[mseebach]

It's an idea that comes from linguistic relativity, i.e. the philosophy that the language we use to talk about a subject defines the way we think about it. Thus, by using "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun, we're prejudiced towards a male-centred society.

No, "zirself" is not commonly used, but obviously proponents want to change that.

At the end of the day, it's just another branch of political correctness.

[alxhill]

Is there anything wrong with them, they and themselves?

[jessriedel]

Using those doesn't give you a chance to talk about your political views.

[saraid216]

It's ambiguous.

"You are in a dark forest. A disembodied voice speaks to you. They want you to follow."

How many voices? Would it have been more correct to say "They wants you to follow"? Should you contort the sentence to drop agency, saying "You should follow"? Is the pronoun referring to some group of people not included in this paragraph?

s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.

In most cases, it comes down to stylistic preference. Some people like to use "it". Some people like to alternate "he" and "she". My preference is ze/zir/zirself. Some people feel threatened by it, as if someone else coding in a new language means their old standby of C90 is not good enough.

[mseebach]

> s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.

Hardly 'simply', as it prompted the GGGP to go and Google the term. You're changing some very significant terms in the language, and it's only simple if everybody is on board with the change.

[saraid216]

And he understood it immediately after Googling the definition, just like any other neologism.

The alternative is not having any solution at all.

[tomp]

> And he understood

You mean "ze"?

[saraid216]

I'm pretty sure you're male.

[kghose]

"It". A disembodied voice in a dark forest, regardless of whether you can deduce gender, is most definitely an "it". An "it" I would run away from.

[mseebach]

It's bad grammar. 'He/she' is singular, 'they' is plural. On the other hand, I consider it a significantly lesser transgression than just introducing new words (with poor aesthetics, IMO).

[bcgraham]

No, it's not. It was made-up in the 1740s, and has never really been followed as a rule that closely.[1]

Or from Geoff Pullum[2]:

>"Avoid singular they if you want to; nobody is making you use it. But don't ever think that it is new (it goes back to early English centuries ago), or that it is illogical (there is no logical conflict between being syntactically singular and semantically plural), or that it is ungrammatical (it is used by the finest writers who ever used English, writers who uncontroversially knew what they were doing)."

1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112896/tyranny-pronouns-f...

2: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=89