On Sat, 2010-03-20 at 23:36 +1100, Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote: > On 7 March 2010 15:53, Melissa Draper <meli...@meldraweb.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 12:36 +1100, Scott Evans wrote: > >> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 09:37 +1100, peter baker wrote: > >> > hey guys > > > > And gals, please :P > > I think he meant it in the unisex sense, which when used as a > collective noun is quite socially acceptable these days. Is there a > better single word to use in this context?
While it's used commonly as a collective noun in practice, it is still always a gendered term. I know of very few grouping terms which validly applies singularly to members of one group of people, and then when non-members of that group are also involved; even as a majority, it also applies to the non-members. Singularly, "guy" is never a girl. With the word "guys", a group of 5 guys is referred to as guys. However a group of 5 guys and 10 girls is /still/ referred to as guys, and this defies the definition of "guy" and hence it is an incorrectly pluralised implementation of the word. It falls back to the era where a married couple were typically referred to as Mr and Mrs Mans Name and the wife no longer had an identity of her own. I find "Folks" to be a much more inclusive replacement. I'd also appreciate not have to defend my preference for women being visible/women as opposed to invisible/"honorary guys" on this list. -- Melissa Draper w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net p: +61 4 0472 2736 -- ubuntu-au mailing list ubuntu-au@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
