Dear English,
Can you please come up with a gender neutral third-person pronoun ASAP? It's kind of embarrassing. Thank you for your cooperation in advance....
Food for thought:
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for eir froggery, when ey heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards em from out of the forest. Its eyes had a gleam in them that made em think of all the fierceness of a salad, its nose resembled asparagus, its skin was white and bumpy like cauliflower. Ey fell backward in terror, and it stopped, a monstrous menacing mound of mobile vegetables. More crashings were heard from the forest, and two more creatures appeared above em on either side. The first creature spoke, in a quiet voice, and its breath smelled of root-beer floats and anise. "One should not take the wogs from the river, no no no little meatling. For they are pretty, and we likes to watch them." Another of the creatures spoke, saying "You would be wise to put them back, tiny tasty meatling, so that we doesn't have to savage you." With that, they raised their massive arms, each covered with wriggling things like grated carrots gone mad. Ey was indignant, feeling the polliwogs to be rightfully eirs, but under the circumstances ey was not inclined to debate the issue. "No, no!" ey cried, "I'll put them back! I'll put them back!" Scrambling over to the water's edge, ey carefully deposited each one of them. "Yessssss...." they said, their voices starting as whispers and ending in roars, "YEEESSSSSSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!"
11 Answers
On the contrary, if Spanish could come up with a gender-specific third person possessive pronoun, it would be nice 
But I see what you mean, they, them, their, and theirs is starting to act like that.
So, in Spanish, if the doctor's gender is not known, I wonder if Spanish speakers tend to say...
Si el doctor llama, dile que le llamaré más tarde.
...or...
Si la doctora llama, dile que le llamaré más tarde.
And now, for my essay...
Where I live (the southeastern USA), they has been a gender-neutral (or more-likely, simply a vague) pronoun for singular usage since from before I was born (I'm 38 at this time). Most people from my area don't care for grammar in general, much less for the issue of gender neutrality in pronouns.
Interestingly, referring to someone by vague pronoun-like words like someone or somebody (and even words like person, guy, or fellow) seems to be one of the main triggers for the use of they (in its singular sense), regardless of whether the gender of the person in question is known or not.
Example:
Person A: I've got somebody coming out to look at the water heater. When they get here, show them where it is.
Person B: Do you know who it is that'll be coming out?
Person A: Yeah, Bill from down the street. Turns out he works on water heaters for a living.
.
Using they for singular purposes is no different than SU, which cannot be told right away whether it is singular or plural (or even whether it is 2nd or 3rd person) without more context.
SU = your (singular and plural), his, her, its and their.
SU confounds not only gender but also number and person whereas as they (in areas where it is used in a singular sense) confounds only gender and number. But context makes all clear for both.
In the case of doctor, you can use they with doctor in my area, but it is less likely to be done. It sounds funny, I believe, because, doctor, like many professions, carries a strong assumption of gender. Generally, the doctor is known anyway, but for cases where the doctor is unknown, there is a strong tendency to assume a doctor is a male. There is also a strong tendency to assume a nurse is a female. This has nothing to do with pronouns, though. If there were an "official" gender neutral pronoun, people would still tend to assume a doctor was a male.
Oddly, even though Spanish has many gender-neutral pronouns (and a tendency to leave out subject pronouns, which makes it possible to have entire conversations without ever specifying anyone's gender at all), I bet they still make assumptions in their minds about the gender of certain professions. Thus my earlier post.
NOTE: Where I grew up, you may say "they are" or "they is" (whether using they in a singular or plural sense).
Second note: Keep in mind that for the longest time, there was just one doctor per town. And, except for Dr. Quinn, the town's doctor was always a man.
They, them, and their have been used to refer to single individuals for hundreds of years despite the objections of some grammarians. They still take plural conjugations to balance the confusion caused by the use of singular conjugations with anyone and everyone when refering to groups of people.
Hi Araña,
I understand what your problem is with our use of 'they' 'them' and 'their' when used with a single person, but I agree with Ian that it isn't chauvanistic at all.
Using part of your example:
A person was down at the river bank withdrawing some polliwogs for their froggery, when they heard branches snapping nearby, and saw a creature creeping towards them from out of the forest...
In my opinion, if I assumed that person to have masculine gender without asking, I would be being chauvanistic, but the words per se definitely are not.
Of course, if it's important to know the gender then our first question is going to be "Well, is it a woman or a man?" but it's not always important. We don't need to assume a specific gender, I don't know anybody who I think would assume that we were talking about a man unless there were male-specific detail.
For the sake of argument, if I were to add to your example there...
They looked alarmed, and I could see their long beard blowing in the breeze. I think most of us would assume the subject to be male! (Would that be a chauvanistic assumption then?)
To me, the fact that we don't consider it important enough to differentiate suggests a lack of chauvinism. It's a matter of perspective. If you look for the colour blue you'll see it everywhere, etc.
I'll tell you something I consider to be chauvinistic - it's when my (ex) husband says, referring to our neighbours, Susan's kitchen - or Paul's shed......Paul's chainsaw, Susan's saucepan... (names have been changed to respect privacy)
Anyway, don't get me started lol!
It is correct English, it's just a bit weird.
Good question though. 
For those looking for a singular gender neutral pronoun I've found some options for you
What a load of "cobblers" 
When I lived in Australia, people said "Give us. . ." instead of "Give me. . ."
Although it may not be strictly correct I would use 'them' in this sentence. If the doctor calls, tell -------- I'll call -------- back.
Language evolves all the time so there is no reason why the use of these words should not change to include the singular when gender is not specified.
I think "they" and "their" have pretty much morphed into gender-neutral singular 3rd person pronouns, even though they are not considered "proper" English. I say, who cares? It's much easier than saying "his or her" and "he or she".
So says the chauvinistic male...
Consider this:
If the doctor calls, tell -------- I'll call -------- back.
Fill in the blank!!
I think "they" and "their" have pretty much morphed into gender-neutral singular 3rd person pronouns, even though they are not considered "proper" English. I say, who cares? It's much easier than saying "his or her" and "he or she".
