Together we are stronger
The coalition was created precisely to make proposals to civil society that individual members are not able to make. I'm not sure that intersex people, when they can't even manage to end their sexual mutilation, are in a position to impose on civil society a change of linguistic tradition as profound as the use of "it" as a single pronoun in the 3rd person singular, which may explain why this proposal is little promoted (whereas the use of "they" in the 3rd person singular is optional and not an obligation, and is much easier to propose). For animalists, it's probably even worse to end speciesism between animals (it) and humans (s/he). So it takes a broader alliance to successfully impose such a language revolution.
For a large-scale social change, such as a new language habit, we need to think like urban planners who have to completely restructure a large city, in two steps:
1 - first think in 'target' terms, to check that the solution is viable from a holistic point of view
2 - then develop the "transition" plan (which is often the most difficult, but the most interesting with opportunities it creates).
For the moment, I propose only the first step, i.e. to reason in target, i.e. to project yourself into a new and unusual world, even destabilising for you, an English speaker who is immersed every day in a language tradition that is perhaps as old and anchored as circumcision. Seen from outside this ancient tradition, for a French speaker like me, using "it" as a single 3rd person pronoun is so obvious that one wonders why English speakers still reproduce this tradition without even imagining that it is possible to stop circumcising or stop using "s/he".
In a future where everyone is used to using "it" as a single pronoun in the 3rd person singular, would this pose any particular problems? If there are no particular problems, then we can move on to step 2, which is to develop the 'transition' plan, which I think would open up many opportunities for new alliances. On the face of it, I don't think the single pronoun "it" solution for all entities is a problem since it is a solution used by other languages and it is hard to see why it works with the 3rd person plural "they" but could not work with the 3rd person singular "it".
Let's review Tim's objections to the single "it" target step 1:
“Generally speaking, referring to ANY person (in English) as "it" is highly offensive”: in a world where all English speakers would be used to using "it/its", how would this be "offensive"? In a world where everyone is uncircumcised, why is it a problem to be uncircumcised in the collective locker room?
“As I understand our intersex friends, many prefer to use "he", "she", or "they" as a 3rd person singular”: in a world where all English speakers would be used to using "it/its", why would intersex people want to use "he", "she", or "they" in a compulsory way, when as I said at the beginning, it would still be possible to specify the gender but only as an option, not in a compulsory way (it's the difference between being obliged to say "a White" or "a Black", or having the option to say "a white woman" or "a black intersex")?
“As I understand the reality of U.S. politics, referring to a woman as "it" - especially by a man - would be regarded as highly offensive”: Is this also the case in the whole English-speaking world, in Australia, New Zealand, UK etc.? In a world where all English speakers would be used to using "it/its", why would "referring to a woman as "it" - especially by a man" be regarded as highly offensive?
“I do not see the anti-FGM or anti-IGM movements resorting to this type of mixing of issues in their campaigns”: Francophone feminists have long contested the grammar rule that "the masculine always prevails over the feminine". Moreover, the solutions currently proposed in the French-speaking world to make room for intersex people are very problematic in that they considerably complicate the French language, which is already so complicated that not many people want to learn it. It is in the interest of the Francophonie to take advantage of being forced to make room for intersex people to put an end to all these aberrations of the French language. It goes without saying that if the coalition currently uses only the English language for its official positions, it will no doubt be useful one day to have other languages. Starting with the English language and the very simple solution of "it", this would open up a strong opportunity around intersex to change other languages. This would be an extraordinarily strong argument to interest Francophone feminists. In other words, as a coalition, we have an interest in understanding the interdependencies between multiple issues, even if a priori we think that male circumcision is not concerned.
“I do not see the anti-FGM or anti-IGM movements resorting to this type of mixing of issues in their campaigns”: Do these actors have any reason to oppose "it" reform? No, especially if they understand that they need to show solidarity with intersex people (which the coalition members understand).
“Using "it" creates for us the added burden of having ICASM's grammar perceived as being either "incorrect" or "weird" and then having to spend time, effort and argumentation to educate others why "it" is correct”: In target this problem would not exist, it is an issue to be dealt with in stage 2 of the transition plan. On the contrary, displaying such an innovation could bring extraordinary publicity to the coalition, especially in the media, which would be a powerful pull factor for multiple organisations concerned with the evolution of modern languages by removing the gender oppressions they contain.
“The issue of genital autonomy is difficult and complex enough without adding the burden of fighting against "Christian specieism" or ANY issue that is not directly related to GA”: I never said that the coalition should fight against Christian speciesism, I said that the use of "it" would put an end to speciesism, which would be very favourable to alliances with animalists, which is an increasingly powerful social movement throughout the world (and interested to end sexual mutilation too).
“In my opinion, this philosophical argument about changing the way the world uses pronouns is a distraction from the main purpose of the genital autonomy struggle”: I totally disagree. If we want to put an end to intersex sexual mutilation, we must give it a legal (civil status) and linguistic place in ALL living languages, not just English, which will inevitably involve major linguistic changes. But I can understand that people who only care about male circumcision are not used to mastering this kind of interdependence between different subjects. The coalition is there to open minds to think about the world in a "big picture" way in order to be more effective, even if it’s a little disturbing at first.
In general, I think that male circumcision is an extremely complex problem, which requires a very broad reading of the world, far beyond the subject of male circumcision alone. It is like the well-known problem of 4 lines to fit into a 9-point grid: the solution involves thinking outside the box.
At this stage, I don't see any obstacles to using "it/its" in target: do you see any?
Just to check, I suggest that uncircumcised people tape their foreskin for a few weeks to get an idea of what it's like to be a circumcised man, and for English speakers I suggest taping "s/he+her/his" for a few weeks in their daily life to see if it's untenable to use only "it"!