this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
193 points (78.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
676 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like "guys" is definitely colloquially gender-neutral in most contexts.
"Fireman" is clearly a patriarchic term that literally has "man" in it. In English "firefighter" is commonplace nowadays, but in my native Finnish, a lot of professions have "man" in the term, much in the vein of "policeman", "ombudsman", the Finnish equivalent of "janitor", roughly translated directly as "building/house-man".
We've replaced loads. Most of them are good. Some new terms feel natural and get taken into use, but replacing "man" with "person" rarely works for us without feeling incredibly awkward to use.
So my point is that we can reclaim those terms as gender neutral. Context matters. N-word being acceptable among black people is completely acceptable (and actually a very nice tool for emphasis when properly utilised), and it's even in songs without anyone accusing the artists of racism. (Well, for pop songs at least, no racist hillbilly songs made it to that level.) That being said, it definitely doesn't take away from it's power as a slur if someone uses it in such a way.
So I suggest we'll just use "guys, bro, dudes" as gender neutral and rely that people will understand from context when they're actually used to address men/exclude women etc.
Also, isn't "buddy" sort of neutral already? *goes to check* OoooooOoOooooh, it's from "brother" originally. Guess it's not as neutral originally.
Well that's s new one for me.