Me too. I wonder what Hofstadter's responses to it is.

Edit: Googling, it seems that Hofstadter's response is along the lines of Haugeland. That by describing the translator as a man, we are improperly being asked to identify with him, when in the actual metaphor, the man is only an implementer in a larger system. The larger system actually does understand Chinese. So the claim is that the Chinese Room thought exercise is actually a fallacy.

In my completely unhumble opinion, that's like expecting a mention of geocentrism in every article about NASA.

Hofstadter provides a detailed response to the Chinese Room thought-experiement in "Le Ton Beau de Marot".