I thought the fight over using they as a singular, gender neutral pronoun was over a while ago? Bout the same time people stopped trying to come with new ones like ze.

It makes sense, it works, and it is in wide use. That meets the requirements to make a change to grammar.

I much prefer "they" to "he/she" for the reasons you give.

Why would you use "he/she" instead of the obvious and correct "he or she"? Using slashes instead of words isn't English at all.

Using "they" is nasty.

"The second type of bad kissers put" is wrong for a reason you didn't mention: the subject of the verb isn't "kissers" but "type". Puts, not put. Still horrible, but there you go.

"here" link is busted.

They and their beats he/she and the barfy s/he easily.

"They" as a singular pronoun has been used for centuries. So "thpbpbpb" on the incorrectly overly prescriptive ninnies.

Has Fnarf ever had the answer? "He or she" is as stilted and pedantic as it is "correct".

Thoughts:

1. By using the Chicago Manual of Style, rather than Strunk and White, as God intended, you are exhibiting your Chicago bias (hmm, why would that be? Hmmm...)

2. "When a highly social animal opens their lips during a kiss, they are signaling a feeling of trust that is within them."

Again with the animals...if you're using the word animal, why couldn't the sentence read, "When a highly social animal opens its lips during a kiss, it is signaling a feeling of trust that is within it."

3. Bad kissers are not bad people, but they should still be avoided. Case in point: In the 8th grade, I was spending a typical Friday night playing spin the bottle, and it landed pointing at this boy named Gardiner, who was tall and dark, as well as handsome. His kiss, however, was like driving through a car wash with the window open.

Canuck, my coworkers demand to know why I'm cracking up so hard. Thank you!

gus...de nada, pookie.

This "carnivorous chicken" person is a douche and thus this post is completely unnecessary.

Where would the world be without copy editors? God bless 'em, every one of 'em.

I've been subjected to enough of Mudede's thoughts on family and social norms to know that his article on kissing isn't worth a sideways glance.

Why is slog pimping it so hard? This is the second "go read it" post today.

Rad! I'm a douche! And I though name calling on the internet was so 2009!

I prefer to pick a gendered noun, usually "he" (to reinforce the patriarchy) but sometimes "she" if I'm feeling pretty.

In this case, use of the plural pronoun reveals the writer's soul. He is a bad person.

You misspelled "Jesus."

Man, I agree with Fnarf most of the time, but he's way off base on this one...

@7, in formal writing, it pays to do it the right way. "He or she" is perfectly normal-sounding in writing. If you want to say "they" in casual speech, have at it. You can get away with a lot in speech that is simply wrong in a formal piece of writing, like when I call you a plugged enema nozzle.

Thank God The Stranger has the editors it does rather than carniverous chicken! Somehow I just don't think he/she would make a good editor...

@20, nope.

Carnivorous chicken is a douche, Fnarf is as wrong on this as he is about cupcakes, and I agree with Charles about bad kissers.

English is a living language; while there may be norms particular to a time, there is no such thing as *the* correct grammar or punctuation.

And as a writing tutor, I must take exception to Fnarf's assertion:
""He or she" is perfectly normal-sounding in writing. If you want to say "they" in casual speech, have at it. You can get away with a lot in speech that is simply wrong in a formal piece of writing, like when I call you a plugged enema nozzle. "

Actually, one of the best ways to see how your piece reads and if it has flow is to read it out loud, even if it's a piece that you don't anticipate will ever be read out loud again. When we hear our writing, certain patterns or errors that were unnoticed before become quite stark.

Yep, certain types of speech or writing allow for different styles which may be more formal or informal. While I expect a certain level of professionalism and standard grammar from a newspaper article, I would hardly call it "a formal piece of writing." Formal to me is a published book, a peer-reviewed academic paper, etc - your opinion may vary.

I use "they" unapologetically. It's quite handy when referring to a person of unknown gender, and in fact, many genderqueer-identified people prefer it as well. Yay for living languages, and all their messy (r)evolutions!

@24, no, a newspaper article absolutely is every bit as much a formal piece of writing as a book -- more so, in many cases, depending on what kind of book it is.

Hey, Fnarf! You have an opinion! Opinions are fun and awesome things to have. I am glad that you like your opinion so much that you are comfortable stating it as fact.

I applaud the Stranger's use of "they" and cannot wait until it becomes acceptable in formal writing. I wrestle with these constructions daily, and it is such a waste of time, especially when "they" or "their" conveys the meaning perfectly well.

And books still often default to the masculine pronoun. Let pluralizing become the norm and the gender problem is solved.

Funny, I would think Americans would be the first ones to embrace this, pragmatic as they are. It's concise, it's fair, and most people are already doing it. What's the problem?

Obviously my last question is aimed at the pedants among this otherwise reasonable crowd.

Oh come ON, copy department. Y'all are obviously lame here.

Try this, okay?

"A bad kisser is either (1) a person who actually eats you or (2) a person who does it all wrong. The second type of bad kisser puts too much tooth into the moment; the tongue might behave like a panicked lizard, or the mouth cannot strike that wonderful balance between rough and soothing. A bad kisser often means the deal is over. We disengage from bad kissers because we see them as socially inferior—they remove the magic from the risk. The bad kisser reveals the soul: the soul of a bad person. A good kisser is always a good person. A kiss that lasts for five minutes burns 10 calories."

That took me literally thirty seconds, and avoids all of the stated problems. It even, to my eye, still reads like Mudede.
If you don't like my fix, various other similar fixes are possible. Put some effort into it! Changing one word for another is NOT editing. Reworking sentence structure a little bit is.

@29, you didn't really come up with a better option, though.

Your reworking of the key sentence here is:
The bad kisser reveals the soul: the soul of a bad person.

The Slog-published version was:
The bad kisser reveals their soul: They are a bad person.

These have been mentioned, too:
The bad kisser reveals his or her soul: He or she is a bad person.
Bad kissers reveal their souls: They are bad people.

I know that you only spent "literally thirty seconds" on this and that "various other similar fixes are possible," and blah blah blah... but, if you want to change any minds here, let's see some reworking here that actually avoids this perceived problem with using "their" as a singular possessive pronoun of unspecified gender.

@26, an opinion that is not worth stating as fact is not worth stating as all.

The singular "they" has been in use as long as English has been a language. An 18th century pedant decided she didn't like it, and 19th century pedants used her grammar book in schools.

The fad is over. It's back now. If you don't like it, you'd better throw out your Shakespeare and Chaucer.

When someone states an obvious opinion as fact, they're usually just demonstrating how limited their cognitive capability is.

I agree with Charles and the copy department.

What we are evaluating is more than the words. Charles created both images and feelings in his writing, and his use of "they" allowed me, the winner, the reader, to choose the gender in the scenes. I flowed between a woman, a man, different people and their kissing.

The metre of the writing is just as important as the grammar.

And, oh why, do people keep failing to read what Mudede has written? There is a difference between reading and simply reviewing for criticism. Why he shares his writing at all, I do not know. I hope that he is at least amused by all this blather.

I always default to 'she'. It pleases me.

The grammar prescriptivist reveals his or her or its soul. He or she or it is always a boring asshole.

The singular they has been in use since the time of Chaucer. It actually PREDATES the generic he. It is the only plausible solution to the gender neutral pronoun problem - the only one that doesn't sound unnatural and/or clunky. People need to accept it already!