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.

    • Libb@piefed.socialEnglish
      112·
      13 days ago

      (non English speaking, here)

      • I doubt many English speaking people had any idea back then that ‘they’ could be singular. Had they, I doubt that many ‘singular’ they proponents would have needed to fight so hard to make it accepted, you know.
      • Maybe She she just decided they was not right for the way she wanted to write.

      The references accompanying the quote from Wikipedia, at last the Oxford dictionary one make it rather clear it’s a much more recent acceptation to use it as a ‘personal singular’:

      2009–
      Used with reference to a person whose sense of personal identity does not correspond to conventional sex and gender distinctions, and who has typically asked to be referred to as they (rather than as he or she). (…)
      In the 21st century, other th– pronouns (and the possessive adjective their) are sometimes used to refer to a named individual, so as to avoid revealing or making an assumption about that person’s gender;

      Only mentioning a ‘generic reference’, aka mentioning an individual as a generic representative of some larger group (ie, a student) dating back from 1450…

      • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
        71·
        13 days ago

        OP isn’t asking about they as a personal pronoun, they’re asking about they as a generic (non-gendered) singular pronoun. That’s exactly the usage that is centuries old.

      • belluck@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
        83·
        13 days ago

        Singular they may not have been used as a personal pronoun until recently, but that doesn’t mean writers haven’t been using it to refer to persons. It was frequently used to conceal a character’s gender by Shakespeare, for example.

        It seems odd to me for the thought of using it to refer to persons of a people without gender didn’t occur to Le Guin even while she was writing passages debating the biases of using the generic „he“ and its alternatives.

        • Libb@piefed.socialEnglish
          7·
          13 days ago

          It seems odd to me for the thought of using it to refer to persons of a people without gender didn’t occur to Le Guin even while she was writing passages debating the biases of using the generic „he“ and its alternatives.

          I consider her a real acute author. So, based on nothing but my intuition (I want that to be perfectly clear) I would rather question my own expectations and my own reading of her text than doubt she did not put in some serious reflection in it.

          I mean, I would really not be surprised to learn she decided it was just not fit for the purpose she had in mind. Also, I insist on that aspect of the question, and that would need to be verified, but I doubt there were that many examples of such usage at that time and since she did not write the book for 2026 readers but for her contemporaries…

    • AFK BRB Chocolate (CA version)@lemmy.ca
      3·
      13 days ago

      Hmm, true but it was used in the case where the specific person being referred to was unknown. “Somebody left their umbrella.” It was not used the way OP is talking about, for a gender neutral individual.

      • hperrin@lemmy.caEnglish
        5·
        13 days ago

        It was also used for someone known, but whose gender was not known or being hidden. Shakespeare used they this way. From there, it’s not a great leap to use they to refer to someone without a gender.