I missed @o_guest's point, but I'm curious. Can I read it somewhere?
-
-
Esther Mondragón Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Yes but all has been a "misunderstanding"https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/941632587235250177 …
Esther Mondragón added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ah I see! Thanks
@o_guest for clarifying the non-neutrality of 'guys' (Of course no harm intended, but inclusive language has power/relevance)1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @IrisVanRooij @twitemp1 and
I've had these discussions too at my dept. Receive emails 'Hi guys, ...' adressing 4 men and me.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Well, for some British ppl "guys" (plural) is gender neutral for others it seems it is not :/ I have always considered gender neutral, otherwise I would have not used it. Just to clarify it further.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I know. I read the whole conversation (I think). I understand you *mean* to use it gender neutral but I agree with
@o_guest that the term isn't gender neutral (the dictionary notwithstanding)2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I still not convinced about it but I don't think it is relevant anymore. It seems to be one of the taboo words, so I would try not to use it. However, I believe that meaning cannot/should not be attached to words. Of course I don't expect you to agree
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I think the intention in this discussion is not to make the word taboo, but rather to draw attention to, and create awareness of how language use can help perpetuate the conceptualisation of male as default/normal/norm/neutral etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Yes, exactly.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
