[clug] Google compared to latest Microsoft evilness

[Daniel Pittman]

Brendan Jurd <direvus at gmail.com> writes:
> 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.

As others said, better old fashioned in some cases.

[...]

> My point is that when you're trying to use gender-neutral language, your
> options are limited.

I find I get on fairly well sticking to "can anyone", "they all", "y'all", and
other terms.  ...or names.  Names work wonders for addressing specific
conversation, and general comment without identifiers for a good deal of the
rest of it.

[...]

> I'm in favour of just treating "guy" as neutral, and hoping that usage takes
> further hold.

Good luck.  Generally, though, expect that to be a hard slog to get accepted,
because the starting point is quite so gender-specific.

Regards,
        Daniel

My favorite option, "you earthling skumsuckers!", never seemed to gain the
traction I felt it richly deserved.

-- 
✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel at rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons