"Theydies and gentlethems"

[nordica]

... is what the clothing brand Lucy & Yak thinks people should use instead of ladies and gentlemen or guys and gals when referring to others in posts in their official Facebook group. "Folx" is also acceptable as is anything else gender-neutral.

I'm in the group because I quite like their clothes but not sure I'll ever want to buy from them now if they are so keen to erase my identity as a woman.

Someone also suggested they do Harry Potter themed clothes the other week and you can imagine how well that went down. (The admins immediately posted a link about JKR being transphobic and closed the comments.)

People.

I do hope that young Labour meetings are opening with Comrades, as a gender-neutral plural, in between expelling and de-platforming feminists.

Edge Exactly! We need some more informal words for women. Ones that aren't slurs or belittling. It's so weird that there is a lack of them!

Back when Hullygully and Pagwatch were still on MN there was a thread (by Hully?) to introduce a word to fill that empty niche. The winner was Dames, but it never took off on MN as was hoped.

I wore dungarees in the 80s when they were a feminist staple. I remember how half the time when you went for a wee the back yoke and straps would fall into the loo...

The problem is, there is no informal way of addressing women or speaking about a woman. If I'm talking about a colleague with whom I have a close rapport, saying 'a woman I work with' or 'a lady I work with' sounds overly formal and distant. I am inclined to think that 'girl' does have a secondary meaning similar to 'guy', but I appreciate that it's a tricky one

"Someone I work with" "a work colleague of mine" "a co-worker".

I can't see any reason to emphasise the co- worker's sex unless it were relevant in which case I'd say "a man" or "a woman I work with"

I don't see anything odd about using woman in that context. I don't like using "woman" in the context of referring to a stranger in her presence but as the female co- worker is out of earshot it's fine.

I've seen some feminists use "gyns". I kind of like it.

It's another one of those contradictions.

Words are fluid, their meaning changes all the time, we're expanding the definitions.

Yet make sure you use the right words otherwise you are hateful.

Your NN makes me generally happier about using 'Ladies' , DickKerrLadies, come to think. The mental image of them takes the prissiness out of it.

@ErrolTheDragon

Your NN makes me generally happier about using 'Ladies' , DickKerrLadies, come to think. The mental image of them takes the prissiness out of it.

I find it quite irritating that "ladies" or using that word is seen as "prissy".

"Guys" - which you are ok with, I see as a somewhat desperate attempt to be one of the lads.

Well, life would be dull if we all agreed on everything. Edge's observation I think in my head I differentiate between the second person 'guys' and the noun 'guy'. tallies with mine. I noticed for the first time my Pilates instructor routinely refers to us (group of unladdish women) as guys.

'Esteemed Bipeds...'?

There was an article on BBC sport the other week about star striker Lily Parr that mentioned a story about her breaking a goalkeeper's arm with one of her shots. (Link for anyone interested www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55884099)

Tut, how unladylike!

It's the connotations of the word 'lady' isn't it - in a sort of 'all ladies are women but not all women are ladies' way. Reserved for the right kind of woman. Said with a side order of condescension. And as someone critical of gender, being told I'm not being very ladylike has always made me roll my eyes.

IMO, it's seen as prissy because it was reserved for the upper class women but for me it's just another thing to keep women in their place. It's gender.

I don't think 'guys' has similar links to masculinity in the way 'ladies' is linked to femininity. 'Lads' does, but not guys IMO.

Anyway, this is probably rambly because I've written it over the course of about 2 hours whilst homeschooling so I'll leave it there

I'm mildly amused given all the talk on here of the erasure of women that some of you are very happy to accept a term which does just that. The first dictionary definitely of "guys" doesn't support its use as gender neutral. The article below is just one of many outlining why guys is problematic.

As for the posters who think "gal" is unacceptable- why? It seems a sexist notion in itself to prefer guy. Everything feminine is always lesser and to be avoided or scorned and everything masculine is always better even to point of convincing yourselves a collective noun which is clearly masculine based and is a man's first name is "gender neutral"

I worry about what people with the best of intentions are teaching our children. A colleague’s five-year-old daughter recently left her classroom crying after a teacher said, “What do you guys think?”. She thought the teacher didn’t care about what she thought. When the teacher told her that of course she was included, her tears stopped. But what was the lesson? She learned that her opinion as a girl mattered only when she’s a guy. She learned that men are the norm

www.hotjar.com/blog/gender-inclusive-language-workplace/

@theThreeofWeevils

'Esteemed Bipeds...'?

Not everyone has 2 legs...(although we are a bipedal species) Gets tricky doesn't it!

Logically you're probably right, MissBarbary.
But pondering the etymology of 'guy' leads to 'fellow' - which is neutral in origins and much of its usage still, but which developed an additional meaning as yet another way to refer to males. It goes both ways - neutrals becoming male, male terms being accepted as neutral ... and always it seems somehow to the detriment of women.