Itâs high time to rid ourselves of the sexist language that hides in our everyday speech
By Roma Ilnyckyj, Contributor
One blustery day last year, my boyfriend and I whipped into a restaurant for lunch. We both had our hoods on, and scarves up to our ears. The host greeted us with an enthusiastic âHi ladies!â When she realized that Brian was, in fact, not a âlady,â she sputtered a red-faced apology that continued until she brought us to our table. Sadly, if she had said âHi guys!â instead, she wouldnât have given it a second thought. Few people do. The tendency to address mixed-gender groups with the word âguysâ is so pervasive in our speech that itâs almost inaudible. And thatâs a problem.
The general argument in defence of âguysâ as a catch-all term is that the word has evolved to a point where, when used to address a group, its meaning is no longer exclusive to males. We have communally adopted this term because English is sorely lacking in a second-person plural pronoun (in other words, thereâs no plural âyouâ). The problem with this, as gender theorists Kleinman, Ezzell, and Frost point out, is that âyou guysâ is a false generic; âguyâ means âmale,â not âperson.â âYou guysâ is a gendered term masquerading as an equalizer, and it erases the female presence within a group.
Erin McKean, founder of the online dictionary Wordnik, dismisses the complaints against âyou guysâ as a case of âpeevology,â the study of things that annoy people. She states that, ââYou guysâ may simply make some women feel overlooked or ignored.â Thatâs not it at all. Itâs not about being annoyed or feeling personally ignored. Itâs about why we, as an English-speaking society, have decided that the only possible solution to the problem of our language lacking a plural âyouâ is to grab a specifically male term and apply it to the whole. The entrenched use of âyou guysâ is one more indication that while weâve made great progress towards gender equality, we often still default to the male.
We are well on our way to ridding English of sexist terms like âchairman,â and weâve rejected the use of âheâ to refer to unspecified people. Yet âyou guysâ thrives, largely because people like McKean argue that itâs easier than finding an alternative. And that, simply put, is lazy. Alternatives abound. Some of my favourites are âfolksâ and âfriends,â but if you find those to be too cutesy or familiar, my suggestion is to stay simple and go with âyou all.â What do you all think about this? It works! And for those who feel that âyou allâ is too dangerously close to âyâall,â I suggest that you either enunciate or research why this beleaguered syllable has such a bad reputation (itâs something to do with classism and racism, but thatâs for another article).
I get a range of reactions to my crusade against over-guying. Often, people tell me that they agree but donât know what to say instead. Itâs a popular topic on gender and language blogs, so I know Iâm not the only one who feels this way. But I also see a lot of eye rolls. I hear a lot of âLighten upâ and âStop being so sensitive.â Iâm accused of being the âword police.â Sometimes thereâs simply a sigh, accompanied by, âTheyâre just words.â
Yes, theyâre just words. So I challenge youâI dare youânext time you see a mixed-gender group of friends, wave and say âHi ladies!â Watch what impact your words have.
