After numerous years of working on a successful and competitive team of about 20 people, led by women, and composed entirely of women, the most common way an individual speaks to address the group starts with “Hey, guys” or “Alright, guys”. There aren’t any men being addressed, but a group of only women still chooses to call themselves “guys” and none of them take issue with the word or have any second thoughts about the use of the term. Each woman freely uses it to refer to the group, or any subset of the group.
People that are complaining about this word are just desperately looking for something to be offended by. They’re sifting through their daily lives looking for opportunities to complain and be offended. They’re looking at opportunities to claim discrimination. That’s nonsense and it’s stupid.
Male pronouns like “guys”, are inherently gender neutral. That’s how pronouns work in Spanish where male pronouns include both male only groups and mixed-gender groups. That’s also how pronouns work in English, male pronouns include both male only groups and mixed-gender groups. Even the word “Man” is gender neutral, including “himself” when it applies to a gender-neutral form of the word man.
The statement “A man who cannot control his beasts is no better than a beast himself.” is a gender-neutral statement because there is no second gender in the sentence, that statement applies equally to men and women. In the most generic sense, that statement applies to all individual operators with agency, meaning that the word “man” in this context applies just as much to God, to aliens, and to anyone else capable of making conscious decisions which dictate the course of actions.
In the absence of a second gender, of a direct comparison to explicitly referenced women, then the word man is gender neutral. This is because “man” refers to a human, by default. It refers to the gender only when two genders exist in the context, such as “A man has a penis and a woman has a vagina.” Unless there is explicit sexual context with the word, then the word “man” is gender neutral.
The reason that this is true is because in the absence of sexual comparison, there is no gender. This means that a woman, isolated from men, exists in the role of the male and female at the same time. The woman exists as a human, and the default role of a human is that of a man. An isolated woman must perform all of the typical “man” actions in order to exist because these are the necessary for the existence of the woman.
To believe that male pronouns do not include women is a asinine argument coming from “feminists” because for male pronouns to not include women by default is arguing that women are incapable of existing in the role of a man or unable to performing enough actions which define a man that a woman cannot operate as a man.
This is ridiculous, because a woman can operate in nearly every position a man can operate in aside from waving a penis around or ejaculating semen from said penis. Unless the term “man” is used in direct refence to something which necessitates a penis or otherwise is used in contrast to an explicitly defined woman, then the term needs to be understood as gender neutral.
The fact that people are pretending to be upset because they are arguing that the “implicit woman” is a legitimate grammatical concept, in that “even in the absence of an explicit woman, male terms are still explicitly contrasting against the implicit woman regardless of her absence in the sentence”. This is nonsense to presume some sort of comparison or reference to gender or sex is being made within a sentence just because it uses a pronoun.
In my writing, I use the gender-neutral term “man” extensively, in reference to the human race and an individual human. “A man who cannot identify with male pronouns cannot be considered a man, thus is not a member of the species but something beneath it.”
The issue with shifting grammar towards inherently genders neutral words like “person” is that these words do not have the same connotation. “person” is the second-fiddle word, “person” is the inferior. We are humans, we are mankind, we are not “people-kind”.
People is historically used in reference to the “technically people” groups, as deemed by historians of the time. This means “disabled people”, “colored people”, “gay people”. The use of the term “people” indicates the existence of a group of people which is unique enough to warrant a term, yet this uniqueness excludes them from the most generic and superior word “man”.
Even using female pronouns in reference to a group of women is disparaging and arguably sexist. There’s a reason that women don’t (literally never) refer to each other as “gals” or “ladies” because these are incredibly diminutive and firmly establish this perception that they are a group of women thus “ group of people which is unique enough to warrant a term, yet this uniqueness excludes them from the most generic and superior word “man”.
The use of female collective pronouns argues that this is a group of people whose collective vaginas are enough to warrant grammatical segregation from a generic group of people. The historical grammatical segregation of women is entirely due to the perceived inferiority of women, thus to use female pronouns is to affirm that “our vaginas make us inferior to a generic group of people to the point where we must acknowledge this with the use of a different pronoun”.
I oppose the use of female pronouns in any context beyond where having a vagina is directly consequential because the term “woman” inherently diminishes the value of anything that follows. The term “Woman” is associated with “having the bar lowered”, or “pretty good… for a woman”, and it inherently applies that a lower level of greatness and success has been attained, simply by starting the headline or statement off with “Local woman…”
Using the term “woman” as an empowering term is nonsensical because it is not empowering, and the word was created to distinguish women from men and carry the context of the perceived inferior nature of women. Seeing “Local woman…”, is the equivalent of putting the woman on the “special fridge” historically reserved for the mentally handicapped, colored people, and women.
That’s not empowerment, it just again highlights that the bar is lowered for women, and this reinforces the historical trope that “women need to be acknowledged for lesser achievements because women are less capable than men, thus recognition needs to be adjusted proportional to the diminished capability of women.”
If a scientist does something, then say “Local scientist” and make no reference to gender. The gender of the person is inconsequential to whatever the scientist did, so including the gender is suddenly putting the scientist on the “special fridge”. Even referencing the gender is insulting the woman because at that point the audience can no longer clearly understand whether the person is being acknowledged because of “Achievement” or “Achievement with respect to gender”, the latter of which is incredibly dismissive.
The gender of a person is inconsequential at all times beyond the sexual reproductive organs, and acknowledging the sex is arguing that it is relevant. This convolutes the ability to be recognized, and the “special fridge” has proven to be incredibly problematic for people like Kamala Harris, because the main argument against her states that “She only got that job because she was a colored woman.”
Trying to “celebrate the special fridge” does not change the fact that the special fridge is still the special fridge. It still has the same connotations of inferiority and the same connotations of a reduced capability when compared to the generic, sexless, raceless accomplishment which has been the standard method of disseminating the achievements of White men.
This inherent problem with the “special fridge” is the root of countless conflicts and a massive source of misogyny and racism. Any time “Colored man accomplishes…” or “Woman accomplishes” is in the headline, any time race or sex is emphasized, your reinforcing the historical discrimination and perception that race or sex is somehow relevant with respect to accomplishment, and this has always meant that women and colored people are being held to lower standards than White men.
The source of 100% of discrimination is the existence of differences between people. Discrimination cannot be eliminated without eliminating the existence of differences between people. So long as differences exist between people, each person will be discriminated against on account of each thing which is different about him.
The strategy of glorifying difference does nothing but exacerbate discrimination and tensions between groups of people that are different in any way. Making unnecessary reference to the race, gender, disability, or religion of a person only throws gasoline on the fire of discrimination.
The Jews learned this long ago and do not publicly refer to themselves as Jewish the same way the News enjoys referring to women and colored people when their vagina or skin color is not relevant to the action they have performed. The Jews learned that the way to avoid discrimination is to refrain at all times from any reference to one’s differences, and this is why they have been able to exist without the same level of discrimination and “difference-based-thinking” that plague other groups such as women, coloreds, gays, and others face on a daily basis.
Again, the existence of differences inherently causes discrimination, and making explicit references to differences does nothing but further aggravate tensions and provoke discrimination from each person which is not a part of that group. Stop doing this.
Don’t reference the sex, race, or other facets of a person unless it is otherwise relevant. The refusal to acknowledge differences is how groups such as the Irish, Italians, Jews, Catholics, and other groups that have been historically discriminated against have been able to minimize the extent to which they are subjected to discrimination.
The fact that women, coloreds, gays, and the people that represent these groups feel the need to “have a parade to glorify their differences” is really worrying considering that this is the antithesis of a successful strategy and does nothing but increase resentment and discrimination against these groups of people.