Well, then, why don't we go with it? It's gender neutral as well as singular.
Because, as I believe I've said in every post on this topic so far, people don't use that and it would sound weird and unnatural. People already
do use they, and while you might notice it in writing I bet you don't always notice it when someone's speaking.
Well, then, why don't we go with it? It's gender neutral as well as singular.
OK, first of all, maybe we're talking about two different things. I admitted at the outset that I hadn't read the article that sparked this conversation. So is he talking about "they" to refer to people who don't identify with one gender or another? Or is he talking about using "they" in reference to an unspecified person, like "your doctor" or "a student"?
I thought it was the latter. But I'm in favor of the former, too, and so is the AP. I'm in favor of calling people whatever they want to be called.
I can just imagine how mightily offended an individual who wants to be referred to in the plural would be to be referred to as it.
Of course they'd be offended. That's why we don't do that. (Side note: I'm less in favor of newly coined pronouns, but whatever. I guess we can get used to those, too. After all, nobody thinks twice about "Ms" now, and when it was introduced everybody thought it was too weird to use.)
But why are you even asking this? I'm saying that if English had developed with a gender-neutral singular pronoun we wouldn't be having this conversation. It might have been "it," it might have been "poop" -- it could have been anything. If English speakers had been using it for centuries or millennia nobody would mind a bit.
Yes, they do, but it still isn't standard English.
But, as I keep saying, standard English changes, and you're looking at it happening now. Don't you ever read those articles every year about the news words the dictionary is including, often because people already use them? You still haven't weighed in with your feelings about the switch from thee and thy to you and your. Do you still call developmentally challenged people morons, as was once an official scientific term as well as standard English?
I don't see what was jumbled.
You mixed terms involving gender identity with terms involving sexual orientation, which are completely different things (despite being lumped together as "sexual minorities" or as members of the LGBTQ community -- both situations having more to do with politics than biology).
Gender identity would be crucially important in a medical setting. Sexual orientation would be almost a non-issue. That's why I was confused by the mix of terms. I cannot thing of any exchange I've ever had with any doctor anywhere when my sexual orientation was relevant or mentioned. Yes, doctors should be told not to make assumptions and say, "So how's the wife?" as small talk. But explaining that issue is not complicated. Gender identity is.
Yes. And that distinction is still relevant in medicine. Gender is a social construct. A physician might have to treat a patient who self-identifies as a woman and lives and dresses as a woman and uses a female name, but has not had sex-reassignment surgery. And this can make a difference in diagnosis and treatment.
Gender is a social construct??

I think a lot of things are social constructs, but gender isn't one of them, IMO.
As for the rest of the paragraph, obviously gender identity is relevant. It's relevant whether the person has had sex-reassignment surgery or not. Biological men and women have different health issues and needs. Even if they've had surgery, many of those needs would be related to their pre-surgical bodies. And if they haven't had surgery, hormone treatments would also be a factor in their health.