3 ms·
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
by 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.
- skohan 6y agoYes and my argument would be that in 99% of cases where this is used in the real world in a genderless context, there is no gendered evocation or connotation with the word. It simply means a group of people, and there is no harmful effect of using this term. I believe you have to dig really deep and go through some mental gymnastics to find evidence of harm here. I don't fault the authors of these papers for exploring the potential issues with the term, but I believe this is a case where the academic reading is out of step with the reality of the situation.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- umanwizard 6y agoYou are absolutely right. In the dialect of colloquial American English that I grew up speaking, bare “you” can only be singular, and the default plural 2nd person pronoun is “you guys”. Telling us not to use it because of long-forgotten etymology would be as absurd as telling us not to use the word “they” because it’s a product of Norse imperialism.