About “they” and not speaking

I haven’t really got involved in the whole trans debate because the discourse appears to be dominated by unpleasantly shrill voices on both sides and any suggestion that there might be a mutually beneficial compromise just gets lost in the shouting. But as a writer and a pedant, there is one point on which I’m prepared to get huffy and that’s the use of “they” as a preferred pronoun for non-binary people. And, yes, I know “they” has long been to signify individuals whose gender is not ascertained (for example, “A plumber will visit you today; they will call when they are approaching your house.”) but I don’t much care for that either. And in any case, isn’t there a difference between someone who has a gender but we don’t yet know what it is (a sort of Schrödinger’s (wo?)man) and someone who has consciously broken free from the shackles of such an identity? Surely we can come up with a whole new non-gendered pronoun, and so avoid such deeply clunky constructions as, from a feature on the actor Bella Ramsey: 

When Ramsey got the first callback from Mazin and Druckmann, they joined the Zoom from their childhood bedroom.

And completely unrelated, except that it shows what words can do when you do them right, this, from Bret Easton Ellis’s Imperial Bedrooms:

”If you’re not speaking to me at least tell me why...”

About do not play lists

Interesting observation from a DJ about what he does and doesn’t play: 

My own moral approach has always been to remember that a DJ’s job is to spread joy to every single person in that room. Morrissey has made too many statements seen as hateful for many people to enjoy, I can report. Yet the fact that several 1970s rock stars slept with underage girls doesn’t seem to be an issue for older people’s morality on the dancefloor. I paused playing Lizzo when her former tour dancers accused her of sexual harassment and body shaming, and stopped playing Diplo after allegations of sexual misconduct arose. Their innocence or guilt is oddly immaterial: I just don’t want to even risk that someone on my dancefloor might feel bad, period.

So there is indeed an element of judging the artist rather than the art. But the person who actually plays the music passes the buck to his punters, determining that they would find Bowie’s indiscretions less heinous than Morrissey’s rants and leaving it at that. 

But the key line is that “innocence or guilt is oddly immaterial”. If the people who pay his wages think a performer is a wrong ’un, and think thus so forcibly that they won’t enjoy his music, he takes it off the list. It may be a sensible approach in our judgmental age, but I’m not sure I accept his assertion that it’s a moral one.