Yes. We will see. We will see that it's just for signs, job listings, announcements, etc.
to be honest, even then, this is kind of silly
i can understand stuff like going: "every man/woman may apply" being changed, as people identify as more than just male and female, but changing stuff like "layman," "layman's terms," "anchorman" or "mankind" to "layperson," "layperson's terms," "anchor" and "all of humanity," respectively, is ridiculous
now, i don't say this on a political, gendered, level, i'm talking about this on and advertisement or shortened speach level. there is a huge problem with the way the english language is formed, and that would be the fact that gender neutral words and phrases tend to take up a lot more words, syllables and generally time to read and express.
for example, if you're making an advertisement, it sounds more catchy to say: "the best product of all mankind" opposed to: "the best product of all of humanity." conciseness is valued in both literature and advertising, and using "of" twice in a phrase sounds awkward and excessive. moreover, with "no man's sky," the word "man" carries a certain weight with itself, but "person" makes the game sound generic. "no person's sky." yeah. it's no person. generic and nobody cares. but "no man's sky" has a social context to it, which sounds more powerful in comparison. i doubt that most people even
think about the "man" part in that title, but it adds power to it, regardless of gender.
what i'm trying to say is by a language standpoint, removing gendered words is not a viable option in any way unless we change existing words like man, for example, to be gender neutral. if we considered "man" a gender neutral word, in fact, i feel that several issues would be solved.
