[Macha]

There are many countries this could apply to. For example, landlord, as in someone who rents out a property is considered gender neutral here in Ireland. The term landlady exists, but is only used for female publicans, and only rarely, as publican and vintner are both used more frequently in that context.

"Guys" is mostly male oriented, but wouldn't be unheard of for a mixed gender group, and similarly "Lads" here is often gender neutral despite it being the most male of working class male stereotypes in the country that is our nearest neighbour.

[josephg]

Here in Australia, “guys” is generally used in a gender neutral way. Even when hanging out with groups of only women, I’ll use it and so will others without batting an eye. Eg, “What are you guys doing after this?”

Years ago I had an American friend tell me “guys” was sexist. I’ve been thinking about it for years since her comment. I think in an Australian context she’s wrong. And I think we move in the direction of gender equality by making words less gendered. Not by inserting gender bias where there was none.

You make “landlord” a gendered term by policing it as such. What a waste of a good word.

[Johnny555]

In the USA, guys can be used in a gender neutral context, but it also can be used to refer to males only.

"Ok guys, lets go to lunch" is probably gender neutral.

"Guys line up on the right, gals on the left" is not.

"Do you sleep with guys?" is not gender neutral.

[RikNieu]

In South Africa "guys" is gender neutral too.

I wish the Americans can keep their weird culture war within their own borders.

[dekhn]

This one is still widely argued; many women say they don't care and are happy to be included in the guys, and others consider it a real terrible thing to say. I have to conclude that it's unlikely that stopping using guys as a gender-neutral address will truly move the needle in equality.

[getaloadofthis0]

> an American friend tell me “guys” was sexist.

How odd.

Did you ask why they are so sensitive? Most of us elsewhere on the planet would laugh at such a ridiculously petty statement.

[frosted-flakes]

Landlord is gender-neutral in English, and has been so for a long time.

[Macha]

Even in the US? Because as the link the grandparent comment shows, it is one of the words Google Docs is warning away from as insufficiently inclusive

[alexb_]

Yes, even in the US. But of course, given enough influence, you can make absolutely anything non-inclusive. And social pressure will make everyone have to accept it.

[BitwiseFool]

I also find it baffling that inclusivity folks find a term that used to be male exclusive becoming applicable to both male and female as problematic. Wouldn't they want something like this to happen?

[dekhn]

I don't see this as too baffling- in their logic, if you have two alternatives (landlord and landlady, say) and landlord gets picked, it's evidence of patriarchy (because it defaulted to male). They would prefer "landperson", or perhaps "rent seeking capitalist"

[frosted-flakes]

Yes, just like "actor" is gender-neutral (although "actress" is still explicitly female).

[scythe]

When I rented a room from a woman in Atlanta, the other tenants and I always referred to her as "landlord" and nobody batted an eye. The only time I hear "landlady" is when One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer plays on the radio. So that's my datum.

[morelisp]

Would you say Ireland has no issues with inclusivity? Come on.

[Macha]

Why does e.g. Ireland's poor treatment of the travelling community mean we need to defer to American interpretations of language? Is America such a shining paragon that everyone needs to copy their every action?

This is a lazy argument

[morelisp]

I didn't make that argument, though.

If the starting position was "America's diversity concerns are not [e.g.] Ireland's concerns" I'm more sympathetic! In fact I think having software that tries to do this is fundamentally broken! But the starting position is always "we don't have any problems here" which is an even lazier, and wrong, argument.

[Macha]

In that case you're as equally arguing against an argument I didn't make. I did not say that Ireland has no problems. I said that Ireland does not have problems related to the gendered implications of landlord, guys, or lads, due to these words having much less gendered implications in the Irish context. (and elsewhere in the thread, that the south eastern Ireland usage of "boy" does not have the racial implications that it does in certain contexts in the US).

Nowhere did I say that Ireland has no issues with inclusivity.

[morelisp]

You started this reply chain on a response to a post claiming India has no issues with inclusivity, and mentioned instead we should also be considering Ireland for some reason! What are you doing?