11–20 of 69 posts
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
"Guys" can be used in both a male-gender-specific sense (for which the female-gender-specific rough equivalent is "gals"), or in a gender-neutral sense; there is no structural way to distinguish the uses. Like most places in English where a word has both a male-gender-specific use and a gender-neutral use, the latter is somewhat controversial with certain groups, who prefer unambiguously gender-neutral terms rather than dual-use terms that can either be male-gender-specific and gender-neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's common, but not correct.
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."
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
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.)
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
Nope. A guy is a man, multiple guys are multiple men. Gender-neutral equivalents: people, folks, team, friends, colleagues, you all (and various similar regionalisms - yoounz, y'all). Good on him for making the effort.
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Not really. It's still a microaggression in gender-sensitive contexts (such as women in tech)
Knowing where to draw that line is not - nor has it ever been - universal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Not really. It's still a microaggression in gender-sensitive contexts (such as women in tech)
> "To the women readers/watchers: I apologize for saying "guys" in a few places referring to groups of people" As a non-native speaker, isn't "guys" a correct term regardless of the gender?
Stayed to laugh the pedantic fixation upon gender pronouns.
Stay Hilary, HN.