WEPR → Neo Pronouns

It requires a bit of adjustment, but I think it's valid. Language and words are tools we use to describe something, and if a tool doesn't fit, use another one. Language is not fixed and changes over time. Besides, neo pronouns aren't that new; this article on the pronoun thon also mentions several other neutral pronouns that have been proposed over the last century and a half.

The question is whether neo pronouns will actually catch on for good this time, but if they do, I see no problem with it.

I'm... Eventually, ugh *slams face on table*... going to come back to that sex-gender debate with HahiHa. So aside from my innate distaste for gender abolitionism...

All of them are, as far as I know, manufactured. In Croatia, this problem is so common we have a word for that - Knjiški leksem. (Which I have not found an analogue for, but I'm sure it exists.) Very roughly translated as "book word". A word that only exists in books. A word which no one actually says or uses apart from *maybe* its author.

To argue this point specifically: "Besides, neo pronouns aren't that new;" - This type of... mmm... appeal to history(?) tradition(?) is completely pointless. No idea is new because every idea has been thought of millions of times before. 80 people inventing 80 different neutral pronouns that never leave their authors' minds and are never picked up by any defined region does not historical use make.

A *good* example of that is the the plural "you". The south has developed Y'all, the Irish Youse, and the Pennsylvanians' disgusting hideous linguistic abomination "Yinz".

English has at least two established ways of dealing with a lack of gender-neutral pronoun - the generic he (Still used in Croatian law to prevent the Eowyn loophole) and the indeterminate singular "they" (used when gender cannot be determined or is purposefully obfuscated).
You *could* call both "he" and "they" gender-neutral pronouns in some sense.

Irish has no word for "yes". Nonetheless, the Irish carry on, yesless. There is no need for them to develop a word for "yes".

TL;DR: Neopronouns generally sound terrible, are not built in the spirit of the language - arising mechanically, and they aren't useful except as part of gender ideology.

Very roughly translated as "book word". A word that only exists in books.

"Book word" is very evocative, I like the term actually. And that is also probably why other pronouns have failed to catch on in the past, because their use hasn't really spread into everyday language. Then again, this isn't an actual argument against the possibility of it happening. And every single word is manufactured.

This type of... mmm... appeal to history(?) tradition(?) is completely pointless.

Not really an appeal, more a refutation of the argument commonly appearing in such discussions, falsely claiming that anything that isn't strictly binary is entirely new and modern and, I guess, against 'tradition'. So in a way it's those opposing neopronouns that are bringing up tradition, I'm just arguing that it's an ordinary thing.

You *could* call both "he" and "they" gender-neutral pronouns in some sense.

'he' is by definition not neutral. This goes beyond English; at least afaik in most European languages where the masculine is used as a default, this is problematic because, well, it uses the masculine as the default. This ties back into the discussion about patriarchy and may be slightly outside the frame of this topic.
'they' is gender-neutral and serves very well for many who simply want a neutral pronoun that's already in use. Though not every language has that. In French for example 'iel' is often used, as a contraction of 'il' (he) and 'elle' (she). It is used much in the same way as singular 'they' is in English, but since it's relatively new it counts as neopronoun.
Additionally, some individuals may feel that neither the masculine, feminine or neutral pronoun feels appropriate to their sense of gender. What if you do have a strong feeling of gender that isn't within the binary? 'they' is neutral and may not convey that strong feeling, and therefore neopronouns are used. Which is also why the following point:

Irish has no word for "yes". Nonetheless, the Irish carry on, yesless. There is no need for them to develop a word for "yes".

is moot. First, because necessity doesn't even begin to explain all the quirks of languages, and secondly because there are obviously people who feel a necessity for more varied pronouns, otherwise 'they' would suffice. (Also, technically we really don't need gendered pronouns in the first place, so why bother with he and she? ^^ )

are not built in the spirit of the language

Agree to disagree?

and they aren't useful except as part of gender ideology.

The strict he/she binary is as much, if not more so, an expression of gender ideology. The binary gender ideology has been imposed on our western cultures for the last few centuries and ties back to some nasty -isms ^^ Again, maybe slightly off-topic and too broad for this discussion. For now my point is simply that the he/she binary is very far from being the neutral standard.

Very roughly translated as "book word". A word that only exists in books. A word which no one actually says or uses apart from *maybe* its author.

Nonce word or more specifically hapax legomenon or protologism.

To argue this point specifically: "Besides, neo pronouns aren't that new;" - This type of... mmm... appeal to history(?) tradition(?) is completely pointless

It's more of an appeal to suppression. The strict cultural binary overshadowed the inclusion of more , but the concepts have precedent.

are not built in the spirit of the language - arising mechanically, and they aren't useful except as part of gender ideology.

The usefulness arises from numeric confusion when conflating singular and plural 'they'. It's faster to say 'Ze' than a name when specificity is needed.

'he' is by definition not neutral.

This is a matter of intent and context. "Mankind" was until recently considered neutral, all encoming, understood as short for "humankind". Similarly, the literary conflicts of 'Man vs Machine' or 'Man vs Nature' may be fitting regardless of the protagonist(s)'s gender(s). Obviously 'Human(s)/Humanity' would be the modern neutral term, though technically 'mann' was Old English for 'individual person', not gendered at all for many centuries. Instead 'human male' was 'wer' (from which came werwulf: werewolf). 'Human female' was 'wif' (wifmann: woman).

"God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man (humanity), man destroys God, man creates dinosaurs."
"Dinosaurs eat man (singular male), woman inherits the earth."