3 ms·
I have used "guy" in the past and now make a conscious effort to avoid it. There's no need to create an implicit bias when saying something like, "We'll need t
by dankohn1 12y ago
I have used "guy" in the past and now make a conscious effort to avoid it.
There's no need to create an implicit bias when saying something like, "We'll need to recruit some Python guys to deal with this." Just use "people" instead. (Unless you're referring to the guys in the men's room.)
- arasmussen 12y ago"Hey people!" just doesn't have the same ring as "Hey guys!" I'm starting to use "folks" more for cases like this.
- baddox 12y ago> There's no need to create an implicit bias when saying something like, "We'll need to recruit some Python guys to deal with this." I might question whether the speaker or the listener would be the one creating the supposed bias in that case.
- dragonwriter 12y agoAs is usual with communication, the answer of "who creates the resulting effect" is "both the speaker and listener, not one or the other". Particularly, in this case, the speaker's contribution comes by choosing a term which has both a male-gender-specific and a gender-neutral sense rather than something unambiguously gender-neutral.
- baddox 12y agoAre you defining ambiguity by the number of people who report to have each interpretation? I suspect if you asked 1,000 American native English speakers (I don't know about English in other countries) how they interpreted that usage of "guys," the overwhelming majority would respond with the gender-neutral interpretation. Even among the people who are offended by the potential male-only interpretation, I suspect that for most it would be clear that they actually did understand the speaker's intentions.