-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Using "boys" to speak to everyone really needs to stop, and this is why.
- Thread starter astro
- Start date
You'll still find people using "ladies and gentlemen" at the start of speeches and the like, because public speaking tended to happen in 'polite society' where the speaker would be addressing nobility. It's probably not something I'd use today, because I recognise that it's outdated, but it is yet another example of how context and experience trumps pure etymology.
Again missing the point, You can't be objective.
"Pals" can be offensive, "People" sounds like a robot speaking. "All" doesn't follow a traditional UK speech cadence.
You have actively shortened the list of acceptable words. Word policing something you said you arn't doing.
Because "everything is offensive to someone else" and "people choose to be offended". Quality arguments right there, although nothing new; this "blame the offended" and "sticks and stones" narrative has been used for decades to legitimize the use of all and any word.
The Greek equivalent of "Hey guys" is "Hey children" so in my language it's totaly gender neutral and to me it really sounds awkward when I use the Engish phrase.
User Banned (permanent): Trolling, disingenuous rhetoric and inflammatory false equivalencies over a series of posts; account still in junior phase
It seems you missed the point of our socratic dialogue. it isn't just gender that matters for the purposes of impact analysis. You have to consider things like cultural appropriation, ageism, and all other kinds of experience discrimination that people go through. for example, you are advocating for the use of y'all as a common parlance of a group of people. Did you stop to consider the impact that would have on people from the south who feel that is a cultural appropriation?
did you stop to think about the impact of the word mates on people from Australia? The impact on gender fluid people is not the most important thing in the world. You have to consider the impact on everybody incoming to a cultural consensus. You don't simply get to change words and start using words that offend other people.
OP
OP
"people can sound like a robot speaking"
"all doesn't follow a traditional UK speech cadence"
Lmfao...
How can pal be offence? I'd like to know that one honestly.
Like I said earlier, this is part of a much broader conversation that you're unwilling to have. I agree with you that boys is an incorrect word to use to refer to mixed-gender groups, but you can't talk about the fight for gender equality if you're going to dodge the much more interesting, wide-ranging conversation that other people are having around you.
OP
OP
And, this is where the thread ended up...
What am I dodging?
I think the trouble is the universality of these proposed changes, OP. I don't have a trouble with changing things when asked by someone on a person by person basis, but it's hard to get behind a movement for "everyone" to change their speaking patterns for what I would imagine is a smaller subset of the population than "everyone" when odds are the two different sides may not even really meet in a situation where the words would be used in the first place - and this is on top of the fact that it's hard enough to nail down the degree to which it's a gendered term in the first place.
Is your argument that someone in the audience being Palestinian and taking "hey Pals" to be an intentional racial slur is exactly the same case as the OP?
Here you go, some context: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-buddy-what-call-someone-whose-name-forgotten
But again, language is totally subjective. Calling someone in the North of England "pal" might get you punched. Using it somewhere else might get you a hug. It's that pesky context again!
OP
OP
I don't know what is happening in this thread right now.
I always try to use non gendered terms even when not asked and in general i find the use of boys weird when addressing to a group to but to be honest OP your arguments are not making you look good at all.
The discussion that has spanned the last few pages about the importance of subjectivity and personal experience in interpreting and using language.
What on Earth is wrong with considering the impact on other social groups? This goes back to my initial question, why do you think gender fluid people are more important than any other people in the world? You also cut out the other examples I gave. Cultural appropriation of the word mate for example.
You are conveniently ignoring the impact that words have on other social groups. If you're going to ignore those social groups, why should they care about you?
OP
OP
And you're equating this to the word "boys", which means men, used in a male dominant society to refer to people who are less included because of said dominance?
Lol.
A fair bit of it is people suggesting that context is a really integral part of this discussion, and that people's backgrounds and life experiences create a world where various words have various implications to various people.
The only thing I see here that he could have missed is you obvious attempt at gotchas and massive trolling. I mean, not that it wasn't obvious that you weren't being discussing honestly, but the second you say something like "the impact on gender people isn't the most important in the world" in the same breath that you accuse "y'all" of being offensive Southern cultural appropriation... :D
I'm sorry, there's nuance to be had about other words, but all I'm seeing is a bunch of people who do not want to change their language and are twisting in knots to do so. "I can't say anything that won't offend someone anyway so why should I change!" This thread is about being more gender-inclusive by not using "boys." Not anything else.
OP
OP
No, a fair bit is the shit that a bunch of people just got banned for.
No. You asked how "pal" can be offensive, and I provided an example. At no point did I imply equivalence - that's on you.
Which is something I've already said is wrong, and something I've never done. I've also provided numerous examples of occasions where I've moderated my own language to accommodate people's feelings.
My hope was that people might be able to look beyond the narrow subject to see the broader implications, and plenty of people have. If the rule is that conversations have to be rigorously confined to their original subject with no additional context, then fair enough, I've overstepped those bounds.
And then moving on to stating that since context is impossible to ascertain, fuck it, we should use any word we want no matter who's offended.
Basically the old "the world is complicated, there's nuance, therefore let's use the same solution for every case".
Can you explain to me how or why it would be?
Yeah, it's definitely one of those words most people use meaning to be polite, and most people will probably be ok with hearing. I think if will be one of those words we look back on and go "oof, did we really use that?"
Aussie here. For what it's worth, "mate" is a fairly male term to me. I've encountered a lot of women from the country who use and accept the word "mate", but in the city it feels like a mostly male term from my experience. It's certainly not a word I'd use to acknowledge a women (unless I was being playful with a friend).
I'm not doubting you specifically, but this conversation was definitely not started on a genuine foot and you will not get a good discussion out of it
Edit: the people I'm referencing have been banned so maybe you can now idk lol
Because 50hz still hurts.
In seriousness, in the north of England where I grew up, pal tended to be used as a way of starting confrontation. Like a "I'm not your friend, friend." Sort of thing. Nobody I knew would use it as a friendly thing, but more to instigate things. That or be sarcastic about it.
Above all, don't let them gaslight you into thinking what you're asking for is unreasonable. Finale Fireworker's post, as always, holds more truth than all of theirs combined.
It's less about "everything is offensive and why should I change", but more about understanding that it's simply a matter of people drawing lines in different places. I don't think it's a "do you want to be offensive or do you want to be inclusive" situation.
???
I'm from Southern California, trust me, the US South doesn't have a monopoly on y'all. And if the Southern US folk somehow gets offended for using a legit conjunction of two words in the English language, that's on them. And the South can get fucked atop that.
It is not on astro to decide what is offensive to other people. Other people can stand for themselves and point out what's offensive to them. And if they make a good case, they should be listened to as well.
For fuck's sake. Quit the blatant and ridiculous whataboutisms and gotchas.
See above.
But this ignores the size difference in the two groups of affected people - those who take offense [are perfectly right in their feelings about it as it pertains to themselves] , and people who want to be able to use the words they want to use for a situation. For some reason, this entire thread has ignored everything but a person-by-person interpretation.
OP
OP
Do you think the plight of people who want to use the word boys to refer to every gender is the same as the plight of those who have spent their entire lives feeling exclude, dismissed, and erased?
If it's hard because some words are difficult, throwing the word "boys" that literally means "men" in there is not going to help.
I don't think it's a shortening of Palestinian here, more that 'pal', just like 'mate' or 'friend', can also be taken as a stern rebuke laden with faux-friendliness when addressing a stranger or in a confrontation and depending on tone, just as much as it can be a genuine reference to a good friend.
For example, me saying 'hey pal, fancy a pint' to a friend is very different to saying 'hey pal, leave it out' to a stranger being aggressive to someone. Just like saying 'thanks, mate' to a friend that's handed you a drink is very different to spitting 'thanks, MATE' through your teeth at someone whose just splashed through a puddle in a car and trashed your suit :D
I agree that the comparison between 'pal' and 'boys' doesn't quite work. Any misunderstanding of faux-friendliness given regional and situational context with 'pal' is different to using a term like 'boys' that is pretty much exclusionary by nature of being descriptive of young men and male children. It's that male-as-default element of 'those of us about to head off together are all young men, together, having fun', the same as 'boys night out' isn't particularly inclusive either because it's origin is in strict gender roles.
Last edited:
It's pretty easy for me: boys doesn't affect me but it obviously does affect you, astro. So I'm going to try to catch myself in the future. It's just a measure of respect, not sure why people have a hard time with it.
Nope; do you think that the size of the group of people who are excluded/dismissed by the use of the word "boys" is the same as the "everyone" you mention in your topic title? Do the feelings of a smaller subset outweigh the less strong feelings of a much larger group? Should that much larger group change their behavior when they might not even run into the people they're changing their behavior for?
As per my earlier post:
Last edited:
If they make a good case? A good case by who's judgement? The majority? I'm not sure I agree with the idea that people should make their cases, as you say, and then you/the majority get to decide if their reasons for being offended are justified. What i think is justified, you might not agree with.
When I was going to Glasgow, my parents (who are Scottish) warned me "If somebody you don't know calls you 'pal', you're about to be malkied".
I think it's just a thing where people who are getting aggressive with a stranger will use words like "pal" or "buddy" in a condescending way. These words are not inherently offensive, and fine for actual friends.
OP
OP
Thank you.
Exactly, it's about context, tone, etc... with the word pal and always has been.
all there is to it really. it's truly amazing the lengths some of those posters were going to to justify using it..when it's as simple as stopping, recognising that you're not addressing a group of only boys, and changing the word you use.
But you have to see that this is exactly what the OP is proposing, right? Yes, the blanket approach is wrong, and the status quo of language should absolutely evolve to keep up with social progress - and it sometimes does, whereas in other cases it lags behind and needs a kick. But I think where we disagree is that I don't necessarily see a new blanket approach as a good substitute for an old one. Because as I've said multiple times, I don't believe you can be objective about language.
I've also acknowledged - and I'll do it again - that emotions run high when the language status quo has accentuated people's feelings of marginalisation or exclusion. If, as Astro has implied, they are non-binary and don't like being referred to in a collective as "boys" then obviously that's valid; I'd never have done that anyway, but if it's a common occurrence then it must feel awful. But as quite a few people, myself included, have pointed out, Astro is talking about subjectivity (and only their subjectivity) but proposing objectivity as the solution. That is where this thread should rightly hook into a broader conversation, but again, if this is not the place to have that conversation then I accept that I've overstepped the bounds of the original discussion.
OP
OP