AS THE AUTHOR of textbooks, I have posted bail quite a few times for the language police who inflict their sandbox rules upon our culture and mediocrity upon our literature. In my neophyte days, I employed the masculine pronoun in my texts, using only "he" and ˜him," in the anthropomorphic sense. People began jumping from windows, so I embraced pluralism. Every example had its participants and pronouns doubled. I used "theys,""thems," and even "yuns," whenever western Pennsylvania coal-mining roots overpowered the grammar hammer.
When my dedication to pluralism resulted in two CEOs running one company, I returned to singularism and mixed my "he's and "she's" together.
Users began counting the number of "he's" and "she's," checking for equal pronoun distribution. An editor vetoed my suggested dedication for the first gender equity edition: "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TEXT. ALL PRONOUNS WELCOME." . . .
He was a champion of genderless lauguage.
Google his name if you're unfamiliar with his recent atheistic exploits.