Hasn’t it always been the case that you could use “they” as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender?
I seem to recall that “they” has been in use in that manner long before non-binary arguments were something I’d heard about.
Here's an article with details [1].
The problem of what pronoun to use for someone who is neither male or female is not new, of course. That article says:
> There have always been people who didn’t conform to an expected gender expression, or who seemed to be neither male nor female. But we’ve struggled to find the right language to describe these people—and in particular, the right pronouns. In the 17th century, English laws concerning inheritance sometimes referred to people who didn’t fit a gender binary using the pronoun it, which, while dehumanizing, was conceived of as being the most grammatically fit answer to gendered pronouns around then
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbi...
Yes, since Shakespearean times.
For example: "I saw someone walking down the street the other day, they were carrying a guitar" -> a normal use of they as the 3rd person singular pronoun.
If you mean "no" in the sense that this specific sentence isn't true:
> Hasn’t it always been the case that you could use “they” as a way to refer to a singular human without implying any gender?
then you are mistaken, as sibling comments point out. Certainly there is a history of teaching people not to use singular 'they' (I don't know how long, but I was certainly taught it), but people have actually been using singular 'they' for a long, long time, and usage trumps fiat at least in English.
I learned a lot of wrong things in school. One could say I have spent most of my adult life unlearning them. Welcome to the club.
Consider also James Loewen's classic book, too: https://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything-dp-16...