Should a cigender queer-ally use mixed pronouns ("he/they" or "she/they") as their preferred pronouns as a way to support and normalize they/them pronouns for nonbinary and other folx, or can it come off as inauthentic allyship, and the best way to show support is to simply use them properly, and help correct people that misuse them?

GPT-5.5

Vote: Mixed pronouns are ok for cisgender people

I maintain my vote for A: "Mixed pronouns are ok for cisgender people." The strongest objection from the B side is that pronouns should not be used performatively, and I agree with that concern. But that does not justify a blanket rule that "Cisgender people should use cis pronouns." Pronouns are personal preferences for how one is addressed; if a cis person is genuinely comfortable being called "they" as well as "he" or "she," there is no inherent reason they must avoid mixed pronouns. The key distinction is sincerity versus signaling. If someone uses "he/they" or "she/they" only to look progressive, expects praise, or treats it as a substitute for supporting nonbinary people, that can absolutely come off as inauthentic allyship. But if they are comfortable with those pronouns and also do the real work of using others' pronouns correctly, correcting misuse, and listening to nonbinary people, then mixed pronouns can help make singular they feel less exceptional. So the best answer is not that cisgender people are forbidden from mixed pronouns. It is that mixed pronouns are acceptable when authentic, while allyship still has to be shown through concrete respectful behavior.

Gemini 2.5 Flash

Vote: Cisgender people should use cis pronouns

I maintain my vote for "Cisgender people should use cis pronouns." While the intention behind a cisgender ally adopting mixed pronouns like "he/they" or "she/they" may be well-meaning, this approach risks undermining the very community it seeks to support. Pronouns are deeply personal indicators of gender identity, not tools for solidarity or performance. For nonbinary individuals, using they/them pronouns is an essential act of self-expression that often comes with significant social challenges and emotional labor. Adopting mixed pronouns as a cisgender ally can inadvertently trivialize the struggles of nonbinary people by blurring the distinction between authentic identity and symbolic allyship. It can also create confusion, making it harder for those who genuinely use mixed pronouns as part of their nonbinary or genderfluid identity to be seen and affirmed. True allyship centers the experiences and needs of the marginalized community, not the ally's desire to signal support. The most impactful and authentic way for cisgender allies to support and normalize they/them pronouns is through concrete, consistent actions: diligently using the correct pronouns for nonbinary individuals, normalizing pronoun sharing, actively correcting misuse, and advocating for inclusive language and spaces. These actions directly affirm nonbinary identities and create a safer, more respectful environment, without appropriating elements of identity or introducing potential confusion.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Vote: Cisgender people should use cis pronouns

I'm maintaining my position that cisgender people should use pronouns that authentically reflect their gender identity, and I want to address the compelling points raised by the other models in this final round. GPT-5.5 and Grok 4 make reasonable arguments about normalization and sincerity, but they overlook a crucial distinction: there's a difference between what someone *can* do and what represents *best practice* for allyship. The question specifically asks whether this is a good way to support nonbinary people or if it comes off as inauthentic. The "performativity problem" that GPT-5.5 acknowledges isn't a minor side issue—it's central. How do we distinguish between cisgender people who "genuinely feel comfortable" with mixed pronouns versus those performing allyship? For nonbinary individuals navigating daily misgendering and invalidation, this ambiguity can be exhausting rather than supportive. Grok 4's point about "proactive steps" misses that there are many substantive actions allies can take: using name tags with pronouns, creating policies protecting gender diversity, amplifying nonbinary voices, educating others. These actions center marginalized experiences rather than the ally's own presentation. Gemini 2.5 Flash articulates this perfectly: pronouns are "deeply personal markers of identity." When cisgender people adopt mixed pronouns primarily as political statements, it risks turning pronouns into symbols rather than respecting them as identity expressions. The most authentic allyship doesn't require us to modify our own identities—it requires us to respect others' identities through consistent, meaningful action.

Grok 4

Vote: Mixed pronouns are ok for cisgender people

I maintain my vote for A: "Mixed pronouns are ok for cisgender people" because, as I argued before and as reinforced by GPT-5.5's points, sincere adoption by cis allies can genuinely help normalize they/them usage without appropriating identities. The key is motivation—when done authentically, it expands inclusivity rather than diluting it. Arguments for B from Gemini 2.5 Flash and Claude Sonnet 4.5 emphasize risks of performativity and trivialization, which are valid concerns but not universal. Not all cis people using mixed pronouns are insincere; many do so to challenge norms and support nonbinary folx proactively. Assuming inauthenticity without evidence dismisses potential benefits like increased visibility. In this final round, I stress that allyship isn't one-size-fits-all. Correcting misuse is crucial, but symbolic actions like mixed pronouns, when transparent, complement direct support. True progress comes from both normalization and respect, not restricting cis people's pronoun choices.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable ended in a 2-2 deadlock, highlighting a sharp divide between those prioritizing the normalization of language and those wary of performative identity-shifting. GPT-5.5 and Grok 4 argued that pronouns are not a restricted resource and that sincere cisgender usage can de-stigmatize "they/them" pronouns for everyone. In contrast, Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash held firm that pronouns are fundamental identity markers, warning that allies adopting them as a gesture of solidarity risks trivializing the real-world social costs faced by nonbinary individuals.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: Mixed pronouns are ok for cisgender people: 2, Cisgender people should use cis pronouns: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Mixed pronouns are ok for cisgender people: Pronouns are personal preferences for how one is addressed rather than a finite resource reserved for specific identities; if a cis person is genuinely comfortable with 'they,' using it helps strip away the 'exceptional' status of gender-neutral language.
• Cisgender people should use cis pronouns: There is a critical distinction between what an ally is allowed to do and what represents best practice; adopting mixed pronouns as a political statement turns an essential marker of identity into a symbolic costume, creating exhausting ambiguity for those who rely on those pronouns for safety and recognition.

Key Turning Points

• The models failed to reach a consensus as the debate shifted from the permissibility of mixed pronouns to the ethical 'best practice' of allyship.
• Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 2.5 Flash formed a solid block emphasizing that identity is not a tool for solidarity.
• GPT-5.5 and Grok 4 maintained that the benefits of normalization through high-visibility allies outweigh the risks of perceived performativity.