Let us agree that all persons are living beings, but that not all living beings are persons. One way of subdividing living beings is, then, into personal and nonpersonal, living beings.

Another way of subdividing living beings is into species, but from the point of view of personhood this categorization is not essential, as we shall not assume that all persons (or 'people') are human beings, nor that all human beings (in the zoological sense) are necessarily persons. Altho the distinction between person and human being may often not have been made at all, this is an anthropocentric fallacy we can dismiss immediately.

A third way of subdividing living beings is into sexual and asexual beings. This is an aspect we must take into consideration for a moment before turning to the issue of personhood itself. Speakers of the traditional variants of the present and of many other languages, but also many speakers of languages which were never genderized, have always convulsively clung to the discrimination between male and female persons. Yet, the factor on which this distinction is based actually concerns living beings in general and not especially persons.

A particular living being which is asexual (1) belongs to an asexual or metagenetic species which reproduces without sexual differentiation or alternatingly with and without, (2) lacks functional sexual organs, or (3) is not interested in sexuality. If, on the other hand, a particular living being is a sexual being, then it does belong to a species which reproduces sexually or also sexually, altho it may not be able (anymore) to reproduce itself in this way and altho it need not itself be interested in sexual matters. Sexual beings are either unisexual or hermaphroditic. In the former case the plant or animal has either male or female reproductive organs; in the latter case it has both. This conception is based on the kind of sexual differentiation, or lack thereof, as found on Earth. Logically speaking, however, there is no reason why the sort of generative reproduction in which two sexes are involved (the female and the male sex) should be the end to the possibilities of the types of reproduction.

If reproduction is 'asexual', it is said that there is 'no sex' involved, but it might as well be said that there is only one sex or reproductive division involved; if it is sexual, then there are two sexes or reproductive divisions involved. But theoretically one could conceive of a form of life which depends for its direct reproduction on the union of the genetic material of three or more individuals of the same number of three or more different reproductive divisions. In the sense of complexity or natural, bodily development such a species would be of a 'higher' level than the one to which human and other living beings on this planet belong. (By way of illustration one may think of a planet Hyperyinyang with many asexual species and sexual species whose members have only male and/or female sexual organs, chromosome combinations and/or hormones. Assume, furthermore, that there is a species of 'jumans' on Hyperyinyang which can be divided into three sexes: 'cemales', 'demales' and 'eemales'. Should some jumans of Hyperyinyang now discover Earth, they will probably declare that 'humans', among others, are a genetically less-developed species with only two sexes: 'aemales' and 'bemales'.)

While living beings may be asexual, female, male, hermaphroditic or something else, they belong to one of these sexual categories on account of their body, whether it be its parts or its general physical characteristics. No living being is male, female or something else as a person, because many sexual living beings simply are not persons. (Plants are an example.) Reproduction and sexuality are entirely irrelevant with respect to personhood proper. When referring to persons it is therefore wrong to use the masculine singular pronoun he or the feminine singular pronoun she. Only when referring to male or female bodies, and only when sex is relevant, is it correct to say "he" or "she". In all other cases nongenderized or 'gender-transcending' pronouns should be employed. (Just like she and he themselves are species-transcending, race-transcending, age-transcending, and so forth.)

To refer to things, whether living or lifeless, whether concrete or abstract, the pronoun it may be used. But while it is traditionally also used for persons whose sex is unknown or disregarded, it is employed in particular when speaking of lifeless things, plants and abstract entities. In traditional language people would not say "it" of a person whose sex was known, even if this person's sex was of no import at all. If somebody's sex was unknown, or could be either one, the traditional speaker used --and may still use-- the masculine he to refer to a person. He would thus be employed to refer both to males and to people (irrespective of their gender), whereas she would refer to females exclusively. Some of the pioneers in the fight against androcentrism, also in the language, have proposed that she should include both female and male persons but they merely substituted gynocentrism for androcentrism. Most of the pioneers combating sexism decided to write the cumbersome "he or she" or "he/she", but altho this usage was gender-neutral, they were not conscious enough that they were still --and may still be-- caught in the same web of sexual irrelevantism (and moreover, it was never done consistently). The distinction between female and male as such has no bearing on personhood whatsoever, even not on being a living being. To refer to persons with he, she or he/she only depersonalizes them. It makes them into males and/or females on the grounds of characteristics which are basically biologic, material and physical, that is, their bodies'. (Of course, in practise sexual irrelevantism, especially a long history of sexual irrelevantism, may result, or have resulted, in many profound mental differences as well.)

The tendency to always refer to persons by means of he or she in traditional language may cause and/or be caused by sexism or sexual irrelevantism, this does not mean that the availability of a pronoun other than it is not very convenient when speaking about persons. People do play a significant role in this world; in a way they are the only ones 'playing a role'. It is therefore very helpful to be able to easily distinguish these people from the nonpersonal things surrounding them in a domain or universe of discourse. The great advantage of the use of she or he for persons rather than it was (or still is) that one would know immediately that the thing referred to was a person and not some nonpersonal being. The importance of the person-nonperson distinction in our discourse does justify the introduction of a special pronominal device to refer to a person (not a male or female being or human being) -- a person named or described in a particular context. A language which does not have such a third-person pronoun (instead of or besides a third-male pronoun like he and a third-female pronoun like she) is less efficient in this respect. In line with the general pronominal pattern of inflection in the present language, in view of the phonological variants of pronominal terms starting with h and of the historical development of the nonpersonal hit to it in this language, and taking into consideration the advantage of having different words for genderized and nongenderized pronouns, and for the objective case and the pronominal adjective, we shall therefore henceforth refer to a person by means of 'e (subjective case), 'im (objective case) and 'er (pronominal adjective). (One may also simply spell "e", "im" and "er".) This pronominal series is the 'personal', singular analog of the plural they, them and their, the nonpersonal analog being it, it and its. (Traditionalists should be aware that the question is not whether this usage is good or not in some absolute sense, but whether any other usage or proposal is better -- and no traditional usage or proposal is, as examples like a person who denies himself or herself and a person who denies or deny themselves testify.)

We are now able to relate to and speak about people regardless of their being female, male, hermaphroditic, asexual or something else of that ilk. Solely when gender is (believed to be) relevant, and if a male person or living being is concerned, is it alright to say "he"; and if a female person or living being is concerned, "she". By using 'e in a nonerotic, nonreproductive context the alternative use of he or she will automatically acquire an erotic or sexual significance where it may or should have such a significance. As sure as Nature makes numberless apples year after year, this will render a lovable language only richer.