With all due respect, this sounds like you're projecting. You're used to working and checking words to see if they fit the style you were trained for. Most people don't do that. You can argue that we all have a implicit understanding of grammar, and that's true, but the implicit understanding many of us have is one where "they" can and should be used in a singular neutral context.
If they're defaulting to using "he" then they aren't actually doing it though. And I say add to it by also sometimes putting in a non-binary person at times too.
But think about that for a minute. Why do you fee so at guard when that happens? Should you do some inventory and ask if you're the one creating this vibe?
Maybe. Not a universal opinion. I just know that whenever they say "she" on Scriptnotes I'm like "Wait, who are they talking about? Oh right, they deliberately only use 'she' on this podcast."
It's not about reprogramming people. And I don't really see it as overthinking. It is a very true statement that most people have a man as the abstraction of humanity. Is it really overthinking it to go "hey, I'll make this about a woman instead of just saying he". The same logic can also extend to non-binary representation.
Yup, unless you know for sure there's no need for specific pronouns.
Male-bias doesn't make sense, but it still definitely exists in large doses. And I don't think the age of these pronouns has any influence on how people take them.
I don't think it has to be one or the other, I think both techniques can be used effectively.
We talk about hypothetical scenarios all the time, but the majority of the time it's with you, I and we.
Your argument that this situation is rare is simply untrue. I mean, I don't know how else to say anything other than you're simply wrong. Talking about a hypothetical person in the third person is not a rare occurrence. And I really really really do not see how using a random gender is going to make me unclear and hard to understand.
I'm a tech writer, and I agree. The problem with "they" is that using it as a gender-neutral pronoun is gramatically incorrect, so it doesn't work in formal or professional settings. "He/she" is clunky, and while writing to avoid pronouns altogether sometimes works, dancing around it can also result in clunky writing. Having said that, since "they" is becoming common in everyday use, formal English may soon evolve to accept that form of the word.
Shit, really? Huh.
You're saying it's the dumbest thing you've ever read when you clearly do not understand what it says. I'm talking about putting a gender to a hypothetical person when talking about a scenario or a made up person in a story. How exactly does one misgender a hypothetical person? And I don't see how transgender fits into this. The hypothetical person being labeled a woman could either be cisgender or transgender but still be labeled a woman if that is supposed to be their identifying gender. If you meant non-binary, then you could extend this to sometimes labeling the person as non-binary.
For something this ingrained in our collective psyche the solution is simply better and equal representation of all genders in all facets of life. Eventually, more and more people will not default to picturing any singular gender when presented with the pronoun "they" in a hypothetical, which in most cases is a man.
There's nothing objectively wrong with singular they, and they idea that it should be avoided is pretty, and it never really took hold in the English language at any point in time. So even the small c conservative argument doesn't hold water here.
Yuval Harari does it quite effectively I think.
Well luckily most people don't confer textbooks when trying to understand what other people are saying in regular ass conversations.
I think the point is to get to the where it's not distracting, and at least in my limited experience, it doesn't have to be.
I'll use "they," "themself," and "themselves." If I'm feeling spicy, I'll use "one" and "oneself."
