On the one hand: I agree. Even if I didn't know about nonbinary people, the common "inclusive" constructions like he/she, he/him, -men/-women, and alternating b

On the one hand: I agree. Even if I didn't know about nonbinary people, the common "inclusive" constructions like he/she, he/him, -men/-women, and alternating binary are like speed bumps in the flow. They're an ugly hack to avoid using the ancient and already common neutral terms like person or they and its friends them and their. If a person uses these constructs, they admit they don't see "man" as neutral, so that tired old defense doesn't work. They can handle singular they even for known persons. They never protest singular you! "But it's for people of unknown gender!" the protest goes. Well, welcome to the queer experience; they probably don't know either. On the other hand: this was not a good way to promote better phrasing. Your passive voice here--"it's preferable"--suggests it's a Well Known Fact, but it really isn't. Most people have, at best, a vague awareness of the existence of more than two genders, or they're so used to using these awful constructs that they don't realize how obnoxious they are. Acting like your Rare Knowledge is Common Knowledge only works when preaching to the choir. Hacker News is not the choir.