4 ms·
“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for most speakers of colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an empirical sense: if you observe nat
by School-Cotton 4y ago
“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for most speakers of colloquial American English, and is completely ungendered, in an empirical sense: if you observe native speakers speaking naturally and colloquially, you will find that everyone who uses it (regardless of gender) uses it consistently to address groups of multiple people (regardless of gender).
It’s derived from the noun “guy”, which is indeed often gendered. But etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”.
Making “you guys” taboo seems to be a cultural phenomenon specific to certain industries. I’ve asked several of my friends, and never encountered one outside of tech or academia who thought “you guys” was problematic at all. In fact, the vast majority had never even heard of the issue or imagined that it could be controversial.
- JimTheMan 4y agoI was thinking about this the other day. You can approach a group of women and say " hey guys", that is fine. To a group of men," hey gals", and that is not fine. "Hey guys" to a mixed group, why... You've now 'elevated' the women to men so everyone is ok with it. It all implies that being a woman is somehow lesser. And so that is why I'm going to stick to everyone or folks. Although I don't begrudge or ask anyone to change.
- School-Cotton 4y agoYour argument is dubious for two reasons: 1. You assume that “guys” is the male equivalent of “gals”. It’s not — the latter is much more strongly gendered. Your argument is circular, because you assume that “guys” is gendered as one of your axioms. 2. You are talking about “hey guys”, whereas I was talking about “you guys”. The whole point of my post was that you can’t understand the meaning of “you guys” simply by referencing the meaning of “guys”. They are completely different words, and their only relationship is historical, even though one is a substring of the other. Even if “hey guys” is mildly gendered (which I’m not sure of, but I’m at least willing to believe it’s possible), “you guys” absolutely isn’t, empirically.
- JimTheMan 4y agoYou guys is a gendered term and a perfectly reasonable axiom. And because it's used by everyone, I submit this is true in the court of public opinion.
- School-Cotton 4y agoI have to admit I don’t understand your point or what you’re trying to say.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoIf you’re not being sarcastic, “you guys” is never (and I know how strong that word is) gendered. It’s literally a synonym for “you all”, ‘y’all’, or ‘you’ (plural). Are you a native speaker? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t imagine this not seeming ubiquitous to a person that’s grown up in American English.
- exodust 4y ago> "You've now 'elevated' the women to men" No elevation is happening. There is only inclusion and gathering together all members of the group regardless of gender. "Guys" performs this function effortlessly, without harm. Gals always = girls. Guys does not always equal boys. That's language at work, an evolution which shouldn't be policed by language activists, instructing us what words are permitted. If "leader" is part of the origin of "guy", that makes it even more suitable to gender neutral use in modern times. It's healthy when language is allowed to evolve and operate in varying contexts. Gatekeeping and policing words is to create problems and tension.
- hedora 4y agoTraditional English has three genders: Male, Female, ???: He/she/it They/they/they Guys/gals/guys (Unfortunately, incorrectly using "it" to refer to a human is considered derogatory. All the other cells I listed were considered fine 20-30 years ago, and generally still are.)
- sethammons 4y ago"It"? I don't think so. It is "they". > I could not see the person; [he,she,they, not "it"] was/were hidden in shadow.
- xigoi 4y agoI have a friend who always says “hi women” when meeting up with our group, no matter the genders of the people present. Nobody is getting offended.
- rmak 4y agoso what should we use instead of the word "mother nature"? This implies fathers as lesser people, right?
- malcolmgreaves 4y agoOut of all of these, y’all rolls most readily off the tongue.
- hedora 4y agoYes, but if you use "y'all" it either means that you don't think southerners are idiots, or that you are ironically acting like you don't think they are idiots. Even the wokest wokes have their limits.
- malcolmgreaves 4y agoWell, that’s a completely unprompted comment…
- School-Cotton 4y agoThat’s entirely subjective.
- kaesar14 4y agoSounds extremely southern to me. Not in a pejorative way, but in a way that seems really odd when said by a Northeastern US English speaker.
- chrisallenlane 4y agoSoutherner here. The correct form is "all a y'alls."
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- slavik81 4y ago> etymology doesn’t determine meaning. Otherwise we would have to conclude that “woman” is male-gendered because it etymologically derives from “man”. Man was not gendered when "woman" originated. In Old English, the words for men and women were "wer" and "wif", while "mann" described any person. Over time, wifmann became woman, and for whatever reason, wermann didn't end up becoming a word. Other examples of trouble through etymology might include "virtue" and "world", which both derive from "wer".
- lstodd 4y agoHow very interesting. Thank you.
- HideousKojima 4y agoWer did survive in the word "werewolf" as well.
- School-Cotton 4y agoOkay, but my point still stands. If etymology determined meaning we’d have to conclude that “man” is ungendered, which is clearly wrong.
- eru 4y agoGuy refers to Guy Fawkes. I'm not sure why his gender is supposed to have stuck, but not eg his religion or politics?