this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
191 points (77.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43853 readers
762 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
191
What is a gender neutral replacement for man, guys, buddy, etc? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
415 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

So I've realized that in conversations I'll use traditional terms for men as general terms for all genders, both singularly and for groups. I always mean it well, but I've been thinking that it's not as inclusive to women/trans people.

For example I would say:

"What's up guys?" "How's it going man?" "Good job, my dude!” etc.

Replacing these terms with person, people, etc sounds awkward. Y'all works but sounds very southern US (nowhere near where I am located) so it sounds out of place.

So what are some better options?

Edit: thanks for all the answers peoples, I appreciate the honest ones and some of the funny ones.

The simplest approach is to just drop the usage of guys, man, etc. Folks for groups and mate for singular appeal to me when I do want to add one in between friends.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Of course. No one literally thinks that "dude" always means man.

The issue isn't the obvious truth of the different meanings. The issue is that those different meanings aren't neutral like they claim to be, because they rely on the idea of men being the "default" state of people.

There's a reason there isn't exactly a large number of words in use that can men "woman" and "everybody" and that's because most men would be uncomfortable with that.

Yet somehow, the opposite is fine?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Of course. No one literally thinks that "dude" always means man.

Your points in this thread are certainly implying that "dude" is always a man. When you say "if a word is either neutral or masc, then it's not neutral", then you're literally saying it always is masc.

The issue is that those different meanings aren't neutral like they claim to be

So, neutrality is a spectrum? How do you define the different parts of the neutrality spectrum?

because they rely on the idea of men being the "default" state of people.

That's a claim that needs some data to back up.

because most men would be uncomfortable with that. Yet somehow, the opposite is fine?

I don't give a single shit about what they think. Why should anyone?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I don’t give a single shit about what they think. Why should anyone?

I mean, clearly you do. If you didn't give a shit, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And just like you, enough people "give a shit" about man being a stand in for the default human, that despite literally thousands and years of language development not a single case of "woman as the default" has entered common usage.

That's what bias looks like.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hot take alert... Bitch has seen to evolved similar to Australian's cunt at this point. "Women as the default" but it is still neutrally used.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Your examples of female-based neutral words are pejorative. Do you have examples not rooted in misogyny?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Queen

[–] [email protected] -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

"Queen" by itself refers to either women or gay men. It is not gender neutral. "Drama queen" is applied to all genders, but, again, this example is pejorative toward women. Do you have any examples of women-centric language that can refer to all genders, but that is not negative toward women?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

I think we would need to clarify on what your definition of gender neutral is before continuing. I would consider it gender neutral because I and the people I hang around would use the term with a person regardless of their gender. Maybe that's exclusive to us but also you defined more than one gender that can be described by the term so a looser definition of gender neutral would still apply. Women and men (even though they are gay) are very clearly two different genders.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 8 months ago

I find your perspective and words judgemental, assumptive, and accusatory.

I can see no evidence of a good faith discussion from your end, so I will no longer continue with you.

I hope these words might help you move beyond the veil that causes you to be so assumptive:

If you look for the light, you can often find it.But if you look for the dark that is all you will ever see.