[pmelendez]

>This is getting pretty old.

Well the singular use of "They" is actually pretty old [1]. I don't think it is confusing readers as they did mention a name.

> I just can't help rolling my eyes at this nonsense.

I get the frustration if you are not used to the usage of the pronoun in its singular form, but it is actually sensible

[1] https://www.scu.edu/media/offices/provost/writing-center/res...

[dctoedt]

> Well the singular use of "They" is actually pretty old

The cardinal rule of writing is Serve the Reader — Don't Make Him/Her Do Needless Work. In modern parlance, "they" is an unobjectionable shortcut when you don't know who the person is, but it's just confusing to readers when it's about a known person. I'd be fine with a coined, gender-neutral singular pronoun, analogous to how feminists coined "Ms." decades ago and it's now practically universal.

[sgt]

The OED reference is very vague. We're not even sure in what context "they" was used 600 years ago. Care to elaborate?

[klodolph]

Are you referring to this reference?

https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they...

What part is vague?

[sgt]

Because it's grasping at straws. A singular case of a poem referring to an unnamed person? They are trying to make it seem like this was likely common and accepted 700 years ago up until today. I really doubt the author considered gender identity. In fact, up until quite recently, the use of "they" as gender neutral would cause blank stares.

[klodolph]

Why would it be necessary for the author to consider gender identity? I don’t follow the logic of your argument.

The cited example is just the oldest known example of singular “they”. You’ll find more examples. You’d have to rip a lot of pages out of your history books in order to come up with a timeline where singular “they” wasn’t natural English. All that is happening now is that “they” is being used more often to refer to specific, known people, which is not much of a stretch.