this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
19 points (80.6% liked)

Books

8061 readers
62 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
 

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 9 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (3 children)

"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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

seriously, when i see questions like OP, my instinct is to be like 'because you're a dumbass'.

but usually it's because their a prescriptive, and they think their use of their language at this particular time, is and always was the only legitimate form of it. and all past or future uses, including their own, are faulty and wrong.

god i remember being in like 5th or 6th grade and arguling about the colloqual use of 'they' with my teachers and getting failed. then in college i got 'lectured' about using 'he' as a pronoun for a singular person was sexist and awful you must use 'he/she' no matter how stupid and weird that looks. and now if you don't use 'they' you're awful because he/she is binary exclusivity or something.

and i bet in 10 years it will be different, yet again, and people will tell you whichever of the previous pronouns or singular pronoun you use are 'highly problematic' because it's not whatever what people have deemed to be 'least problematic'. as if it really matters that fucking much, especially compared to the actual broader themes of this novel.

[–] ZDL@lazysoci.al 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I have seen so many English linguistic trends and fads come and go I just don't take them seriously any longer. If someone wants to be called any number of hundreds of special pronouns just for themself, fine. No skin off my nose. If it's a stupid one (e.g. poppy/seed) or one that I'm just not going to waste my time bothering to clutter my brain with (e.g. xae/xaem), I'll just refer to said person by name (if at all). Otherwise I'll use the one they want me to use, knowing that within five years the fad will be behind us and a new fad will be plaguing users of English

[–] ZDL@lazysoci.al 1 points 11 hours ago

As an irrelevant side note, the whole problem of gendered pronouns would go away if we, you know, just didn't. Use gendered pronouns, I mean.

Persian (Farsi) has existed for ages without gendered pronouns of any kind, indeed without grammatical gender of any kind. So has Chinese until the humiliation of the Opium Wars made them adopt gendered pronouns ... but only in the written form ... as a form of aping their colonizers' grammar. This leaves us with the irony of the Chinese making their writing more complicated because it diverges from their speech to please their foreign colonial overlords, only to now have those colonial overlords agonizing over gendered pronouns and making up hundreds of them for no good reason. So China imported a non-solution to a non-problem to appeal to colonizers who now think gendered pronouns are icky. This is hilarious to me.

I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that Finnish doesn't have gendered pronouns as well. Turkish too, I think. There may actually be more languages without grammatical gender (or at least weakly gendered) than languages with.

[–] atx_aquarian@lemmy.world -4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

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 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

this is lemmy dude.

AI is evil and bad, no matter it's use or context.

almost like your choice of pronouns for a singular person in written language... is also now problematic and offensive to whomever, and le guin is clearly was anti-trans or something for not knowing that in 2026 kids would be reading her 1969 novel and getting bent out of shape about her pronoun use not reflecting their own contemporary beliefs about it.