English has Rules, Just Like Japanese!

[Wyvernheart]

When I don't know someone's gender I say IT or THING. As in, "what is it!?" Or, "look at that thing!"

[Iscah]

When I don't know someone's gender I say IT or THING. As in, "what is it!?" Or, "look at that thing!"

And how would that work with the examples given in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier?

"Somebody left their umbrella in the office. Would they please collect it?"
"The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources."

Could you write those sentences with "it"? Would that seem appropriate? Would it be better English?

"Somebody left its umbrella in the office. Would it please collect it?"
"The patient should be told at the outset how much it will be required to pay."
"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal its sources."

It might be grammatically correct, but it's not the normal word you use in that situation.

There's nothing new or remarkable about using "they". You probably don't even notice it in most contexts.

[MaraD_]

And how would that work with the examples given in the Wikipedia article I linked earlier?
Could you write those sentences with "it"? Would that seem appropriate? Would it be better English?
It might be grammatically correct, but it's not the normal word you use in that situation.
There's nothing new or remarkable about using "they". You probably don't even notice it in most contexts.

"Seem" is almost subjective in this case, due to what Ive said prior.
Obviously it seems wrong (though partly because it wasnt done correctly) but none the less, their, they, them are proper plural versions of it.
Theys, thems, and theirs, should be incorrect, just as "its" should be incorrect.
(Not possessive, but plural neutrals.)
also, im going to adjust what you wrote a tiny bit. (the last 2 were fine, but ironically should have been plural in patient/journalist)

"It left its umbrella in the office. Would it please collect it?"

or

"Someone left ones umbrella in the office. Would one (or that person) please collect it?"

("He" would have been gender neutral in the past and fit rather well too, before it was corrupted to mean adult male. But this only applies if the person is limited to the adult age.)

"The patient should be told at the outset how much one will be required to pay."

"The patients should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."

-

"But a journalist should not be forced to reveal ones sources."

"But journalists should not be forced to reveal their sources."

Back to the point, inserting "it" sounds wrong to us, because we've made it wrong.
But this never should have been the case. We ascribed the word "it" to mean objects/animals, because we assume we werent animals (we are) and because we didnt see nongendered people in the past. Even more so when we were far more focused on gendered roles back then.
So how could there be a situation where a person doesnt have a gender? Only when a situation had an unknown person, or will have an unknown person. but again, due to gender roles, this also limited the number of people that could meet the requirements, usually by gender.
example: "Once the position is filled for the job "the person" will be required to this list of activities."
the job was already long since decided which gender was going to be doing the tasks.

but in the case of something like theft, the perpetrator could be referenced genderless, if it was a crime that was considered to be common among both genders.
The word "it" would be used so rarely, it would come off as jarring. (along with how people didnt want to be associated with animals.)
The dog went and got "its" bone.
The dog can be male or female. Sometimes the gender is known, and it still works fine.

They/Them/Their applies to the only situation in which humans can be multiple genders, when in a group.
So no one batted an eye when the use of they, them, their started being used for people.
And it grew in use for singular pronouns.
But it was slang, and eventually considered normal use of the word.

[Iscah]

also, im going to adjust what you wrote a tiny bit. (the last 2 were fine, but ironically should have been plural in patient/journalist)

Technically it's not what I wrote - I copied the usage examples from the Wikipedia article I'd linked in a previous post.

And I disagree that they "should have been plural". It's clear from the context that the sentence is referring to a single person of unspecified gender, with "they" able to be replaced by "he or she". It can be rephrased to be a plural, but it's not necessary, and possibly not correct depending on the context.

eg. The first sentence (or something like it) could be part of a procedure manual for how a doctor should carry out a consultation.
1. Greet the patient
2. [...]
X. Tell the patient how much they will need to pay.

You wouldn't use "patients" because it's part of a guide for how to deal with a single patient. You could use "he or she" but it's simpler to use "they".

Also on your altered example:

"The patient should be told at the outset how much one will be required to pay."

I know "one" is hardly used as a pronoun now, but that doesn't read correctly. I'm not clear on the rules but I think it needs to be used in both parts of the sentence ("one should be told at the outset how much one will be required to pay") and you can't switch them around halfway through like that. That's my gut feeling, and the examples of usage on the Wikipedia page seem to support that.

[Eloah]

I know "one" is hardly used as a pronoun now

"Well one doth not suffice"
-Sophia the Goddess

Lol

[HyoMinPark]

"Well one doth not suffice"
-Sophia the Goddess

Lol

I never actually considered this as a statement using “one” as a pronoun. Since Sophia uses it when she’s summoning her shadows for the mimic/Execution mechanic, I interpreted it as “one of me isn’t enough”—so in a numerical sense. Not as a pronoun.

[Eloah]

I never actually considered this as a statement using “one” as a pronoun. Since Sophia uses it when she’s summoning her shadows for the mimic/Execution mechanic, I interpreted it as “one of me isn’t enough”—so in a numerical sense. Not as a pronoun.

While I meant it more as a joke, the quote above is an instance where a word acts as both a subject and a modifier. You arent incorrect in your interpritation, since that is literally what she is saying. But since the sentence has no subject, One becomes the subject, making it both an adjective and a noun. And when you think about it pronouns can sorta fall into that category too. But I am no linguist, so don't quote me.