I've referred to entirely-female groups of people as "you guys". It seemed like a better bet than "hey ladies", and I'm not southern enough to pull off "y'all".
I'm not southern either, I'm from Central Florida [0] and we use Y'all often. I believe in your ability to use Y'all too! Embrace Y'all :)
[0] There's a joke in Florida that the further north you go, the more south you are. The further south you go, the more north you are. It's 100% true too.
It is only once I hear y'all from woke people that I start to understand why people dislike so-called "cultural appropriation". It is cringey and weird-sounding to me. And also if you were to speak to these same people saying "y'all" in any southern accent you would be seen as uneducated.
referring to a group of females as "you guys" has been the best way to express non-sexism through the 2000s in my view. It's like brazenly saying, "I refuse to make anything of your gender, nor would I think your gender means I should hold a door for you, because again I'm not even thinking about the existence of gender." If we lose that usage, I'll be culturally lost and disoriented.
Y'all is usually positive, but can be negative "What on earth did y'all do now?!?", and "you lot" leans negative, but can be used positively "Alright you lot, lets get it done".
Tone of voice is extremely important in both examples.
And you’d be surprised at the number of people who (validly) don’t like this but won’t speak up about it. I know women in tech who tell me this exact behavior feels constantly degrading and makes them want to leave tech. There are alternatives in English other than y’all, such as “team” or “everyone” or “all”.
I've been wondering what would happen if the same political correctness ever came to Spanish. Every noun is gendered, usually according to whether it is associated with males or female roles.
The term doesn't even have a broadly accepted spanish pronunciation yet!
I think the term exemplifies the issues that occur when (especially white) "diversity professionals" are given institutional power to speak on behalf of racial groups they are not a part of.
I'm happy to refer to individuals who identify as latinx as such, but I think it is wildly presumptive and slightly offensive to assume this form should be preferred in general when the Latino community has not yet accepted it. Something about the academic/professional class in America defining the term for a diverse group of people spread over multiple continents rubs me as off-putting and ironically colonialist. (But I'm a white dude, so my opinion doesn't even matter and we should all happily use whatever term becomes accepted by the Latino community)
Latine seems to be gaining some steam as well, and makes a lot more sense: -e is the gender neutral suffix in spanish. However, it is still not broadly accepted (as can be seen in this comment section)
Latin would be ungendered, but it's been said for years by all sorts of people so it doesn't serve the cultural signalling purposes to show that you're enlightened. Gotta use that x to demonstrate your tribal allegiance.
Latin also doesn't imply "of south or central America" in the way latino/latina/latinx/latiné (which is the other approach that's gender neutral and easier to pronounce that I've seen) do. Latin implies, at least to me central European, old and vaguely Italian, as opposed to Latino.
You could also use "Latin American", which may also work, but historically Latino/a have been preferred, possibly since "Latino" is a lot easier to say than "Latinoamericano".
The question is, preferred by whom? Most Hispanic people use "Hispanic", and almost all of the remainder use "Latino". The other terms are fashion statements to show that the speaker keeps up with new intellectual trends, so they lose preference whenever they become too well known; you can date groups like fossil records by seeing whether their name uses "Latinx", "Latina/o", "Latin@", or "Latin".
I think phrasing it as 3% is a little misleading. Another way to view that same study is roughly 15% of Hispanics (and 21% of Hispanic women) who have heard the word have almost immediately adopted using it to describe themselves. That gives a slightly different picture on its adoption.
I did some quick searching and couldn't find parallels for adoption rates among other groups for new terminology. For example, the Black community has gone through several different self identifying nomenclature changes over the years. Were any of those changes immediately and universally accepted within a handful of years? My guess is probably not.
And what about the remainder that hear it and reject it? Are they not considered?
I'm Latino myself and I find that almost no one that actually speaks either Spanish or Portuguese (or another language commonly spoken in Latin America) as their first language adopts it. The few I've seen adopt it at those that are born and raised in the US and have relatively literal cultural connection to the country of their ancestors.
If Spanish or Portuguese are truly your native tongue, Latinx feels incredibly awkward. Personally, I'm uninterested in the opinions of those who aren't native speakers of one of these two languages when it comes to using the term Latinx or not.
>And what about the remainder that hear it and reject it? Are they not considered?
I don't know how you got that from my comment. I am not advocating for Latinx as the one and only descriptor. I am simply pointing out that it is being adopted quickly considering how recently it entered the lexicon.
>I'm Latino myself and I find that almost no one that actually speaks either Spanish or Portuguese (or another language commonly spoken in Latin America) as their first language adopts it. The few I've seen adopt it at those that are born and raised in the US and have relatively literal cultural connection to the country of their ancestors.
>If Spanish or Portuguese are truly your native tongue, Latinx feels incredibly awkward.
I can't deny your experience, but I will simply say the numbers from that survey do not agree with your conclusions. The percentage of people who adopt Latinx actually grows for people who use Spanish more. The rough adoption rates are 10% for English dominant speakers, 14% for bilingual speakers, and 29% for Spanish dominant speakers.
>Personally, I'm uninterested in the opinions of those who aren't native speakers of one of these two languages when it comes to using the term Latinx or not.
I don't think this type of gatekeeping is productive. It is meant to be a ethnic identity. Anyone of that identities as part of the group should have an equal input on the naming conventions. I'm not aware of any other ethnic group in the US that is defined by different names depending on their native language.
From a data science perspective, I'd argue that "a (sub)demographic exists where >50% of people who have heard of the term use it to self identify" could be a good indication of when society should interpret a term as "meaningfully prominent". It looks like there is no demographic which exceeds a 30% proportion of heard to using Latinx.
I wonder if the term reaches this proposed 50% threshold within the college-educated LGBT 18-29y/o Latino/x/e population.
A few Hispanic that were also LGBT started Latinx. LGBT Hispanic are not some hivemind borg and when people state "LGBT Hispanic people did X" it eliminates the agency of all the individuals who are both LGBT and Hispanic.
In Spanish? I’m having a hard time imagining how a word in Spanish would sound with an “X” at the end. “Latine” seems easily pronounceable but I’m not sure what the point of adding the “e” is. It’s not like that vowel signals gender neutrality in any consistent manner in Romance languages.
Spanish speaker here. X after N is basically non existing in Spanish. Most people who don't speak other languages will struggle pronouncing that. Spanish speaking woke-alikes use "e" or "@", or unnecessarily repeat the words in both genders.
Also in Latin(American) includes Portuguese and French speakers. Limit it to Spanish language/culture/heritage would be Hispanicx, which is also nonsensical, especially because I just made it up.
But I'm just a person who speaks Spanish, French and Portuguese, so take my word with a grain of salt.
Latinx is pronounced the same in English and Spanish. It being unusual for Spanish is why Latine is more popular in countries with less English influence.
Nothing signals gender neutrality. That's why people made something up. e is a simple replacement for a and o and sounds more natural than i or u.
Way more Latino Democrats watch Fox News than listen to NPR: https://images.app.goo.gl/kpSgBJpsvVGTqPNC6. I suspect the third of Latinos who voted for Trump listen to NPR at even lower rates.
The point is that typical Latino people aren’t in the NYT’s and NPR’s target audience. That’s why those outlets use terms like “Latinx” that polling shows are unfamiliar to most Latinos. (I’m using the example of Fox News just as the banana for scale, so to speak. If you have a preconceived view that people of color who watch Fox News are relatively rare, ones who read the New York Times are rarer still by a large margin: https://images.app.goo.gl/vgyXCnAoS8TdPYU3A)
I had the opportunity to ask a very social-justice-minded friend of mine how custom pronouns and genders could possibly work in Arabic, which has many deeply integrated rules on gender modification of words. Adjectives, verbs, and pronouns all change depending on the gender of the object. Her response was that the language must be changed to suit the preferences of people with nonstandard genders.
It really feels sometimes that this is a sort of soft English imperialism, forcing other languages to the margins by making their use "impolite" to the global audience.
I find it hilarious (and sad) that I'm being downvoted because women have told me that they don't like being referred to as a guy when they're not one, and its one of the many ways that the 'default male' attributes of tech take a toll on them.
Another personal anecdote, but not only do I consider "guys" gender neutral, but I found it kind of alienating when a few people clearly stopped saying "guys" shortly after I joined the team. I was the only woman on the team that summer (internship), and I think they were just trying to be nice, but I don't like when attention is called to gender in the workplace. The more (actively) aware I am of being "different", the more it impacts interactions.
I don't doubt that some people think the way you're describing, but it just seems to me that complaining about gender-inclusive "guys" is the exact mirror of complaining about AAVE. It's extraordinarily exclusive to say that you can't be comfortable unless everyone talks the same way you do.
Not at all -- you're using a very specific word to refer to someone that they could consider inaccurate. If in AAVL there's some word that would refer to me as a woman or straight or a diff identity than I have, I wouldn't like that very much.
The problem is that "you guys" simply does not contain an assumption of anyone's identity in my dialect. Both women and men in my circles use it freely regardless of the group's gender balance. So when I hear someone say that "you guys" doesn't respect their identity, it sounds to me like saying "y'all" or "everyone" doesn't respect their identity - it's hard to wrap my mind around what such a claim could mean.
I don't know that I've ever heard someone say "guys and gals" outside of TV.
It's easy for me to understand that some people use "guys" in a gendered way, but I don't see what that has to do with people like me who don't. The argument seems to be that their dialect is "normal" and everyone else has to learn to speak like them, which sounds terribly exclusionary.
I'm pretty confident they would not. I've often asked for such courtesy with regards to terms like "male privilege", and the most courteous responses I've ever gotten are attempts to educate me on why the term is not meant to be offensive, much like the response I've offered here. (The most common responses are along the lines that my discomfort is the whole point of using the term, so I'm sure you can see why it's hard to believe there's any symmetry here.)
How does the definition of male privilege differ in your respective dialects? What is your dialect's inoffensive term for what they mean by male privilege? Or is it the concept that offends you?
I have no objection to claims like "Men have gender-based advantages in many things" or "Women face many problems which are hard to understand when not experienced daily". The problem with the term "male privilege" is that it comes across to many people (including me) as a sort of attack - it seems to suggest men should feel embarrassed or ashamed about their gender. (And this isn't just some crazy scenario I made up - I've heard mainstream figures say they're embarassed to be men as many words.)
What I dislike about things like male privilege is it points the spotlight away from women and ways they are unfairly treated to men.
To me it feels likeanti-colonialist rhetoric perversely applied to gender relations. When you comment on colonialism it makes sense, I'm using a f'ton of resources from say Africa that saps that live there aren't allowed to. But for gender relations, it's not a zero sum game.
I don't feel like I've ever satisfactorily understood why it feeling degrading to them is of greater weight than the degrading feeling of being told that your natural pattern of speech is forbidden.
leave tech because of a gender neutral saying and no ill intent whatsoever?
that's ridiculous, honestly. it's just an example of how people can always find a reason to play the victim. you don't have to play along and reinforce victim mentality.
But "guys" is not the plural of "guy" in many regional dialects of US English. It is specifically gender neutral, and used by women to speak to a group of women -- e.g. a girls' soccer coach saying to her team, "Let's go guys!"
Can you expand on why y’all makes them feel degraded? Y’all is often used to convey a feeling of warmth towards the addressee or express familiarity, which seems the opposite of degrading.
I'm not saying y'all does, I'm saying 'hey guys' does when they're, in fact, not a guy. Or a least for some. I also know women who aren't offended by it and we've had explicit discussions surrounding it. But being more thoughtful doesn't seem to hurt anyone when there are more inclusive terms you can use.
I can tell you as a gay man I appreciate when people ask about my partner (gender neutral) versus default to wife. Am I offended by it? Not really, it's right 90% of the time. But it's nice that people are considerate of other options when they don't know themselves. And you don't know that I'm gay by looking at me. Many women you do know they're not a man, so you would already know that you're using the male pronoun as default for all people when you could be more contextual to the situation (and avoid pulling the entire history of male-dominated societies and language with it).
The problem I have with the word "partner" is that it is ambiguous -- it could mean life partner, sexual partner, or business partner. Honestly I wish there were another commonly accepted word I could use to avoid the ambiguity. "Spouse" comes close (if the couple is married) but there isn't a in well-accepted gender-neutral term for the other member in an unmarried pair. "SO" (significant other) comes close, but often I have to explain what that means, so I can't consider it well-accepted. And people seem to associate "partner" with sex, so if the couple is remaining chaste until marriage, using "partner" can be offensive. Sigh - English is hard.
"Partner" is a mostly term used with gays. straights many feel strange to apply this term to husband, also wife. Can someone not simply ask about "spouse"? There previously exists term without gender for such persons.
"Spouse" implies marriage. "Significant Other" is a common safe bet, but is a bit too much of a mouthful IMO.
I've seen "partner" being used in reference to hetero relationships more frequently in the last decade, and think that's probably a good development. "Boyfriend" and "Girlfriend" sounds a bit infantilizing to me when used in reference to adults.
My wife and I still call each other boyfriend/girlfriend, but we are old fashioned. We like it because we are an dating (each other), even though we are married.
One argument in favor of using partner is that boyfriend/girlfriend is ambiguous. My wife often refers to her close female friends as "my girlfriend", even though they are clearly not dating each other. It occasionally causes some confusion with people a generation older than us who aren't familiar with that usage.
Partner/spouse/significant other... doesn't make a difference which one to me. I just picked that one at random. The fact that people create space for me not to have a wife is what I appreciate.
So as a married man, I use partner: it fits with my understanding of marriage, we’re partners, we both have a hand in managing a household. It feels good to say.
The correct form is "folx". Spelling words with an "x" is more inclusive toward marginalized groups, particularly LGBTQIA+, despite there not being an "x" in there. See also womxn, Latinx, etc.
Twitch received quite a lot of backlash two days ago for using the term womxn. The sentiment was that it isn't inclusive and is instead transphobic, because it separates trans/non-binary women from other women.
There are plenty of other alternatives (folk, team, mates, friends, pals) - please realize there are a lot of women who are bothered by it and don't feel they can speak up about it.
You really are pushing the idea that all conversations should be altered so that no one is offended, for any reason however silly, ever. Because if they say it's offensive and attributes it to their identity, one cannot argue back.
why is it so hard to respect what people want to be called and referred to as? It's no different than someone with the name William wants to be referred to as Will, but you stubbornly keep referring to them as William because its their legal name and i can damnit!!!! Just acknowledge it and move on with your life.
When I was a kid, I couldn't pronounce R's and used to be teased endlessly. Should I demand words with r be banished because they made me uncomfortable? I didn't even know that was an option.
I'm not sure this is the hill I want to die on, but where is the line? How few or many people have to feel a certain way to effect change?
i'm not sure how this is the same as asking "please call me x", "please refer to me as his/her/them" compared to "i'm not going to say your name because i can't pronounce it" ?
This is under a thread of using "guys", which is what i'm specifically referring to, nothing else. Its common use, and dictionary definition even, is a nonderogatory nongendered word. So I personally feel taking it as gendered or as disrespect is disregarding the meaning of the word, and asking me to accept whatever yours is. Just as me asking nobody to use r words is asking the world to comply with my preferences.
I'm not going to argue right vs wrong or with you directly, I'm just explaining my comment and thought process.
It's the same argument thou - when you refer to a person/group of people you imply a lot about them with the word you use, men/children/kids/elders/americans/whites/ect - guys is no different to a lot of people as its so easily taken as gendered, and if said people don't want to be referred to by guys why not use a different one?
and fwiw the first definition for guys/guy in most dictionaries is "a man".
Because it is exhausting, and constant, and I believe rife with the chance at abuse in bad faith by those who want to feel constantly relevant and woke by redefining the lexicon.
your comment comes off as very condescending - you could have left out everything after "bad faith" and made a better argument - ever think how exhausting it is for people on the other side day in and out? and your complaining about having to not say a couple words? it's literally the least you can do and one step removed from doing nothing.
The name William has no commonly accepted or used meaning apart from as an identifier. I have no problem calling anyone by whatever identifier they choose, so long as they aren't asking me to apply an incorrect definition to that word.
The OED defines "guys" as a word used to refer to a group of people (male, female, or mixed). So if you ask me to not use a word because you refuse to accept its definition, that's very different to asking me to not use a word that is purely an identifier.
The first definition of "guy" in most dictionaries is "A Man", including the oxford english dictionary so while common use is that guys is genderless consider maybe it's not as clear cut and dry as you would like? And there is a reason why it's becoming an issue (the women and non binary folk who don't like it finally feel like they can speak out against it?)
And if you do a dictionary search for "You Guys" you get:
"used in speech and informal writing to refer to or address two or more people"[1]
which seems to imply that it is a gender neutral phrase, despite what the definition for "guys" is. Words can have wildly different definitions depending on the context in which they are used.
I can't say I agree with your reasoning of why some people think this type of thing is an issue. Also, your screenshot—I’ll assume unintentionally—has the plural definition hidden.
I'd really encourage you to take a step back here and think about how you'd react if it was your speech being policed. Imagine someone sent you an email declaring that the words "pop" and "soda" are exclusionary to Southerners, and from now on you need to refer to carbonated soft drinks only as "coke". It's an easy one-word substitution - would you do it?
What makes you think their speech isn’t policed as well? Is your victimhood that ingrained that you believe the other side doesn’t play by the rules, they’re only out to get you?
I assure you the “woke left” polices their own —- it’s a constant source of tension between unity of political power and unity of beliefs.
I'm sure the groups you're calling the "woke left" have intramural disputes about what's right to say. But I'm also quite confident that they have no general interest in making people comfortable. Indeed, most argue that people who don't think like them should be uncomfortable, because that discomfort will help enact social changes they'd like to see.
> because that discomfort will help enact social changes they'd like to see.
Yes, and they completely miss the fact that when other people make them feel uncomfortable, they don't respond by falling in line with the majority way of thinking, but instead react by becoming more radical or even violent.
I don't dispute the logic of people wanting to change an unjust status quo, I'm just trying to see the bigger picture, that the side supporting the status quo is worried that certain changes would cause society to degrade or become unstable.
There probably are cases where making people feel uncomfortable does lead to them changing their minds and accepting the position of the person making them uncomfortable, but I think the assumption should be that supporters of the status quo will just become more entrenched if they see people trying to make them uncomfortable, just as those working against injustice can become more committed to their cause when they face opposition.
