http://www.cjr.org/language_corner/stylebooks-single-they-ap-chicago-gender-neutral.php There's no such thing as a 'singular they'.
Given how common it is, it's only a matter of time before the style guides change. After all, style guides are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive.
There is no such thing as a singular they if your tent is pitched in the camp of prescriptive grammarianism. Over in the descriptive grammarian camp, singular they is enjoying lively use. ETA: It's also really important to note that in the Indo-European spectrum of languages, the repurposing of pronouns to impart other, more subtle meanings is a very, very, very common feature. English is an Indo-European language, ergo... ETAA: No one gets their panties in a bunch over the use of you for the singular 2nd person in all occasions, even though we are all perfectly well aware of the evolution of that pronoun. And, insult to injury, when we dropped thou and went with just you for all occasions, we also dropped the subject form ye and went with the object form in all occasions. Madness! Imagine dropping I, he, she, and we, and only ever using me, him, her, and us, even when the pronoun is the subject of the sentence. When you use you, that's exactly what you're doing. Where's the angry mob for that?
First, it's "gets," not "get's." Secondly, the Texans have solved this problem once and for all: It's "y'all" for second person singular and plural. Heck, I was watching "Fixer Upper" a while ago, which is a show that deals with Texans, and one of them said, "My kids made these for y'all's kids." Y'all. Learn to love it.
Loquerisne Latine? Spoiler I haven't taken Latin for over a decade Did I say "Do you speak Latin?" correctly?
And we put you in charge, when? By the way, it's not "still" wrong. Prescribing against the singular "they" is relatively modern. It was fine in the past, it will be fine in the future, we're coming toward the end of, oh, a century and a half, maybe two, in which it was primly taught as wrong.
Sure there is. It's "they." The plural "they" is "theys." "Billy, bring me another they." "Sorry, Dad, we're out of theys. The they box is empty. Order us some more theys!"
I'm struggling to understand the rationale behind "it's okay to refer to a single individual as 'they', but there's still no singular 'they'". What does that make 'they' when it's applied to one person, then? It's obviously not still considered a plural. Good thing I don't care about style guides either way
You know, I didn't actually read far enough into the article until I read your comment. The style guides are not talking about the conundrum of not knowing the gender of a person, or referring generically to anyone, without there being a specific gender in question. They're talking about identity politics. I'm tapping out at this point. I, personally, was talking only about the traditional engagement of this paradigm as regards syntax agreement and what's doeable when data is missing or not forthcoming.
There's the royal we, too. I wonder why they is the only plural pronoun that people insist can't be used in the singular.
Theory? Because it most often replaces the "gender neutral" "he". And therefore people see "they" as being something advocated by (gasp! horror!) feminists.
Why do people use style guide as arbiters of correctness? Consistency within an organisation, sure, but correctness? You know it's just some arse sitting in an office making these decisions, right? It doesn't grow on trees. You can always just choose another guide to follow.