4 ms·

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 fixe

by 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
    > What definitely has changed is the ubiquity of “microagressions”.) Sure. The term is "microaggression" is relatively newly popular. I'm probably also wrong in grouping Hofstadter's "pet peeve" as an example of "microaggression", rather than using a more encompassing term. But bear in mind that it's being used in this linked-to essay to provoke a knee-jerk response to the term "microaggression", enhanced by using one of the mildest examples - "guy" - as the representative case. It's so mild it's very hard for me to find any examples of people arguing that “guys” is a microaggression, in order see what those DEI instructors teach. One of the few (after looking at scores of Google and DDG hits) is https://www.clearpnt.com/3-key-trends-in-dei-training/ https://www.clearpnt.com/3-key-trends-in-dei-training/ which says: > When using scenarios, give examples that avoid words with negative connotations for specific groups, like “blind tests,” “powwow,” “and “guys.” Thing is, "guys" when used poorly can have negative connotations. "Let the guys select what to do next" is likely read as gendered. I'm accepting the author is correct in saying DEI instructors are making that argument. But that acceptance also requires me to accept that the DEI trainers know what they are doing, until presented with evidence to the contrary. For example, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05203-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05203-0 gives these examples of microaggression: "highlighting gender by singling women out in a group of men (i.e., “Hey guys, and one gal”) or treating the women differently because of their gender (i.e., having an open office door policy for the women but not for the men)". Those would surely be better examples in a DEI training course, yes? > (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?) As an aside, this exchange has taught me that "aggression" has two g:s. And I still make that typo. I don't think your description of 'is also a micro-aggression' fits the definition of 'microaggression.' I just read the first 20 or so pages of Sue's "Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation" (2010) book at https://archive.org/details/microaggressions0000sued/page/24/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/microaggressions0000sued/page/24... and it characterizes microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership". Using “guys” in a gender-neutral way doesn't define a group membership.
    - 4y ago

by kgwgk 4y ago

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
  > What definitely has changed is the ubiquity of “microagressions”.) Sure. The term is "microaggression" is relatively newly popular. I'm probably also wrong in grouping Hofstadter's "pet peeve" as an example of "microaggression", rather than using a more encompassing term. But bear in mind that it's being used in this linked-to essay to provoke a knee-jerk response to the term "microaggression", enhanced by using one of the mildest examples - "guy" - as the representative case. It's so mild it's very hard for me to find any examples of people arguing that “guys” is a microaggression, in order see what those DEI instructors teach. One of the few (after looking at scores of Google and DDG hits) is https://www.clearpnt.com/3-key-trends-in-dei-training/ https://www.clearpnt.com/3-key-trends-in-dei-training/ which says: > When using scenarios, give examples that avoid words with negative connotations for specific groups, like “blind tests,” “powwow,” “and “guys.” Thing is, "guys" when used poorly can have negative connotations. "Let the guys select what to do next" is likely read as gendered. I'm accepting the author is correct in saying DEI instructors are making that argument. But that acceptance also requires me to accept that the DEI trainers know what they are doing, until presented with evidence to the contrary. For example, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05203-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-022-05203-0 gives these examples of microaggression: "highlighting gender by singling women out in a group of men (i.e., “Hey guys, and one gal”) or treating the women differently because of their gender (i.e., having an open office door policy for the women but not for the men)". Those would surely be better examples in a DEI training course, yes? > (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?) As an aside, this exchange has taught me that "aggression" has two g:s. And I still make that typo. I don't think your description of 'is also a micro-aggression' fits the definition of 'microaggression.' I just read the first 20 or so pages of Sue's "Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation" (2010) book at https://archive.org/details/microaggressions0000sued/page/24/mode/2up?view=theater https://archive.org/details/microaggressions0000sued/page/24... and it characterizes microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership". Using “guys” in a gender-neutral way doesn't define a group membership.
  - 4y ago