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.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🌀 🇳 🇦 🇸 🇰 🇦 🇵 🇮@lemmy.world
    210·
    2 months 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
      43·
      2 months 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.

      • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🌀 🇳 🇦 🇸 🇰 🇦 🇵 🇮@lemmy.world
        33·
        2 months 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.

        • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          2 months 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.