6 ms·
I agree with a lot of what you said, aside from the first point. Is "guys" really that bad? People do use it in a gender-neutral way regardless of the word orig
by ZenoArrow 12y ago
I agree with a lot of what you said, aside from the first point. Is "guys" really that bad? People do use it in a gender-neutral way regardless of the word origin, and the alternatives given were all cringeworthy (IMO). If there's a better catch-all then I'll try to switch to it.
- zaccus 12y agoWhere I work we say "y'all". It's a useful word and I like it.
- loumf 12y agoI've heard from enough women to believe that it is not commonly thought to be gender-neutral by women. Like the post says, you can get used to something else if you use it enough -- it's a small thing to do. I also use "staff a booth" rather than "man a booth".
- pc2g4d 12y agoThe (Shorter) Oxford English Dictionary says of "guy": 3. A man, a fellow; in pl. also (chiefly N. Amer.), people (of either sex). colloq. (orig. N. Amer.). One of the main situations I've seen "you guys" used is actually women speaking to women. I can see how some women would take offense at it in their dialect "guy" can only mean "A man, a fellow". I personally think the non-gendered plural use of it provides an important grammatical function in a language lacking a second-person plural pronoun. In the southern U.S. they have "y'all", in Pennsylvania they have "yinz", in Elisabethan England they had "ye", but my dialect of English has nothing---except "you guys". It is what we make of it---if we want to be an offensive, sexually scandalizing term then we can have it that way. If we want it to be a useful second-person plural pronoun then we can make it that. I'm hoping for the latter.