4 ms·

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" incorrectl

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.
- kgwgk 4y ago
  The article’s point is that “One of the problems with dismissing the word guys as inherently masculine is that it assumes that the gendering of language is fixed — that the meaning we make of things now is the meaning they’ve always had and always will.” and she doesn’t see a problem in using guys with a gender-neutral meaning. What someone wrote forty years ago is not gospel. Neither is that article, of course. But at least is current.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Yes. That's why I characterized it as 'a call for everyone to interpret "guys" as gender neutral.'. An aspirational future is not the same thing as the present, and we see "guys", in the plurals sense, definitely being used as male-only. Another example: "GirlsAskGuys is your social community where girls and guys share their opinions & life experiences, to help better understand each other on topics ranging from dating to fashion." - https://www.girlsaskguys.com/content/about-us.html https://www.girlsaskguys.com/content/about-us.html The context was 'Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression?', the linked-to essay refers to people making that claim now, so I assume there are people who don't like being referred to as "guy". > What someone wrote forty years ago is not gospel Sure. What it does do is date the "Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression" as starting at least 40 years ago.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      > An aspirational future is not the same thing as the present, and we see "guys", in the plurals sense, definitely being used as male-only. We see guys being used as male-only. We also see guys being used for mixed-gender or female-only groups. We see them being applied to groups and we also see them being applied to individuals. We see a lot of things in the present - and 40 years ago, for that matter. > What it does do is date the "Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression" as starting at least 40 years ago. Ageeed, it illustrates that it was used 40 years ago and that there were proponents and detractors of that use. The use may be more extended today - I don’t know. (What definitely has changed is the ubiquity of “microagressions”.) Another random testimony from the intertubes: “When I was a teen back in the 1960's (yeah, I'm old!) the "Hey, Guys!" or "Hi, folks!" was a common way to greet a group regardless of gender. For most of us, at least. It was how females greeted their female friends. Almost invariably, if the group was mixed, someone, almost always male, would try to "correct" our gender-neutral greeting. It was irritating.” (Isn’t it funny that using “guys” in a gender-neutral way is a microagression and telling people not to use “guys” in a gender-neutral way is also a micro-agression?)

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.
kgwgk 4y ago
The article’s point is that “One of the problems with dismissing the word guys as inherently masculine is that it assumes that the gendering of language is fixed — that the meaning we make of things now is the meaning they’ve always had and always will.” and she doesn’t see a problem in using guys with a gender-neutral meaning. What someone wrote forty years ago is not gospel. Neither is that article, of course. But at least is current.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Yes. That's why I characterized it as 'a call for everyone to interpret "guys" as gender neutral.'. An aspirational future is not the same thing as the present, and we see "guys", in the plurals sense, definitely being used as male-only. Another example: "GirlsAskGuys is your social community where girls and guys share their opinions & life experiences, to help better understand each other on topics ranging from dating to fashion." - https://www.girlsaskguys.com/content/about-us.html https://www.girlsaskguys.com/content/about-us.html The context was 'Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression?', the linked-to essay refers to people making that claim now, so I assume there are people who don't like being referred to as "guy". > What someone wrote forty years ago is not gospel Sure. What it does do is date the "Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression" as starting at least 40 years ago.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    > An aspirational future is not the same thing as the present, and we see "guys", in the plurals sense, definitely being used as male-only. We see guys being used as male-only. We also see guys being used for mixed-gender or female-only groups. We see them being applied to groups and we also see them being applied to individuals. We see a lot of things in the present - and 40 years ago, for that matter. > What it does do is date the "Since when is the use of the word “guys” a micro aggression" as starting at least 40 years ago. Ageeed, it illustrates that it was used 40 years ago and that there were proponents and detractors of that use. The use may be more extended today - I don’t know. (What definitely has changed is the ubiquity of “microagressions”.) Another random testimony from the intertubes: “When I was a teen back in the 1960's (yeah, I'm old!) the "Hey, Guys!" or "Hi, folks!" was a common way to greet a group regardless of gender. For most of us, at least. It was how females greeted their female friends. Almost invariably, if the group was mixed, someone, almost always male, would try to "correct" our gender-neutral greeting. It was irritating.” (Isn’t it funny that using “guys” in a gender-neutral way is a microagression and telling people not to use “guys” in a gender-neutral way is also a micro-agression?)