, but I would not actually believe that to be more correct than using “they”, so I’m not really sure.
Do neopronouns typically convey a specific gender identity? It would make more sense to use them if they did, but afaik there is no consistent mapping of neopronoun to gender identity, which makes the argument for using neopronouns instead of “they” kind of moot-- if they do not signify gender then you would not be affirming someone’s gender by using them, only their language preferences.
Personally I don’t believe language preference is something that must be accommodated in the same way that identity is-- for example I have met cis people who acknowledge that they are cis mechanically but for ideological reasons refuse to be called cis. This makes no sense to me; if the definition of a term is valid then the term itself is. Same goes for pronouns, if they/them is valid (which it always is, since it’s gender and plurality agnostic) then I don’t think it makes sense to deny its use or mandate the use of another term. It’s nice to accommodate someone’s pronoun preferences, but I would not consider it bigoted to use non-preferred terms which validate someone’s identity.