Interesting article, but before the gender of the character, I think, you really have to consider the personality of the character as well as the tone of the scene.
So take “chuckle”, as was mentioned in the article. Say you’ve got “chuckle”, “titter”, and “laugh”. What fits best really depends on how you want to portray the character, and the scene in which the action takes place.
“____ sat in the stands, chuckling at your failure.”
“____ sat in the stands, tittering at your failure.”
“____ sat in the stands, laughing at your failure.”
In the first, the verb makes it sound almost sinister. Makes you think of the antagonist, plotting against the hero and, well, chuckling darkly. It makes it seem like the character had a hand in the protagonists failure, and turns the chuckler into someone more sinister, someone who, perhaps, the reader isn’t supposed to like. Someone who the reader is supposed to hate and fight against.
In the second, it still seems like the reader is supposed to dislike the tittering character, but it takes away the idea that they had a play in it. While chuckling is a more open action, tittering makes you think of someone hiding their mouth or gossiping via laughter. It also makes the character seem more haughty, or maybe even dogmatic, like they’re above the protagonist, and above the protagonists failures.
In the final, it’s a lot more innocent. Less like the laugher was involved in the failure or even like they feel above the protagonist. More just someone who finds joy in the situation, like a kid laughing at the cartoon who slipped on the banana peel. It’s not sinister and plotting nor is it all that high and mighty, they’re just laughing because it’s funny. It makes for a more sympathetic character.
Now, change the situation, but keep those same characters and words- the antagonist, the disliked-but-not-quite-hated, and the innocent. You can even keep the same scene- the protagonist fails at something- and change the wording around to change the feel of the verbs.
“___ chuckled at your failure.”
“___ tittered at your failure.”
“___ laughed at your failure.”
Here I’d argue that because you’ve taken away the passive stance of the previous example (having the character sit in the stands) you can no longer use the same words in the same way.
Laughed seems a lot less innocent now. Instead of the kid I think of the rival, someone who might even have an active part on the protagonists failure. It turns laughed from something used to describe the innocent to something used to describe the antagonist.
In much the same way, chuckled seems a lot more innocent. It seems almost paternal, or protective, like the parent helping the kid who fell into a puddle. The word seems much warmer and more open.
Titter does stay the same in that it appears to be directed towards someone who isn’t on good terms with the protagonist, but it doesn’t seem quite so haughty. Maybe even someone shyly laughing. It’s a much more passive, hidden word (that same “gossiping laughter” type), but because you no longer have that specification that the character is separate from the main action (sitting in the stands) you’re not quite sure if the character is tittering because they don’t want to hurt the protagonist by laughing, or if they’re tittering because they dislike the protagonist and enjoy their misfortune. Could go either way.
It works for other words to. Take “grin” “smile” “smirk” and “beam”, it can really change who the character comes off as (personality-wise instead of role-wise this time), and change the feeling of the scene.
Take this scene:
You stand at the mouth of the gorge- and feel your stomach drop as you stare over the cliff’s edge. “I don’t think we can make that.”
___ grins at you, “Just watch.”
…
You stand at the mouth of the gorge- and feel your stomach drop as you stare over the cliff’s edge. “I don’t think we can make that.”
___ smiles at you, “Just watch.”
…
You stand at the mouth of the gorge- and feel your stomach drop as you stare over the cliff’s edge. “I don’t think we can make that.”
___ smirks at you, “Just watch.”
…
You stand at the mouth of the gorge- and feel your stomach drop as you stare over the cliff’s edge. “I don’t think we can make that.”
___ beams at you, “Just watch.”
…
In each of these, the scene stays the same, the situation is the same, but the tone and character changes because of the word.
With “grin”, the character seems self-assured and confident. You get the sense that ___ knows something the character doesn’t, something that’s about to happen- something good. It helps the reader to expect the character to either do something out of the ordinary, or for something else to swoop in and fix the situation.
“Smile” is geared more towards reassurance. It makes the character seem gentler, kinder, like ____ is reassuring the protagonist that everything will be A-OK. It takes away some of the tension of the scene and makes it seem more like the character already has a plan or something was set up in place beforehand, so the reader then expects that.
“Smirk” on the other hand is teasing, cocky, and seems a bit more brash and impulsive. It makes it seem like ___ doesn’t have a plan but instead is confident enough in their abilities or skills that they feel they can just wing it. It, opposite of smile, raises the tension because it doesn’t make it seem like victory is assured. Maybe it’s assured in the character’s mind but certainly not in reality.
“Beam” is a lot like smile, but with it comes some optimism and a little less assurance. Beam seems more youthful and bright, which maybe takes away the experience or forethought that the reader felt with smile. Sure, everything still feels like it’s going to be okay but it doesn’t feel like everything is planned out. More of a “we’ll get through this somehow” kind of expectation.
So while I agree that people do have subconscious biases that can influence their verb choice when it comes to the gender of the character, I think that the danger of the line of thought of doing exactly opposite that is then that you can start to focus only on that. A man can chuckle in the stands as the villain of the story after his dastardly plot has come to fruition and a woman can titter beside the protagonist because she’s trying to hide her laughter when they messed up in a funny way. Of course they also work conversely. It all depends on who the characters are, what their personalities are.
Which I guess my point would be that instead of “have I counted that ___ chuckles as many times as ___?”, personally, I’d think it’d be better to focus on “does this word fit for this character in this scene?”
… All that being said. I’m admittedly also a little curious as to what words I use often with certain characters of my own, and am now probably going to waste a good hour or two looking and searching for what it is I use for who.