tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post4820875721710048570..comments2024-03-22T14:13:55.418-07:00Comments on wmtc: "you guys" revisited: further thoughts on the language policelaura khttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-79822052747012331482023-02-26T04:32:46.927-08:002023-02-26T04:32:46.927-08:00This is a new concept to me! Within this paradigm,...<i>This is a new concept to me! Within this paradigm, is there an inclusive way to refer to all dogs of all genders?</i><br /><br />Dogs of all genders are referred to as dogs. :)laura khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-64218941463075398772023-02-25T21:23:45.821-08:002023-02-25T21:23:45.821-08:00'Dog,' of course, technically only applies...<i>'Dog,' of course, technically only applies to the males so itself can be gender-exclusive!</i><br /><br />This is a new concept to me! Within this paradigm, is there an inclusive way to refer to all dogs of all genders?impudent strumpethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05599784976599854538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-46376717947919493422023-02-19T10:56:38.157-08:002023-02-19T10:56:38.157-08:00Yeah, it's not a fair question, but I love you...Yeah, it's not a fair question, but I love your take on it. Cross-reference my (lifelong) claim that the anti-abortion zealots are only interested in controlling and punishing women. Controlling access to contraception and abortion is a powerful way to control women's bodies and choices (or to try to). <br /><br />Looking at the language police this way explains why transgressions are met with such disproportionate punishments. Through this lens, the picture is very clear. <br /><br />laura khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-40168613221671955222023-02-19T10:38:40.594-08:002023-02-19T10:38:40.594-08:00"Do the think the intention is conscious, tha..."Do the think the intention is conscious, that the language is not really the issue?"<br /><br />I can't pretend to offer even the hope of an objective answer, Laura. I loathe the language coppers I know so much that I have to assume they are petty, sanctimonious, depraved fools, who hate language and wish to put it everywhere in chains. <br /><br />I don't think language is the issue for them as much as control and dominance: people have to say what they want them to say the way they want people to say it! Orwell feared the use of language to limit and distort thinking and to control people; the language cops certainly believe in the power of words, but, as I say, hope to put language in chains, lest thoughtcrime occur.<br /><br />Fuck that and fuck those guys!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />johngoldfinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322562737172405323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-13182923522803438602023-02-19T05:30:31.529-08:002023-02-19T05:30:31.529-08:00Thanks, John. I love this. We used to always call ...Thanks, John. I love this. We used to always call our dogs "girls," as in, "Bye girls, be good!" as we were leaving the house or "Girls?" for group recall. Then we adopted Diego, our first male dog, and we started calling them pups or puppies. <br /><br />We're pretty sure Diego was gay, but we don't know if he had any gender identity issues. :)<br /><br /><i>I think that some of the word-policing intends to create shibboleths that make it easy to distinguish in and out groups,</i><br /><br />So this is interesting! Do the think the intention is conscious, that the language is not really the issue? Or is the group identification more like a happy secondary result? laura khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-63222847161489967332023-02-18T14:54:05.398-08:002023-02-18T14:54:05.398-08:00I got pushback from female students sometime in th...I got pushback from female students sometime in the late 80s the first time I started class, "Okay, guys, showtime!"<br /><br />But by the 90s, not so much. By then for my students it was either gender-neutral, gender-inclusive, or simply not worth hassling the old dub about.<br /><br />I do feel funny when I call all my dogs 'boys,' as in "C'mon, boys, time to come in the house. House, boys!" 'Dogs' works for me too, but 'boys' comes to tongue just as easily--and none of the female dogs ever pushes back or considers me an old dub. ('Dog,' of course, technically only applies to the males so itself can be gender-exclusive!)<br /><br />I think that some of the word-policing intends to create shibboleths that make it easy to distinguish in and out groups, the virtuous from the vicious. And as you say, that very quickly turns into an ugly illiberalism mirroring the right wing. johngoldfinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09322562737172405323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-68177477368955197442023-02-15T19:51:10.645-08:002023-02-15T19:51:10.645-08:00You guys. I am mostly noticing it in series I'...You guys. I am mostly noticing it in series I'm watching, and mostly noticing how ubiquitous and gender-neutral and orientation-neutral it is. In person, I see the split between my colleagues who are purposely not saying it, and anyone else I hear.<br /><br />I also HATED the supposedly generic he. I used to write s/he. And I was so happy in that brief moment when the generic changed to she/her. I have trouble thinking that you guys is like that. But you're the first person to mention this angle, and I will definitely keep thinking.<br /><br />BIPOC. I don't know. I hate his use of the word normal there. To me it's obvious he's trying to be provocative. There's no reason to imply that we who use BIPOC are not normal. Perhaps he thinks so-called normal people don't need to describe this? <br /><br />However, I do like his analysis of why BIPOC is a weird word. I still use People of Colour -- which includes Black and Indigenous -- for all the reasons he says. laura khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-20971094893849810552023-02-15T19:18:40.683-08:002023-02-15T19:18:40.683-08:00'BIPOC' Is Jargon. That's OK, and Norm...<i>'BIPOC' Is Jargon. That's OK, and Normal People Don't Have to Say It.</i><br /><br />What is it that he thinks Normal People are saying instead?<br /><br />I mean that genuinely. I was under the impression that BIPOC was the current term and was linguistically unmarked, so if it isn't and there's something else that's linguistically unmarked, I'd like to know what it is so I can make informed decisions about the words I put in other people's mouths.impudent strumpethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05599784976599854538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-83552414682577140912023-02-15T19:15:29.831-08:002023-02-15T19:15:29.831-08:00It's interesting that you're not seeing up...It's interesting that you're not seeing uptake, because I was just thinking the other day that I see people deliberately circumlocuting "you guys" more and more frequently.<br /><br />It would be interesting to know (but probably unknowable) if we're actually seeing different patterns, or if there are just different patterns to what we're noticing. <br /><br />I know I do tend to notice circumlocutions more than the average person, especially when it's something that I'm also looking for strategies on how to circumlocute. But I know that you'd also be able to recognize where editorial decisions are being made.<br /><br />I can't say I'd notice when people <i>are</i> using "you guys" because it feels completely neutral and benign to me. (I still think someone needs to do a linguistics study to see if it's geographical and/or demographic.) <br /><br />But it's that very sense that it's benign that leads me to make a specific effort not to use it. When I was younger, there were some people (generally older, privileged men) who insisted most vociferously that a generic "he" was in fact neutral and benign and not gendered at all, in a way that reflects how I intuitively feel that "you guys" is neutral and benign and not gendered at all. I find the idea of being like those people repulsive, so I try to circumlocute "you guys".impudent strumpethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05599784976599854538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-69378583310759842922023-02-13T07:12:14.330-08:002023-02-13T07:12:14.330-08:00Thanks! Thanks! Marie Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13872774009526266579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-57585460548067068052023-02-13T06:52:04.722-08:002023-02-13T06:52:04.722-08:00Marie Snyder, I don't know if I've ever to...Marie Snyder, I don't know if I've ever told you, but I LOVE your comments. You are always so thoughtful, I always learn something, and I always know you've read the whole post. Many thanks.laura khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-82431721559817950702023-02-13T06:03:33.500-08:002023-02-13T06:03:33.500-08:00This is a great post! I also use "guys" ...This is a great post! I also use "guys" as a gender neutral noun, and my oldest, who is trans, has yet to comment on it. I wasn't even aware it's a faux pas. I also use "dude" in the same way, but when addressing just one person of any gender. But to your point that "folks" hasn't taken over in our language, it's possible two years isn't enough time to make that shift. We might see nothing change, then everything all at once. I'll likely keep saying "guys" until someone in my circles asks me not to. I also lean towards making simple changes in my language if it makes people in the room more comfortable. And, while I agree it's just blind loyalty - or blind <i>thoughtfulness</i> or <i>considerateness</i> - I think sometimes that's exactly what it takes to make change. Stop saying the offensive words in x place (school/work) because we say so, and then they become words people just don't say anymore. <br /><br />I had a few teachers back in the early 80s who openly used racial slurs, and that just doesn't happen now, and obviously that's a <i>good</i> thing! I don't understand the offensiveness of "guys," but I also don't understand the offensiveness of other terms but follow along with what's generally most accepted. Like the R-word, which was a medical term I learned in uni. It absorbed the hatefulness and pejorative comments directed to the group until the term itself was seen as offensive. So we shifted descriptive terms, and continue to do that whenever they absorb too much hate, instead of reclaiming them. As someone with ASD, I'm "Level 1" now instead of "high-functioning," and I guess that sounds better, but only until people start getting offended that their child is considered "Level 3" and we start to use animal names to identify levels of ability like we do in swimming lessons so children don't acknowledge who's better or worse.<br /><br />But then the second part of the post - absolutely! It's like when <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-peril-of-writing-a-provocative-email-at-yale/484418/" rel="nofollow">Erika Christakis</a> wrote an open letter suggesting it's okay if kids want to dress up like Mulan for Hallowe'en and was pushed out of her position at Yale for it. We're playing into the hands of the capitalist elites when we fight among ourselves over trivial matters instead of joining together to fight the people provoking things like the <a href="https://balloon-juice.com/2023/02/12/everything-was-in-fact-not-fine/" rel="nofollow">derailment in Ohio</a> and the people unable to find housing, etc. (and now I might be destroyed for calling costumes trivial!). <br /><br /> Marie Snyderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13872774009526266579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-17793659069226865892023-02-12T16:28:22.408-08:002023-02-12T16:28:22.408-08:00Thanks for sharing, Amy. :)Thanks for sharing, Amy. :)laura khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05524593142290489958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7593664.post-9695163807425474982023-02-12T14:18:25.032-08:002023-02-12T14:18:25.032-08:00Having used "you guys" all my life to me...Having used "you guys" all my life to mean more than one person regardless of gender, I guess I never saw it as sexist or transphobic or otherwise offensive since to me "guy" meant a person, not a male person. Since reading your earlier column, I've been more aware of how some might find offensive because they hear "guy" as male, not as any person. So I do think about who I am saying it to, but I have never had anyone indicate that they (he or she or they) were offended. It just means "people" to most people. Like folks. :) At least in the Northeast US. <br /><br />Amyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15720293202890878993noreply@blogger.com