This thread is a spin-off from a point I made in a thread discussing TLOU.
I guess like many people, I feel as though the current implementation of gender-neutral pronouns conflicts directly with established grammar, and is therefore causing confusion.
Imagine, for the sake of an example, the Board of Directors are looking to hire a new Sales Director. You ask your colleague if they know if there has been any progress in filling the position, to which they reply
“Yeah, they’ve hired a lady.”
The gender neutral version might be:
“Yeah, they’ve hired a they.” Does the first ‘they’ refer to the Board of Directors (multiple individuals) or a single individual with multiple genders? Likewise the second ‘they’… today a valid parsing of this response could be a Sam Smith hiring another Sam Smith?
Or is it any less confusing to avoid the repetition of 'they' and say:
“Yeah, they’ve hired a them”.
Or do you sidestep the entire conundrum and say:
“Yeah, the Board of Directors has hired a new Sales Director”.
How does one navigate this? Thoughts? I wonder what Noam Chomsky’s take is on this issue?
I guess this is something that we're all going to have to get to grips with in the short term – until we establish a broad consensus on an intuitive language that conveys this information without confusion.
A friend who works in a big corporation recently got threatened with being fired, after she wrapped-up a Zoom call with 'cheers guys'. Likewise it's now unacceptable to start a Zoom call with "Good morning ladies & gentlemen".
And with regards to why I would post this question on this forum of all places, I've always found the users of this forum to be a broad church with higher-than-average education. So it would behoove me to consider their thoughts on this matter.
“Yeah the vacancy was been filled”
There thread closed.
The gender neutral version might be:
“Yeah, they’ve hired a they.”
Only if you're illiterate. The answer that any normal functioning human will use is "Yeah, they've hired someone" or "Yeah, the position's been filled"
I've always used "guys" as an all-inclusive, gender-neutral term, even if it contained a hint of irony*. I'm not sure I still would, probably replacing it with "folks" if I was keeping it light or "people" otherwise.
* I also know women who use it the same way.
You wouldn't say "They hired a him." so I'm not sure why it isn't just "They hired someone".
I dont think They / Them for somoene of unknown gender is any different, do the below make sense?
"I nearly got hit by a Range Rover; I didn't see who was driving, but I called them a few choice swearwords."
"I found a wallet in the street, there was an address in it so I sent it back to the owner. They sent me £20 as a thank you."
As I posted in the other thread:
“Yeah, they’ve hired a lady.”
I *love* the way you happily use gender neutral pronouns when referring to the person or people doing the hiring. And no, plurality isn’t an issue.
Also, who says “they’ve hired a lady” anyway? Or “they’ve hired a man”, for that matter? It’s weird.
Your assertion would be more valid if people normally used ‘They’ve hired a she” or “they’ve hired a he”. Which, of course, is totally normal and fine and not in any way deeply weird and warped just to make a point.
The ‘gender neutral’ way of doing it would be the one that removes the emphasis of gender in any way, and is coincidentally the one that the vast majority of people would actually *use*:
“Yeah, they’ve hired someone.”
It’s a pretty lousy thought experiment TBH
A friend who works in a big corporation recently got threatened with being fired, after she wrapped-up a Zoom call with ‘cheers guys’. Likewise it’s now unacceptable to start a Zoom call with “Good morning ladies & gentlemen”.
"Yes, the position has now been filled" surely? Standards!
Guys is not now a gendered noun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/07/guys-defense-gendered-etymology/
In my experience, most normal functioning humans drop the gender into an answer without even realising it. Presumably in a subconscious attempt to communicate as much information in a effective shorthand...
No problem with saying they've hired a lady, if the person answering is sufficiently in the know on the situation and person to know that to be the case, and know that the person they hired identifies in that way.
Otherwise, I'd go with 'yes, they've hired someone and THEY are due to start on ....etc.' - which isn't confusing to me at all.
As an aside. While undesirable, if you made an assumption and got it wrong it's not the end of the world. Apologise, move on but don't keep doing it. It's not really any more difficult than learning someone's name and then using that.
Yeah, but that didn’t actually happen did it?
I mean you can threaten all you want, but it's doubtful it would stand any real scrutiny.
Plenty of absolutely dogshit leaders about who jump the gun and chuck about threats without any real sense of reality.
Guys is not now a gendered noun.
Well, that's an opinion. I know folk with a different one, so steering clear of it when it might be thought inappropriate or even demeaning seems to be a precaution worth taking.
In my experience, most normal functioning humans drop the gender into an answer without even realising it.
Yeah, fair enough, there's some truth in this
Presumably in a subconscious attempt to communicate as much information in a effective shorthand…
I think the subconscious bit is that they think the gender is important or pertinent information, when (generally) it isn't, so doesn't really need referring to at all.
It's a bit like saying (extreme example alert) saying “Yeah, they’ve hired a lady Partick Thistle fan.” It may be the case, but it's got bugger all to do with the matter at hand.
Can we at least all agree that people in call centres who use "yourself" out of context i.e.
"Would that be something that yourself would be interested in"
Need to be just taken around to the back of the building and shot? Seems the only rational outcome to me. When I'm king etc etc...
So it would behoove me to consider their thoughts on this matter
Are you trying to sound like Jacob Rees-Mogg is is it entirely an accident?
Just apply Rule #1, remember that others peoples issues are greater than your concern about grammar and everyone will get on fine.
Yes, my friend being threatened with being fired did happen.
And it sent the willies up me, because I freelance/consult at a number of big corporations myself, all with tyranical HR departments, and "cheers guys" is exactly the type of language I would use subconsciously. It wouldn't even ping on the radar at the smaller companies that I work with – the joys that come bundled with an HR dept. eh?
@TiRed, thanks for that link, that's really helpful, I'll forward that on to her in case it ever becomes an issue again in the future.
Guys is one that catches me out. Is it an Americanism? I spent 5 years in the States and have a number of female friends who use it in a gender neutral way, so often find myself doing the same. It's clear that not everyone takes it that way though.
My thoughts? you are inventing an issue that does not exist
an we at least all agree that people in call centres who use “yourself” out of context i.e.
“Would that be something that yourself would be interested in”
Need to be just taken around to the back of the building and shot? Seems the only rational outcome to me. When I’m king etc etc…
I feel your pain. I now struggle to watch Police Interceptors as I get annoyed by them saying "at this moment in time you are under arrest". Why at this moment in time, as apposed to 15 mins ago? Grr.
Add to that the use of the word Myself. As in a meeting with myself. Just use Me.
This whole gender thing has surely been blown way out of proportion. If people are so uptight about thier pronouns then we'd be as well getting rid of all of them and only use gender neutral terms.
If we're struggling with this, then how is it been addressed in countries with Latin based languages where they have masculine and feminine words for pretty much everything?
Is it an Americanism?
I'm not an American and neither is my wife 😂
It's possible it has come from American TV. I don't watch telly much but I could be influenced by those who do.
Yes, my friend being threatened with being fired did happen.
Threatened maybe. Actually happening - chances are zero
I suggest you learn some grammar and some employment law.
This whole set of posts from you are just regurgitatred right wing moral panic tales and bear no resemblance to reality
I feel your pain. I now struggle to watch Police Interceptors as I get annoyed by them saying “at this moment in time you are under arrest”. Why at this moment in time, as apposed to 15 mins ago? Grr.
*cough* opposed
how is it been addressed in countries with Latin based languages where they have masculine and feminine words for pretty much everything?
In some cases, the use of an 'x' instead of the 'o' (male) and 'a' (female) word endings is being used as a more inclusive term, so, for example 'latinx' rather than 'latino'/'latina'
My calls start with 'Hi everyone'.
Guys is not now a gendered noun.
The problem with English is that there are no fixed definitions of words, which means that lots of people differ on the definitions. So bear that in mind.
And from a feminist point of view, using the male form (which 'guy' very specifically is) as the default could easily be seen as problematic. That reinforces the idea that women are just a sub-category of people, or a deviation from the default, rather than an equal half of the population.
Guys is one that catches me out. Is it an Americanism? I spent 5 years in the States and have a number of female friends who use it in a gender neutral way, so often find myself doing the same. It’s clear that not everyone takes it that way though.
That's interesting. She's a Texan.
Is it an Americanism?
I blame sloth from the Goonies.
Some interesting points & pointers here - thank you GUYS.
My thoughts? you are inventing an issue that does not exist
Let alone language no one actually uses.
I blame sloth from the Goonies.
Now THAT is a genius comment. I LOL'd at that one!
Well, that’s an opinion
So is pretty much everything, which is why people shouldn't take things so seriously.
It would be a lot easier if they/them was used for everyone all the time then no second guessing, no getting anything wrong etc,. and it is what I try to do.
I must admit I often use “Well done guys!” After a case debrief. No one had an issue with it.
Imagine, for the sake of an example, the Board of Directors are looking to hire a new Sales Director. You ask your colleague if they know if there has been any progress in filling the position, to which they reply
“Yeah, they’ve hired a lady.”
I've heard that in the olden days it would've been OK to say "yeah, they've hired a black fella". Or worse. Now you can't. well, you can, but it's not acceptable. Except it is if the ethnicity of the person was part of the conversation. I don't know, it's so confusing.
I'd just say they've hired someone, like a normal person would
‘Hi everyone’.
Seems like you are excluding people with multiple personalities when you day say "everyone".
Safer to simply grunt like I do or sigh heavily when the meeting starts.
Threatened maybe. Actually happening – chances are zero
I suggest you learn some grammar and some employment law.
This whole set of posts from you are just regurgitatred right wing moral panic tales and bear no resemblance to reality
And even if it does happen, there's no shortage of ETs that have upheld wrongful dismissal claims because if HR/Managerial overreach.
consider their thoughts on this matter.
You're a troll, and not a very good one at that.
I think that pretty much covers my thoughts.
This is peak boomer chat
This is peak boomer chat
I was thinking about this the other day. When they were growing up some people wanted to be called Mr Smith, some were happy with you calling them by their first name, and quite often the name they used wasn't their actual name, but something else , middle name ot whatever. They seemed to be able to cope with that so what's the problem now with people choosing how you address them?
