Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    I get lots of lovely flowers - although if I put in a space I also get
    Hmm, well i don't like it , sorry.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    And for the sake of sheer academic curiosity, what are they doing in those pictures?
    They were in happy groups and I suspect most were drunk. There were some groups of children too, just stood there. Google has work to do, I think.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Why would anyone but a woman in this case want to victimize themselves.

    I don't really guess. Not sure why you put that in quotation mark when I didn't even use that word. I have researched this topic and you clearly haven't. I suggest you spend just 15 minutes on it.

    No, your premises are all just assumptions. Your entire argument is based on assumptions. It means nothing. Quite funny though that you think it does.

    Assumption 1: People actively look to victimize themselves.

    Assumption 2: Everyone that argues along these lines discussed in the thread falls into the group introduced in 1.

    Assumption 3: This group makes up things to say "such and such language is bad/wrong/oppressive,etc" in order to show they are victims.

    This is all your "argument" is. Just a bunch of assumptions. Not that it is really my job to ensure you aren't ignorant, but here is an article with some references about gendered language

    https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/how...s-0209137/amp/
    "I do not agree"? Why did I use quotes for that? Because that's what I originally said, verbatim, but you misquoted it as "I disagree".

    I did not make any of those assumptions. I said that the only sexist mentality perpetuated was victimhood by those who consciously or unconsciously want to be subjugated. You were not a "perpetuated sexist mentality", rather you are an impartial bystander as all those who present reasoned argument should be. It really is you making assumptions about what I am assuming, which is slightly counter-intuitive.

    There is no addressing my premises about the non-negative effect of gendered language where the source sexist meaning has been long forgotten. The only relevant thing mentioned in the blog you masquerade as a journal article is a monograph which criticises phrases such as "you hit like a girl" and "that's a boy's colour" etc etc. But that is not relevant to currently non-gendered phrases which have a gendered genesis.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    "I do not agree"? Why did I use quotes for that? Because that's what I originally said, verbatim, but you misquoted it as "I disagree".

    I did not make any of those assumptions. I said that the only sexist mentality perpetuated was victimhood by those who consciously or unconsciously want to be subjugated. You were not a "perpetuated sexist mentality", rather you are an impartial bystander as all those who present reasoned argument should be. It really is you making assumptions about what I am assuming, which is slightly counter-intuitive.

    There is no addressing my premises about the non-negative effect of gendered language where the source sexist meaning has been long forgotten. The only relevant thing mentioned in the blog you masquerade as a journal article is a monograph which criticises phrases such as "you hit like a girl" and "that's a boy's colour" etc etc. But that is not relevant to currently non-gendered phrases which have a gendered genesis.
    Yes, you did, I just restated your "argument" truthfully.

    Long forgotten? No it hasn't, and you obviously haven't understood a single thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Yes, you did, I just restated your "argument" truthfully.

    Long forgotten? No it hasn't, and you obviously haven't understood a single thing.
    It is long forgotten relative to the subject matter of the monograph. "You hit like a girl", girl by all means refers to the female gender or sex. The person who uses the phrase and the person who hears the phrase know that it is gendered. However, in this case, as demonstrated by the OED definition, there is no suggestion that the greeting refers to a specific gender or sex. Therefore, the harm argued to be caused by the former does not necessarily apply to the latter. Your references, extracted from a blog, do not support your claimed refutation of my premises.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    "Guys" is used in that context to mean "people" regardless of gender.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nah,I'll speak how I want to.

    Reminds me of how TfL recently scrapped the elegant phrase "ladies and gentlemen" for "hello everyone".
    It doesn't make a difference to me though. I continue to use "ladies and gentlemen" when it is necessary.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    It is long forgotten relative to the subject matter of the monograph. "You hit like a girl", girl by all means refers to the female gender or sex. The person who uses the phrase and the person who hears the phrase know that it is gendered. However, in this case, as demonstrated by the OED definition, there is no suggestion that the greeting refers to a specific gender or sex. Therefore, the harm argued to be caused by the former does not necessarily apply to the latter. Your references, extracted from a blog, do not support your claimed refutation of my premises.
    My link was about gendered language in general, of which guys is just on every example.

    Guys coming from guy which is quite clearly male, definitely falls under this category.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Hey you guuuuys!
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Hey you guuuuys!
    alright sunshine
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Someone's triggered...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    alright sunshine
    I associate sunshine with unruly children, doesn't seem right to call someone sunshine unless you are sure they are younger than you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    alright sunshine
    Did you get the quote? (waiting for peoples general knowledge)
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by the beer)
    I associate sunshine with unruly children, doesn't seem right to call someone sunshine unless you are sure they are younger than you.
    Maybe I am sure, sugar
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Did you get the quote? (waiting for peoples general knowledge)
    I never did like the goonies :moon:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    I never did like the goonies :moon:
    I met some of the cast at comicon before!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by catsmeow_at_me)
    Why does it matter? Everyone knows 'guy's' means a group of people as well as an actual 'guy'.
    Actually guy's means something belonging to a guy, just saying...
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Hi guys, just thought I'd pop by to add my 10 cent to the matter.

    A word is defined by it's common usage. Although "guy" may technically refer to men, it is commonly used to refer to any person of any sex or gender. Instead of holding onto an old definition and fearing a new friendly phrase because it's sexist by old standards, how about we just change the definition to mean "person"? Problem solved.
    People can continue to greet people in a friendly manor and others can stop fearing a word for no real reason.

    Oh and a lot of dictionaries (including Oxford which is pretty much the official UK dictionary) define it as referring to either sex so... yeah. It's not even that the word does mean men, it's just that some people think it does. I think the people holding onto the idea "guy" means "male" is more of an issue here. That's the only reason it's sexist. It's like me complaining that "hi" is rude because I believe it means f you. I'm the one who thinks that, not the person saying it. I'm the one making it rude.
    It's only sexist to the people who see it that way so... well it's not really actually sexist is it? It's just a misunderstanding.

    Not to say people with that view are totally stupid or anything, just that it's a much simpler solution for them to change how they see the word. It's not meant as sexist by the people saying it and there's no reason the definition of a word can't be changed to fit popular use (it's literally how language works). So just stop seeing it as a gendered word and problem solved.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its just how the English, and many other languages work. Words that offically only refer to men can also be used for groups of women or mixed groups.
    It's like in biblical texts when it says "Man", referring to human kind, it means everyone not just men.
    I'm a girl and I honestly couldn't care less if if you refer to me as a guy. You sound like you're looking for things to be offended over
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So, genuine question to those who say we shouldn't use guys. What should we use?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 7, 2017
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.