Third Person Singular Unspecified

Consider this sentence:
"Because everyone in the room spoke Spanish, I addressed him in that language" (I believe this is from Elements of Style: Strunk and White)
The grammar is correct, because "everyone" is singular, To match the pronoun to it's noun, "I" must address a singular object, "him." The default gender for singular pronouns is masculine. If the entire audience were women, "her" would also be correct. "They" is not correct, though it is a popular way of speaking these days.
Then there are situations like:
"Everyone in the room for my talk on penguins spoke Spanish, so I addressed them in that language."
Who did you address? "Everyone" (singular) or "the penguins" (plural)?

Grammarians like E. B. White made a strong case for the standard English usage of his day, and it was a noble fight. But it is lost. Everyone says what they want, and we all understand it... usually.
I believe it's time to either standardize the new grammar or introduce new words into the language. English is an evolutionary language. It has changed, even in my lifetime. The most major introduction I can remember is "Ms"... a title for women that does not have information about marital status. This word allowed our thought processes to shift out of the "Miss or Mrs." era in into an age where women had the same right to privacy as men. Our culture shifted, and our language shifted with it. Instead of letting English blur singular and plural, I propose that we add more words to the language.
The words I want to introduce are general replacements for the hard-to-say pronoun combinations "his or her", "s/he", "her- (or him-)self" and the like. The proposed words are actually even more general than these limited combinations. Instead of being "masculine or feminine" they have unspecified gender. This allows us, for example, to look at a baby in a crib and say something other than "Isn't he cute-- it is a boy isn't it?" Indeed, even if the child has a sexual identity that is neither male nor female -- intersex, hermaphroditic, or other description -- the child (it would be grammatically correct, but absurd to say "he" here) would be included in the new pronoun.
Some people have proposed new words like "ghe", "zhe" and "per", "hir" or "gher" as ways of referring to new genders, those associated with transgender, intersex, and gender-queer persons. I have no argument with this, but these new pronouns only complicate the combinations: "Let every voter go to his/her/per/gher/hir voting place!" When the list is used, it is clear that the speaker is being inclusive in his/her/per/gher/hir language, though the order of pronouns may be criticized. But sometimes a speaker will simply forget, leaving transgender and intersex individuals off his list. Is this a passive-aggressive act, or accidental?
The solution is to make a set of pronouns that are explicitly non-explicit. They are third person singular unspecified pronouns. And rather than find a new set of sounds, I propose that the new pronouns sound fairly much like the most common substitutes, that is, the third person plural words. The proposed words are:
THAY (nominative pronoun) "Thay is in the way!"
THAM (objective pronoun) "I see tham!"
THAIR (possessive pronoun attributive) "That is thair height!"
THAIRS (possessive pronoun predicate and absolute) "It is thairs!", "Thairs is a hard life!" and,
THAMSELF (reflexive) This is equivalent of himself, herself, itself, etc. It is a new construction, not the direct modification of "themselves," which would be "thamselves." "During deliberations, a judge should eat by thamself."
The word "thay" is actually much more general than the traditional "he or she." It can also mean "it" in situations like: "If there is any source of noise, make sure thay is silenced!" -- the source of noise could be a person or a mechanical device.
The words should be easy to say using standard English pronunciation rules for the community, so the words will sound similar to the third-person plural words, with broader vowel. Exact pronunciation will vary depending on location. (For example, a Bostonian may make "thair" two syllables, as thay sometimes does with "their.") Differentiation between the singular "thay" and plural "they" may not be possible without listening for context. This is similar to the situation in German, where "she"="sie" and "you (formal)"="Sie."
The grammar will sound a bit lower class to some ears, especially when using the singluar subject "thay" with singular verbs. This can't be helped. A similar criticism was heard against "Ms." People commented that it sounded like a slurred version of "Missus." But grammar is already broken, and this provides a way for everyone to say what thay means in a grammatically correct and inclusive way.
Simply because a new, unspecified gender pronoun exists, it does not mean that it should be used when a specific one is known. As a rule, when a specific pronoun can be used without loss of ambiguity or inclusiveness, use the specific pronoun.
For example:
"If the captain says that the compass is stuck, strike tham on the side!"
This would mean striking the captain, since it matches the captain's lack of specific gender. It might also match the gender of the compass, but the compass is known to be neuter, so "it" is the simplest and therefore correct pronoun for that meaning. The problem is more complex in the following examples:
"If a guard says that someone is moving in the corridor, thay is to be believed."
"If a guard says that someone is moving in the corridor, thay is to be shot."
English is still a confusing language. These additional words don't fix everything.
These new pronouns are introduced for the purpose of providing simple, easy to pronounce substitutes for alternative words or phrases that are either grammatically incorrect or that contain too much specificity for the situation. As a side effect, the new pronouns eliminate the need for hyphenated, slashed or parenthesis-ed pronominal phrases and provide natural ways to make speech gender inclusive.

Charlie