For many years, I’ve been rooting for — but stopping short of employing — what is known as the singular they as the only sensible solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun. “It remains too unfamiliar to most people, and it’s not clear when or if it will emerge as a widely adopted term.” 
 
 Now comes word via Washington Post style sage Bill Walsh that Washington’s paper of record will allow employees to use “they” to refer to “people who identify as neither male nor female.” Here’s an excerpt from his memo to the newsroom: 
 
 It is usually possible, and preferable, to recast sentences as plural to avoid both the sexist and antiquated universal default to male pronouns and the awkward use of he or she, him or her and the like: All students must complete their homework, not Each student must complete his or her homework. "What finally pushed me from acceptance to action on gender-neutral pronouns was the increasing visibility of gender-neutral people." White: 'There is one thing the essayist cannot do—he cannot indulge himself in deceit or concealment, for he will be found out in no time.' As a historian of the English language, I have accepted this cautious creep toward acceptability, even though there is nothing grammatically wrong with singular they other than the fact that people say there is something wrong with it. In the late 18th century, grammarians with a serious case of Latin-envy decided that when you didn’t know the gender of someone you were referring to, the best option was to use “he.” The idea was that since Latin didn’t have a singular “they,” English shouldn’t either. Other people use “he and she” or “s/he,” but these options get clunky fast, especially when you need to repeat them, and they overlook people who don’t identify with “he” or “she,” a group that’s also become more visible in 2015. (The New York Times, for example, quietly decided to allow “Mx” as a gender-neutral title in pieces this year—as did Oxford Dictionaries and the British Government.) Zimmer was reporting on the annual meeting of the American Copy Editors Society: “Now, it seems, those who have held the line against singular ‘they’ may be easing their stance.” Searches for “singular they” spiked again in September 2015, this time probably caused by several colleges adding support for gender-neutral pronouns. Language is changing constantly: the English of Shakespeare’s day doesn’t sound like our English today. John E. McIntyre, night content production editor at The Baltimore Sun and a long-time advocate of singular they, published a nice piece addressing some of the common objections to singular they.
– Jane Austen wrote, "To be sure, you knew no actual good of me—but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love." But had she submitted that line to a modern English teacher, she would have gotten docked for grammar. Instead of "when they fall in love," it should be "when he falls in love," or perhaps the clunkier "when he or she falls in love," right? That has long been the prevailing view, but after a slow and steady creep, that view seems to be disappearing. In fact, this year might be the tipping point for acceptance of the "singular they." Quartz, for example, has dubbed singular they its Word of the Year. And earlier this month, the Washington Post changed its style guide to accept it, though the guide still encourages reporters to first try to write around it by recasting the sentence as plural, notes Poynter. So, "All students must complete their homework, not Each student must complete his or her homework," per the guide. But when that kind of rewrite is "impossible or hopelessly awkward," writers should employ the singular they. One big factor behind the shift—not just at the Post but in newspapers, online posts, and English classrooms across the country—is the increasing acceptance in society of those who identify as neither male nor female. The singular they solves the problem. (On a related note, the New York Times now permits "Mx." as a gender-neutral honorific in place of Mr. or Ms., notes Quartz.) Grammatical purists may protest, but they are simply wrong, writes English teacher Anne Curzan at the Chronicle for Higher Education. "There is nothing grammatically wrong with singular they other than the fact that people say there is something wrong with it," she writes, noting the similarity to the outdated rule, still enforced in places, about not splitting infinitives. Adds Anna Walsh at Baltimore's City Paper, "Using language that's more accurately inclusive is something that every grammarian should be able to get behind, regardless of what pronouns they personally use." (The Internet seems to have invented a preposition.)