Semantically, the difference in their singular use (prior to very recent evolutions) is that they was rarely used for specific known humams, and it was never uses for humans (but frequently for living things with sex and to whom grammatical gender corresponding to sex could also be used, in cases where the sex was unknown or unimportant, similar to the use of “they” for humans.)

So, while I find the idea of “they” as gender neutral but “it” as emphatically ungendered conceptuallt interesting, I don't really think it reflects historical usage differences.

OTOH, I suppose there could be debate about different presumptions of social gender vs grammatical gender here, too.

English doesn't have grammatical gender so this statement seems questionable to me, but that's a nitpick.

This one’s that gender, this one’s neutral gender, this one’s genderless… who cares.

If gender or plurality is key to the sentence we can add a word.

I like how in Indonesian to make a word plural you double it: pencil pencil = multiple pencils

Can we come up with a pronoun that literally means “the being or beings in question” without commenting on gender or plurality?

Of all the most useful projects to humanity (diverting asteroids, developing free energy, curing cancers, solving childhood poverty, etc) in any top-3 list I'd put "having a single common language that is super-simple to learn and master and which everybody is taught from childhood".

Let's not change English or French then, but leave them as "classical" languages, but teach kids the new easy/expressive/explicit one. No gendered nouns, no phrasal verbs, no reported speech markers, etc.

Completing this initiative makes all the other ones easier to complete. And it's not like it's much more complicated than the other complicated things we donate to and try to push forward every year.