5 ms·

Similarly: > guys, you guys: When referring to a group of people use non-gendered language, such as everyone or folks. Isn't the plural form "guys" already ex

Similarly: > guys, you guys: When referring to a group of people use non-gendered language, such as everyone or folks. Isn't the plural form "guys" already explicitly inclusive?

bbarnett 5y ago
Some of this is so colloquial. Where I live, 'guys' is even used by women, when speaking to a group of other women. People assuming how they use language, is right, assumes that there is one language, eg, one english, not many. Very 'centre of the universe' thinking.
- kevincox 5y ago
  While this is true isn't it helpful to make people feel included. I grew up in Toronto, Canada where "guys" was widely used as a gender-neutral term in most contexts (admittedly there are some phrases where a gender is heavily implied). However when I was working at a tech company in Dublin, Ireland I noticed that if I addressed a room with "guys" women in the room would often feel excluded. This is not unreasonable given the different dialects and the minority of women in this setting. So sure, we could say that she is wrong for feeling excluded but when many minorities already feel excluded it seems wrong to use language that reaffirms that nagging feeling constantly whispering to them from the back of their mind. And avoiding the term "guys" is a simple case even though "Y'all" and "folks" sound really odd to me, I agree that there is a huge spectrum here and the line of what is reasonable and what isn't is incredibly fuzzy.
  - bbarnett 5y ago
    While this is true isn't it helpful to make people feel included. In some cases, I found it the opposite. I've discussed this with a woman or two, as I was curious, and didn't want to offend. And they felt it includes them. Nothing is changed because they are there, they're just "one of the guys". Not a woman, or a man. Just another person in the group. You cite Dublin, and that's valid. And yet, that was me point. Here was have a world spanning company, Google, which should be as "metropolitan' as they come, blathering on about setting world-wide language policy, from the viewpoint of a small little US state. Seems very, very colloquial to me. If you're going to work in a world-spanning company, thinking your culture, in your little, tiny corner of the world, is "right" all the time is absurd.
pseudalopex 5y ago
It's inclusive in some idiolects and exclusive in others.
jerven 5y ago
No "guys" is not inclusive in many situations. Guys is males first, female second.
- damagednoob 5y ago
  How did you come to this conclusion? I have never seen a definition that implied a precedence.
  - Pfhreak 5y ago
    There are plenty of examples, from titles of things (eg. " Guys and Dolls"), to expressions that are clearly understood to be gendered. (Eg, "I only date guys." Or "if the guys will please leave the room for a moment.") Yes, there are are colloquial uses where it is gender neutral, but those are not universal internationally.
    - damagednoob 5y ago
      I'm not asking about whether guys can refer to both men and women. I'm asking explicitly about precedence. Is gentleman similarly problematic because of the phrase, 'ladies and gentleman'? This seems like a completely made up problem.
      - Pfhreak 5y ago
        The phrase ladies and gentlemen does have it's own problems, mostly because it fails to address non binary people. > This seems like a completely made up problem. Only because it doesn't impact you. Consider developing more empathy. Surely you know some folks who gave challenges in their lives that others callously dismiss as not a big deal.
        damagednoob 5y ago
        If you're basing your argument of the gender precedence of 'guys' on 'Guys and Dolls', I think I'm comfortable in my opinion that this is a made up problem. > Surely you know some folks who gave challenges in their lives that others callously dismiss as not a big deal. Sure do. And they recognised that those problems were their own that they needed to overcome. Not insist that everyone else change to accommodate them.
jawns 5y ago
Not when you use language like, "I've kissed four guys in the past year." If I had to try to nail down when it is and isn't inclusive, I would say that when it is used in the second-person, where a speaker is directly addressing a group, it is the most likely to be gender-neutral: "Do you guys like this idea? Can I get you guys anything?" When it is used in a first- or third-person perspective, it's less likely to be used in a gender-neutral way. "I know some guys who work there" tends to be used only if you're talking about men. If you're talking about women only or a mixed group, it's more common to say, "I know some women who work there" or "I know some people who work there."
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
Only in the second person. “(You) guys” versus “(those) guys.”

Similarly: > guys, you guys: When referring to a group of people use non-gendered language, such as everyone or folks. Isn't the plural form "guys" already explicitly inclusive?

bbarnett 5y ago

Some of this is so colloquial. Where I live, 'guys' is even used by women, when speaking to a group of other women. People assuming how they use language, is right, assumes that there is one language, eg, one english, not many. Very 'centre of the universe' thinking.

kevincox 5y ago
While this is true isn't it helpful to make people feel included. I grew up in Toronto, Canada where "guys" was widely used as a gender-neutral term in most contexts (admittedly there are some phrases where a gender is heavily implied). However when I was working at a tech company in Dublin, Ireland I noticed that if I addressed a room with "guys" women in the room would often feel excluded. This is not unreasonable given the different dialects and the minority of women in this setting. So sure, we could say that she is wrong for feeling excluded but when many minorities already feel excluded it seems wrong to use language that reaffirms that nagging feeling constantly whispering to them from the back of their mind. And avoiding the term "guys" is a simple case even though "Y'all" and "folks" sound really odd to me, I agree that there is a huge spectrum here and the line of what is reasonable and what isn't is incredibly fuzzy.
- bbarnett 5y ago
  While this is true isn't it helpful to make people feel included. In some cases, I found it the opposite. I've discussed this with a woman or two, as I was curious, and didn't want to offend. And they felt it includes them. Nothing is changed because they are there, they're just "one of the guys". Not a woman, or a man. Just another person in the group. You cite Dublin, and that's valid. And yet, that was me point. Here was have a world spanning company, Google, which should be as "metropolitan' as they come, blathering on about setting world-wide language policy, from the viewpoint of a small little US state. Seems very, very colloquial to me. If you're going to work in a world-spanning company, thinking your culture, in your little, tiny corner of the world, is "right" all the time is absurd.

pseudalopex 5y ago

It's inclusive in some idiolects and exclusive in others.

jerven 5y ago

No "guys" is not inclusive in many situations. Guys is males first, female second.

damagednoob 5y ago
How did you come to this conclusion? I have never seen a definition that implied a precedence.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  There are plenty of examples, from titles of things (eg. " Guys and Dolls"), to expressions that are clearly understood to be gendered. (Eg, "I only date guys." Or "if the guys will please leave the room for a moment.") Yes, there are are colloquial uses where it is gender neutral, but those are not universal internationally.
  - damagednoob 5y ago
    I'm not asking about whether guys can refer to both men and women. I'm asking explicitly about precedence. Is gentleman similarly problematic because of the phrase, 'ladies and gentleman'? This seems like a completely made up problem.
    - Pfhreak 5y ago
      The phrase ladies and gentlemen does have it's own problems, mostly because it fails to address non binary people. > This seems like a completely made up problem. Only because it doesn't impact you. Consider developing more empathy. Surely you know some folks who gave challenges in their lives that others callously dismiss as not a big deal.
      - damagednoob 5y ago
        If you're basing your argument of the gender precedence of 'guys' on 'Guys and Dolls', I think I'm comfortable in my opinion that this is a made up problem. > Surely you know some folks who gave challenges in their lives that others callously dismiss as not a big deal. Sure do. And they recognised that those problems were their own that they needed to overcome. Not insist that everyone else change to accommodate them.

jawns 5y ago

Not when you use language like, "I've kissed four guys in the past year." If I had to try to nail down when it is and isn't inclusive, I would say that when it is used in the second-person, where a speaker is directly addressing a group, it is the most likely to be gender-neutral: "Do you guys like this idea? Can I get you guys anything?" When it is used in a first- or third-person perspective, it's less likely to be used in a gender-neutral way. "I know some guys who work there" tends to be used only if you're talking about men. If you're talking about women only or a mixed group, it's more common to say, "I know some women who work there" or "I know some people who work there."

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

Only in the second person. “(You) guys” versus “(those) guys.”