I personally am pragmatic and not driven by emotion and thus I look at things in numbers. No matter how hard you try there will be a way of communication that insults at least one person or makes them uncomfortable.
If someone finds being referred to as a 'guy' insulting and uncomfortable then we should stop doing it.
I would ask how many people dislike a term or a way of speaking. Is it a significant portion? Say 25% then sure lets adjust. If it is 1% then maybe not. There is also a matter of impact or magnitude of insult. For instance my sister does not like being called "maam" as it makes her feel old. This is relatively minor on the insult scale vs saying the B word in place of maam.
So with any language, not just the term 'guys', that we try to force out of existence I would ask how many people it offends and what is the magnitude of offense. If the answer to both of those are low then we have bigger issues to worry about with our limited capacity for change and improvement.
Professional web developer and hobbyist programmer from the Welsh Marches. I'm particularly interested in performance, accessibility, and reducing carbon emissions from software.
I was not suggesting that we force a term out of existence, merely that if a particular person / group of people dislike being called something then we should stop calling them that. To use the example of your sister, if she dislikes being called "maam" then I think not calling her that is perfectly reasonable, but I see no reason why you should then stop calling other people that who either don't mind or actually like it.
I often find that I modify the way I use language depending on the people I'm talking to. For example more technical with colleagues, using shared references around friends, but more formal around people I don't know so well.
Perhaps I mis-read the post, but I don't think that Eevis was for a moment suggesting that the word 'guys' be expunged from the English language, just that she and many other women find it objectionable so we should stop using it to refer to them in particular. Language is by its nature malleable, and I really don't see the problem with modifying your usage of it depending on context.
I was not suggesting that we force a term out of existence, merely that if a particular person / group of people dislike being called something then we should stop calling them that.
Agreed. I am all for listening to requests from individuals. We have been doing this for ages. "Hi, I'm James Smith but you can call me Jim". 95+% of people would have no problem calling that person Jim and would listen to the request. Why people make a stink about requests at the individual level is beyond me. My only concern is wholesale changes, where I think they should be prudent.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I personally am pragmatic and not driven by emotion and thus I look at things in numbers. No matter how hard you try there will be a way of communication that insults at least one person or makes them uncomfortable.
I would ask how many people dislike a term or a way of speaking. Is it a significant portion? Say 25% then sure lets adjust. If it is 1% then maybe not. There is also a matter of impact or magnitude of insult. For instance my sister does not like being called "maam" as it makes her feel old. This is relatively minor on the insult scale vs saying the B word in place of maam.
So with any language, not just the term 'guys', that we try to force out of existence I would ask how many people it offends and what is the magnitude of offense. If the answer to both of those are low then we have bigger issues to worry about with our limited capacity for change and improvement.
I was not suggesting that we force a term out of existence, merely that if a particular person / group of people dislike being called something then we should stop calling them that. To use the example of your sister, if she dislikes being called "maam" then I think not calling her that is perfectly reasonable, but I see no reason why you should then stop calling other people that who either don't mind or actually like it.
I often find that I modify the way I use language depending on the people I'm talking to. For example more technical with colleagues, using shared references around friends, but more formal around people I don't know so well.
Perhaps I mis-read the post, but I don't think that Eevis was for a moment suggesting that the word 'guys' be expunged from the English language, just that she and many other women find it objectionable so we should stop using it to refer to them in particular. Language is by its nature malleable, and I really don't see the problem with modifying your usage of it depending on context.
Agreed. I am all for listening to requests from individuals. We have been doing this for ages. "Hi, I'm James Smith but you can call me Jim". 95+% of people would have no problem calling that person Jim and would listen to the request. Why people make a stink about requests at the individual level is beyond me. My only concern is wholesale changes, where I think they should be prudent.