6 ms·

> Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression? As a serious answer, Douglas Hofstadter (of Gödel, Escher, Bach fame) wrote in 1982 about the pr

by kens 4y ago

> Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression? As a serious answer, Douglas Hofstadter (of Gödel, Escher, Bach fame) wrote in 1982 about the problems of using "guys", which has a "default assumption" of maleness. This isn't a new issue, but something people have been discussing for 40 years. See "Changes in Default Words and Images, Engendered by Rising Consciousness" in the book Metamagical Themas: https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n143/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n143/mode...

kgwgk 4y ago
On the other hand, 2022!=1982 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/07/guys-defense-gendered-etymology/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/07/guys-defen...
- eesmith 4y ago
  That's a call for everyone to interpret "guys" as gender neutral. > In any case, to the great bulk of the population, guys already is gender-neutral and thus inclusive, thanks in part to women who embraced it. Maybe it’s time to set it free. I disagree with that first assertion. While "guys" is somewhat gender neutral, as in "you guys want anything?", it's not gender neutral with something like "two guys came here earlier" (not used to include "two women came here earlier") or "guys only want one thing" (not used to mean "all people only want one thing").
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    Eh, it is not really different from other plurals in this regard. For example one might say a catering event has 100 waiters. Depending on convention you could also write waiters/waitresses or waitrx or service personal or... Used generically it is gender neutral, while non-generically it is not.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      I think thoughtful people say wait staff not waiters in that example. I am not on the side of turning technical terms like master/slave male/female blacklist/whitelist into ridiculous manufactured crimes, but that particular example doesn't actually work I think.
      - diffeomorphism 4y ago
        > I think thoughtful people That is a pretty backhanded euphemism.... Anyways, I thought "service personnel" already covered that example, but yes "staff" might be more common. Anyways, the point was that these are common conventions and all are intended as gender neutral -- so insulting people for using a specific one seems very misguided.
        Brian_K_White 4y ago
        It was quite literal and not an insult or intended as one. When I hear people who consider their words, that is the kind of phrase I hear in foodservice circles. If you were insulted, perhaps it only implies you think you are not thoughtful? When I insult someone, it isn't ambiguous.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      > you could also write waiters/waitresses The Hofstadter essay kens linked to, from 1985, goes into this exact point, though he uses "waitron" instead of "waitrx". > it is not really different from other plurals in this regard Some yes, some no. Few now say "authoress" or "manageress", as a counter-example. And I don't think anyone ever used "bank telleress" instead of "bank teller." That said, it seems you agree with me that "guys" is not a wholly gender-neutral term, yes? The WaPo article author's argument seems to be that since "you guys" is used as a gender-neutral second person plural [1], "guys" is no longer a gendered word. While I disagree. And gave counter-examples. The Hofstadter essay kens linked to, more specifically at https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n153/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n153/mode... , makes exactly the same point, again this is from 1985: > One of my pet peeves is the currently popular usage of the word "guys". You often hear a group of people described as "guys", even when that group includes women. In fact, it is quite common to hear women addressing a group of other women as "you guys". This strikes me as very strange. However, when I have asked some people about it, they have adamantly maintained that, when in the plural, the word "guy" has completely lost all traces of masculinity. I was arguing with one woman about this, and she kept on saying, "It may have retained some male flavor for you, but it has none in most people's usage." I wasn't convinced, but nothing I could think of to say would budge her from her position. However, fortune proved to be on my side, because, in a last-ditch attempt to convince me, she said, "Why, I've even heard guys use it to refer to a bunch of women!" Only after saying it did she realize that she had just unwittingly undermined her own claim. [1] the article is dreadfully lacking in examples, but I think 'Hey guys' as an attention grabber fits into the same category as second person plural.

by kens 4y ago

kgwgk 4y ago

On the other hand, 2022!=1982 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/07/guys-defense-gendered-etymology/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/07/guys-defen...

eesmith 4y ago
That's a call for everyone to interpret "guys" as gender neutral. > In any case, to the great bulk of the population, guys already is gender-neutral and thus inclusive, thanks in part to women who embraced it. Maybe it’s time to set it free. I disagree with that first assertion. While "guys" is somewhat gender neutral, as in "you guys want anything?", it's not gender neutral with something like "two guys came here earlier" (not used to include "two women came here earlier") or "guys only want one thing" (not used to mean "all people only want one thing").
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  Eh, it is not really different from other plurals in this regard. For example one might say a catering event has 100 waiters. Depending on convention you could also write waiters/waitresses or waitrx or service personal or... Used generically it is gender neutral, while non-generically it is not.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    I think thoughtful people say wait staff not waiters in that example. I am not on the side of turning technical terms like master/slave male/female blacklist/whitelist into ridiculous manufactured crimes, but that particular example doesn't actually work I think.
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      > I think thoughtful people That is a pretty backhanded euphemism.... Anyways, I thought "service personnel" already covered that example, but yes "staff" might be more common. Anyways, the point was that these are common conventions and all are intended as gender neutral -- so insulting people for using a specific one seems very misguided.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        It was quite literal and not an insult or intended as one. When I hear people who consider their words, that is the kind of phrase I hear in foodservice circles. If you were insulted, perhaps it only implies you think you are not thoughtful? When I insult someone, it isn't ambiguous.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > you could also write waiters/waitresses The Hofstadter essay kens linked to, from 1985, goes into this exact point, though he uses "waitron" instead of "waitrx". > it is not really different from other plurals in this regard Some yes, some no. Few now say "authoress" or "manageress", as a counter-example. And I don't think anyone ever used "bank telleress" instead of "bank teller." That said, it seems you agree with me that "guys" is not a wholly gender-neutral term, yes? The WaPo article author's argument seems to be that since "you guys" is used as a gender-neutral second person plural [1], "guys" is no longer a gendered word. While I disagree. And gave counter-examples. The Hofstadter essay kens linked to, more specifically at https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n153/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/MetamagicalThemas/page/n153/mode... , makes exactly the same point, again this is from 1985: > One of my pet peeves is the currently popular usage of the word "guys". You often hear a group of people described as "guys", even when that group includes women. In fact, it is quite common to hear women addressing a group of other women as "you guys". This strikes me as very strange. However, when I have asked some people about it, they have adamantly maintained that, when in the plural, the word "guy" has completely lost all traces of masculinity. I was arguing with one woman about this, and she kept on saying, "It may have retained some male flavor for you, but it has none in most people's usage." I wasn't convinced, but nothing I could think of to say would budge her from her position. However, fortune proved to be on my side, because, in a last-ditch attempt to convince me, she said, "Why, I've even heard guys use it to refer to a bunch of women!" Only after saying it did she realize that she had just unwittingly undermined her own claim. [1] the article is dreadfully lacking in examples, but I think 'Hey guys' as an attention grabber fits into the same category as second person plural.