tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8397311766319215218.post3256066083112986199..comments2023-11-29T18:05:17.337+01:00Comments on metablog: Guys, "guys" is perfectly fine for addressing diverse groupsMarcel Weiherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11651004661887001433noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8397311766319215218.post-90852833872369771462015-06-28T20:16:29.646+02:002015-06-28T20:16:29.646+02:00@henchman No, exactly the opposite. Did you read ...@henchman No, exactly the opposite. Did you read the post?<br /><br />The gender neutral meaning of "guys" (in 2nd person plural) is the modern one, it is getting more gender neutral over time. "Going with the time" means dropping the silly insistence, based on outdated usage, that "guys" is not gender neutral and therefore not inclusive. It is, and is, and only becoming more so over time.<br /><br />Clearer now?<br />Marcel Weiherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11651004661887001433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8397311766319215218.post-11264426660696311302015-06-27T20:24:58.501+02:002015-06-27T20:24:58.501+02:00So, you say that because it is documented that guy...So, you say that because it is documented that guys was used for a very long time in a generic masculine way (discriminating women), it's still okay to do it know?<br /><br />Imho Websters dictionary should go with the time and should remove generic masculine wordings or at least mark them as not promoting gender equality.henchmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08105979305384954682noreply@blogger.com