Gender Free Pronouns?

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/25/it-is-time-for-gender-free-pronouns

The article that I've examined is an article published in the Guardian by Katharine Whitehorn outlining that there is a need for gender-free pronouns in the English Language.

The main issue brought forward by the author is that female nouns and pronouns somehow make the subject inferior to their counterpart. It also notes that we need a wider range of pronouns for those who are confused about their gender or sexuality. Whitehorn argues that the pronoun 'he' is far superior to the female equivalent and that new words disregarding gender will somehow: a) override hundreds of years of gendered pronouns; and b) solve many of the problems that those confused about their gender currently suffer.

Arguably, this viewpoint is entirely subjective - the examples Whitehorn cites in her article have very little substance to them. For example, I know nobody who would find higher prestige in the phrase "he made it" than in the phrase "she made it"; if there is an issue with this, then it is on her part and not the rest of the English-speaking world.

The author also seems to have a problem with the fact that genderless pronouns are used on innate objects, such as 'it'. That is just ridiculous! She also doesn't make it clear what issue she has with this. Whether the fact a GENDERLESS object has a GENDERLESS pronoun, or if she is frutrated we don't adopt the French or German way of speaking and unnecessarily assigning genders to objects (which she would probably find fault with too).

If she has an issue with gendered pronouns, she can, of course, opt to use an incredible, groundbreaking alternative - the person's or object's name! Though this may be a bit forward-thinking, I would imagine it would catch on, unlike almost every other attempt to introduce a gender-free pronoun to the English language. Such brilliant creations have been proposed, such as ip (1884) or ne, nis, nir and hiser from the New York Commercial advertiser around 1850.
I also fail to see the relevance of complaining about alternative spellings to the same name. Frances and Francis, for example can differentiate in the written language and provide an important distinction. 

A level English has helped to teach me that in most cases, genderless pronouns are entirely useless. Barring the limited success of "hen" in Sweden, there is no real progression towards a genderless pronoun in any other language. Though Whitehorn seems to make an issue of the word 'they', it is not simply plural and can be used as a singular pronoun. Or, as I so progressively mentioned earlier, the use of names can also help a little. The real problem arises when we have to cater to a genderless person who isn't sure whether their name isn't the one they were born with. Then we're really stuffed. 

What does your accent say about you?

Article: http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/lifestyle/these-are-the-best-and-worst-regional-accents-to-have-a6713521.html 

The article I have examined was a topical language article written in The Independent by internet journalist Rose Troup Buchanan in December 2015.

The article outlines the results of a 2014 YouGov study of 2000 people where they asked which was the most attractive accent and are reflected upon by language expert Robert Cauldwell. 

The main issue in the article is that some accents sound more attractive than others as many are linked with negative or positive stereotypes. However, Cauldwell argues that these views are waning as the use of received pronunciation is decreasing due to the perception of RP being used by "toffs" who "are seen as having privileges they don't deserve".
Coming from Norfolk, an area with a strong regional accent, I would agree with much of what Cauldwell is trying to say - those with a stronger Norfolk tone tend to be seen as rural, uneducated and farmers. This accent is especially prominent in older people, however conversely,many older people from the area use received pronunciation instead. This could be a reflection of their background or wealth may want to seem of a higher prestige than those with a regional accent.
Cauldwell also said that there is no 'best' accent but rather "it depends on the social group you want to impress or work with", which I believe is correct. Depending on the company we are in, we tend to alter our accent to match theirs in order to impress or to try to form a mutual bond through language. For example, when I am at work and I serve somebody who uses RP, I tend to speak with higher prestige and use less colloquialisms; whereas when I see someone with a regional accent I tend to relax and speak a lot more naturally.

So far in A-Level English, I have learned how we alter our language in order to fit in around particular company, and this has helped inform me on why some people use the accents they do. It has also informed me about the subtext surrounding received pronunciation and how the perception of it has changed over time from "well-educated" to a more negative light.

Though I don't believe that accents are indicative of a person's class or social status, I do agree that there is all manner of prejudice towards every accent in the English language and these long-held perceptions are unlikely to change in a hurry.