Think about it this way, we're playing Guess Who, and you haven't asked about gender yet. You ask "Do they have dark hair?". It's obviously a question about a singular person, and that's the correct way to structure that question in English.
Certainly. But I referred to the presented guidelines, collectively - not to "singular they". I wrote and intended that _those linked guidelines_ are "not universal".
Singular they in English usage dates back 600-700 years. People can disagree with those guidelines all they want - they will have to deal with the fact that people choose to use singular they and they can get worked up over it or get used to it.
It is clearly valid. I personally don't care if others use "he" as a generic, but seeing at some people don't feel included when it is used, I increasingly use "they". Not least when I don't know someones preference, because I consider the most inclusive option to be the most polite.
You objectively are, and in the choice of who to care about that means I have absolutely no interest in catering to people upset that others are included.
There is an objective difference between generic he and generic they: In many contexts you can not tell whether the "he" was intended to be generic or not.
I did not write anything about "singular they". I wrote against the legitimacy of those linked guidelines, which accidentally include "singular they".
The poster I replied to stated (I remember) that some use of language is made legitimate by some group laying out some guidelines. That some pretty random group («not philologists») lays out guidelines is maybe an "affiliation pass" for their group, but not universally valid.
You need grounds, good grounds. Check those guidelines...
Some people: "let's use, of already-established pronouns, the one that doesn't make any assumptions about people"
You: "no, fuck you, other people's interpretation of what I say is strictly their problem, I'm gonna stick with 'he' no matter what other people feel or request, because I can"
The only ideology I can see here is the absolutist sort of "nobody can even suggest to me that I change a thing" or "I can't possibly cause offense if I don't mean to, so I don't need to think about word usage."
I don’t understand how it doesn’t make assumptions about people. In the case of a generic antecedent, sure that’s fine and well established historically. But in this case there’s a known antecedent, Michael Larabel.
I don’t know what Michael’s preferred pronouns are, but isn’t the original poster in this chain assuming it’s they/them and aren’t they more likely, statistically speaking, to be he/him?
Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her?
> Why does it somehow not count as misgendering when you they/them someone that prefers he/him or she/her?
Because one appears to make an assumption about gender, whether or not you intended it to be taken as a generic, while the other objectively is generic.
As far as options go, they/them minimises assumptions. Yes, some people might still take offence, but given that most of the people who take offence at that takes offence because they oppose inclusiveness of others, I'm perfectly fine with not respecting their choice in the matter.
I go by experience. There may be exceptions, but I've yet to see one, so I don't particularly care if there's a large pool of exceptions outside the horizon of my personal experience.
If you are an exception and have a good reason for taking offence that doesn't involve excluding others, do tell.
Not all will agree with those guidelines, they are far from universally acceptable.