I am a long-time listener and I have three comments about gender inclusive language on the podcasts.
First, the pronouns themselves frequently make it harder to follow the line of thinking. It would be better if 20 seconds were used to describe the people in the podcast: Beth is the director, Sarah is the manager, Bob is the direct. Then use the person's name. It will make it easier to follow.
Second, if Mark wants to use gender inclusive language, he needs to do it all the way. On a recent podcast there were several times where he said "guys", addressing the audience.
Third, every two or three podcasts, I hear some version of "in the land of the blind, the one eyed man or woman is queen or king." Ugh. The point of aphorisms is their pithiness and familiarity. The inclusive version is one third longer without any additional meaning. Also, it is my understanding that this is a quote from Erasmus. Fixing it is along the lines of colorizing black and white movies. "But I'm making it better!" Of course you are.
Gender inclusive language
So you want the 'guys' (male) to spend more time explaining their pronouns and spend less time on their aphorisms. I'm confused as to whether you have too much time or not enough!
You also did not mention Mark's use of the work 'Dude'. Being a Brit I chuckle every time I hear it as we hardly ever use it over here. Unless surf's up, of course!
Don't change a thing
If it were a vote, I'd say don't change a thing. I like the conversational style the podcasts are written and delivered in (we're not reading a news article or essay here) and I have no trouble following Mark/Wendii/Mike's lines of thinking.
This is one to many communication and, unlike one to one communication, you wouldn't be more effective tailoring your communication style in this instance.
Let's drop #1 and say
Let's drop #1 and say he/she will be used more or less randomly. My point still stands on 2 and 3. If gender neutral language is preferred, then it does not matter if it is a conversational tone or not.
And I grit my teeth a little when I hear "In the land of the blind…" because I know what comes next is going to be unfailingly infelicitous.
Re gender inclusive
I am reading The effective executive by Peter Drucker. Brilliant book. Not gender inclusive though which annoys me quite a bit because i have to picture myself in the he or man all the time through the reading. So the sentence in the land of the blind in gender inclusive form fits me well. I don't find it odd. And as for guys, i can include myself in the guys reference. I have no problem, i know by now Mark means guys and girls. In fact, somebody with stronger English can perhaps help clarify but I think guys can refer to both genders, while man or men does not.
Nara