Whether any of these will come into common usage remains to be seen. Reigning Queer Theorists are arguing for the abolition of gender constructs altogether, for a life without the limitations of binary gender. Failing in that, they ask for recognition of multiple genders, rather than just two. In some queer literature, the pronouns “zie” and “zir” have begun to be used as alternatives to “his” and “her.” “Vir” serves much the same purpose, as does the less-common “shim.”
Some feel that gender-indicative labels should be abolished altogether, though. “I have begun speaking simply of gender as a name for that system that punishes bodies for how they look, who they love, or how they feel - for the size or color or shape of their skin. I do this not to collapse differences, but to emphasize our connections,” writes Wilchins. “But at some point such efforts [at employing inclusive terms] simply extend the linguistic fiction that real identities (however inclusive) actually exist prior to the political systems that create and require them. This is a seduction of language, constantly urging you to name the constituency you represent rather than the oppressions you contest” (Wilchins, 17).

Perhaps new, more inclusive terms will creep into the vernacular, introduced by the overweening p.c. consciousness. Or perhaps Wilchins is right, and nothing less than a Gender Revolution will be required to abolish the currently accepted identity frames. According to Butler, such a thing is impossible. While her statement is specifically addressed to the feminist and lesbian communities, it can just as easily be applied to trans communities: “The feminist [trans] subject turns out to be discursively constituted by the very political system that is supposed to facilitate its emancipation. This becomes politically problematic if that system can be shown to produce gendered subjects along a differential axis of domination or to produce subjects who are presumed to be masculine. In such cases, an uncritical appeal to such a system for the emancipation of 'women' [or transpeople] will clearly be self-defeating” (Butler, 5). Or, in the words of Audre Lorde, “the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house” (Lorde, 110). One cannot expect change to develop within the same society that has fostered the prevailing attitudes - to do so would be self defeating.

The question, in terms of face, is whether to do so is even desirable within the current societal norms. The approval process for transsexual (“sex-change”) surgery requires that one live as one's desired sex for a year, and that one be able to pass at least fairly well. Successfully passing in normative culture, and thus retaining one's desired face in that context, requires that one be called by the accepted binary pronouns. Easy identification is a desire, a goal, a ticket to progression. As long as this is the case, as long as all of us continue to accept gender as dual, and that duality as desired, then there is no reason for pronouns to change. As long as a misplaced pronoun can ruin our days, then there is no need for “zie.”