5 ms·

"4. Only one guy to a each hack" Oh, okay then.

• mst 14y ago
  s/guy/person/ would be an improvement, yes. Or 'participant' or 'contributor'. Making the terminology a little more descriptive seems to make it easier to not end up with gendered terms, and I can't speak for anybody else but -I- certainly need all the help I can get to not screw this sort of thing up.
• civilian 14y ago
  They're using the non-gendered form of "guy".
  • aaronblohowiak 14y ago
    and I believe this is becoming more common.. i believe the gendered-ness of "guy" also has a regional component to it, but I have no hard data to back that claim up. I agree with the other poster that using more descriptive "contributor" avoids gender issues altogether.. Edit: after doing some more thinking/research, I now believe that the non-gendered form is "guys", but that is still gender-biased: if you were in a room and said "can all the guys sit on this side of the room?" the women would likely not move to that side of the room. Similarly, if you were describing a robbery and you said "a short guy with a purple hood", it would not be ambiguous that you were talking about a male robber.
    • DanBC 14y ago
      > if you were in a room and said "can all the guys sit on this side of the room?" Interesting. What would happen if you said "can all you guys sit on this side of the room?" I agree that other words avoid this problem and are more descriptive.
  • nollidge 14y ago
    There's no such thing. "Guys", plural, is sometimes non-gendered, but I have never heard the singular refer to a female person.
• jholman 14y ago
  Also "select a player at random and plug him into the projector".