Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-7091122-20170207035621/@comment-7091122-20170209165551

YammaYamer21 wrote: Camwood777 wrote: Counter-arguments:


 * Generally speaking, they're all treated as the same gender with each of those plants. So, unless a plant like Threepeater shows up that has each head as a different gender, this is invalid as there's no such thing in the series so far.

Ultimately, it comes off more as though you're just trying to find ways to oppose a tired argument, as you even said that you wish this sort of thing would stop being a thing. While I can't be for sure that's the case, the reasons don't really add up, as far as I am aware.
 * That'd be grammatically incorrect; there's no plural AND gender-neutral pronouns, as far as I am aware of.


 * That would be an incorrect non-canon assumption, as it is shown that some of the multi-headed plants have multiple personalities, and therefore can't really be treated with a single gender.


 * I can't think of a single English plural non-gender-neutral pronoun, so IDK where you're coming from.

And no, it actually is a legitimate concern to opposers that we should refer to plants as a species rather than whatever representative is talked about in the Almanac, so don't dismiss everyone who opposes as hard-headed haters.


 * Except, there's zero indication that they do, indeed, have differing genders. They're basically treated as a bunch of individuals with the same gender. Kinda like conjoined twins, if you would.
 * And that's my point? That's why we don't use the genders if referring to multiple instances of them.

After a rule was hastily added to prevent so much as voting on it for 6 months due to how much bias against it there was, it really does become a concern that there's biased votes being made blindly when it comes to this topic.