A Case for the use of "They" as a Universal Third Person Singular Pronoun

I have been erroneaously called by my husband's surname before.  This is a social convention that many people in the West are still accustomed to as being the norm.  The assumption is that when a woman gets married, she changes her name to that of her husband.  I did not. And I often got quite upset about being "misnamed", that people didn't bother to actually ask for my name, that their calling me by my husband's surname must mean they also are making other assumptions about who I am.  I was an angry feminist during this time.  I had little patience with people, extended no grace to them.  Rather, I took it personally and accused them of being sexist. But women taking their husband's surname was a common enough practice that most people simply don't think to question it until it gets pointed out to them.  After it gets pointed out a certain number of times, people slowly start to realize that things actually are not as they assumed them to be, or they're slowly changing and aren't as they used to be.  Then they adjust and instead of assuming, start asking before using a married woman's surname.  

We are now in such a time where more people are starting to realize that gender is the new version of this phenomenon.  Most of us have long assumed that there are two genders, based on the two biological sexes, and so we refer to people accordingly.  We do not mean to offend.  Many of us literally cannot comprehend a world in which there is such a thing as a gender spectrum.  Many people's first knee jerk reaction is to simply resist change and hold on to whatever is familiar at all costs. But as we get more and more exposure to the idea that some people transition from one gender to another, some don't believe either gender resonates with them, and some feel comfortable with both simultaneously, we, too, will slowly start to realize that there's a gender spectrum, rather than just assuming a person that looks a certain way must be one of two genders.  (Just like we used to assume that a woman must either have the surname of her father or her husband.)  Change to something as fundamental as gender, much like naming traditions, will take time.

Rather than getting angry, it behooves us to remember where we are in the scope of things.  We have to know whether our preferences are mainstream or not.  And if they are not, then it is our job to educate others, yes even tirelessly at times, about those preferences.  Because it will take time.  No amount of name-calling or cancelling of people for not being "woke" to the newest practices is going to help.  Rather, it's only going to force people to push back and get defensive about their position.  Most people are not trying to be intentionally hurtful towards others.  This doesn't mean that we should excuse hurtful behavior, but it also doesn't mean that we should fail to do our part to bring about change.  Change happens slowly, and it is more forthcoming when people feel safe to explore new ideas without fear of judgment or ridicule.

For instance, I do not understand the idea of nonbinary gender.  I understand "switching sides", I undersand non-conforming behaviors that resist gendered stereotypes, but I am struggling to appreciate the idea that some people simply do not have an attachment to either of the traditionally recognized genders.  Specifically, what I'm at a loss as to the changes taking place in how we talk about nonbinary people in the third person singular.

A living language can, does, and pretty much must change over time.  I also understand that different languages have different experiences with gendered language, and so they will have more or less problems adjusting to gender-neutral markers.  I have fought the use of "mankind" and the "universal he" to refer to humanity and unknown humans for decades.  I hate the practice of slapping a "Mrs." in front of a married man's first and last name to refer to his wife.  I actually found it perfectly acceptable to write "she/he" in academic papers in order to stay grammatical while also avoiding sexist assumptions (a practice that in recent years has gone by the wayside in favor of the "singular they", due to the alleged cumbersome nature of the latter).  But non-gendered third person singular pronouns are an entirely new can of worms for me.

I understand how a human being that does not identify with female nor male would resist using either of the gendered pronouns (she/he).  I undersand how said individual would nonetheless take offense at using the gender-neutral third person pronoun "it", as this connotes inanimate objects or perhaps animals in modern English (although there was a time when children were often referred to as "it").  I understand that a non-binary person may want to use "they" in place of "she" or "he", and in fact there is a precedent to do so in written English when talking about a person whose gender is unknown.  It is certainly more tricky to do so when referring to a known individual, because we are used to assuming that once we know a person, we can easily place them into one of two neat categories: she or he.  With time, this weirdness will pass.  

What I don't understand is the idea that different non-binary individuals get to "pick" made-up letter combinations, call them "their pronouns", and expect the rest of us to suddenly start using them as if they're words that are part of our everyday lexicon.  Xe, Co, Ze... these are not words anyone outside the trans community ever comes accross.  And if we're going to have a new word, which of course is perfectly acceptable, albeit awkward in the beginning, there needs to be a consensus, or the words must be interchangeable.  Otherwise, if Xe, Co, and Ze all refer to a non-binary individual in the third person, what distinguishes them from each other?  Are they not identical in meaning?  And if so, what is the point of having multiple words tasked with the exact same role in language?  This is highly inefficient.  Perhaps in other languages, the nuances might be ironed out.  In Spanish, for instance, there is a formal and an informal way to refer to the person you are addressing: "tu" or "usted".  Technically, they perform the same role, but the nuance of familiarity or politeness distinguishes them.  In English, we no longer utilize "thee" and "thou"; we only use "you".  So if the second person singular only has one word, and the third person singular already has three ("she", "he", and "it"), then adding not one but several more to the category is simply nonsensical.  

What makes more sense, actually, based on the history of the English language, is to collapse the third person singular pronouns that we are all already used to, rather than inventing additional ones.  People simply stopped using "thee" and "thou" because they were already comfortable using "you".  What if the same thing were to happen to the third person pronoun?  Instead of using "she" and "he" and "it", we could slowly start using "it" to refer to all people in the singular.  But this is actually not likely since, as mentioned above, there is a nuance between "she/he" and "it" in that only the first two are associated with human beings.  

Perhaps then, we can take our pointers from the second person pronoun again.  In English, we do not care if we are addressing one person or an entire group; we say "you".  Why couldn't we do the same when discussing people not present?  Whether the group is mixed sex or all same sex, we simply say "they" and no one blinks an eye.  What if we take the same "they" and tack onto it the singularity of the third person, just like we did with the singularity of the second person?  So now, everyone in the third person, singular or plural, female or male or otherwise, would all be referred to as "they".  And perhaps we keep "it" to differentiate inanimate objects in the third person singular, though they are already "they" in the plural, so maybe that would eventually go away as well.  In fact, in American Sign Language, the three pronouns are already the same sign; you simply point to the side and from the context of the conversation, you know if the sign means "she", "he", or "it".

Using "they" the way we use "you" would follow the precedent of the history of the English language, it would do away with distinguishing between genders within the pronouns used, it would utilize a word every English speaker is already familiar with, and it would honor those who do not identify with female or male genders exclusively.  Sounds like a win all the way around to me.