8 ms·

It's common, but not correct.

nkozyra 11y ago
Given the fluidity of language, I'd say it's common enough that it is now correct as a gender-neutral address, like "folks" or :shudder: "y'all."
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  Not really. It's still a microaggression in gender-sensitive contexts (such as women in tech)
  - nkozyra 11y ago
    There's malice and then there's perception. One could certainly look at just about any colloquialism without intended malice and draw "microaggression" from it. Knowing where to draw that line is not - nor has it ever been - universal.
    - Cushman 11y ago
      You're literally describing what microaggressions are: Small interactions, any one of which is harmless and without ill intent, which accumulate over the course of the day, week, or lifetime as an atmosphere of pervasive discrimination which is completely invisible to those responsible for creating it. Microaggressions are insidious precisely because they're so innocuous; they let well-intentioned people participate unwittingly in systemic oppression that they would never consciously support. If you're noticing yourself get a bit defensive about this idea, forget the word itself and just frame it like this: You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. So when you're around people who have really different life experiences than you, how do you make sure you don't cause harm without meaning to?
      - HAAAAMMMM 11y ago
        > You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. I don't like the weaselly binary assumption here. You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not." That's an unbelievably narrow (and, honestly, childish) view of human interactivity. It also implies that you alone hold a monopoly on how "well-meaning" is defined and that it is your sacred duty to impose that doctrine on others. You're basically attempting to confuse people into accepting your moral ethos as a candidate for common assumptions of what "well-meaning" should be. This is underhanded and not well-meaning at all. Perhaps you should try avoiding causing unnecessary harm with your words next time.
        Cushman 11y ago
        Huh, I don't get it. I'm being really sincere here; I want you to think seriously about what it means, to you, to be kind to others, and then change your use of language -- or not -- however you see fit. But that message didn't even get past the firewall. Instead you decided to elaborately deconstruct what is probably the least presumptuous part of what I wrote, as a way to impute some contrived ulterior motive to me, as a way to not engage with what I was saying, at length. I guess I don't see what you're hoping to get out of this interaction at this point. Like, okay, you don't need to think about how your words affect other people... if you really don't want to?
        bmelton 11y ago
        'You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not."' I think that's appropriate, actually. That you've defined well-meaning to encapsulate more people than it does is probably the core of the disagreement, but I think it's fair to say that most people are well-meaning, but not all people are. Comparing and contrasting "almost everybody" to "Ann Coulter", and I think it's easy to draw such a distinction. Most people are simply trying to communicate without deliberately pissing everybody off, while Ann Coulter gets pretty decent play out of pissing people off for the hell of it. That said, your point on "well-meaning" being an arbitrary distinction holds, though I would assert that if more people assumed good faith until proven otherwise, we wouldn't find ourselves being offended by every little thing.
  - mycroft-holmes 11y ago
    Meanwhile in the real world everyone, including women, addresses a group of people as 'guys' - even a group that's entirely women. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but saying it's an aggression against women is a bit much.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Meanwhile in the real world everyone, including women, addresses a group of people as 'guys' - even a group that's entirely women. No, that's simply false. Sure, lots of people do it. Everyone does not.
      - mycroft-holmes 11y ago
        I didn't literally mean everyone. I meant the overwhelming majority of people.
  - HAAAAMMMM 11y ago
    If you think pronoun accuracy is a primary concern regarding women in tech, I'm going to guess you have never seen a woman in tech. They are far more concerned about memory leaks and pointer management.
  - tomjen3 11y ago
    From an article about React to gender in computing in 40 minutes. HN this is disappointing.

Given the fluidity of language, I'd say it's common enough that it is now correct as a gender-neutral address, like "folks" or :shudder: "y'all."

kllrnohj 11y ago
Not really. It's still a microaggression in gender-sensitive contexts (such as women in tech)
- nkozyra 11y ago
  There's malice and then there's perception. One could certainly look at just about any colloquialism without intended malice and draw "microaggression" from it. Knowing where to draw that line is not - nor has it ever been - universal.
  - Cushman 11y ago
    You're literally describing what microaggressions are: Small interactions, any one of which is harmless and without ill intent, which accumulate over the course of the day, week, or lifetime as an atmosphere of pervasive discrimination which is completely invisible to those responsible for creating it. Microaggressions are insidious precisely because they're so innocuous; they let well-intentioned people participate unwittingly in systemic oppression that they would never consciously support. If you're noticing yourself get a bit defensive about this idea, forget the word itself and just frame it like this: You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. So when you're around people who have really different life experiences than you, how do you make sure you don't cause harm without meaning to?
    - HAAAAMMMM 11y ago
      > You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words. I don't like the weaselly binary assumption here. You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not." That's an unbelievably narrow (and, honestly, childish) view of human interactivity. It also implies that you alone hold a monopoly on how "well-meaning" is defined and that it is your sacred duty to impose that doctrine on others. You're basically attempting to confuse people into accepting your moral ethos as a candidate for common assumptions of what "well-meaning" should be. This is underhanded and not well-meaning at all. Perhaps you should try avoiding causing unnecessary harm with your words next time.
      - Cushman 11y ago
        Huh, I don't get it. I'm being really sincere here; I want you to think seriously about what it means, to you, to be kind to others, and then change your use of language -- or not -- however you see fit. But that message didn't even get past the firewall. Instead you decided to elaborately deconstruct what is probably the least presumptuous part of what I wrote, as a way to impute some contrived ulterior motive to me, as a way to not engage with what I was saying, at length. I guess I don't see what you're hoping to get out of this interaction at this point. Like, okay, you don't need to think about how your words affect other people... if you really don't want to?
      - bmelton 11y ago
        'You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not."' I think that's appropriate, actually. That you've defined well-meaning to encapsulate more people than it does is probably the core of the disagreement, but I think it's fair to say that most people are well-meaning, but not all people are. Comparing and contrasting "almost everybody" to "Ann Coulter", and I think it's easy to draw such a distinction. Most people are simply trying to communicate without deliberately pissing everybody off, while Ann Coulter gets pretty decent play out of pissing people off for the hell of it. That said, your point on "well-meaning" being an arbitrary distinction holds, though I would assert that if more people assumed good faith until proven otherwise, we wouldn't find ourselves being offended by every little thing.
- mycroft-holmes 11y ago
  Meanwhile in the real world everyone, including women, addresses a group of people as 'guys' - even a group that's entirely women. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but saying it's an aggression against women is a bit much.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Meanwhile in the real world everyone, including women, addresses a group of people as 'guys' - even a group that's entirely women. No, that's simply false. Sure, lots of people do it. Everyone does not.
    - mycroft-holmes 11y ago
      I didn't literally mean everyone. I meant the overwhelming majority of people.
- HAAAAMMMM 11y ago
  If you think pronoun accuracy is a primary concern regarding women in tech, I'm going to guess you have never seen a woman in tech. They are far more concerned about memory leaks and pointer management.
- tomjen3 11y ago
  From an article about React to gender in computing in 40 minutes. HN this is disappointing.