Does it matter that women get misgendered

[mariamin]

Women get misgendered by being called guys all the time.

I actually like wife, it didn't start to mean married until the 14th century (sorry in link, not read yet). In the parts of Scotland I heard it used it was not a reference to Marital (bloody phone keeps capitalising marital) status.
Probably as I'm not one in the current sense.

And now its mangled my post.

Ah well you'll probably get the gist.

Oh that's interesting! Chopper your post is a bit depressing though.

Chopper If it is any consolation, I can confirm that the word for 'man' and 'husband' are the same in Greek

There is an official word which equates to 'spouse' and is the same word for both genders (you just use it with feminine or masculine inflections to clarify)

Didn't really merit your rant Pilchard did it?
It's not a great word (Susan Boyle used it contextually correctly when she described herself as "a wee wifey") but I'd still rather be a "wifey" than "guy".

The more I think about "guy" the more I dislike it.

Still

Your posts are exhausting.

I suppose it is exhausting having to deal with any departure from the majority mindset.

Pilchard 's post was a rant without her knowing the facts.

you're such a rebel, still

I don't think, still, you can insist upon historical and non-standard-English variations in one context ('wifeys'), and dismiss people who point them out in others by privileging a contemporary, standard English version over all others ('monseigneur').

Or, you can, but it comes across as inconsistent and makes me wonder what your vested interests might be.

Monsignor is in use as a church title. I don't recall saying it couldn't be used as that so not sure what point you're trying to make.

"Wifey" is a term which is still used in parts of Scotland and does not, as Pilchard assumed mean, only married women. So again what point are you trying to make?

Where is the inconsistency?

The inconsistency is that you felt there could hardly be a modern female equivalent to the title Monseigneur, as you didn't acknowledge the non-English and historical variants.

Whereas here, when someone has done exactly the same thing of presuming only the contemporary standard English is valid, you seem to feel they're unreasonable.

FWIW, I tend to think it's better to do what you're doing here, than what you did before, but it seems strange to me you'd contradict yourself, especially while giving the impression your replies are motivated by more than a petty desire to disagree for the sake of it.

It's exhausting because your posts so often have a condescending tone. Pilchard thanked people for the additional info, her initial assumption was not unreasonable. And yet you felt the need to post, "Didn't really merit your rant, did it?"

Nothing to do with disagreeing; others disagreed with Pilchard.

This is what I'm getting at too. You could just have said, no worries, pilchard, you didn't know. Instead you get combative, which you also did on the thread when it turned out another title was more complex than you were acknowledging. It's tiring.

When I lived in Scotland every time I heard the word "wifey" it was preceded by "wee." Now I love pretty much everything about Scotland, but, as an adult woman, I don't want to be called a wee anything.

Lol @ seneca.

Yes I did find it interesting, I'm not a scot and so was not aware of the meaning up there. I was basing it in part on the fact that someone on the thread who presumably had heard it said they didn't like it, and so I worked on the assumption that they probably had a reason for not liking it.

I guess the things to do would be to ask a lot of Scottish women how they felt about the term.

I did have a quick google last night of "wifey scottish" and most of the first links were either "wee wifey" seneca!

vesuvia no - the footballers would take a dive because they're prima donnas, everyone knows that

I did actually ask the 'females' at our training session today whether they minded the various terms used to describe the group as I had been led to believe that guys was 'misgendering' so some of them might not like it. They looked at me as though I'd gone totally mad.

53Dragon - Guys is misgendering. Just because nobody objected does not mean it is not.

Every time I hear 'guys' for a group I think 'and Dolls' it's beginning to make me snarley

mariamin the point I was making is that - misgendering or not - no one minds. 'Guys' has fallen into common usage as a friendly term to describe a group - language changes over time. This argument seems rather like referring to someone as 'gay' and others getting offended because in fact they're a miserable bugger.

I don't find guys offensive but I wish there was either an equivalent neutral word or that gals was used as often as guys to describe a mixed group.

But that's a pointless argument - 'dolls' isn't in common usage for a mixed group.

Perhaps we should just consider ourselves lucky that we can embrace 'male' collective nouns whereas the poor men aren't so fortunate? Surely this is all about what has become the norm. I wouldn't be very happy if someone referred to us as 'blokes', yet 'guys' or 'chaps' has become accepted even when referring to females.

Actually... I was waiting for some friends in the pub on Sat - standing there with a pint of bitter in my hand - and a large older man brushed past, causing me to spill a little. His response... 'Sorry, sonny!'