Question: I have met with [this edit](https://politics.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/29014) twice during review.

It boils down to changing a neutral pronoun to singular they. First time I thought this edit made next to no improvement (I know some other reviewer chose causes harm reason) because:

* it is a very little change (no significant improvement)
* it is quite clear that the author of the answer wanted to be like this

However, since the answer deals with UK Parliament rules which are in place for many years, from a historical perspective it makes more sense to use the singular they instead of the much newer gender neutral.

Answer: 
My opinion is that edits *exclusively* changing neutral pronouns to other neutral pronouns (including from "neopronouns" to themself) should be rolled back, as they're fairly clearly inconsequential edits. Had I noticed the edit before I noticed this meta post, I would probably have rolled it back for that reason.

Some answers to anticipated objections in this particular case:

**Changing to themself improves clarity.**

I guess the driver for this opinion is that xyrself is not an especially common word, but I don't agree that that alone justifies an edit, any more than would be an edit of "werewithal" to "means" or "apportionment" to "distribution" or any other change from a single less common word to a more common synonym. 

**Xyrself is political.** 

How? It's just a neutral pronoun. If the poster had attempted somehow to make their answer entirely about the pronoun or about gender politics generally, then yeah sure. But that's not what happened. If anything, it is the act of changing the pronoun that comes across as potentially political in my opinion, particularly given the fact that the context in which it was used was otherwise devoid of any gender politics. Certainly a change from themself to xyrself would be construed in that way, given they are synonyms. I don't see how the reverse change is any different.

**Xyrself is less readable** 

Xy words exist in English, what's the problem?

**The use of neopronouns attracts the wrong type of attention**

This is an opinion evident in Yannis' statement that:

> 
> the use of the neo-pronoun in the answer is unnecessary and would probably prove to be a distraction
> 
> 
> 

and additionally is part of the editor's justification for the change. To me this is a point of real disagreement. They're entirely right that it's distracting people, not least the flagger who described the use of the word as "deliberately provocative", but I don't see why we should pander to people who think something so innocuous is provocative. We would never countenance editing out a reference to a spouse as "husband" or "wife" because it was triggering people who take issue with the existence of same-sex marriages for example, I don't see how this case is any different.

I recognise that that might give the mods a hard time if they were absolutely inundated and having to spend inordinate amounts of time clearing up such posts. If that were the case, I'd probably acquiesce on the grounds of necessity.

**The neopronoun was not referring to a specific person who had stated that was their correct pronoun**

I mean...what's the problem then? If it was referring to a specific person who had specifically pointed out that that was **not** their preferred pronoun then that absolutely should be edited...but in the absence of any knowledge and particularly in the case of a reference to a hypothetical person (as in this case) it's effectively impossible for anyone to take offense at the usage.
In this case I believe the edit should be rolled back and xyrself restored to the answer. 

The [main meta question](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/340881/can-a-user-use-neopronouns-for-any-third-party) top answer calls the use of a neopronoun for someone who has not requested it akin to misgendering. While I don't agree with that position, it is not relevant here because the answer does not refer to a specific individual.

The higher rated answer would agree with this edit because;

> 
> Yes, you were right. Parsing the word 'perself' may be hard for users who aren't used to neopronouns, and 'themselves' is clearer. 
> 
> 
> 

This is circular logic. No one can become used to neopronouns if they are not used. And the change from a singular to plural in the quote suggests things are hardly clearer.

Indeed this same flaw is the basis of my disagreement with comparing it to misgendering. Xyrself, a third person gender neutral pronoun does not asign a gender, and it does it reject the assigning of a gender to an individual.

Perhaps in this instance themself is serviceable and specific, but singular they while gramatically correct can be easily confused with a plural meaning, and use of xyrself as an extension of xyr is a logical requirement to increase familiarity, understanding and acceptance of neopronouns. If that is something the poster wishes to do then more power to xem.