Gender bias and so called unacceptable grammar in English

Now, alot of peop's tend to think that English is evil for a variety of reasons - maybe because it's stealing the limelight from French, maybe because it's grammar isn't actually to hard, maybe it's because none of these English-dislikers have ever tried to learn Irish (complain to me about spelling then!), or maybe they don't like the future of the English language because simple 3 letter words aren't good enough for their complex tastes.

But one interesting aspect of the English language that cops a lot of flack (especially from feminists) is Gender bias. Now, lets just note for a minute that English is not actually that bad with Gender bias. It has no grammatical gender, it's fairly flexible in regards to pronouns (e.g. we don't have a system where a group of women with one man is still referred to as an all male group). So really, the main argument comes down to petty things like referring to people whose gender is unknown, and the fact that 'woman' has 'man' in it.

In regards to referring to gender-neutral things or people, there's a simple solution to this - just use 'they' all the time. I mean, why do we even NEED to distinguish the gender of the person, let alone the plurality?
Example - some dude called Roger comes home from work and his sister says this to him:
"Oh, Sam dropped by while you were at work. They looked upset".
Firstly, lets think about this - Roger would obviously KNOW who Sam is. And if he knows more than one male or female Sam then it's still as ambiguous as using 'Oh, Sam dropped in and he/she looked upset'. So there's no communication failure there.

Ok, so what about writing a book or being told about someone by a mate? If they are introduced as 'they', then how do we know the number or gender of this person? Well, quite frankly, in a normal setting, all characters should be properly introduced in a story with their gender explicitly mentioned to the reader. It's just good literacy practice. And in nonstandard settings, using 'they' actually gives the author more flexibility and ability to express themselves or create interesting plot twists - e.g. 'OMG THEY WERE A GIRL?! I THOUGH THEY WERE A BOY! AND I BOUGHT THEM HAIRPINS!'. Ok, how that counts as a plot twist is not really certain, but you should be able to understand where I'm coming from.

Nooooow, what about the 'man' in 'woman'?
This one is actually interesting, as many people try to explain this. Some Christians might argue 'Oh, well, this is because Eve came from Adam, and that's why 'woman' has 'man' in it'. But this isn't a very realistic theory, as the English language comes from a originally Pagan people. And it's unlikely the original word for 'woman' would have been modified upon the adoption of Christianity, considering how 'woman' is one of the most commonly used words in English.

So where did this 'woman' word come from? From 'womb+man'? Nup. It comes from 'Wifeman' (Old English 'wifman' if I'm correct). This literally means 'female man'. But 'wifman' wasn't just paired with 'man', nope, in fact, male men were referred to as 'werman' ('Wereman' nowdays - think 'Werewolf'). In fact, 'wer' and 'wif' could have been used alone. Which means that 'man' simply mean 'human' or 'person'. So, in fact, Modern English is actually Gender biased towards women because they still have their own word. Actually, wait, that gets cancelled out because of Werewolves and all other things 'Were-'. Darn :P