[hagbard_c]

Language evolves naturally, true, but this tends to be a relatively slow process for larger changes like this. What we're dealing with here is not a natural evolution of language but a directed revolution. I prefer evolution over revolution, hence my counter-revolutionary language.

[dcminter]

Change is change. It will stick or it will not. This seems like one that might stick.

I have to add, if someone is gay or straight, tall or short, black or white, fat or thin, or has any shade or variety of other attributes we don't immediately reveal that with a pronoun. Perhaps gender should be the same. Unless you think gender is special? In which case, well, maybe that is the problem.

[hagbard_c]

Well, yes, sex - which is what I'm talking about - is "special" in the sense that it is a central and essential part of mammalian life, which we are but one example of. Without it none of us would be here after all.

The fact that what I wrote just now is considered to be "controversial" is a good indicator of the revolutionary drive behind the language change - had I written this 10 years ago nobody would have blinked an eye or if they would it would have been for me stating an obvious fact.

[rsfern]

Honestly it kind of seems like you just want it to be controversial. You’re post was off topic (as you prefaced) and I just don’t think it’s constructive.

Anyway, “they” is a perfectly natural way to refer to a person of unspecified gender. I wish HN posters used “they” more often instead of just assuming everyone is male

[dcminter]

Sure, but gender-neutral pronouns aren't special. True, English hasn't recently had one. Now, it seems, it does. Why is that a big deal? Just because trendy people think it's a good idea?

Well, I'm not super trendy and on balance I'm in favour of it.

But neither of our views will carry much weight in the long run. It's not up to us.

Also, I have to say, there's a lot of stuff that used to be treated as "obvious fact" that was hugely prejudiced.