[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[Brendan Jurd]

2009/7/10 Jacinta Richardson <jarich at perltraining.com.au>:
> Chris Smart wrote:
>> Pretty sure "guy" is a unisex term these days ;-)
>
> Only in limited circumstances.  For a lot of the population, in a lot of
> circumstances it still means male.

Maybe.  But have you got a better alternative?

"People"?  Too formal.
"Peeps"?  Retarded.
"Folks"?  Old fashioned.
"Friends, Romans, Countrymen"?  Oops, male.
"Dude"?  Often too informal and more male than "guy".

My point is that when you're trying to use gender-neutral language,
your options are limited.  It's very frustrating.  In today's
environment of gender equality, it's natural to want to talk in a way
that doesn't discriminate between male and female.  Especially as
doing otherwise can get you into serious trouble.  But the language
just isn't set up for that.  We have to make do with what we have.
I'm in favour of just treating "guy" as neutral, and hoping that usage
takes further hold.

Cheers,
BJ