Just to be clear, since my post may have seemed inflammatory, I wasn't trying to correct anyone else so much as put in a good word for a correct usage that others often consider incorrect (such incorrectness was implied by my original post's parent).

> It's not the case that "he" is "the correct pronoun".

I didn't so much mean "the one true way" as "a valid and IMO way". I realize this wasn't clear in my initial comment.

> First of all, any competent grammar nerd recognizes that correctness in language is defined by the consensus of fluent users.

True - I agree wholeheartedly. I meant more that that has been the primary (or at least a major) usage historically, and its rejection due to PC was and is unnecessary and destructive. I tend towards grammatical conservatism when it comes to my own usage, but I don't care how other people use it, so long as it's actually valid English (I recognize informal usage and dialects such as the creole-esque inner-city AAVS as distinct entities, so I wasn't really intending to discuss them).

In addition, I'd argue that it has far greater usage than one might think. Style guides purposely follow the most PC usage in order to be as widely applicable as possible, and most major public writing avoids the usage because many people take offense at its usage, and it's easier and simpler to just avoid the usage than to try to deal with them. Thus, its public usage is specifically lowered. This end up resulting in, at least in my experience, its actual usage being far higher than what would normally be apparent from its public usage.

> Also, "they" is not "flagrantly incorrect", and it's often perfectly clear. (It's certainly not always clear, but neither is "he".) It has a 500-year history, and I think the general rule is "Good enough for Shakespeare, good enough for me."

"Flagrantly" was overstating my point, as was "at best". Sorry, I get caught up in my own rhetoric sometimes. It strains desperately against the grammar ("A person walked to the car, and someone hit them" sounds ok, but "Bob walked to the car, and someone hit them" does not. Most third-person singular gender-neutral pronouns still make sense, even if the gender is known). At least to me, it's far less clear than "he", as ambiguity of number is almost always more confusing than ambiguity of gender. It is certainly acceptable in informal and semi-formal usage, but I'd argue against its usage in formal English, particularly when there are better options available (formal usage doesn't usually care about verbosity, so "one" can be used for almost any situation, if necessary).

As for Shakespeare, as with any other fiction writer (particularly one that writes poetry, as grammar must often bend to fit the needs of meter and rhyme), there are vast numbers of constructions that he uses that I would be uncomfortable with using in formal English - and many I'd be uncomfortable using at all. (Looking at you, Brian Jacques, and your interminable and frequent run-on sentences in your post-Redwall books.) In addition, many of his usages are archaic, even for someone as grammatically conservative as myself. You clearly aren't writing like Shakespeare now, so your rule of thumb seems to be a bit of an anachronism.

As for 500-year history, "y'all" goes back at least 150-200 years, and it's completely incorrect. (I kid, I kid. I don't like "y'all", but it's just me being ornery.)