3 ms·

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 meanin

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.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    I agree. "Ideologue" in general. My claim is not exclusive.
CPLX 6y ago
I mean, the etymology of the word women itself has this attribute, as a contraction of the concept of “the type of man who has a womb” so the whole thing is a bit complicated.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  I didn't think that was it. Woman means "ones spouse", used to be used by anybody? Or do I have that wrong. 'Man' still means in some languages what "one" means in English in the sense of "one's friends are important". A person. Not a male. But it isn't complicated. Today in English 'man' means a male. All the obfuscation using etymology and history are meaningless to a modern young person who knows what they're saying and what they're hearing.
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    From Middle English woman, from earlier wimman, wifman. The Middle English forms are from Old English wiman, wimman, from wīfmann m (“woman; female servant”, literally “female person”), a compound of wīf (“woman”, whence English wife) +‎ mann (“person”, whence English man). For details on the pronunciation and spelling history, see the usage notes below. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woman#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woman#Etymology
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      It fooled me I guess. Since 'wif' is gender-neutral I thought it meant 'partner'. Sometimes it's used that way (in old writing) but not often.
    - CPLX 6y ago
      I stand corrected.
umanwizard 6y ago
Copy-and-pasting a comment I left elsewhere: > “Guys” (a plural noun) is gendered. “You guys” (a pronoun) isn’t. It’s that simple.

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.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  I agree. "Ideologue" in general. My claim is not exclusive.

CPLX 6y ago

I mean, the etymology of the word women itself has this attribute, as a contraction of the concept of “the type of man who has a womb” so the whole thing is a bit complicated.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
I didn't think that was it. Woman means "ones spouse", used to be used by anybody? Or do I have that wrong. 'Man' still means in some languages what "one" means in English in the sense of "one's friends are important". A person. Not a male. But it isn't complicated. Today in English 'man' means a male. All the obfuscation using etymology and history are meaningless to a modern young person who knows what they're saying and what they're hearing.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  From Middle English woman, from earlier wimman, wifman. The Middle English forms are from Old English wiman, wimman, from wīfmann m (“woman; female servant”, literally “female person”), a compound of wīf (“woman”, whence English wife) +‎ mann (“person”, whence English man). For details on the pronunciation and spelling history, see the usage notes below. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woman#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woman#Etymology
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    It fooled me I guess. Since 'wif' is gender-neutral I thought it meant 'partner'. Sometimes it's used that way (in old writing) but not often.
  - CPLX 6y ago
    I stand corrected.

umanwizard 6y ago

Copy-and-pasting a comment I left elsewhere: > “Guys” (a plural noun) is gendered. “You guys” (a pronoun) isn’t. It’s that simple.