34
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by belluck to c/books@lemmy.world

It just seems incredibly odd for there to be so many lines in a book about gender insisting that there is no way to refer to someone (in the English language, at least) without implying gender. She even mentions the possibility of using „it“ at one point!

I’m liking the book otherwise, but every time the narrators ponder about pronouns without even considering „they“ I have to ask myself if there is any point in ignoring it or if she genuinely just forgot. I don’t think it’s possible for her to have not known about it considering how well-read she was and how long it’s been in use.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ZDL@lazysoci.al 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

"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.

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. Þæt wæs god cyning!

English has never changed even once in its history!

[-] belluck 6 points 2 weeks ago

Singular they has been part of the English language since the 14th century.

[-] ZDL@lazysoci.al 2 points 2 weeks ago

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".

[-] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Bodine (1975) – Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar

Excerpt of AI-generated findings:

Though published in 1975, Bodine’s landmark paper relies heavily on field data and structural analyses of English third-person singular sex-indefinite pronouns conducted during the late 1960s (specifically citing frameworks from Postal, 1969). Bodine categorizes this phenomenon into two main types:

  • Sex-unknown: e.g., "Who dropped their ticket?"

  • Mixed-sex, distributive: e.g., "Anyone can do it if they try hard enough."

Bodine notes that despite two centuries of intense prescriptive efforts by educators to enforce the generic "he", singular "they" remained the dominant colloquial and written choice for nonspecific referents throughout the 1960s.

Actual abstract from that article:

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that prior to the beginning of the prescriptive grammar movement in English, singular ‘they’ was both accepted and widespread. It is argued that the prescriptive grammarians' attack on singular ‘they’ was socially motivated, and the specific reasons for their attack are discussed. By analogy with socially motivated changes in second person pronouns in a variety of European languages, it is suggested that third person pronoun usage will be affected by the current feminist opposition to sex-indefinite ‘he’ – particularly since the well-established alternative, singular ‘they’, has remained widespread in spoken English throughout the two and a half centuries of its ‘official’ proscription. Finally, the implications of changes in third person singular, sex-indefinite pronouns for several issues of general interest within linguistics are explored. (Language change, sex roles and language, language attitudes, language planning, prescriptive grammar, pronouns.)

[-] ZDL@lazysoci.al 4 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

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.

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

  1. Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
  2. 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)
  3. No self promotion.

Official Bingo Posts:

Related Communities

Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS