It's true that there is an ambiguity in this particular sentence you've constructed. But that's always going to be possibile when pronouns are involved. Just pick two subjects that share a pronoun, put them in the same sentence, and then use the pronoun. Uh oh!
What if "Harper" were the name of a company? Rejecting singular "they" wouldn't save you then. I would propose that whatever remedy you would suggest for the "Harper Inc." case, you go ahead and apply to this one as well.
I think the point is that the author of the piece has also constructed sentences wherein the ambiguity can be argued away. That doesn't make it more useful, though.
Replacing "he" and "she" with "they" both removes information and introduces an ambiguity in number.
Clearly "they" refers to the recipient of this sentence. /s
Unlike e.g. German, English doesn't have a gender neutral singular pronoun to use. The only one that fits naturally in most peoples' conversation (and doesn't sound like something uttered by a science fiction-inspired cult) is "singular they".
It would be nice to replace the gendered pronouns with ones that separate along subject/object lines. Make "he" refer to the subject, and "she" refer to the object.
"Harper presented to Jessica and she was confused."
"Harper presented to James and she was confused."
"Harper presented to Sam and she was confused."
"Harper presented to Sam and he was confused."
"Harper presented to the board and they were confused."
I mean, no chance in hell making a switch like that by fiat. It just sounds so wrong. But if I were greenfielding a language, I think that would be a nice feature.
> It would be nice to replace the gendered pronouns with ones that separate along subject/object lines.
English has subject vs object distinctions in pronouns already, but all of your examples are subject and not object uses.
You seem to want a distinction between whether the referent was a subject or object in the preceding clause, but in all your examples the only reason to use a pronoun is to refer to the indirect object, since to refer to the subject you would render the sentence exactly as your example except dropping the pronoun entirely, so it doesn't seem to be a necessary or useful distinction, at least in the examples presented.
It's reasonable to assume that Jessica is 'she' and that James is a 'he'.
It's reasonable to assume the board is 'they'.
We don't need to contort language to accommodate situations that hardly happen in a lifetime.
Sam, Jamie - sure. But Jessica, James, we know.
Someone who refers to themselves as 'Jessica' but also identifies as male is making a choice to contradict social conventions, which is perfectly fine and entirely their (pun intended?) right, but it's not our responsibility to have to keep up.
If in context we know gender, then cool, if not, Jessica will be confused for a female.
What if "Harper" were the name of a company? Rejecting singular "they" wouldn't save you then. I would propose that whatever remedy you would suggest for the "Harper Inc." case, you go ahead and apply to this one as well.