Neutral-Inclusivity?

[Salvanis]

A co-worker of mine recently told me of a website regarding a philosophy (?) called neutral-inclusivity. He seems to subscribe to the ideas presented within, but for the life of me, I can't seem to get much out of the website besides awful, awful design. I have only taken a few college-level philosophy classes, so I'm still new at it. However, as an amateur, it looks to me like someone let this guy loose with a book of philosophy terms around which he built his vocabulary, and he just ran with whatever he was thinking about at the time. Because of this, I thought I'd ask those who have a bit more experience with this kind of thing to help me to see what, if anything, of value is there to be seen.

www.trinp.org is the site that he directed me to. If somebody could check this out and say whether there's any substance to it at all, I would be quite grateful.

[student738]

http://www.trinp.org/MNI/BoI/1/6/1.HTM:
"When referring to persons it is therefore wrong to use the masculine singular pronoun he or the feminine singular pronoun she."
[...]
"...we shall therefore henceforth refer to a person by means of 'e (subjective case), 'im (objective case) and 'er (pronominal adjective)"
If the author of this website makes any insightful points at all, I have to say that this language makes it quite painful trying to read for them. If avoiding the use of masculine and feminine pronouns is truly so important to the author, there certainly seem to be more appropriate ways to write satisfying this rule, in a philosophical work.

[deano]

nuetrality is in the eye of the beholder,you are still taking a side,your own side,you always choose your own side.

we always do whats best for ourselves comprende?