Now if you want to talk about really bad grammar … 
As I and others pointed out, the use of “they” for singulars isn’t new-fangled or bad English. As with a number of other things considered “bad” English (such as American spellings), the only determinant of them being bad is that a committee somewhere dictated what was to be kept and what wasn’t. (Spellings like “color” are very much British and go back a long way.)
If I made a mistake, please correct me.
No, you just used a construction popular in modern US parlance—which I must therefore accept—but which I find far more detestable than errant uses of “they”.
A more traditional start to your post would have been “If Ralph had framed things as …”
According to GrammarBook…
So I stand corrected, and learned something.
But two wrongs don’t make a right! 
By force of habit, that kind of construction will worm its way into official grammars at some point. But I don’t see why people are gravitating towards it.
I think we need a Grammar Forum here at SitePoint!! 
The Content category is a good place for this, and it’s a pretty quiet area anyhow. I’d like to stir up more trouble like this.
I thought Spanish (and French) assigned gender to non-sexual objects such as “table” - mesa (a = feminine), “desk” - escritorio (o = masculine)
How about (s)he ?
You obviously haven’t met my dining room table. Ooooh baby …
Now there’s an image!
That’ll I’ll never get out of my head!
Why would you want to?
Riyadh? No, I probably wouldn’t call that the epicenter of political correctness. It’s still very patriarchal, isn’t it?
Any extreme has its own issues and balances must be found.
Same here.
A variation on that common in the UK, and even more grating IMHO is “I should of done …”, “they could of gone …” etc. Ranks up there with “off of”.
Sounds like an evolution of should 've where 've, which already kinds of sounds like of has just been replaced with of.
I don’t like it. It looks weird.
I think you’re right and that’s the origin.
Glad I’m not the only one who thinks it’s weird.
So what your saying is, American English it he correct English?
Cause… that’s what I read.
If it wasn’t, it should have been what you said.
Don’t you mean “if it were not”?
I think what we’re saying is that “acceptable” English usage varies from place to place, and things which may be in common usage in one area will grate on somebody from another. But I’m pretty sure “could of” is not regarded as correct anywhere in the UK, even though it’s quite common usage.
So American English is correct if you’re American/in America, and the rest of us should accept it, even if it sounds wrong to us. (And vice versa, of course. )
I can honestly say that I don’t recall ever having seen that phrase in written form. I know could’ve sounds like it phonetically, but I have never seen could of written, always could’ve or could have, with the long form implying greater emphasis on the have.
Yep, @rpkamp is spot on when he says it’s a misinterpretation of “could’ve” etc. It’s an understandable mistake by those who’ve never experienced words in writing—you know, the majority of the English-speaking world. 