From a reader…
My job with a state agency includes reviewing proposed regulations of other state agencies. For many years, when we did this task we would change old references to the generic “he” or “him“ to “he or she“. Now we are changing all the “he or she” references to “gender neutral” nouns such as “the individual”, “the applicant”, “the licensee”, etc. We actually avoid using pronouns as much as possible now. By participating in this editing process, am I cooperating in evil or commiting sin? I worry about that sometimes – that I am helping to advance the transgender agenda – but I would be in dire financial straits if I had to quit my job.
Languages have trends. The over-arching trend is to simplify. There are ups and downs, but that’s the trajectory.
Some people are ideologues who want to erase sex and gender (not the same) distinctions. They use language as the Ministry of Truth does: force a change and you force people to think differently, erase words and you erase concepts. That’s mostly evil, because they use blunt force to inhibit thought and free will. That’s contrary to human nature.
Other people are carried along in the prevailing trends and mostly unconsciously take on the prevailing styles of speaking, such as using “they” for “he”.
Unless one is morally culpable (he ought to know better because of his position, etc.) and cannot plead ignorance (there’s no excuse for a surgeon not to know how to suture) then most people who follow the trends are doing so without guilt. In order for something to be sinful it has to be understood to be such and then willed and done anyway.
I don’t see anything wrong with changing a “he” to “the applicant”. Wouldn’t applicant, in a sense, be more accurate? These terms sound a little bloated, but they are at least accurate.
I would be more concerned… and who knows when this will be imposed… were you forced to allow the “applicant” to determine what pronouns are to be used on their forms (see… I just did it).