Why I've stopped saying 'hey guys' (as a male in tech)
blog.allybot.ioI have no problem calling someone by their preferred gender term and including gender-neutral language. The problem I have is that there is an ever-growing, constantly-changing secret set of rules created, not as much to make people feel better, but in order to purposefully shame those who's viewpoints differ from the current political viewpoint that all human interaction is steeped in racism/sexism/bigotry.
The day after the Amy Coney Barrett used the term 'sexual preference,' Merriam-Webster Dictionary updated it to say it is offensive.
https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-preference-defini...
Are these rules really improving society or are they just being weaponized to impose a political doctrine?
Honestly I think it's an arcane set of rules that's meant to cement and elevate the position of the managerial/upper-class and ignore "the barbarians".
As much as the left claims to love the working class, all this cancellation stuff and hyper-sensitivity effectively disowns and demonizes the entire working class (idk, at least in my experience doing blue collar stuff, pretty much everyone I know in the city now would have an aneurysm sitting around a lunch trunk at break).
So would a worker sitting in a "sprint retro"
He bury's the lede until the penultimate paragraph:
> I built a Slack app to help. AllyBot will suggest inclusive alternatives to over 400 non-inclusive phrases to team members.
ah... so now we know the really for all this fuss from the author. it has nothing to do with respect for others and all about creating a market sell his product.
This one was always a tricky one for me, trying to create an email to a bunch of people in a friendly manner without using 'hey guys.' It the phrase that feels the most natural to me when speaking to group of people. I personally have always views 'guys' as inclusive of anyone, but I get others may not.
Professionally I have opted to use 'hey all' in 90% of situations because it's about as neutral as you can get. Doesn't feel as natural to me but then I don't run the risk of offending anyone.
> It the phrase that feels the most natural to me when speaking to group of people.
Dictionaries seem to agree: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guy "used to address a group of people of either sex"
While dictionaries are guidelines as to what is accepted use of a language, these accepted uses and dictionaries are no laws. A dictionary is only a snapshot of the rules which society agreed upon in the past and thus will certainly be changed in future.
So we're deciding right now that "guys" is a group of men? Why are we deciding to have the least inclusive possible meaning?
Because I don't know about you, the word guy sounds masculine to me.
I've got mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, I'm definitely fine with seeking to reduce uncomfortable terms in my speech. On the other, looking at how "guys" is used, it seems clear that it's in the process of becoming de-gendered. It isn't entirely, yet, but it's almost completely there. And in general, stepping into the path of language change seems a fool's errand; it's going to happen whether we want it to or not. So trying to force "guys" to stay gendered when it's in the process of changing seems like an exercise in futility. Similar to those people who reject "singular they" or "literally meaning figuratively". Those changes happened hundreds of years ago, yet there are still people trying to fight those fights. "de-gendered guys" at least is still in progress, so I'll give it that—but I'm pretty sure that the outcome is not in doubt.
I coached girls recreation basketball and found it weird (after a lifetime of playing basketball) to say "guard your man" or "find your man" etc. "guard your woman" and "guard your girl" also didn't "sound right" although that could be as a result of my bias.
When Star Trek first used "...where no one has gone before," it sounded very weird to me. Now it sounds right, and hearing the original series "...where no man has gone before" sounds weird.
Call it bias, call it familiarity, it's probably something like that.
Maybe you should talk to a former Marine Drill Instructor to get some creative alternatives...
Interesting one. Would "foe" work?
Nobody uses "foe" that way, at least not in whatever dialect of English I speak. "Opponent" might work.
Why is it difficult to consider that guys is not the plural of guy? Or that girl is not a perfect analog of boy?
I understand the logic of "it's not how you mean it but rather how I take it" but at some point people are going to start to think this isn't how you take but some sort of ideological power play.
It really depends on the person. I was once working in a an almost exclusively female envirinment and it wasn't rare to receive these "Hey, Ladies" e-mails, especially when the person replying didn't bother to check the guge Cc: list for the existence of the only male employee.
What did I feel then? Amusement. I'd sometimes reply in jest something about "just our girly things" and the author usually apologized "oh I'm sorry, I didn't notice you on Cc:" which was even more amusing since I didn't really feel there's anything to apologize for.
I used to have a bad habit of saying "thanks man" and "hey guys" regardless of who I was talking to. In all cases it was more due to laziness and habit than anything else and I was somewhat unaware of it.
It wasn't hard to change, with the main benefit being I no longer came off like a complete dumbass to a room full of women or a trans person.
Thanks all y’all for y’all. I’m taking y’all. I love y’all. Because “y’all” is the best, most inclusive second-person, plural pronoun in the English-speaking world. Thank you, the South. What an ally.
— Hannah Gadsby, Douglas
Except y'all can be dismissive or insulting depending upon context. Let's go y'all (idiots)!
> Let's go y'all (idiots)!
I have never thought/heard of it that way? Could you provide some context?
I am unable to find something quotable to back me up. So, I can only offer my personal take. I lived in Austin from 2004 until 2014. Not a Texan by any stretch.
When a member of a group says y'all to the group it is warm.
When an outsider says y'all to a group it can be pejorative.
Compare the following in both senses: "Let's get it together y'all!"
In the first sense, it is a rallying cry. In the second sense, the speaker may think you aren't trying hard enough. There, "y'all" was added only to put some stank on the sentence.
The pejorative may be limited to the end of the sentence.
As in: Think! vs Think Y'all!
OOOOOOOh, I know what you mean now! It is an in-group thing.
I experienced a less subtle version of that with my usage of "howdy".
Context: I wasn't born in the US, but was only 4 when we immigrated. For whatever reason young me gravitated toward "howdy" as my greeting. Probably just my young love of westerns; regardless, "howdy" has always been my informal "yo".
Anyway, my first few months in the South, local would ask me if I was making fun of them when I said "Howdy all" / "Howdy guys." Same way I've always said it. Now it was rare, but I would hear locals say "howdy" on occasion without ridicule. Something about my saying it caught a weary eye.
When I'm down South now, I just say "Hi". Weirdly, no one else has ever mentioned it.
None of this is new despite everyone's insistence that it is.
We learned in letter-writing that if you don't know who might read it, then you start with "To whom it may concern:"
It could be cute to acronymize “To whom it may concern” to Twimc (hard c) and introduce it into normal speech. “Hey, twimks, want to get some pizza...”
/u/tomquirk - thanks so kindly for posting this. As a trans woman in IT I couldn’t appreciate this post more at this time, nor do I think it’s ever been more relevant.
Might I suggest you consider adding - and I put here for HN’s convenience as well — a list of potential great alternatives? :)
‘Hey folks’
‘Hey everyone’
‘Hey y’all’
‘Hey team:’
Even just ‘Hey -‘
I also like ‘Good morning’, ‘Good afternoon’, ‘Good evening’, they’re great ways to inclusively greet people and start a conversation as well.
Thanks again for posting this! :)
I'm so glad you feel this way! And thanks for your suggestion. I'll definitely do a follow-up post on good alternatives to commonly used non-inclusive phrases. This tweet by the Women in Tech SEO community covers some great alternatives to "guys" - https://twitter.com/techseowomen/status/1317545475021701126 reply
If a person unfamiliar with the nuances of American culture tried using some of these terms in the wrong context or with the wrong audience, it could be a real social train wreck (pals?). Using some of these terms could just be signaling that you and your group must be native born American.
Also no one over the age of 50 should be seen topless in public or ever refer to a group of people as “peeps”, “fam”, “party people” or “superstars”.
Did this community mean to be so Ageist and Nativist. (See how hard this is.)
Fine - but what do I say instead then?
So many words! This tweet covers some great alternatives: https://twitter.com/techseowomen/status/1317545475021701126
Hey ya’ll, Hey everyone
- folks - friends - team - people - y'all - everyone
Omnes
love how you get downvoted for asking a legitimate question. this is EXACTLY why this topic is toxic and literally exists for shaming.
please... please stop. i really don't care for all this inclusive language crap and all it is is an attempt to shame people. if you get that easily offended by the way people talk you need to look deep at yourself and see what is the true reason for it. maybe you have deep down self trauma, anger issues or something else that needs to be sort out in therapy. btw... there is _nothing_ wrong in admitting that you have a problem and getting help for it.
what's even funnier is that this whole inclusive language shaming is something i only see in the tech world. perhaps this is because this industry is more ego centric than any other industry, i don't know, but i know a slew of people in the financial world who roll their eyes every time i have conversations about this.
I appreciate your opinion. And maybe there is some truth to your statement.
But in the professional context, none of that really matters IMO. If someone in your team is offended (and yes, it might seem stupid to you), then the dynamic of the team is thrown off. And ultimately, productivity suffers. That's how I'm thinking about it these days.
If you have a member in your team who's offended because of "guys" in "hey guys", then you need to question your hiring process, not the team dynamics.
I found that the fact these people get offended by such issues says more about themselves than the fact "guys" is sexist in some way.
i would rather offend one person than cater to one person. if everyone else is fun loving and easy going, you do the entire team an injustice by pandering to one toxic person and keeping them on the team... get rid of them. that is what a professional does... professionals value the team more than one person. one person can be replaced easily, a team cannot.
If you think inclusive language is an attempt to shame people, then YOU might have to look deep at yourself.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point of inclusive language is so that people who identify as female or non-binary have less reason to be offended, and can generally feel more safe in an environment because less trigger words are used.
edit: I would also appreciate that the people downvoting me would comment as to why they think my post does not contribute to the discussion in a respectful manner?
Saying "guys" in no way affects someone's safety. It's potentially rude maybe if someone showed displeasure with the phrase yet you persist, but no threat of harm comes from it.
Well that's easy for you to say. The whole point of political correctness is not to assume that no one can get offended, but to avoid certain types of speech which have either been proven to be offensive or where society has agreed upon that they might be offensive in some circumstances.
The political correctness debate reminds me of the 'Covid etiquette' debate happening around the world now.
I guess it's possible for both sides to be at fault - one side should be sensitive to others' preferences and proceed carefully perhaps by wearing a mask when they know it isn't required, perhaps by using pronouns carefully even when they don't know which are preferred. The other side needs to recognize that their preferences are not universal. People tend to want to bend all others to their particular risk assessment, and bend everyone to their usage of English to differentiate human beings from each other. Do they have a point? Sure. Is it worth the relational damage to impose this viewpoint on everyone? Maybe? Maybe not.
Define “society”. And define “offensive”, in particular to whom is it offensive and how offended are they. And who makes these definitions and why should we trust them to do it properly, e.g. scientifically? Without these definitions and clarifications, your statement lacks persuasive power.
And PC can backfire. Making a point of not using a PC-speak word, when the PC word is clumsy or silly, makes the not-PC-speak word a very effective cultural code word to those who want to reinforce the very things the PC police are trying to change.
And arguing over words has almost zero possibility of any positive impact. There have been a few exceptions (say, for example, the N-word [no, no, don’t say the N-word]).
> Define “society”. And define “offensive”
I will refer you to the wikipedia articles about political correctness and gender-neutral language as they probably do a much better job of defining the matter than I would.
I understand that you feel like "someone" making these definitions should have some kind of authority to be trustworthy. However, what happens is that someone makes a claim and then a large portion of society agrees. This is what gives them authority. And that is just how change is done usually in the democratic process. For example, at some point someone decided that women should vote and large portion of society agreed. And now, a few years later, we live in a society were women voters are the most normal thing you can think of.
> And arguing over words has almost zero possibility of any positive impact.
You just say that but you don't cite any scientific sources?
I agree with you whole-heartedly. I tend to find those who feel the need to "fight against this" are the ones who are not on the receiving end.
Sure, there are plenty of radicalized people who take this as an opportunity to shame, but I do not see the harm or difficulty in changing "guys" to "folks" or "team" if it makes someone feel more inclusive.
I've hired and work with a number of trans and marginalized people, it was extremely simple for me to start saying "hey folks" without the need to throw a tantrum over it.
"I tend to find those who feel the need to "fight against this" are the ones who are not on the receiving end."
i'm constantly mistaken for a white male. i'm on the receiving end more often than you think.
> If you think inclusive language is an attempt to shame people
It's not an attempt - it's used that way all the time, and the demonized are generally the ones who haven't had the privilege of attending college.
It's a great way to other-ize all the "uneducated" among us. The ones who don't live a comfortable sophisticated city existence with a service-sector job.
Well the mods seems to haves nuked this from the front page. Lame.
"My late teens and early 20’s were influenced by the so-called Intellectual Dark Web - Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris and the like."
Given your influences, I'm amazed you've not only recognized this issue, but chose to address it. Even the most liberal among my peers (who are older and grew up without them) hasn't taken this stance. I wonder how you broke free of the "edgelord" bubble and gained this perspective.
> What is often overlooked about Jordan Peterson’s views on the subject is that he is totally on board with using inclusive language in a private context. He just doesn’t want it to be legally enforced. This is an important distinction.
I much appreciate the author emphasizing this point, because I think it's crucial and often missed. It's perfectly fine for people to use language that they feel is more inclusive, but not so fine when they try to enforce the boundaries, particularly at the point of a gun, which all laws imply.
But I think that distinction should extend to non-legal "policing". If I say "guys" or "mankind" in a sense that is meant to be inclusive, but someone else interprets that as not inclusive, I don't feel responsible for their interpretation, any more than I would feel responsible for someone's misinterpretation of "niggardly". They can choose to be offended, but if that clearly was not my intent, I don't feel the need to accommodate them. I've found that some people have a desire, even a mission to feel offended, and don't feel that it helps either of us to tiptoe around their neurosis. Because of the seemingly infinite flexibility of their offense taking, I couldn't fail to offend no matter how much I tried, and I've learned that by trying and trying and trying.
If I say a phrase that has long meant "all of you", but you have now decided means "all of you males", then I don't think I'm responsible for your offense taking. I think you're responsible for purposely redefining the clear meaning to score some kind of points.
Hey everyone, OP here. I know this can be a somewhat controversial topic, so I'm keen to hear your perspectives on inclusive language and inclusion in general. Thanks for stumbling upon my post :)
Your behavior change is fine, and you're free to modify your own behavior if you'd like obviously. You never said it, but where many people go wrong is when they say "I'm modifying my behavior to avoid any potential for a perceived slight, and you should too." Such behavior policing is toxic.
I used to have a severe anxiety disorder that partly stemmed from being overly sensitive about what other people thought about me. I had to consciously dampen down that part of myself, and I feel much, much better about it.
I think instead of getting individuals to avoid offending others, we should instead foster a mentality of resiliency. People get offended far too easily nowadays. They should learn how to stop caring so much about what other people think.
Of course there's a line beyond which you're just a jerk, but to me, just saying "hey guys" doesn't cross it. But that's just me, and I'm in a region of the country where "hey guys" is acceptable.
The webster dictionary literally says: Guys - PERSON —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex.
A proper use of the rhetorical device of an “appeal to authority.” Thanks.
Why on earth is this flagged? This is such an important discussion. I'm also shocked by the folks here who feel they're too special to respect other people with language. I expected better of this community.
Amen. Should NOT be flagged. Be professional. Be respectful. Be thoughtful. Be flexible. Be kind. It is NOT asking too much. This is a pretty low bar – especially for "smart" people.
cause he is selling a product based around this and the submitted title doesn't even mention this. its a bait and switch.
Your very comment espouses everything wromg with this. You feel it's important, so it must be.
Then you use the derogatory term 'snowflake', only you twist its meaning to call out people for not bowing to your whims, to me you are the one thinking they are special, and are too much a 'snowflake' to see the other side of the argument.
There is a huge difference between giving and taking offense.
I remember when the big all hands meetings started to start with ,,hey team''. It was strange and unnatural to me.
For me a team is a group of about 5 people working together to achieve a clear goal, going to lunch together almost every day, having coffee together, while talking about solving deep technical issues. It doesn't scale to more than 8 people, because I'm just not able to understand deeply what more than 8 people are doing, and follow their code base.
It was the same time when all hands meetings got political and uninteresting, skipping all the technical details on announcements that made them interesting (and that made cross-team collaboration possible), and I just stopped going to these meetings, because they started to be just a waste of my time.