34
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
34 points (100.0% liked)
Books
8091 readers
8 users here now
A community for all things related to Books.
Rules
- Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
- No spam. All posts should be related to discussion or reviews related to books. (Please avoid posts that are just a link to the book and a generic summary)
- No self promotion.
Official Bingo Posts:
Related Communities
- !books@piefed.world (Piefed Sibling Community)
- !comicbooks@lemmy.world
- !fantasy@lemmy.ml
Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
"Why did a book published in 1969 not contain up to date thoughts of gender and gender terminology from 2026?"
I don't know. It's an absolute mystery to me. After all it's a well-known phenomenon that language never changes, that popular and accepted terminology never changes, and that all text ever written is timeless and static and never drifts in expression or meaning.
English has never changed even once in its history!
Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th century.
It has not been part of style guides since the 14th century, however. Starting with the dumb "grammarians" of the 18th century it was frowned upon very heavily in the "professional" sphere to the point that for all practical purposes it was expunged from writing by the time of the early to mid 20th century. It still existed in the spoken language, sure. Kind of like "ain't". But it was viewed as an uneducated stance and people who wrote had its use practically beaten out of it. Kind of like "ain't".
Bodine (1975) – Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar
Excerpt of AI-generated findings:
Actual abstract from that article:
So you got AI to hallucinate a summary of a 1975 paper.
To talk about a book published in 1969.
Weird that the AI didn't summarize what Le Guin herself said on the topic.
It's almost as if reaching for AI isn't the smartest idea.
I think you saw me say "AI" and replied too quickly. I didn't cite Le Guin. I used AI as a search tool to highlight one example of a paper discussing how the neutral "they" was commonplace during the time. I know it's just search results, which is why I disclaimed it was as such. Then I included the paper's abstract, which stands on its own enough to make the point that talking about a hypothetical era without the neutral "they" is not applicable to 1969.