Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
What I think you're actually saying is that you *refer to* people whose gender you don't know as "he". This has never been entirely standard, and will annoy quite a few people at this epoch. Using full names, "they", and workarounds like "that person", is probably a better idea.
I think if you put a dozen grammarians in a room and ask them about this, you're going to end up with a fight. =] I do think it was standard to use "he" at one time -- you'd hardly find anything else in 19th-century writing -- but it's not any longer. Many people also dislike "they", because it's using plural forms (both the plural pronoun, and to be consistent, plural verbs) to refer to a single person. Those people seem to be losing that particular battle though.
As of late I've noticed in much academic writing a preferred solution has been to simply use "she". It's not really any better than using "he" as far as correctness goes, but people are less likely to complain about it being sexist, so it has taken off especially in fields that have traditionally been criticized for excluding women, such as philosophy and computer science. I do find it somewhat jarring when I read it though, as I'm used to "she" being used to refer to people who are actually female, so it takes me a minute to realize from context that it's being used as a generic pronoun. Sort of along the same lines, but not particularly jarring, is using female examples when making up fictional people to explain a point. I've also noticed somewhat humorously that it's become common when making up fictional dialogues in philosophy to make the "reasonable" side be female, and make the "wrong" side be male. I suppose doing it in the reverse would lead to charges of sexism.
In any case that was a bit of rambling, but I find this all very interesting.
-Mark