I am of the presupposition that the guiding principles are not quite met there.
Building in nationalistic sentiment plays into the same political hands of people that use “they” singular. That they, those people, as people factor into two camps of almost no overlap in their different political agendas, doesn’t balance it out.
The confusion seems complete when issue is taken with gendered nouns, but the premise still is at the mercy of Poe’s law. One noun always having the same marked gender, “the boat”, for example, (a boat (en båt) follows masculine form in norwegian (båten)), and you can still call it “she” and give it a female name. That is just how that works.
The works of which a professional victim clearly finds at ones hands to be “a job”.
If you specifically find “man” in a noun, like the recent “ombudsman” that has made its way over. Know that “man” comes from “mænni”, meaning people. You will find it in use for “Norsemen”, which are people of Norwegian origin, as opposed to Norwegians. That is, someone did manage to take offence, after the obligatory "What’s next, not being allowed to say “Norsemen either”, guided the POEthetical nature of what we call “the vaginal state”. Making an issue of what was already specifically unproblematic, in an accepting culture, to what then becomes having explain oneself.
Norway already went through modern feminism, we are ahead, in that society at large now accepts freedom of choice as superior to equity of outcome. It got pretty secteric while it lasted, and continued the satire into intersectionalism.
The genetic differences between sexes are made more prominent when you maximize for choice. The same reversed trend of industrialization can be observed in any other post-industrial society.
You will find there is valkyrian common ground in that women overlap somewhat with a section of the low-end of men, in testosterone levels, an agreed upon difference between them.
Some take this to mean gender is a fluid concept. The supposed need for such treatment to either be a woman, or develop into one, is a fallacious oxymoron in itself, when those same people will tell you anyone can be a woman, or even when implicitly observing said nature of the overlap adjusted for actual chromosomal gender.
Dare I point out the nature of having to know better in dancing around the issue here? The double thinker thinks not of the singular, for it is forever pushed into its box.
You also open the gates to stand shoulder to shoulder with people that think sexual affinity is malleable. “Pray the gay away” to stop this macro-agression! X)
It is a good thing Norse culture did away with (people) comparing others to animals at an early age, we have since found more refinement in the ways of doing so, but still.
I jumped off the politically correct train when supposedly there was something wrong with “negro”, and saw the next train pass the station loaded with “mulatto” for mixed race people. People, not horses.
On the topic of whatever to call the current misconceptualized trend;
The historic infantilization of women and dehumanization of black people, systemically, exists in no clearer a current form.
There are some transgendered people that don’t want to adopt the other sex, which to many is the actual point, wholesale gender roles and all. Traditional ones even.
It is a further subset, of what is to begin with quite a small group, which certainly makes it a hard sell to make English less functional over/for.
The latter to what end? There is a part of Norway that uses “hen” instead of “han/hun” “she/he” and conditions for transgendered people in it, are the exact same.
It is however a favorite group to push in front of agenda, i find it is cynical and wanting, creating enemies where none are needed. Women do not seem to have come closer to a vote or liberation than the old Scandinavian democracy that predated Christianity here, or what followed it, or the French revolution. One could go on, however not without noting the puzzling convenience of a mindset refusing to accept biology, in its offense taken with these cultures, rather than, for example judeo-christianity, of which Islam in origin, history and to present day belief is a most macabre display.
I digress, but before we leave the transgender people alone, know that they do suffer more mental issues than just anyone, and their suicide rate is sky-high. It is convenient to entertain this is a cultural aspect of their ways, rather than an inherent result thereof.
Begging this question, as if all of it is a result of “systemic oppression”, is a furthering of the end to a “means culpa.” If you catch adrift…
In psychology “personality dysphoria”, an observed condition, transcends gender, so I am not sure why It is a good idea to just socially except the premise of overarching culture, having some empathy with the reversal of the whole idea to speak out against it. Speaking on part of all of, however many subsets one delves into to do it, is not something I accept even then.
The misuse of “They” singular confuses what little grasp novice users have of English, at the hands of people that should know better. “He/she” “his/her” is a crutch fielded by people with poor command of it.
It can be used if the person is conceptually unknown, like "If someone is going to find the need to escape through the fire-doors, they can do so by first climbing the stairs that lead up to them.
It is possible to use “User A”, and then refer back to it later on. Mark the ungendered notion of using non-sex.
What you can do otherwise is say “the person” or “the respective entity” or some-such.
Sometimes you can get away with working in “their” to solve the issue. Another import from the norse horses mouth.
For a variation of “nationalism” that means perception of identity, I agree.
Preserving homogenity diversifies diversity.
For a variation of “gendered language” that means gendering of otherwise neutral language I agree.
I feel the sheep-herd inbound on the same goat that brought these two together.