Not quite. "It" is a general reference pronoun with a function akin to "the". It can be used to refer to anything that is a thing, even if said thing is animate and/or living.

When referring indiscriminately to a specimen of fauna, "it" is a linguistically appropriate identifier whereas "they" would only really be entirely appropriate when referring to an individual or subset of individuals, regardless of species or animacy.

Since this fish has no distinguishable identity apart from the cultural impact it may spawn, I reckon it's more appropriate to use "it" but "they" could also work.

I am not a linguist. But if you are, feel free to correct me. If you feel like pretending to be a linguist, go talk to an LLM cause IDC.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

I mean, it’s English. The “rules” work sometimes and sometimes they don’t. But we’re taught that they exist, and then told “well, in that case that rule doesn’t apply.”

So neither of us is technically right, at least not in every case. But, generally, if I were teaching someone English, I would tell them, most of the time, “they” is for animate objects, “it” for inanimate—when we’re discussing a singular object or subject. Does it apply every time? No, and that’s still a loose rule. Some people call an animal “it,” but that is a little outmoded.

No, I’m not a linguist either. We’re just two unqualified assholes talking on the internet.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months ago (2 children)

If you wouldn't call a human being "it", then you shouldn't call a non-human animal "it", either.

[–] casual_turtle_stew_enjoyer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

yeah no I'm not taking that bait, bud.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

Funnily enough, in spoken Finnish "it" has all but replaced "they".