Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Chris is me]

I also endorse 'y'all'.

I prefer "you guys".

I usually say this but some people I know specifically don't like to be referred to by "guys", so I've been moving toward "you all" or "everybody" or "you peeps".

[Witherweaver]

There's always 'dudes'!

[Witherweaver]

"you peeps".

What do you mean, "you peeps"?!

[markusin]

I also endorse 'y'all'.

I prefer "you guys".

I usually say this but some people I know specifically don't like to be referred to by "guys", so I've been moving toward "you all" or "everybody" or "you peeps".

Oh hey, I actually have friends that use "you peeps".

[SpaceAnemone]

There's always 'dudes'!

Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.

[Awaclus]

I also endorse 'y'all'.

I prefer "you guys".

I usually say this but some people I know specifically don't like to be referred to by "guys", so I've been moving toward "you all" or "everybody" or "you peeps".

That's why I don't refer to them by "guys", but "you guys".

[Witherweaver]

There's always 'dudes'!

Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.

Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!

[SpaceAnemone]

There's always 'dudes'!

Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.

Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!

Yeah, history and society tend to be sexist :-( Even if lots of people would prefer to use it in a totally generic way now, the historical connotations are still there. Responsible users of the term should respect that for plenty of people hearing it, it will have gendered connotations, and quite rationally so.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude for some etymology stuff).

[Witherweaver]

There's always 'dudes'!

Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.

Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!

Yeah, history and society tend to be sexist :-( Even if lots of people would prefer to use it in a totally generic way now, the historical connotations are still there. Responsible users of the term should respect that for plenty of people hearing it, it will have gendered connotations, and quite rationally so.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude for some etymology stuff).

It's certainly a very layered word.

[SpaceAnemone]

There's always 'dudes'!

Both "dudes" and "guys" are understood by some many to be historically male, which makes them less suitable than ungendered alternatives like "folks", "y'all" and "peeps". Personally, I often say "guys" for multi-gender groups, but I tend to wish it wasn't the first thing that springs to mind.

Gender-specifying 'dudes' is sexist!

Yeah, history and society tend to be sexist :-( Even if lots of people would prefer to use it in a totally generic way now, the historical connotations are still there. Responsible users of the term should respect that for plenty of people hearing it, it will have gendered connotations, and quite rationally so.
(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude for some etymology stuff).

It's certainly a very layered word.

Do you find any non-ironic equivalents with women using the word between themselves, though?

I just tried googling for women saying "dude", and mostly I get a lot of hits that are forum-style questions from men about what it means if a girl calls them "dude" -- the conclusion being that it's not something they're comfortable with, or it's something they find unusual. I'd argue that it's still a gendered term if it's used massively asymmetrically across genders, and also that male users of the word probably aren't very aware of how non-male listeners would perceive it anyway.. so basically it's not a top candidate for a gender-neutral term.

Also, the vid is funny, but you could kind of imagine them saying "potato" and pretty much having the same conversation :-)

[Witherweaver]

I have a female friend that uses 'dude' almost exclusively for pronoun use, and we use 'dude' when addressing each other.  That dude knows what's up.  At any rate, it's not like I was seriously proposing 'dude' for dominant use.  It's slightly out of place in, for example, formal writing.

The video doesn't exactly work with 'potato', as it isn't a word you use to address people.   Though, we could use 'potato' as a gender-neutral pronoun.  Maybe you have something here....

[popsofctown]

In Goodburger, Ed very much likes to sing a song that goes "I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, cause we're all dudes." I was led to believe it is a progressive word.

[Witherweaver]

In Goodburger, Ed very much likes to sing a song that goes "I'm a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, cause we're all dudes." I was led to believe it is a progressive word.

QEDude

[popsofctown]

A colleague a level above us referred to me and a colleague of the opposite sex from me as "these guys", less than sixty seconds after my post.  Piping hot anecdotes for you guys.  No need to thank me it's my duty

[Kuildeous]

but you could kind of imagine them saying "potato" and pretty much having the same conversation :-)

Or "chicken".

[AdrianHealey]

No human has worth, so we ought to refer to everyone as 'it'!

[Seprix]

No matter what the intentions were, using he/him as the default pronoun implicitly asserts male is the default gender.

I want to bring this up, just as an interesting historical thing, but in Latin, the default gender basically was female for most inanimate objects. There was a third form for neuter, but female was used the most, with the male form second, and neuter last. I'm not sure why this is, but it's interesting to compare that to today with phrases like "fireman" instead of say "fireperson".

[AdrianHealey]

How about we just use 'pleb'?

[ehunt]

i think shared disdain for the phrase "you guys" could be a novel way to unite the southern and feminist voting blocs

[Accatitippi]

No matter what the intentions were, using he/him as the default pronoun implicitly asserts male is the default gender.

I want to bring this up, just as an interesting historical thing, but in Latin, the default gender basically was female for most inanimate objects. There was a third form for neuter, but female was used the most, with the male form second, and neuter last. I'm not sure why this is, but it's interesting to compare that to today with phrases like "fireman" instead of say "fireperson".

Well, it definitely was female for all trees and plants, and usually for abstract concepts too (pretty much everything that in english ends with -ity, like dignity, and many more), but outside that I'm not convinced a majority of the other words being feminine.
This post on wordreference's forums from somebody that counted nouns in a Latin dictionary seems to indicate that 45% of latin nouns are feminine. (vs 33% masculine and 21% neuter). They are not divided by semantic field, but I'm inclined to think that feminine's plurality is due to all those the abstract nouns being feminine rather than due to a skewed distribution in the "concrete objects" set.

That was all for today, see you tomorrow for the next episode of Classical Pedant.