On June 8, 2021 Kerry Sluchinski presented on Referential Forms in Digital LGBTQ+ Discourses which focused on the use of TA and other third person pronoun variants and their roles in identity construction at e-Sociolinguistics Symposium 23 (e-SS23).

The study focused on the following research question: 

What are the indexical and interactional functions of third person reference (i.e. ta) in digital LGBTQ+ discourses?

The presentation illustrated four types of usages through qualitative examples: 

1. Anti-community usage of Othering
   • Refusing to recognize an LGBTQ+  individual’s self ascribed identity through use of ta
   • Dehumanizing an LGBTQ+  member through use of ‘it’ ta (它). 
2. Pro-Community usage of ta for
   • Being inclusive to all third persons (used as a general 3rd person pronoun)
   • Having the third person’s identity be determined by You (the reader)

One very discussion worthy questioned posed was as follows:

I’d like to ask you a question related to the idea that ‘ta’ is dehumanizing because it is normatively used to refer to animals and inanimate objects. This makes sense to me because ‘it’ in English has this effect, too. Are there no alternatives in Chinese such as singular ‘they’ in English? I ask because it there are other alternatives, then the choice of ‘it’ is even more dehumanizing. 

In Chinese, the third person pronoun ‘they’ in the plural form is 他们 tamen with 他 being the ‘male default’ character indicating either 1) a group of all males, or 2) a co-ed group. Consequently, we do see forms of TA们 in order to mitigate the “male default” and fully represent a co-ed group. Likewise, 她们 with 她 being the ‘female’ character is used only for a group of females. 

The pronoun 其 qi derived from classical Chinese is neutrally similar to English ‘they’ used in the singular third person.  其 qi  can be translated as ‘his’ , ‘her’, ‘its’, and ‘their’ as a singular third person pronoun. However, 其 qi is not common in speech and is mostly present in classical texts and highly academic or professional works. It could be said that 其 qi is not a high frequency word of the layman’s vocabulary when compared with it 它 (for animals and inanimate objects) , he 他, and she 她 . 

Thus, as the questioned envisioned, the distinct choice of it 它 and ta in Romanized form over he 他, she 她, and the less common 其 qi is even more marked and dehumanizing.