Agreed.This works both ways. Mate has a non-gendered origin but has very gendered implications in parts of the world and to many people. A lot of these words are a matter of background and personal perspectives.
Agreed.This works both ways. Mate has a non-gendered origin but has very gendered implications in parts of the world and to many people. A lot of these words are a matter of background and personal perspectives.
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 It's probably not something I'd use today, because I recognise that it's outdated, but it is yet another example of how context and experience trumps pure etymology.Hmm well sometimes I used it with strangers too. I thought it was polite, if maybe a bit posh, but maybe you're right.
So let's drop mates.
Let's also drop boys.
"Hey everyone"
"Hey pals"
"Hey people"
"Hey all"
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?Okay, so it mates is a word that is truly considered male, then let's drop that one too! :)
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.
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.This thread is literally about the word BOYS, which means male.
Did you stop to consider the impact that would have on people from the south who feel that is a cultural appropriation?
.
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.
Here you go, some context: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...-buddy-what-call-someone-whose-name-forgotten
I don't know what is happening in this thread right now.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?
The discussion that has spanned the last few pages about the importance of subjectivity and personal experience in interpreting and using language.
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!
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.
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.
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.You're completely missing the point. People have taken great pains to explain why you cannot be objective about something that has such a broad spectrum of subjectivity, and your response is "cool, let's roll out another blanket rule then!".
No, a fair bit is the shit that a bunch of people just got banned for.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.
No. You asked how "pal" can be offensive, and I provided an example. At no point did I imply equivalence - that's on you.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.
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.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.
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.
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?"Hmm well sometimes I used it with strangers too. I thought it was polite, if maybe a bit posh, but maybe you're right.
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).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.
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 itWhich 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.
Because 50hz still hurts."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.
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.
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.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".
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?
The discussion that has spanned the last few pages about the importance of subjectivity and personal experience in interpreting and using language.
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.
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.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.
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?But this ignores the size difference in the two groups of affected people - those who [are perfectly right in their feelings] take offense, 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.
If it's hard because some words are difficult, throwing the word "boys" that literally means "men" in there is not going to help.Reading this thread all I can think about is that there's no way to address to a group without being offensive in some way.
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?
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?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?
As someone whose first language isn't English and isn't a boy, this seems...a bit...much.
How I'd approach it:
-Is it a word which is gender specific? In this case, arguable.
-What's the intent and usage of the word? The more generalized "guys" has been brought up, but "guys" and "boys" do not share the same connotations. "Boys" can refer, and often does, to a closer knit group of friends - ie, "hanging out with the boys" or "you're my boy". While "guys" can be replaced in those examples, if someone was to tell me that they had the exact same connotation in every situation, I'd say that, well, no, they don't. Not for everyone. "Y'all" isn't even close to the same thing. It is on a general level, but as an actual replacement for the word? Does every application of the word "boys" have the same as "y'all"? Very much no. There doesn't seem to be a good proxy in English for the colloquial application of "boys", and it genuinely odd for me to see people claim "guys" or "y'all" fit in the same. What's more, I've been referred to as one of the "boys", and if anything, as a female trying to be accepted in gaming, it helped eliminate the sense of othering, that I was just like everyone else. Not to a huge degree, like it wasn't something that I consciously picked up on, but it's a marginal thing.
-Who is being affected in the negative if things don't change, and how much are they being affected? As mentioned, I'm not, but I can't speak for all people who are. So for some, like OP, it clearly is very affecting, as they're totally right in feeling. That said, I would have to think that the amount of people who feel hugely impacted by it are...small. The genericizing of the term and the lack of an equal proxy makes it separate from misgendering, in my mind, and considering this thread is the only one I've ever seen of anyone being opposed to the term with respect to gender, makes me think that it is a very specific - valid, but specific - point of contention among the larger populace.
-Who is affected by it in the negative if things do change, and how much are they being affected? I'd argue many, many, many, many, many more people. I would, for instance. In a very small way, yes, but I would, just as a point of fact, and I don't even say it that often really at all. I am part of "everyone", after all. It's a widely used term, ironically or not, and one which is in the process of being genericized, as these 20 or so pages show. Where on that process is up for debate, but it is. No, it's probably not a huge deal for someone to switch things around, but it is - and forgive the terminology - a policing of language. It is, quite literally, telling everyone else out there not to say a word in situations they otherwise would, a word which is often used to no ill intent at all. It's a large group of people who are changing how they communicate, broadly, to people who might not even be in their group for the game or match or what have you.
To put it obnoxiously logically, I balance out:
([number of people who would take offense level X at the term]*[intensity of offense level X]+[number of people who would take offense level Y at the term]*[intensity of offense level Y] etc etc)*odds of running into such individuals) vs ([number of people who take offense level A at being asked to stop*[intensity of offense level A])
And then try to go with the smaller side (also yes I know the math is open for some tweaking)
So although I assume that the people who take offense at the term are far more impacted than any one individual changing their language choices, I would also think that a)people who change their languages choices is a group several orders of magnitude larger (being, as the OP says, "everyone") and b)the odds of running into a person who takes offense to the term in the first place is quite small.
So all that in mind, if someone were to ask me to not call refer to a group containing themselves as "boys" or they themselves "boy", sure; I'm not out to specifically harm someone. I know that some people are more affected by these things than I am, and I know that for some communities, this kind of acceptance is key - nor will I deny anyone their valid sense of offense. In that case, it would be one person (me) with one other person (them), so the size discrepancy balances out, and the odds of meeting them is 100%.
But for me to advocate everyone to change how they speak, even a little bit...to avoid hypothetical offensive of what I would imagine if a fairly narrow slice of all the gamers out there? People that they might not even be speaking to? For a word whose gender application isn't even clear in the first place? No.
To say that *everyone* needs to stop, well...
That's an effort I simply can't get behind.
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.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.
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".
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.
Exactly, it's about context, tone, etc... with the word pal and always has been.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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you. :)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.