> Are we even allowed to assume 'gal's 'use she/her pronouns' though? "Gal" is unambiguously female, so yes. > For centuries we've happily referred to an unsp

> Are we even allowed to assume 'gal's 'use she/her pronouns' though? "Gal" is unambiguously female, so yes. > For centuries we've happily referred to an unspecified person 'with they/them pronouns' We still do. That hasn't changed.