This Hofstadter piece is what got me on board with the idea that long term English should use singular "they" by default. Race doesn't belong in our pronoun system and neither does gender.
Neither do a lot of things: gender, irregular verbs and plurals don't need to be in the language at all. It's time to ditch English and force a switch to a wholly synthetic language, carefully engineered to be free of English's pervasive ungoodness.
French, which doesn’t have a neuter at all, can kind of get by with inserting ·e· because there masculine and feminine adjective endings frequently differ by a single e in writing, but the resulting hybrid is impossible to pronounce as the orthography reflects the sounds of five centuries ago.
For Spanish I think I think -e is solid: https://www.jefftk.com/p/ungendered-spanish
Note that you don't need to fully remove grammatical gender to get this benefit, just change the default way of talking about humans.
cf https://avatars.dzeninfra.ru/get-zen_doc/5233669/pub_60d5970...
I’d say titles are a red herring, though,—unlike e.g. Polish, Russian doesn’t really use them outside a few exceptions (a news article might refer to Professor $SURNAME, a letter might be addressed to Master Ambassador), and essentially never to address somebody in person. That role traditionally falls to $NAME $PATRONYMIC (thanks to the Varangians), though you might hear $NAME nowadays as well.
The problem is that every adjective, numeral, or possessive that attaches to a noun and every pronoun that refers to it depend on whether the noun is {{{animate,inanimate} {masculine,feminine},neuter} singular,plural} and which case it is in. (Unlike in Romance languages, plural forms are not gendered.) Having a grammatical gender is not optional, and being neuter means that you are either dead or were never alive to begin with. (The converse is not true: тело telo “body” is neuter, труп trup “corpse” is inanimate masculine, мертвец mertvec “dead man or woman” is animate masculine. The sex of the diseased makes no difference.)
Common nouns that refer to people—professions, roles, demonyms, agents, patients, etc.—are usually either masculine only whatever the referent or have separate masculine and feminine forms following one of a half-dozen patterns. (This is no Slovak, a single feminine suffix would be much too simple.) Many are formed from other words by productive or long-fossilized but still recognized rules. None can be gender-neutral.
I am somewhat surprised to see that, in the Old Country, "singular they" is becoming acceptable, well before the adoption (should it ever be) of an Equal Rights Amendment; back in the 1970s, I had expected these changes would proceed in the opposite order.
(compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Ratific... with Consitution of the RF, Art. 19:
1. All people shall be equal before the law and court.
2. The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, religion, convictions, membership of public associations, and also of other circumstances. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned.
3. Man and woman shall enjoy equal rights and freedoms and have equal possibilities to exercise them.
Though they are slightly different: "Sam hurt themself" not "Sam hurt themselves".
(to borrow some regional distinctions addressing the same lack in the english second person)