I would contest your assertion that “most people feel the urge to add a gender descriptor if the role is performed by a man [or woman]”. I cannot recall in recent memory anyone doing this; do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Additionally, given the inference of gender by pronoun usage (he is a nurse, she is a mechanic), the additional gender adjective is moot. Anecdotally, my wife is a nurse and has never referred, nor heard her colleagues refer, to her male counterparts as "male nurses".
Regarding the use of the words “guy” and “guys”—while it is true that they originated in reference to men (or more specifically, a man: Guy Fawkes), you are omitting the 200+ year history since that time, during which people have collectively adopted the use of "guys" in reference to all people, regardless of gender. I would argue that the evolutionary context of these words is more important than it’s 200+ year old origin.
**tl;dr I finally made use of my degrees in Linguistics and Sociology and compiled a more detailed response. Thank you for your questions - I enjoyed putting these thoughts together and may write a longer blog post with more sources.
Of course, you will do whatever you see fit, and so will I. We can differ in opinion. In general, I tend to choose solutions that are not hurting folks. No one will be hurt if you say "hi friends" instead of "hi guys" but the latter carries meaning of exclusion in the perception of many and is proven to have psychological effects on women.**
do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Of course - and so do you! Here are some of the top google search results:
A paper on why people need to add the gender descriptor (which, as you yourself pointed out, is redundant and yet people use it because it carries the meaning of emphasizing that this specic man is not performing a woman's job ; similarly in "you guys" the word "guys" is redundant - it does not particularize the "you" and would be in fact be dropped had it not carried the meaning of camaraderie, togetherness, friendliness)
Moreover, if you google the phrases "he is a nurse" vs "he is a male nurse" you see very different results. The first one is mostly jokes and language learning resources, and the latter results in affinity group pages, NYT article, a research paper.
It is a phrase that's well-established in the English language. You can even see it on the ngram, which only takes into consideration the written resources. See how much more popular the phrase "a male nurse" is (I also included the phrase "he is a nurse").
Anecdotally, my wife is a nurse and has never referred, nor heard her colleagues refer, to her male counterparts as "male nurses".
My aunt is a nurse as well and she also doesn't refer to her colleagues as "male nurses" because she herself knows how ridiculous that is. We are not talking about people who are involved in the very denotation but the "general society". Had we been interested in what the folks involved in the very denotation have to say, we wouldn't have this exchange here because you'd accept the claim made by the OP that "guys" may not be the most neutral.
Regarding the use of the words “guy” and “guys”—while it is true that they originated in reference to men (or more specifically, a man: Guy Fawkes), you are omitting the 200+ year history since that time, during which people have collectively adopted the use of "guys" in reference to all people, regardless of gender.
As you're pointing out, language is a living thing - and the very word we are discussing went through a few changes as well. Currently, there is a new change coming with more and more folks pushing back against the term.
I'm not sure which time period you're referring to with the 200+ history reference but let's get it straightened out:
proper noun: Before 17th century, the word "Guy" only referred to proper names and as such wasn't a part of the common discourse (in fact, Guy Fawkes himself went by the Italian Guido).
eponym: Then, in the 17th century the gunpowder plot happened and it grew into myths across the UK and Europe. This is when the name became a word denoting men (!) of low morals, used especially in the protestant circles, slowly referring to the puppet burned in observance of the tradition every year on Nov 5th.
semantic extension: about a century later, the word "guy" took a new life of its own and started denoting common people, and then, in the 20th century in the US, working class men (!), which is when the word entered the mainstream in the new meaning, also in the mass media. Then it was appropriated by feminists and other women, and still is. However, just like with many other words that were first appropriated to make a point by one generation, the next generation sees no little need for that because the point was made.
There are multiple resources on that the word is not necessarily great to use at a workplace, as well as its psychological impact. Here are some starters:
Thank you for your questions - I enjoyed putting these thoughts together and may write a longer blog post with more sources.
You’re welcome, and you absolutely should! This is an excellent rebuttal, and exactly what I feel makes this community great—the open and civil discussion of ideas. 😊
On gender adjectives, I completely agree that the phrase “he is a male nurse”, or even just the term “male nurse” is established in our common vocabulary (amongst other variations). I wasn’t claiming the opposite, though perhaps my choice of words were insufficient. I was specifically referring to the spoken word; verbal conversations. As both your aunt and my wife point out, to their knowledge and experience, nurses are not referring to other nurses as “male nurses” as it would be “ridiculous” and redundant. I think we can both agree that gender-described professions exist in language.
Certainly, the history of the word “guys” largely originated in reference to men, and your breakdown of history does a great job of detailing the evolution of the word’s use. But a key point you make is that at some moment in time, the majority of people adopted the word as commonplace and found it acceptably useful for meaning “a group of people”, regardless of the word’s origins. To @jonrandy‘s original point: context matters. If the people have collectively deemed that word to be apt, then those who are being addressed so should consider that before feeling hurt or invisible (after all, the only thing that can harm us is our minds; the thoughts we have in response to impressions)—as that is not the intent. And should the people collectively decide to cast “guys” by the wayside in favour of something else, then so be it—change is constant. And certainly, if someone is intentionally, maliciously using language to alienate others, then that should be called out.
In general, I tend to choose solutions that are not hurting folks. No one will be hurt if you say "hi friends" instead of "hi guys" but the latter carries meaning of exclusion in the perception of many and is proven to have psychological effects on women.
I too choose solutions that are not hurting folks, wherever possible. Used in context, “guys” is innocuous. But the forced muzzling of the masses through the ultimatum of “compassion or cancelled” is a “solution” I will not accept, as it creates more divisive hurt than the hurt it claims to prevent. While I know you haven’t specifically mentioned consequences for not dropping the word “guys”, I felt it was worth stating my position for context.
Really appreciate you taking the time to respond. Looking forward to your post!
Since you mention the threat of being cancelled, the blog post itself was quite specific about how we should approach the use of non-inclusive language:
However - language is very personal for us. So when saying anything about how another person uses language, approach it with empathy. They might feel that you're attacking them and that you're saying that they're doing those things because they're evil. It's good to remind them that it's not about them as a person but the words they use - and you don't assume they're doing it on purpose.
Do you feel about this proposed way of approaching the dialogue for more inclusive language would be hurtful?
Although you say that in context (which context?), the word guys is innocuous, I'd also like to highlight the following quote from the blog post:
I feel excluded whenever someone addresses a group I'm in with the words "hey guys."
Do you feel about this proposed way of approaching the dialogue for more inclusive language would be hurtful?
I do, because it unjustly posits that the person saying “guys” (or whatever phrase you choose) is by default wrong, and that they are morally naive and insufficient, otherwise they wouldn’t have committed the perceived hurt. It removes any blame on the accuser’s part before a good faith discussion can be had. And when the accused feel they have been wrongly so, you can bet that a significant number of those conversations either don’t go well, or they generate more division than union.
I feel that instead, the tried and tested “when you X, I feel Y” conversation starting point creates better outcomes, as the person who feels hurt can explain what event triggers those feeling, and then together they can navigate solutions (which don’t default to “don’t use that word”, but also don’t preclude it). Are you going to have this conversation with someone maliciously using language to segregate and hurt? No. Is this conversation going to be effective with strangers? Probably not. But having this conversation format with a person whom you respect and trust will generate far more success, and those are the people that matter most.
Although you say that in context (which context?), the word guys is innocuous, I'd also like to highlight the following quote from the blog post:
‘I feel excluded whenever someone addresses a group I'm in with the words "hey guys."’
So, not very ideal perhaps.
Perhaps I shall rephrase that in a future edit. My intention was, when used in the right context, with the right people, that that word is not harmful at all. It is untrue to say that the word “guys” is always harmful, all of the time, and as such, I don’t feel it should be dropped from our vocabulary.
Additionally, that quote has no context. Is the default stance that if the word “guys” is used that hurt feelings of exclusion occur? What was the makeup of the group being referred to? If it was 0:1 male-to-female, that doesn’t make sense to me. If it was 10:1 male-to-female, I can see how that could induce those feelings. But without the context, it puts everyone else at fault for their words by default. It creates an environment where the use of the word “guys” makes you automatically wrong, however I hope we can find common ground in that context is vital, and that such an environment should not exist.
It’s up to us to navigate those conversations and determine what language should be used in each given situation, not unlike choosing to greet someone formally or casually. The way I speak with my brother is different to how I would speak with a client.
it unjustly posits that the person saying “guys” (or whatever phrase you choose) is by default wrong, and that they are morally naive and insufficient, otherwise they wouldn’t have committed the perceived hurt. It removes any blame on the accuser’s part before a good faith discussion can be had. And when the accused feel they have been wrongly so, you can bet that a significant number of those conversations either don’t go well, or they generate more division than union.
Interesting. Is that how you respond to all feedback you receive, or just on misgendering people? What accuser? The post proposed to kindly ask people to use inclusive language, and not blame any person and just focus on language.
when used in the right context, with the right people, that that word is not harmful at all. It is untrue to say that the word “guys” is always harmful, all of the time, and as such, I don’t feel it should be dropped from our vocabulary.
The blog post did not propose to remove the word "guys" from vocubulary. It simply highlighted that using this gendered noun to address a group of people of diverse genders causes those in the group not identifying as "guys" to feel excluded. I hope this clears it up.
But the very person using the word 'guys' IS using inclusive language as far as they're concerned. They almost certainly meant nothing by it, and the automatic assumption that they did is - I think - what is being referred to as unjust. Is it right to automatically think the worst of everyone? Words mean different things to different people and the free flow of information is impeded by having to negotiate the minefield of eggshells that gets set up by policing language in this way.
I'm all for embracing and celebrating our differences, but dictating how people should speak and the 'correct' way to interpret words, or telling them that they're wrong for using language that is totally normal to them seems pretty exclusionary and intolerant to me.
Everyone is different. Embrace and accept that. Be happy. Live and let live. If you look for reasons to be offended, you'll find them everywhere - but why subject yourself to that?
Interesting. Is that how you respond to all feedback you receive, or just on misgendering people? What accuser? The post proposed to kindly ask people to use inclusive language, and not blame any person and just focus on language.
I always consider the context around feedback received, as well as the motives of the person providing it. How else are you supposed to respond rationally? If someone gave me some feedback but it was clear their motives were malicious, I’m not going to take that seriously. This is why I suggested an alternative conversation starter (“when you X, I feel Y”), which I feel would yield better results. I’m not against having these conversations, I’m all for them. Honest and open discussion is the only way to reduce division and find common ground.
The blog post did not propose to remove the word "guys" from vocubulary. It simply highlighted that using this gendered noun to address a group of people of diverse genders causes those in the group not identifying as "guys" to feel excluded. I hope this clears it up.
I agree with you, the post did not call for the word to be removed from our vocabulary. The point I am making is that suggesting we replace the word with “more inclusive variations” is the same thing. You could argue that you can still use the word “guys” when addressing a group of men, but the you can argue “don’t assume they identify as men, so use a ‘safer’ word to address the group”, and we end up in a circular argument.
I don’t have a solution to this conundrum. I don’t believe forcing everyone to change widely acceptable language is the answer. I also don’t think that continuing to take actions that negatively affect others is the answer. I’m just hoping to have honest, meaningful conversations and help others to do the same.
Appreciate your thoughts.
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 would contest your assertion that “most people feel the urge to add a gender descriptor if the role is performed by a man [or woman]”. I cannot recall in recent memory anyone doing this; do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Additionally, given the inference of gender by pronoun usage (he is a nurse, she is a mechanic), the additional gender adjective is moot. Anecdotally, my wife is a nurse and has never referred, nor heard her colleagues refer, to her male counterparts as "male nurses".
Regarding the use of the words “guy” and “guys”—while it is true that they originated in reference to men (or more specifically, a man: Guy Fawkes), you are omitting the 200+ year history since that time, during which people have collectively adopted the use of "guys" in reference to all people, regardless of gender. I would argue that the evolutionary context of these words is more important than it’s 200+ year old origin.
**tl;dr I finally made use of my degrees in Linguistics and Sociology and compiled a more detailed response. Thank you for your questions - I enjoyed putting these thoughts together and may write a longer blog post with more sources.
Of course, you will do whatever you see fit, and so will I. We can differ in opinion. In general, I tend to choose solutions that are not hurting folks. No one will be hurt if you say "hi friends" instead of "hi guys" but the latter carries meaning of exclusion in the perception of many and is proven to have psychological effects on women.**
Of course - and so do you! Here are some of the top google search results:
Moreover, if you google the phrases "he is a nurse" vs "he is a male nurse" you see very different results. The first one is mostly jokes and language learning resources, and the latter results in affinity group pages, NYT article, a research paper.
It is a phrase that's well-established in the English language. You can even see it on the ngram, which only takes into consideration the written resources. See how much more popular the phrase "a male nurse" is (I also included the phrase "he is a nurse").
My aunt is a nurse as well and she also doesn't refer to her colleagues as "male nurses" because she herself knows how ridiculous that is. We are not talking about people who are involved in the very denotation but the "general society". Had we been interested in what the folks involved in the very denotation have to say, we wouldn't have this exchange here because you'd accept the claim made by the OP that "guys" may not be the most neutral.
As you're pointing out, language is a living thing - and the very word we are discussing went through a few changes as well. Currently, there is a new change coming with more and more folks pushing back against the term.
I'm not sure which time period you're referring to with the 200+ history reference but let's get it straightened out:
There are multiple resources on that the word is not necessarily great to use at a workplace, as well as its psychological impact. Here are some starters:
And so on and so forth.
You’re welcome, and you absolutely should! This is an excellent rebuttal, and exactly what I feel makes this community great—the open and civil discussion of ideas. 😊
On gender adjectives, I completely agree that the phrase “he is a male nurse”, or even just the term “male nurse” is established in our common vocabulary (amongst other variations). I wasn’t claiming the opposite, though perhaps my choice of words were insufficient. I was specifically referring to the spoken word; verbal conversations. As both your aunt and my wife point out, to their knowledge and experience, nurses are not referring to other nurses as “male nurses” as it would be “ridiculous” and redundant. I think we can both agree that gender-described professions exist in language.
Certainly, the history of the word “guys” largely originated in reference to men, and your breakdown of history does a great job of detailing the evolution of the word’s use. But a key point you make is that at some moment in time, the majority of people adopted the word as commonplace and found it acceptably useful for meaning “a group of people”, regardless of the word’s origins. To @jonrandy‘s original point: context matters. If the people have collectively deemed that word to be apt, then those who are being addressed so should consider that before feeling hurt or invisible (after all, the only thing that can harm us is our minds; the thoughts we have in response to impressions)—as that is not the intent. And should the people collectively decide to cast “guys” by the wayside in favour of something else, then so be it—change is constant. And certainly, if someone is intentionally, maliciously using language to alienate others, then that should be called out.
I too choose solutions that are not hurting folks, wherever possible. Used in context, “guys” is innocuous. But the forced muzzling of the masses through the ultimatum of “compassion or cancelled” is a “solution” I will not accept, as it creates more divisive hurt than the hurt it claims to prevent. While I know you haven’t specifically mentioned consequences for not dropping the word “guys”, I felt it was worth stating my position for context.
Really appreciate you taking the time to respond. Looking forward to your post!
Since you mention the threat of being cancelled, the blog post itself was quite specific about how we should approach the use of non-inclusive language:
Do you feel about this proposed way of approaching the dialogue for more inclusive language would be hurtful?
Although you say that in context (which context?), the word guys is innocuous, I'd also like to highlight the following quote from the blog post:
So, not very ideal perhaps.
I do, because it unjustly posits that the person saying “guys” (or whatever phrase you choose) is by default wrong, and that they are morally naive and insufficient, otherwise they wouldn’t have committed the perceived hurt. It removes any blame on the accuser’s part before a good faith discussion can be had. And when the accused feel they have been wrongly so, you can bet that a significant number of those conversations either don’t go well, or they generate more division than union.
I feel that instead, the tried and tested “when you X, I feel Y” conversation starting point creates better outcomes, as the person who feels hurt can explain what event triggers those feeling, and then together they can navigate solutions (which don’t default to “don’t use that word”, but also don’t preclude it). Are you going to have this conversation with someone maliciously using language to segregate and hurt? No. Is this conversation going to be effective with strangers? Probably not. But having this conversation format with a person whom you respect and trust will generate far more success, and those are the people that matter most.
Perhaps I shall rephrase that in a future edit. My intention was, when used in the right context, with the right people, that that word is not harmful at all. It is untrue to say that the word “guys” is always harmful, all of the time, and as such, I don’t feel it should be dropped from our vocabulary.
Additionally, that quote has no context. Is the default stance that if the word “guys” is used that hurt feelings of exclusion occur? What was the makeup of the group being referred to? If it was 0:1 male-to-female, that doesn’t make sense to me. If it was 10:1 male-to-female, I can see how that could induce those feelings. But without the context, it puts everyone else at fault for their words by default. It creates an environment where the use of the word “guys” makes you automatically wrong, however I hope we can find common ground in that context is vital, and that such an environment should not exist.
It’s up to us to navigate those conversations and determine what language should be used in each given situation, not unlike choosing to greet someone formally or casually. The way I speak with my brother is different to how I would speak with a client.
Appreciate your questions 😊
Interesting. Is that how you respond to all feedback you receive, or just on misgendering people? What accuser? The post proposed to kindly ask people to use inclusive language, and not blame any person and just focus on language.
The blog post did not propose to remove the word "guys" from vocubulary. It simply highlighted that using this gendered noun to address a group of people of diverse genders causes those in the group not identifying as "guys" to feel excluded. I hope this clears it up.
But the very person using the word 'guys' IS using inclusive language as far as they're concerned. They almost certainly meant nothing by it, and the automatic assumption that they did is - I think - what is being referred to as unjust. Is it right to automatically think the worst of everyone? Words mean different things to different people and the free flow of information is impeded by having to negotiate the minefield of eggshells that gets set up by policing language in this way.
I'm all for embracing and celebrating our differences, but dictating how people should speak and the 'correct' way to interpret words, or telling them that they're wrong for using language that is totally normal to them seems pretty exclusionary and intolerant to me.
Everyone is different. Embrace and accept that. Be happy. Live and let live. If you look for reasons to be offended, you'll find them everywhere - but why subject yourself to that?
I always consider the context around feedback received, as well as the motives of the person providing it. How else are you supposed to respond rationally? If someone gave me some feedback but it was clear their motives were malicious, I’m not going to take that seriously. This is why I suggested an alternative conversation starter (“when you X, I feel Y”), which I feel would yield better results. I’m not against having these conversations, I’m all for them. Honest and open discussion is the only way to reduce division and find common ground.
I agree with you, the post did not call for the word to be removed from our vocabulary. The point I am making is that suggesting we replace the word with “more inclusive variations” is the same thing. You could argue that you can still use the word “guys” when addressing a group of men, but the you can argue “don’t assume they identify as men, so use a ‘safer’ word to address the group”, and we end up in a circular argument.
I don’t have a solution to this conundrum. I don’t believe forcing everyone to change widely acceptable language is the answer. I also don’t think that continuing to take actions that negatively affect others is the answer. I’m just hoping to have honest, meaningful conversations and help others to do the same.
Appreciate your thoughts.