Uh, yes I know. (gendered pronouns) Obviously they serve a different purpose there regardless of what we are talking about.Akjosch said:Genders - as far as they relate to anything really - aren't pointless, but their point is a different one from what you assume it is. They are used to categorise people. For people I don't know, it doesn't matter one bit (they certainly aren't a "potential reproductive target"), so I tend to not even bother to ask - just use their name, profession or the neutral "they". For people I know, I use what they want me to use (for both pronouns and names), as common courtesy dictates. They put themselves into a category so I don't have to.
Only some very few of those people are a "potential reproductive target", regardless of their sex or gender. They're the exception - one which can be discussed face-to-face with them without needing be rude to anyone else.
Also: You do know that English, as all Germanic languages, had gendered pronouns for inanimate things, right? Your assertion isn't really based in reality, sorry. To top it off, the gender of the things and animals had little bearing on anything, much less their (non-existent) reproductive role.
Common courtesy dictates our current gender pronoun because that is the dogma being forced on everyone.
As to "potential reproductive target" it depends what you define as potential.