3 added 1 character in body
source | link

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of grammar is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensureensures that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with every gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of grammar is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensure that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with every gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of grammar is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensures that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with every gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.
2 better wording
source | link

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of languagegrammar is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensure that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with allevery gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the general population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of language is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensure that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with all gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the general population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of grammar is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensure that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with every gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.
1
source | link

TL;DR: Yes, it's fine... if you're a guy!

Your question is a good opportunity to introduce the quite recent idea of speaker-corresponding gender. (This is an approximate literal translation from French "Accord au genre du locuteur" and a better English speaker than I might know a more exact translation.)

The stance I offer you is a quite new and opinionated one, but it brings the benefits of building many bridges between otherwise divided groups.

This whole "rule" of language is:

When addressing to or talking about a person (or group) whom gender is unknown to you (or not uniform in the group), use pronouns and nouns which would be suitable to qualify a person (or group) of your own gender.

This has various pros:

  • It allows you to address groups or talk about unknown people without making assumptions.
  • It ensure that on average, people or groups of undetermined gender will be referred to with all gender, in a proportion representative of their occurrence in the general population.
  • It is not binary and allows for other genders expressions.
  • It allows you to broadcast your gender in a subtler way than if you were speaking about yourself.

This particular last point is extremely useful when the speaker is often misgendered.

Two things to keep in mind:

  • This last point is fine and dandy if the speaker is ok with their gender being disclosed. This grammar "rule" maybe a poor choice if it's not the case.
  • As you can tell from my previous sentence, I believe it's up to everyone to choose the set of grammar rules they live by, at least regarding these currently-evolving topics, as long as they are explainable and provide society as a whole with some benefits.