Is there a gender-neutral substitute for “his or her”?
Personally, I prefer “hisher”(pronounced hizer) for “his or her”, “heshe”(pronounced hishee) for “he or she”, and “himherself”(pronounced himerself) for “him or herself” 
One of the more popular words is just to simply use “their”, as in
Works for me.
Ze (pronounced “zee”) in the nominative, hir (pronounced “here,” which I find hard to say in grammatical context) in the objective and genitive.
I like what Clothahump says in their message. They is very sensible.
(Right, so you can push it to the limits and it stops working. But singular “they” probably is the most likely solution to work, rather than some artificial construct.)
One solution I’ve seen used in some novels is for the speaker to always use the pronoun corresponding with his own gender. If the novel has equal representation of male and female characters, you’ll then get a fair distribution of “he” and “she”.
The system I’ve been personally trying to adopt is the Spivak pronouns, mentioned by Cecil (though not by name). They sound much like the existing pronouns, just with the gendered first few letters removed, so they fit naturally into existing English speech patterns, and unlike, say, “ip”, their meaning is easily understood.
I’d go with “The runner got a leg cramp.”
It’s my opinion that people who ask this question are making a problem where none exists. Ever hear of “indefinite articles”? The words “a” and “the” work 99.99% of the time: Instead of “Everyone should bring his hat” try “Everyone should bring a hat.”
When I read Poul Andersons’s The Shield of Time I was mightily put off by a sequence in which a character speculated on how best to plan a rescue with her ad hoc creation of a gender-neutral pronoun system that used absurdities such as “himmer”, “hisser”, and “heesh”.
Personally, when I find that the situation demands that I phrase things in such a way as to minimize the likelihood of offense at gender-bias, I prefer to go with language we already have, and to hell with whether it scans “stilted.”
But you’ve put the male pronoun first! SEXIST! 
I think sexism stems from people’s attitudes, not people’s words. Eliminating gender-specific pronouns may serve to push society to egalitarianism, but there’s not reason an egalitarian society cannot have gender-specific pronouns.
If we all say “he” in indefinate contexts (where it is clear that we don’t know the true gender of the persons referred to), there is no reason that the idea of a woman and/or man cannot come up in our heads.
I would even argue that that is already how things work. Certainly, I think that that’s how people react to hearing the word Man when referring to humans. No one hears that and thinks “men,” and in my view the word is just so poetic and beautiful when used this way. Of course “he” might not be able to follow that road, nor do I think it has as much aesthetic value. However, I think that in theory it is possible.
Also, I wonder if things have changed a great deal regarding the use of “they.” If anything, I thought that that was the word to use in formal contexts. Has it become more acceptable over the past 18 years? (Although I’d use “A doctor may find themselves…” not “themself”)
P.S., of all the pronoun replacements, i like “e, es/er, er/em”. I’d actually prefer e, es, em (pronounced as ‘i’ but written ‘e’ for less association) if only because end-sounds “s” and “m” have clear associations with possessive and (accusative?) tenses. Also, I think it’s a nice compromise on the suggestion to keep using ‘he’. Or do the communisto-sexist thoughts corrupt and infiltrate the mind still?
Or do i just “not get it”?
As in: “Damn dogg, that heshe on them corner is pulling out hizzy nine.”
Or: “Heshe needs hizzelf a new boyfriend.”
I guess the reasoning must be, whatever you get black people to do, white people will eventually adopt.
You only think this way because you have been brought up in a world so sexist and male-dominated that it seems reasonable for you to think this way. The truth is that almost everybody who hears Man does indeed think “men.” There have been a million tests in which this has been shown to happen. (The effect is far greater when the scale is smaller. Referring to doctors or soldiers or cops as “men” or “he” produces an image of a male doctor, a male solider, and a male cop.) Poetic and beautiful? Or oppressive and soul-destroying?
Yes, “they” has become vastly more acceptable in most contexts. Clothahump’s use would be an exception. It doesn’t work for me and should be rewritten as Annie-Xmas suggests.
Yes, I believe you don’t get it.
I’ve written two books and many articles in gender-neutral language. It’s easy and I don’t resort to he/she or made up variants. I believe it’s critically important to be gender-neutral. It may or may not cause the society to become that way, but the lack of gendered language does become self-reinforcing after a while. If you never encounter the notion that both men and women can lazily be referred to as Man then it’s not an image built up in your brain and taken for granted.
Don’t you mean I’ve been brought up in an education system so non-sexist that I don’t get that connotation at all? To be clear, I’m relatively fresh out of NYC’s public schools. In particular i’m talking about the word “man” meaning “mankind” or “humans.” That does not evoke males in my mind one single bit. Neither does the word “mankind.” All I imagine is humanity. However, a sentence which says “the doctor…he…” does however make me picture a male doctor, you’re right. But let us not mix things! My argument is that the latter example may turn into the former, that it is not impossible. Moreover, while “the doctor…he…” does clearly evoke a male image, a sentence such as “The user of this mp3 player should import his music files via iTunes” doesn’t do it nearly as strongly. Everyone uses mp3 players, and i think it will only take a bit more imagination… a bit more popular usage… for the “his” in that sentence to melt away into an unspecified human.
Language is what we make of it. I agree in the short-term it also goes the other way around. But only in the short term. If we as a society choose to not be sexist forcibly using gender neutral language may accelerate the spread of such thought, but if we stick to “he” it’ll happen anyway.
Moreover, I think you’re only harming things by refusing to accept the places where we’ve had progress as having had progress. I am talking about the word Man (and it goes for several others such as “policeman”… i see women cops all the time, why should I think of a guy when i hear the word cop? policeman=cop=pig=popo. What difference does it make?)
Did you let fervor get the best of you, or do you really mean that? EVEN if girls are completely stopped from wanting to be doctors because they think only men can do it… EVEN THEN it would be simply incorrect to call it “soul-destroying.” Their souls would be destroyed/oppressed only if they really wanted to be doctors in the first place. But the only thing you can argue is that male-specific words preclude them from wanting to be doctors. Soul-destruction and oppression is not being committed by language! Only by peoples’ attitudes, which brings me all the way back to my original point. Stop blaming language.
Right, that’s true. But I’ve encountered that notion tons of times, and it’s built up in my brain and I take it for granted. So why don’t we focus on building up such notions (which I think is happening successfully), not censoring language?
Another interesting point I’d like to throw in. My mother worked in computer-assisted data processing in the USSR in the 60s through the 80s (well, it was called that back then anyway). In America, and I’m sure in Russia, computers are a very male-dominated field. However, she rose to head her entire department by the time she was in her mid twenties. She is not a fierce woman, she did not fight her way to the top, she simply worked hard and got promoted. This happened despite the USSR generally holding many sexist views. Despite my mother generally holding many sexist views. For example, she often says things such as that men are typically smarter than women.
My point is that holding ‘stereotypes’ or particular views regarding a group. And evaluating people as individuals. Are not mutually exclusive. In a society which values and understand individual merit (such as, apparently, communist USSR in the 60s), they may actually coexist.
Just something to think about.
(I’m not arguing we should be encouraging sexism, just pointing something out which doesn’t receive enough thought.)
Saying “man” includes “women” is like saying “white” includes “black.” It just ain’t so. How many times have you heard “Blacks got the right to vote in 1860?” No, Black MEN got the right to vote in 1860.
If you have a group of 1,000 woman, and one goes into labor and has a baby boy, do you suddenly have a group of “men”?
[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
Saying “man” includes “women” is like saying “white” includes “black.” QUOTE]
Right, because historically, we’ve always used “white” to include “black”. Hence, for example, when I say “Officer, I was struck by a white car”, the police would definitely stop both white and black cars, having understood the commonly accepted usage. Yeah. That’s it. Good luck with that.
This whole debate smacks of a very minor, very vocal minority trying to force everyone else to cater to their linguistic whims. There is no reason why anyone should be forced to change his style simply to appease the easily offended, that group which is least qualified to judge public discourse.
Let’s rephrase that the way the “men includes women” folk would like to:
If you have a group of 1,000 men, and one goes into labor, and he has a baby boy, …
[QUOTE=athelas]
If you said “Officer, I was attacked by some men” would he look for a woman?
Historically, the “n” word was not considered offensive. Should white men (people) be allowed to use it even though a few a few black men (people) want white men (people) to cater to their linguist whims?