Christ this is embarressing

In case you're out of the loop, apparently 'guys' as a plural to refer to inanimate things or groups of mixed-gendered people, is offensive to some shitwits.
This is the world.

[and yes, I mispelled embarrassing. Sorry, language police]

 

This has been around for a long time and it's nothing to do with being offensive, it's being inclusive.

It's why I un-ironically now enjoy using y'all. English doesn't really have a quick word for "big group of people".

 

Bollocks. In NZ guys is used to refer to groups of any gender of person, regardless of the gender of who is addressing them. It's fine as a collective pronoun.

 

I do get where they are coming from - everyone should be included, but also language changes. "Guy"/"Guys" doesn't come from a word meaning men as such, it comes from Guy Fawkes - and is was usually used to describe a group of scruffy looking people.

It has evolved to become a more gender neutral word, and I would say for inclusivity we should keep pushing through with the word as a gender neutral term for a group of people.

 

Perhaps in this 'enlightened' age where people are prone to take offensive where ever possible, it's worth considering whether these neo-accusers need help and whether we, the ordinary folks, should be working towards identifying a newly invented esoteric disorder to award them for their endeavour to fix non-existent problems!

As a perspective, are we plain simple Ozzies allowed to resume the use of Ho Ho Ho for Christmas again or are we still beholden to the twits that told us it was bad because of a bunch of paranoid, socially deranged Americans?

Yes, there are genuine cases of intentionally using words to denigrate, harm or frustrate others that should be called out for what it is - but, fair suck of the sauce, we now seem to have a preponderance of 'do-gooders' aiming to stir up trouble for no reason than to be noticed! Perhaps it's a simple as understanding on both sides; was it intentional? / did they realize?

 

'Folk'? And if you are happy... 'you good folk'?

 

I'm going to shamelessly play devil's advocate here. This is not me choosing one side of a false dichotomy, rather me just shooting the shit, because that's how I roll on these subjects. Long rant ahead, feel free to ignore if you don't care (honestly, that's perfectly fine).

Language is difficult. Interpretation of language is very much subjective. I can trivially contrive sentences that will enrage one group and make another laugh, and then seconds later do it so the rage and laughs are reversed in direction. Language also changes over time - we don't speak ye olde English, and I barely speak the same language my children do (and likewise me compared to my parents).

The other thing about language is that you can't force your intent on the listener. And I don't mean that "you aren't allowed to", but rather you simply cannot climb inside someone's brain and force it to interpret words the way you want. Language is messy, personal, subjective, and unfortunately the only way we have to get the pictures in our head to teleport across the room and manifest inside someone else's head with a shitload of noise, filtering and manipulation in the signal pathways between two brains.

Regardless of what you intend to say, people won't always understand it in the way you intend. That's just part of being human. A *big* part of being human.

Now, with all that in mind, should we change the language we use? Well that depends on the individual, I guess. If you as an individual are happy to potentially drive people away because of things you say that don't have a certain context to you, but do to others, then that's cool. That's entirely your choice. But what if there exists an individual who considers a particular word, phrasing or other collection of throat vibrations to be enough to turn them away from the message you're trying to share, or the work you're trying to do? What then?

Again, up to you. If you want to broaden a group, and bring in other people, maybe it's a small "sacrifice" to make. Maybe substituting one word for another, whether you believe in it or not, is all it takes to bring more people in to a team or group and get more work done for a better level of output.

Alternatively, maybe you don't want that. Maybe you feel it's attracting the "wrong type of people" and you'd rather the group you're in not grow, but maintain it's current level of exclusivity.

I can't say if I personally find either option "good" or "bad". But they're certainly options available to everyone. One thing is for certain - attitudes and language change. Constantly.

I was talking with friends roughly my age the other day, and we all spoke about how as kids racist jokes at home were the norm. My parents would tell them around the dinner time or out with friends, and everyone would laugh heartily. The same jokes today would definitely get you sacked on the spot at work, and likely shunned from social gatherings. Attitudes and language that changed rapidly - norms that weren't normal any more 10-20 short years later. Are we worse off for it? Ardent "freedom of speech" types would probably say so. But comedians have managed to find other things to make fun of since, so at the very least "jokes" haven't suffered for a once common Aussie barbecue passtime that no longer exists.

There is an obvious word in the English language that have evolved from being named after combination of the latin word for a particular colour as well as a west African river, that eventually came to refer to a very specific group of individuals in a particular time and place, that eventually warped into language inciting hate and exclusion (or worse), which are now all but banned (I dare not even refer to said word here - how's that for censorship?). We can all argue the original definition of words all we like, but words and language do chance. Constantly.

So back on topic, and closer to home - let's say there exists a group of people who don't like a particular word existing, as they feel the definition of the word is different to what you consider the definition of the word to be. Is this a matter of "right versus wrong"? Who should change? I guess that's really up to both "sides" to figure out. (And I do hate boiling this down to silly false dichotomies, but let's run with the "opposing football teams" simplicity for now, even though I hate it). If one side wants the other to join them, perhaps modifying a few words here and there isn't the worst thing. Ultimately it's a very low-effort thing to do in order to broaden the target audience. Conversely, if one side doesn't want the target audience broadened, then that's trivially solved too.

A mentor at a previous job once said to me "perception is reality". When he first said that to me, it made me angry. I'm a scientist by education, and a die hard meritocratic by belief system. The very fact that subjective perception can manipulate fact annoyed me to my core. But then I sat on it for a while (a long while - months in fact), and the philosophical side of me thought about it. There is an enormous amount to life that isn't hard fact (or at least, is far too complex for us to boil down to trivial logical rules right now, possibly ever). This individual owned several successful businesses in high stress industries, and once ever ran for mayor (with a serious chance too - not some local whacko independent). Despite all of his financial success in life, he knew that the toughest part of getting shit done at scale was getting people on board. When I first met him, I had him pegged as a master manipulator. It took me a long time to really get to know him, and what I found after almost a decade of working for him was that he was more interested in getting big picture things done than arguing the trivialities. And with that, he knew that getting people working together to achieve more than what the "sum of the individuals" can achieve was the toughest part of it all. Choosing words carefully, with a level of understanding of how the other party may or may not interpret what you are trying to say, was key to success.

He was willing to forgo his own dogma in order to succeed. He was willing to not sweat the small stuff, not argue over a few syllables, and think bigger picture. And as a stereotypical successful, wealthy, white male business owner, he showed an astounding ability to change with the times and adapt his attitudes and language to whatever people around him needed to feel comfortable. And not in some shallow, manipulative way, but true personal change.

His greatest success then was getting unlikely (and often at times quite odd and mismatched) groups of people together to do pretty amazing things. Things that made customers happy, individuals within his companies successful (in careers as well as personal wealth), and everyone happy. His motto was always "win-win", and never was someone successful at the loss, failure or expense of someone else. All, because he was willing to let other people's interpretations of things shape his reality of how he chose to act and speak every day.

So, again, I think it's up to every individual to consider what they want. Is the dogmatic belief that a word is right or wrong that important, or is the bigger picture of getting shit done in large numbers important? I don't think there's a universal answer. But I do think sometimes we need to let go of the little things to consider what we want longer term out of our work, our industry, and our larger community interactions - whether that's inclusivity or exclusivity (and I do think that both are valid at certain time - again, speaking as a meritocrat), but the bigger picture is always worth considering.

Also worth considering that, yes, these are mostly American problems, not Australian ones. Although that's more and more difficult to remember in a permanently connected world where digital and language borders aren't as obvious as physical ones.

 

The point in the video is valid even if his example might be poor. It doesn't cost much to be slightly more inclusive and that doesn't instantly mean agreeing to 76 personal pronouns.

 

just use folx

 

Can't bring myself to watch - Title/thumbnail look too cringeworthy.

But perception is reality - It's not hard to not be offensive - especially in professional situations, get over yourself. I replaced "Hey guys" with "Hey all" in emails a long time ago.

 

"Cowards" is too long a word. Let's settle with "Oi C*nts".

This presenter says "Please stop using slavery analogies of any kind".

Clearly he's never touched a PC that uses IDE HDDs.

 

fait des conversations avec collegues comme ca en francais ou espagnol

pas probleme

 

All? All? That's hardly inclusive now is it?

 

Can't say "hello you large group of people", what with some people not wanting to be referred to as people anymore.
"Maybe hello fellow beings"?
"Greetings humanoid appearing but not necessarily humanoid identifying objects"?
"Hello things"?

 

Precisely... poor null, void, nil, zero...

 

Let's just settle for...

 

give a mm they WILL take a thousand kilometers.

there is no end to this for test types, they are on a faux moral crusade to give their lives meaning, there is zero good reason to help them along in their insanity.

 

I'm a fan of "esteemed colleagues". Always gets a reply from someone who said they had a laugh.

 

The cloud is genderless.