4 ms·

There seems to be a lot of pressure to rename words that comes from tribalism. Tribalism redistributes power and words can be leveraged distinguish a tribe. Ta

There seems to be a lot of pressure to rename words that comes from tribalism. Tribalism redistributes power and words can be leveraged distinguish a tribe. Take for example calling a group of people "guys". Always when I was a child, and still usually now, guys referred to both genders when speaking to a mixed gender group. But it is empowering to the feminist tribe to be distinct, and interpreting guys as a kind of insult to females has that effect. It converts a statement meant to be neutral into a kind of oppression, by giving it a different meaning than the speaker intended. It separates a tribe and gives them reason for solidarity and sympathy. That's a lot of mileage from a simple redefinition, and the result is positive where the resulting tribalism is a positive force. That it is a positive force is obvious to the tribe member. So I think this strategy will be a permanent feature of language evolution.

mc32 6y ago
Women use the word guys when addressing a group of men and women as much as men do. It’s a generational thing but even older women now use the word for addressing mixed groups. Conversely, there seems to be an aversion from actor/actress in some circles whereas before it was observed more. With regard to presently and momentarily, I prefer the more modern meanings. Disinterested: I’m dismayed it’s trending toward a confusing new meaning and hope I’m not misunderstood by the new meaning. Sometimes prescriptivism works to keep things uniform, but there’s only so much you can hold back the tide.
atreyu 6y ago
If you are addressing a mixed gender group and say "Can all the guys please raise their hand?" what do you think will happen? I don't think this word really refers to both sexes as strongly as you might think.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  “Guys” (a plural noun) is gendered. “You guys” (a pronoun) isn’t. It’s that simple.
automatoney 6y ago
There's a pretty strong argument that guys isn't a fully gender neutral term. For example, I think most people would read "I have dated a lot of guys" as meaning "men". Or perhaps take for example the title of the 1950 musical "Guys and Dolls". It seems that "guys" is just undergoing the same treatment that has largely happened with "men"; certainly there are people who would argue that "all men are created equal" does in fact include women, but it seems like saying "women are a kind of man" reinforces the assumption that male is the default. Would people be as charitable if I were to state "all women are created equal"? That "men are a kind of women"? Also the fields which concern these issues are sociolinguistics and the sociology of language, for anyone who is curious.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  words aren't uni-semantic, they are poly-semantic. "Guys" as said in one context resolves to the meaning "people". In another, "men". It is pretty much always clear when a speaker means one or the other. As with, eg., "bank". No banker is complaining about the "collapsing banks" of a river. It is pretty clearly an opportunistic misreading of "guys" to accuse a speaker of some how implying "men", or even "men" as a plausible implication. It is only in the eye of the "feminist of language" do words fail to have contextual meanings; and it is this eye we should be suspicious of, rather than any possible double meaning.
  - automatoney 6y ago
    You are completely correct that words have contextual meaning. Is part of that context perhaps historical or sociological? Why is it that male words also serve as our generics? Is there a history there worth examining? Downthread someone has linked a few articles about the topic, but I would encourage you to read Douglas Hofstadter's satirical essay, A Person Paper on Purity in Language, in order to get a better understanding of the feminist perspective. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    > It is only in the eye of the "feminist of language" do words fail to have contextual meanings; I don't disagree with your conclusion (though I'm not sure I agree with it either) but this is a dubious claim. This phenomenon is not unique to feminism. See, e.g. the singular "they" which many people in recent years claim to be entirely unable to understand.
guerrilla 6y ago
I think you might find it interesting to look at counterarguments to that as it's been addressed quite a bit. There's this sometimes cited intro [1] but I think [2] is a lot better with a literature review and history. Then there's Douglas Hofstadter's famous "You've Come a Long Way, Guys!" which you can probably find using sci-hub or something. 1. https://ovop.pw/whysexistlanguagematters.pdf https://ovop.pw/whysexistlanguagematters.pdf 2. https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/KerryBodine-CmonGuys.pdf https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/KerryBodine-CmonGuys.pdf
- skohan 6y ago
  I understand these arguments, but I can't help thinking that the use of the term "guys" is really a non-issue. As someone who's been living as an expat for the past 6 years, I speak 3 languages decently and another one poorly. If there is anything this has convinced me of, it's that languages in general don't make a lot of sense, and the meaning of words is purely defined by how they are used. By that definition, "guys", when used to refer to a group of people, has always been a genderless term. In fact, growing up in a progressive town in the midwest, if I heard someone use the term "y'all" instead of "you guys", it would signal to me that they might not be that good on gender issues (due to an unjustified stereotype we had about southern people). I think you can pick it apart, and find complex logical reasons why "guys" might be gendered in certain circumstances, but I think in 99% of cases when it's used, people are able to understand with complete clarity whether it's a gendered or genderless usage of the term. And also I don't think it's going anywhere, because it's an incredibly useful term which has the right level of generality and casualness for a great many situations.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    If you read the linked papers then you'll see that the argument isn't whether it can be genderless. That's not disputed since it's used that way effectively. It's about what the word evokes regardless of which meaning is meant and whether or not that is harmful to women. Connotation vs. denotation and the real world effects of the former.
    - 6y ago

mc32 6y ago

Women use the word guys when addressing a group of men and women as much as men do. It’s a generational thing but even older women now use the word for addressing mixed groups. Conversely, there seems to be an aversion from actor/actress in some circles whereas before it was observed more. With regard to presently and momentarily, I prefer the more modern meanings. Disinterested: I’m dismayed it’s trending toward a confusing new meaning and hope I’m not misunderstood by the new meaning. Sometimes prescriptivism works to keep things uniform, but there’s only so much you can hold back the tide.

atreyu 6y ago

If you are addressing a mixed gender group and say "Can all the guys please raise their hand?" what do you think will happen? I don't think this word really refers to both sexes as strongly as you might think.

umanwizard 6y ago
“Guys” (a plural noun) is gendered. “You guys” (a pronoun) isn’t. It’s that simple.

automatoney 6y ago

There's a pretty strong argument that guys isn't a fully gender neutral term. For example, I think most people would read "I have dated a lot of guys" as meaning "men". Or perhaps take for example the title of the 1950 musical "Guys and Dolls". It seems that "guys" is just undergoing the same treatment that has largely happened with "men"; certainly there are people who would argue that "all men are created equal" does in fact include women, but it seems like saying "women are a kind of man" reinforces the assumption that male is the default. Would people be as charitable if I were to state "all women are created equal"? That "men are a kind of women"? Also the fields which concern these issues are sociolinguistics and the sociology of language, for anyone who is curious.

mjburgess 6y ago
words aren't uni-semantic, they are poly-semantic. "Guys" as said in one context resolves to the meaning "people". In another, "men". It is pretty much always clear when a speaker means one or the other. As with, eg., "bank". No banker is complaining about the "collapsing banks" of a river. It is pretty clearly an opportunistic misreading of "guys" to accuse a speaker of some how implying "men", or even "men" as a plausible implication. It is only in the eye of the "feminist of language" do words fail to have contextual meanings; and it is this eye we should be suspicious of, rather than any possible double meaning.
- automatoney 6y ago
  You are completely correct that words have contextual meaning. Is part of that context perhaps historical or sociological? Why is it that male words also serve as our generics? Is there a history there worth examining? Downthread someone has linked a few articles about the topic, but I would encourage you to read Douglas Hofstadter's satirical essay, A Person Paper on Purity in Language, in order to get a better understanding of the feminist perspective. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
- elliekelly 6y ago
  > It is only in the eye of the "feminist of language" do words fail to have contextual meanings; I don't disagree with your conclusion (though I'm not sure I agree with it either) but this is a dubious claim. This phenomenon is not unique to feminism. See, e.g. the singular "they" which many people in recent years claim to be entirely unable to understand.

guerrilla 6y ago

I think you might find it interesting to look at counterarguments to that as it's been addressed quite a bit. There's this sometimes cited intro [1] but I think [2] is a lot better with a literature review and history. Then there's Douglas Hofstadter's famous "You've Come a Long Way, Guys!" which you can probably find using sci-hub or something. 1. https://ovop.pw/whysexistlanguagematters.pdf https://ovop.pw/whysexistlanguagematters.pdf 2. https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/KerryBodine-CmonGuys.pdf https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/KerryBodine-CmonGuys.pdf

skohan 6y ago
I understand these arguments, but I can't help thinking that the use of the term "guys" is really a non-issue. As someone who's been living as an expat for the past 6 years, I speak 3 languages decently and another one poorly. If there is anything this has convinced me of, it's that languages in general don't make a lot of sense, and the meaning of words is purely defined by how they are used. By that definition, "guys", when used to refer to a group of people, has always been a genderless term. In fact, growing up in a progressive town in the midwest, if I heard someone use the term "y'all" instead of "you guys", it would signal to me that they might not be that good on gender issues (due to an unjustified stereotype we had about southern people). I think you can pick it apart, and find complex logical reasons why "guys" might be gendered in certain circumstances, but I think in 99% of cases when it's used, people are able to understand with complete clarity whether it's a gendered or genderless usage of the term. And also I don't think it's going anywhere, because it's an incredibly useful term which has the right level of generality and casualness for a great many situations.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  If you read the linked papers then you'll see that the argument isn't whether it can be genderless. That's not disputed since it's used that way effectively. It's about what the word evokes regardless of which meaning is meant and whether or not that is harmful to women. Connotation vs. denotation and the real world effects of the former.
  - 6y ago