[thrownaway954]

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.

[tomquirk]

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.

[justiceforsaas]

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.

[thrownaway954]

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.

[0x008]

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?

[TheAdamAndChe]

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.

[0x008]

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.

[f154hfds]

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.

[onecommentman]

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]).

[0x008]

> 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?

[tlackemann]

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.

[thrownaway954]

"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.

[gnusty_gnurc]

> 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.