Sadly, isn't.

Some people have for the last 150 years noticed a "need" for a gender-neutral pronoun. "He" used to be gender neutral. It wasn't marked. It was default. That didn't mean everybody wasn't considered male until shown otherwise; it meant that "she" meant female and until femaleness was pointed out no obvious gender was assumed.

That was standard, educated English. The lack of distinction was lost as more people became literate and didn't assimilate the prestige standard. As a result, "he" came to be marked for male and "she" remained female. "It" stayed with its meaning of "non-human, neither male nor female."

The old standard competed with the new standard for a hundred years or so, then it was deemed sexist by those who interpreted "he" to only possibly mean, for everybody, "marked for male." More of the "symbols can only ever have one meaning, and I'm the person to dictate that meaning for everybody" arrogance. Objections from the other side are merely evidence of atavism and retrograde thinking.

The need was felt, by the way, back in the 1400s. And English speakers opted for "they". In the 1600s and 1700s it was decided by others who knew better that this was a bad solution. Those who don't like unmarked "he" rely crucially on the promulgators of unmarked "he" for their authority in denouncing epicene "they".

Then again, a lot of religious folk who hate the Catholic church and denounce papal authority rely crucially on papal authority for observing Sunday as their day of worship, so that kind of ignorance-based quasi-hypocrisy is the norm for humans.

English has it relatively easy in some ways. Hungarian has it easier: They lack overt gender marking on their pronouns. Some languages have it harder: They have a three-way number system (you one, the two of you, y'all), a system that shows exclusion (we-including-you, we-excluding-you), or a three-way deixis (the one near me, the one near you, the one far from both of us).

English has it harder, as well, since whatever we do in American English has to be foisted upon Commonwealth English and other Englishes or it will make for less mutual intelligibility. Pronouns are a basic part of the way we parse language. Almost as basic as verbal aspect.

I think a gender-neutral pronoun would be helpful.

I prefer a society where no gender feels slighted or oppressed; I wouldn't fight for "she" to become the preferred default pronoun.

Neutrality in language is an important step toward gender equality, imho.

All of the most significant historical documents -- including religious scripture which refer to God as "He" -- default to the masculine gender, as though they are the only gender that matters.

Indeed, until about 100 years ago in the United States, that was still pretty much true.

Based upon how rights and privileges were granted, I do not believe The Founders meant to include women when they wrote "all men are created equal" (nor, obviously, did they include men of color or poor white men).

While not a fan of organized religion in general, I do believe this world would look vastly different if God had been referred to as She.

VASTLY different.

Stupid...and ammunition for the reactionaries.

Some people have entirely too much time on their hands. The world is falling apart, and this is someone's priority?

The University of Tennessee says references to the use of gender-neutral pronouns such as "ze" are being removed from a school website.

UT President Joe DiPietro sent a message to university trustees on Friday saying references to gender-neutral pronouns will be removed from the school's Office for Diversity and Inclusion website, multiple media outlets reported.

The Office for Diversity and Inclusion had asked students and faculty to use the pronouns in order to create a more inclusive campus. Officials had said the suggestion was aimed to be welcoming of the transgender population and "people who do not identify within the gender binary."

DiPietro met with members of the Knoxville legislative delegation on Friday. Lawmakers say they are glad the university responded but are still taking a wait-and-see approach.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/tennessee-school-removes-gender-neutral-pronouns-site-33558397

except for Tumblrites wanting to feel special. Sounds like people who use these "gender-neutral pronouns" are a minute minority within a minority; not really big enough to warrant such a change in the name of inclusiveness.

there two of these? Should there not just be one gender non specific pronoun? It makes no sense to me.

but I have volunteered at a LGBT outreach center a couple years ago, I've met and worked with many in the trans community and I heard of them having any preference for these kind of pronouns. That's why I don't think these made up pronouns make sense, not to mention it sounds so dehumanizing imo and I'm sure many who are trans feel the same way.

But I write that way nobody understands me.

They and their are pretty good gender-neutral pronouns, and I don't give a crap if someone thinks that's "bad" English.

Languages are living things and evolve.

A culture where language is frozen is not a progressive culture.

That's why non-progressive people get so tweaked about translations or new interpretations of their religious texts, explicitly forbidding it sometimes, even as their "conservative" interpretations drift too, usually in opposition to progress.

Hell, people who treat the U.S. Constitution as some kind of religious document irk me just as much as people who seem to believe Jesus spoke the English of the King James Bible.