[156865] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: guys != gender neutral
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?=)
Fri Sep 28 05:00:45 2012
From: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rn_Mork?= <bjorn@mork.no>
To: Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:00:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CACnPsNXEApC_Ycmr3d61M5P+RsAjf8ZBjNcwqUYUYSTdz4LCfw@mail.gmail.com>
(Scott Howard's message of "Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:08:11 -0700")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Scott Howard <scott@doc.net.au> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com> wro=
te:
>
>> Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
>> used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to
>> be very neutral. Using "guys" is not gender neutral, it's flat out imply=
ing
>> the other gender doesn't matter. *
>>
>
> The Oxford English dictionary apparently disagrees with you.
>
> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/guy?region=3Dus=
&q=3Dguys
> (*guys*) people of either sex: * you guys want some coffee?
> *
>
> As other many words in the English language there are multiple definition=
s,
> and one of those definitions is gender specific - but the one above is ve=
ry
> much gender neutral ("either sex" - it doesn't get much clearer than that=
!)
Well, "either" sort of implies that there are only two sexes. I believe
"people of any sex" would have been better. See e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Bj=C3=B8rn
