Is the Term "Guys" Gender Neutral?

PAGE 2 OF 2

Having grown up in Chicago, my take on this discussion is that we are
using the wrong term -- more "properly," the term is "youse guys."  ;
)  ...and, yes, I slip into this phraseology when I'm not paying
attention; a reversion, as it were, to my youth.

carolburger, former Chicagoan
--

Carol J. Burger, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
253 Lane Hall
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies - 0227
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
email: cjburger  AT  vt.edu

Are there any linguists on this listserv?  I would like to hear from one on this issue.

One of the professors in my undergrad program was from Texas (and is
also a linguist), and having moved to Kansas was taken aback by our
use of this term as a (thank you, Holly) non-gender-specific term.  He
was further amused by its possessive form, "you guys's", as in,
"we''ll be at you guys's house at 9."  Worse, we tend to use "your
guys's" when we're exceptionally relaxed.  "Your guys's car looks
nice."  The prof thought we were odd, because he knew perfectly well
that the proper form in all these cases is "y'all" and "y'all's."
"We'll be at y'all's house at 9."  Now, I could grant him
"your-all's," but I will only unbend so far.

My own experience is that "you guys" is non-gender-specific in some
parts of the U.S. (can't speak for other countries), and among some
socio-economic classes.  Where I live, it is, and has been as long as
I can remember (I'm 41), common for groups of only women to call each
other 'guys.'  We don't use "girls" or "gals" because those terms
are--at this time, anyway--much more weighed-down with complicated
cultural baggage.

Can't it be possible that what we're seeing here is a word whose
meaning is being altered by its users?  And haven't I read that the
word "man" once referred mostly to female humans (from Old Norse, I
think) (same root word as that of "moon")?

I agree with most of the comments on both sides of this issue,
honestly.  If I used the term in a mixed class only the males would
step forward.  True.  And yet, a mixed-gender class is a specific
cultural contex, where the term has one meaning.  An all-female or
all-male class would be a different cultural context, where the group
might have a different understanding of its implications.  If for the
most part the word is not _used_ in a gender noninclusive way, and if
most of its users, most of the time, _use_ it inclusively, might it
not be working its way slowly toward being generic?

Sheryl LeSage
PhD student, English
University of Oklahoma

I've found this to be a particularly interesting
thread as I've recently moved from the Northeast to
the south and am quite cognizant of the regional
differences in language I've encountered as a result.
Not only do you have the more common use of y'all than
you guys or yous guys (used regularly in NY as well as
Chicago), but also the more common use of such gender
specific terms as ma'am and sir as forms of address.
As my good southern friends explained to me before I
moved, "if your students call you Ma'am, they're not
sassin' you."  "Yes ma'am" might be interpreted as a
sign of DISrespect in the north, though it is clearly
a sign of respect in the south. The meaning of
language depends on local culture.

Furthermore, perhaps the reason only men would step
forward if we asked the "guys" to do so is because the
social context alters the meaning of the term.  If
such a direction were uttered from a professor in the
context of a college classroom, many students would
likely interpret the phrase in a more formal literal
sense meaning male students step forward.  But if the
same command were given in a less formal setting then
perhaps the outcome would be different.  Perhaps we
are seeing a shift in the meaning of the term that is
regional, as others have noted, but also context
specific.  In formal settings the term is interpreted
in its formal, literal sense.  In less formal
settings, the term may be interpreted according to its
local meaning and character.

-Denise Copelton

Denise A. Copelton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Sociology
Radford University
Radford, VA 24142

dcopelton  AT  yahoo.com

It seems to me that the amount of discussion this issue has generated among
a group of self-defined feminists, most of whom are, in fact, concerned
about inclusive language, is significant.  The claim for not getting worked
up about the use of "you guys" is that many people here consider it a truly
psychologically generic expression -- not that it is unimportant to
eliminate gender-exclusive language.  (And I see no reason why "you guys" as
a linguistic construct should not have a life apart from "the guys" or "some
guys" or "a guy" or "some guy.")


Wouldn't it be logical to conclude that if a lot of folks who are sensitized
to the issue of linguistic sexism think this expression is gender-inclusive,
then maybe it is so in fact?  Or at least well on the way to becoming so
through normal processes of linguistic change?  And if this is true, maybe
it's not so surprising that students conclude that professors who try to
convince them that this is a problem need to get a life?

For a period of time, some lesbians (separatists) I know tried using
the term - "you gyns"
it was fun - and clear - but never caught on.

With all women, I tend to use "gals" or "women" -- or if a very
familiar groups of friends, perhaps "girls"
for mixed gender group I tend to use "folks" or "y'all" even "people"
-- though "you people" (like "those people") might have racist or
"othering" connotations so I tend not to use that as much.

I do think "you guys" might seem to have become gender-neutral -- but
really, it's not, in the way we thought for so long that mankind
supposedly included women! - and like with the naming of all things, it
matters.
Mev
mev  AT  litwomen.org

My married daughter lives near me and my partner, and I was just exchanging
e-mail messages with her about a plan to get together tonight.

She wrote to me, "Have you guys seen...(a certain movie)?"  "You guys" here
means me and her father.  I started writing back, "No.  Have you guys tried
(a certain kind of calzone from a certain take-out place) yet?"  Then, in
deference to this conversation, I changed "you guys" to "y'all."  But I
gotta tell ya, this feels intensely artificial, and it's very difficult for
me to see how it's better.

"Y'all" sounds like making a pretension to be from the south; "you folks"
sounds like my mother or grandmother or someone from another generation.
"You guys' sounds like normal, mid-Atlantic, late 20th-early 21st century
usage.

Of course, I guess I could say, "Have you and Jason tried...."

  -- Gina

On Ma'am/Sir.

This depends on what part of the Northeast you are in, of course. Rochester
has been designated by some as "the furthest East Midwestern city..."

Sir and Ma'am are used here when you don't know the person's name. For
example, I would say... "Excuse me...Ma'am....MA'AM... You just dropped your
glove." One would also say "Thank you, sir/ma'am."

"Yes, sir/"No, Ma'am" etc. are sometimes used depending on the subculture.
Rochester is very multicultural, drawing not only from all over the world
but also from the South (at least, during the black migration in the
sixties-nineties or so).

I'm not sure what I would say if I were uncertain of the person's gender.
Perhaps just say "excuse me" and try to touch the person to get "per"
attention. ("Per," derived from "person," is the gender-neutral pronoun
Piercy uses in "Woman on The Edge of Time.") It would be a problem, however,
if the person were too far away for me to reach.

I find that Rochesterians tend to be extremely polite & well-mannered. When
you pass someone on the street, stranger or not, you smile & say hello (at
least in my neighborhood, which is very poor, btw.)  Except, I am sorry to
say, for many of the young men in my neighborhood -- there is a racial issue
here -- who are constantly spewing m-f with every other word. I know it is
not African American men in general but the inner city, urban poor culture
that is its source. I understand this is an issue of a subculture, but it
still feels like an assault on my ears. And I am not one to be a big prude
about cursing.

Y'all or "you all"

I use this now and I have never resided in the South. I grew up in the
Southwest (mostly Calif.), moved to Iowa in '84 for graduate school, and
came to Rochester in '90. I use "y'all" in my online classroom because it's
fewer letters to type (fewer than "you guys" as well) and I use "you all" or
"you folks" in person.

I find these a reasonable adaptation. I like them much better than "you
guys." For one, not only do they sidestep the gender issue, they are more
mellifluous! They both offer a casual, intimate tone...I think more intimate
than "you guys," which grates on my ears, regardless of the gender issue and
regardless of the fact that it was commonly used in the various subcultures
that my constant moving placed me in.

Who says we have to maintain the regionalisms of our particular areas of
residence? Why not be different? When you are different, and thoroughly
confident in your differences (as well as jovial about them), more often
than not people see you as an interesting character.

For example, when I make an ADD-related blunder (which I do, oh, maybe 10
times a day), instead of being embarrassed, I say "Whoops! There goes my
ADD!" and laugh a big, hearty laugh. Humor can get you through all sorts of
situations where seriousness would just dig you in deeper and make you feel
worse.

The sense of "artificiality" is a function of lack of use. "Ms." felt VERY
artificial back in the 70s.

The more you use it, the less it feels artificial.

Speaking of...too bad Piercy's gender neutral pronouns never caught on.

Georgia

**************************************************************************
Georgia NeSmith, Ph.D.
Adjunct Associate Professor (online)
Communication Department
University of Maryland University College
http://homepage.mac.com/georgia.nesmith
http://georgia_nesmith.tripod.com
HOME:
Rochester, NY
gnesmith  AT  frontiernet.net
**************************************************************************

Just to add to the mix here: my cousins in Ireland (all in their 20s) refer to everyone, regardless of gender, as "lads." Said to a group of women aged 17-76: "Right, lads, it's time to go." When I once used "you guys" in a similar situation, they mocked me mercilessly. I will never feel like a lad, I guess, and they'll never feel like guys.
Maureen
 
Maureen T. Reddy, Ph.D.
Professor, English and Women's Studies
Rhode Island College
Providence, RI 02908 USA
mreddy  AT  ric.edu
 

I wrote a paper in high school in which I used the word "kids" to refer to
my fellow teenagers.  My teacher, who admired the paper and told me so,
nevertheless wrote at the top "Kids are goats!"  Kids are, in fact, goats,  and guys
are, in fact, male--sometimes.  But English evolves and we don't  have a
French Academy equivalent to tell us how to speak "properly."  There  are so many,
many ways that language can and does put down women and girls that  I can't
help but think that "you guys" is a relatively innocuous term.  It  also
strikes me that it's simply easier and safer to criticize women who use  "you guys"
than to take on, say, the ugly and misogynistic formulations used for  women
in  much contemporary commercialized music.

Jocelyn Riley
Her Own Words
PO Box 5264
Madison WI 53705-0264
HerOwnWords.com
NontraditionalCareers.com

Language does change, and we have to allow it to grow and change.
Witness "gay" and "queer" -- which can have either affirmative or
pejorative meanings depending on speaker or context.

Do lots of people use "you guys" truly without meaning to convey, or
without hearing even subconsciously, a gendered referent?  perhaps even
choosing "guys" as seeming absolutely less gendered than "boys"?  Sure,
I can see that happening.  Does that mean that in some contexts, "you
guys" could stop having much of a gendered implication?  I think so.

And yet, and yet: having this conversation is still valuable, and
raising it for students to discuss seems to me not to be a waste of
their time, because language changes s-l-o-w-l-y, and at different
rates in different cultural groups, and never entirely loses its
historical baggage.  So when one is in the midst of language-change,
one needs to be extra careful not to say something one doesn't mean.
Awareness is crucial.

(As a side note, I love that this is one of those situations where
English doesn't have a common reverse-gender example -- "you girls" --
because that helps show how language reflects the culture historically
and perhaps currently in power, even as power-relations change or seem
to change.)

In something of a parallel situation, I tell my writing students that
we're in the middle of a language change in which, for instance,  the
apostrophe and a couple of comma-uses are sliding slowly out of
daily-communication necessity.  In a lot of situations, meaning is
*not* confused when possessive apostrophes are omitted.   And yet, and
yet -- in some contexts, which they'd better learn to recognize, the
shift hasn't occurred.  I point out that I still emit small almost
involuntary shrieks over apostrophe-less signs in strip-mall parking
lots.

So they -- we -- need to be aware of the need to code-switch to avoid
unwanted consequences.  To be sure, apostrophes have never been
associated with millenia of oppression and abuse the way gendered
language is (though they can be a class-marker).  And maybe "you guys"
or even "youse guys" won't ever be entirely free of its gendered
history -- but that might not preclude it being used to represent
something else within other contexts.  At any rate, becoming aware of
how and why we might code-switch (or might not) helps us see how
language is powerful, and lets us make powerful choices about it.

shelley
(who loves living just south enough to be able to use "y'all")


E Shelley Reid
Assistant Professor
Director of Composition
English Department -- MSN 3E4
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA  22030-4444

ereid1  AT  gmu.edu
esreid  AT  cox.net

>>And maybe "you guys" or even "youse guys" won't ever be entirely free of
its gendered history<<

I don't think it has yet been demonstrated that "you guys" *has* a gendered
history.  I don't think we are dealing with a form once clearly gendered
that might be moving away from it.  I think we are dealing with a situation
in which some people believe that the basic referent of the term is males,
and others don't, and this *may* (or may not) be related to regional
patterns of colloquial speech.  I see no evidence of a shift in usage of
this term over my lifetime.  That does not, of course, mean that there may
not have been a point when it was more clearly gendered, back before I was
born.

I have been thinking hard about whether the fact that "a guy," "some guy,"
and "the guys" are clearly gendered expressions doesn't mean that at some
deep level "you guys" also is, and therefore using it is the same as using
"mankind" instead of "humankind."  It does matter to me that many of my
feminist companions have a problem with it.  I'm trying to allow people to
convince me.  But part of the problem is, it's colloquial and there isn't
any ready alternative.

So here's another one:  above I nearly wrote "fellow feminists."  I have
held "fellowships" and at my institution we support summer research students
of both genders who are called "Summer Fellows."  Yet "a fellow" clearly
means a male, right?  "What are you fellows doing?" sounds *much* more
gender specific to me than "What are you guys doing?"  Who thinks we should
stop using this term?

  -- Gina

I would challenge anyone who thinks it's gender neutral to consider
whether they would still think that if someone said "Guys only get
ú500".  Adopting "guy" as gender neutral merely perpetuates the fact
that society deems male=normal and female=abnormal.

Dr Louise Livesey

Thinking about the "you guys" discussion last night, I realized that I always
emphasize the word YOU more than guys when I'm using the term in a way that
feels gender neutral to me. When I use the term guys to refer to males, I'm
more likely to emphasize the word GUYS.

I'm a native midwesterner who had never even considered this term to be
gendered (in fact, had considered it an alternative to using a gendered
term!), even though I'm religious about not using other masculine terms to
refer to both males and females. (I even alternate he/she perpetually in the
classroom, e.g. often refering to economists as "she").

Best,
Brenda Wyss


--
Brenda Wyss
Associate Professor of Economics
Women's Studies Program Coordinator
Wheaton College
Norton, MA 02766 USA
bwyss  AT  wheatonma.edu

 
In a message dated 3/7/2005 3:50:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
ls_livesey  AT  YAHOO.CO.UK writes:

"I would  challenge anyone who thinks it's gender neutral to consider whether 
they would  still think that if someone said "Guys only get ú500".  Adopting 
"guy" as  gender neutral merely perpetuates the fact that society deems 
male=normal and  female=abnormal."

I agree!  Also, implicit within "normal/abnormal," is  superiority.
 
Pam Paulick