Many want to use language that is wholly gender-neutral but I think many attempts will be clumsy, even one many of us choose without thinking.
Chairor or chairperson instead of chairman or chair comes to mind. Of course, is a person something to sit in? Usage does make chair more acceptable than the first two choices; "the chair recognizes" is standard formal meeting usage.
Mailperson or fireperson thankfully have fallen by the wayside in favor of mail carrier or fire fighter.
The Unitarian-Universalists, who believe in the free and responsible search for truth have denied the truth of Walt Whitman's wishes. He did not want one word of his poems changed. But the UU hymnal "Singing the Living Tradition", in the name of gender-neutrality, has changed his "the men who govern you" to "those who govern you". My gosh, how can you take out a syllable from a poem?
One could use "one" as the pronoun for a person in general, but one finds that the use of "one" as a pronoun a bit outdated or clumsy.
"He or she", "him or her", "his or hers" have had some popularity for talking or writing about a person in general, but I find them clumsy also.
Popular usage has found the solution, but strict grammarians don't like it. "Someone left their wallet on the store counter" makes perfect sense to most people, but strict grammarians would complain about lack of agreement in number between the main subject and the pronoun referencing it. However, any language that follows the same rules for all time is a dead language. A living language, especially in a democracy, follows the rules made by today's speakers, not speakers of two hundred years ago.
Sure, many of us will rave and rant about usages we don't like. Like, they feel uncomfortable to our ear, you know. My teachers spoke against using "kid" for "child", but today's teachers easily use "kids" to refer to their students.
For a fun reference on language, read "The Power of Babel" by John McWorter. He gives many examples and explanations on how languages change.
