LuPonatic: the gender neutral pronoun thing is a real sticky one, for obvious reasons. even prescriptive linguists (i.e., those who think it is the job of linguistics to describe how (a) language should work) acknolwedge the overt sexism of the lack of an acceptable gender-neutral third person singular pronoun in modern english.
there is some precedent for "they" as a third-person singular pronoun (with usages going back 420 years), but it is not a generally accepted approach. few newspaper editors (intentionally) permit it at present.
in response to a question about using the cumbersome "he or she" as a way to solve the problem, the Chicago Manual of Style advises:
To avoid sexist language, many writers use this alternative phrasing (in place of the generic he). Use it sparingly?preferably after exhausting all less obtrusive methods of achieving gender neutrality. But he or she is preferable to he/she, s/he, (s)he, and the like.
the challenge is that said less obtrusive methods are few and far between. the best list of suggestions i've seen includes:
(a) use "one" when it's not awkward or pretentious
(b) re-order the sentence to avoid the need for a pronoun
(c) repeat the antecedent to avoid the use of a gender-specific pronoun
still far from perfect ... as any good *descriptive* linguist would tell you: language is a work-in-progress; check beack in 20 years!
"You, sir, are a moron." (PlayItAgain)
