For what it's worth, I agree with what Carol said several messages back. It's what is substantive that counts in the effort to make social changes, not the ritual, symbolic ap-parent changes pointed to by language. What women need is real equality in the job market, in the professions, in education and economically and politically: if all of that exists, being "subsumed" to the male by being included under the pronoun "his" doesn't make any difference. If those important kinds of equality don't exist, then being flattered linguistically by twists in the language that render it less accurate won't do any good.

I don't mind at all being part of "mankind" or being referred to as "he" in sentences, so long as my rights and abilities are respected in the real world, where such things count.

As it happens, my native language is one that does have a neutral singular pronoun--"su"--that avoids having to call women "he" in speech or writing. It would be interesting to do a survey as to whether that linguistic feature of romance languages has done anything to improve the lot of women in those countries where romance languages are spoken. Absent such a survey, I'm tempted to go with common sense: making language--any language--less accurate, as by using plural pronouns for singular items, can't possibly enhance expression, no matter what prestigious writers did it in what centuries, or how old a pedigree the error has: it remains an error. And "his/her" is cumbersome and ungraceful and atrocious; end of story.

Of course, if this forum wanted to use its astronomical joint IQ to better purpose than to cuss and call each other names, we could come up with some neutral singular pronoun in English to operate as "su" does in Spanish. I nominate
"hin," as in "Every member of Eratosphere should exert hin wit to resolve this linguistic problem." Not that anything at all would come of our efforts, but who cares?

What do we do about ambiguous pronouns when we write poems?
Does anyone here use "they" for "him or her" or "him" for "him or her" in a poem? I would reword in a poem, as I sometimes do in prose. Once in a while it's ever-so-slightly inconvenient, but hardly.

S/he and her/him may be slightly cumbersome, but at least they are precise. Precision is often preferable to imprecision, and this is merely one way to achieve it.

We accept writers' stylistic variations and eccentricities in so many instances. We have heard constructions like "Every student must submit his or her paper by Monday" throughout childhood and adolescence. It didn't bother me then and it doesn't annoy me now. Why on earth should everyone have to subscribe to one technique of getting around the ambiguity?

It's a matter of personal choice as far as I can see.
Seems a rather insignificant problem when you consider all the grammatical irregularities we've seen here, and continue to see. I'm underwhelmed...

I think Tom got it right: more backgammon is required.

Rhina, instead of "hin" for the new genderless pronoun, I nominate "ha"!

Roger, thanks for the history and analysis!

Carol, it's true we need a genderless pronoun in English. These arguments are so redundant and futile, aren't they?

Terese

Ha has spoken, the hins are mick amused:
wha ha ye hinnies tae yoursel's to say?
The hin's and ha's are sae sadly contused
nae ha nor hinny saws the light o' day."

Oh enough of this garbage, people. Let's deal with the jokes which will give us a better book than a dispute over how many angels can be impaled you know where. I am closing this thread, and anyone wishing to continue the argument may start it anew at, say General Talk. But it's finished here. Many thanks to Rhina for inserting some sanity into this towering silliness. Your Lariat.