I’ve written before about gendered pronouns:
The supposed problem is that the use of “he” or “she” infers sexual attributes to the person in question which they might not like, but this might have more to do with the nature of English grammar than a desire on the part of an ancient system of Patriarchy to impose their characterisations on unwilling recipients.
My guess would be that this is being driven by people who, not having the first clue about languages (including their own), are basing their entire objections on an implication that simply isn’t there.
Commenter dearieme said something similar recently at Tim Worstall’s:
When I was a boy the singular gender-neutral pronouns were he, him, his. The notion that the referent of he, him, his must be male is a modern fallacy, originally American of course.
One only needs to look at how we refer to animals to see that often gendered terms can be gender neutral. We go to feed the ducks even if there are drakes present. We point to a herd of cows even if they’re actually bullocks. A flock of sheep may well contain a ram, but we don’t nit-pick. A herd of deer probably has does mixed in, and a pride of lions usually includes a few lionesses.
It might be time for the post-modern grammar experts at The Times to come out in defence of he, him, and his.