It's only bias if you want it to be. In the examples given, the male pronouns in reality become neutral--not masculine. In Spanish the same solution applies to nouns as well as to pronouns. A chica plus a chico are chicos. A niña plus a niño are niños. The Spanish-speaking people I know don't seem to have problem with this. Nor would I have a problem if the rules were reversed in English and the feminine pronoun were used as the neutral pronoun. We have enough to worry about in this world without creating imaginary bias.

The sentence can also be rewritten: Anyone born from 1945 to 1965 should get a one-time blood test for the liver-destroying virus. Or rewrite it: to see if the liver-destroying virus is present. As an editor, I change this mistake every day.

Meh, it's old news that proscriptive grammarians have problems here. Each must pick their poison (and you see which I choose). We must trample on gender, number, or tradition. I enjoy preserving each reader's sense of their own sex/gender -identity. I trust that no one feels disempowered over their number, as every consciousness is necessarily individual. I prefer my communication to be as intelligible as possible by as many as possible, so any neologism is more painful than helpful. The following, from O'Conner & Kellerman's 2009 NY Times Magazine "On Language" article, "All-Purpose Pronoun" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magazine/26FOB-onlanguage-t.html): "Traditionalists, of course, find nothing wrong with using he to refer to an anybody or an everybody, male or female. After all, hasn't he been used for both sexes since time immemorial? Well, no, as a matter of fact, it hasn't. It's a relatively recent usage, as these things go. And it wasn't cooked up by a male sexist grammarian, either. If any single person is responsible for this male-centric usage, it's Anne Fisher, an 18th-century British schoolmistress and the first woman to write an English grammar book, according to the sociohistorical linguist Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade. Fisher's popular guide, "A New Grammar" (1745), ran to more than 30 editions, making it one of the most successful grammars of its time. More important, it's believed to be the first to say that the pronoun he should apply to both sexes. The idea that he, him and his should go both ways caught on and was widely adopted. But how, you might ask, did people refer to an anybody before then? This will surprise a few purists, but for centuries the universal pronoun was they. Writers as far back as Chaucer used it for singular and plural, masculine and feminine. Nobody seemed to mind that they, them and their were officially plural. As Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage explains, writers were comfortable using they with an indefinite pronoun like everybody because it suggested a sexless plural. Paradoxically, the female grammarian who introduced this he business was a feminist if ever there was one. Anne Fisher (1719-78) was not only a woman of letters but also a prosperous entrepreneur. She ran a school for young ladies and operated a printing business and a newspaper in Newcastle with her husband, Thomas Slack. In short, she was the last person you would expect to suggest that he should apply to both sexes. But apparently she couldn't get her mind around the idea of using they as a singular. In other matters, though, Fisher was eminently reasonable. Ever since English grammars began appearing in the late 1500s, for example, they were formed on the Latin model (the very word grammar originally meant the study of Latin). Fisher strongly condemned this classical bias and said that English suffered when it was forced into a Latin mold. She not only defended English against claims of i