Some feminists have long considered it a problem that English uses the masculine pronoun for persons of indeterminate gender. Various solutions have been proposed to this, and some have been adopted to varying degrees. I often use the "he or she" or "his or her" approach myself, feeling that a few extra syllables never hurt anyone, and being, perhaps uncharacteristically, conservative about introducing entirely new words.
Clearly connected with this issue, there seems to be a convention which has arisen among my fellow philosophers, or at least the younger generation thereof, of making the generic people of our philosophical examples always female. Being the hopeless slave of fashion that I am, I have also tended to follow this trend. Certainly in philosophy I can see where this would be thought to have the sort of desirable effects inclusive language is supposed to produce. Philosophers are mostly science groupies, and almost without exception self-obsessed, so the characters in philosophical examples are disproportionately scientists and philosophers. Certainly it is healthy to remind ourselves that it's perfectly possible for women to be in either of those categories.
Sometimes it feels a little weird. If I am speaking of the typical reductionist realist, and I have occasion to say that she believes X, I feel some resistance, because when thinking of the typical reductionist realist, I'm pretty much thinking of David Armstrong. Probably, though, it's healthy to encounter this resistance; I mean to be writing of what I'm assuming are the many people like Armstrong, and it's useful to stop and make sure that there are indeed a significant number of other philosophers who are on the same page with Armstrong on the issue I'm considering, as otherwise I'm not really speaking of any kind of typical category of philosophers.
In any event, I tend to feel like on this issue I have been nothing more than a follower of emerging trends. As I've said, I think some of the emerging trends are good, but I would welcome closer examination of them. Are there problems with how we've been doing things? Are there ways to do better? Any thoughts are welcome.