3 ms·

> 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 "wait

> 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.

diffeomorphism 4y ago
For me it falls under local dialect and if people tell me that it is gender neutral, I believe them. Same as people using "literally" or "ironically" incorrectly; if enough people use words in a certain way, the words change their meaning. That is just how English works. So the essay kinda reads to me as "old man yelling at clouds". > Authoress English is a bit weird in that it only does this for certain occupations, e.g. actor or waiter but not for example writers (at least to my knowledge). So if I read "a large group of writers" I would presume that is meant as gender neutral and would be completely fine with it. Again the point being that writxs or similar might be another convention, but that does not make people using "writers" "unthoughtful" or whatever other insult the above poster wants to use.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Sure. The WaPo article is a call to make "guys" be gender neutral. However, kgwgk's comment appears to be that "guys" now is gender neutral. And it demonstrably has widespread non-gender-neutral uses. Since you want to use the descriptive approach, if enough people think that "guys" is a microaggression, then doesn't that make it so?
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    > comment appears to be No, not quite. > it demonstrably has Again, no. The claim was that for large groups it is used as gender neutral, for small groups it is not necessarily neutral. No contradiction and very common for other words as in the examples above. > If enough people think that No, wrong side. The people saying words give them meaning, not the people misunderstanding them.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      > The claim was that for large groups it is used as gender neutral, for small groups it is not necessarily neutral. To be fully correct, the author says "second person plural", which includes small groups. > The claim was that for large groups it is used as gender neutral As the Hofstadter essay points out, the claim was also that "man" for large groups was gender neutral. Except of course it often wasn't - and Hofstadter gives counter-examples. But the overall point is the "microagression" concerning "guy" has been around for decades. It's not a new thing. It's certainly not part of an existential threat to doing good science. > The people saying words give them meaning, not the people misunderstanding them. That's ... okay, so you're saying the people who hear the implied/default maleness in "guy" never actually say the word "guy" in their own conversations? Even to refer only to males? Because that's the only way I can make sense of what you wrote. I find it hard to believe that the only speakers of the word "guy" for groups do so only in gender-neutral terms.
      - diffeomorphism 4y ago
        > okay, so you're saying No that is not what I am saying and by now I do not believe anymore that you are trying to argue in good faith.

diffeomorphism 4y ago

For me it falls under local dialect and if people tell me that it is gender neutral, I believe them. Same as people using "literally" or "ironically" incorrectly; if enough people use words in a certain way, the words change their meaning. That is just how English works. So the essay kinda reads to me as "old man yelling at clouds". > Authoress English is a bit weird in that it only does this for certain occupations, e.g. actor or waiter but not for example writers (at least to my knowledge). So if I read "a large group of writers" I would presume that is meant as gender neutral and would be completely fine with it. Again the point being that writxs or similar might be another convention, but that does not make people using "writers" "unthoughtful" or whatever other insult the above poster wants to use.

eesmith 4y ago
Sure. The WaPo article is a call to make "guys" be gender neutral. However, kgwgk's comment appears to be that "guys" now is gender neutral. And it demonstrably has widespread non-gender-neutral uses. Since you want to use the descriptive approach, if enough people think that "guys" is a microaggression, then doesn't that make it so?
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  > comment appears to be No, not quite. > it demonstrably has Again, no. The claim was that for large groups it is used as gender neutral, for small groups it is not necessarily neutral. No contradiction and very common for other words as in the examples above. > If enough people think that No, wrong side. The people saying words give them meaning, not the people misunderstanding them.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    > The claim was that for large groups it is used as gender neutral, for small groups it is not necessarily neutral. To be fully correct, the author says "second person plural", which includes small groups. > The claim was that for large groups it is used as gender neutral As the Hofstadter essay points out, the claim was also that "man" for large groups was gender neutral. Except of course it often wasn't - and Hofstadter gives counter-examples. But the overall point is the "microagression" concerning "guy" has been around for decades. It's not a new thing. It's certainly not part of an existential threat to doing good science. > The people saying words give them meaning, not the people misunderstanding them. That's ... okay, so you're saying the people who hear the implied/default maleness in "guy" never actually say the word "guy" in their own conversations? Even to refer only to males? Because that's the only way I can make sense of what you wrote. I find it hard to believe that the only speakers of the word "guy" for groups do so only in gender-neutral terms.
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      > okay, so you're saying No that is not what I am saying and by now I do not believe anymore that you are trying to argue in good faith.