3 ms·

> 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

• 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.