When I was a kid, I couldn't pronounce R's and used to be teased endlessly. Should I demand words with r be banished because they made me uncomfortable? I didn't even know that was an option.

I'm not sure this is the hill I want to die on, but where is the line? How few or many people have to feel a certain way to effect change?

i'm not sure how this is the same as asking "please call me x", "please refer to me as his/her/them" compared to "i'm not going to say your name because i can't pronounce it" ?

This is under a thread of using "guys", which is what i'm specifically referring to, nothing else. Its common use, and dictionary definition even, is a nonderogatory nongendered word. So I personally feel taking it as gendered or as disrespect is disregarding the meaning of the word, and asking me to accept whatever yours is. Just as me asking nobody to use r words is asking the world to comply with my preferences.

I'm not going to argue right vs wrong or with you directly, I'm just explaining my comment and thought process.

It's the same argument thou - when you refer to a person/group of people you imply a lot about them with the word you use, men/children/kids/elders/americans/whites/ect - guys is no different to a lot of people as its so easily taken as gendered, and if said people don't want to be referred to by guys why not use a different one?

and fwiw the first definition for guys/guy in most dictionaries is "a man".

There is no line. Language has always evolved and will continue to evolve.

Because it is exhausting, and constant, and I believe rife with the chance at abuse in bad faith by those who want to feel constantly relevant and woke by redefining the lexicon.

your comment comes off as very condescending - you could have left out everything after "bad faith" and made a better argument - ever think how exhausting it is for people on the other side day in and out? and your complaining about having to not say a couple words? it's literally the least you can do and one step removed from doing nothing.

The name William has no commonly accepted or used meaning apart from as an identifier. I have no problem calling anyone by whatever identifier they choose, so long as they aren't asking me to apply an incorrect definition to that word.

The OED defines "guys" as a word used to refer to a group of people (male, female, or mixed). So if you ask me to not use a word because you refuse to accept its definition, that's very different to asking me to not use a word that is purely an identifier.

google: define guys -> https://imgur.com/a/g4jjFM8

The first definition of "guy" in most dictionaries is "A Man", including the oxford english dictionary so while common use is that guys is genderless consider maybe it's not as clear cut and dry as you would like? And there is a reason why it's becoming an issue (the women and non binary folk who don't like it finally feel like they can speak out against it?)

And if you do a dictionary search for "You Guys" you get: "used in speech and informal writing to refer to or address two or more people"[1] which seems to imply that it is a gender neutral phrase, despite what the definition for "guys" is. Words can have wildly different definitions depending on the context in which they are used.

[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/you%20guys

I can't say I agree with your reasoning of why some people think this type of thing is an issue. Also, your screenshot—I’ll assume unintentionally—has the plural definition hidden.

google: define guys -> https://i.imgur.com/b6PJRsa.png

“people of either sex.”

I'd really encourage you to take a step back here and think about how you'd react if it was your speech being policed. Imagine someone sent you an email declaring that the words "pop" and "soda" are exclusionary to Southerners, and from now on you need to refer to carbonated soft drinks only as "coke". It's an easy one-word substitution - would you do it?

What makes you think their speech isn’t policed as well? Is your victimhood that ingrained that you believe the other side doesn’t play by the rules, they’re only out to get you?

I assure you the “woke left” polices their own —- it’s a constant source of tension between unity of political power and unity of beliefs.

Coke? Why not? It does me no harm at all.

I'm sure the groups you're calling the "woke left" have intramural disputes about what's right to say. But I'm also quite confident that they have no general interest in making people comfortable. Indeed, most argue that people who don't think like them should be uncomfortable, because that discomfort will help enact social changes they'd like to see.

I’m not sure I follow your comment in response to mine, but I think we’re agreement anyway.

The utopian ideal of everyone feeling comfortable will not be reached by prioritizing the comfort of the oppressors over the oppressed.

> because that discomfort will help enact social changes they'd like to see.

Yes, and they completely miss the fact that when other people make them feel uncomfortable, they don't respond by falling in line with the majority way of thinking, but instead react by becoming more radical or even violent.

Well of course. If you believe the status quo is unjust and want it to change, why would you fall in line with majority way of thinking?

I don't dispute the logic of people wanting to change an unjust status quo, I'm just trying to see the bigger picture, that the side supporting the status quo is worried that certain changes would cause society to degrade or become unstable.

There probably are cases where making people feel uncomfortable does lead to them changing their minds and accepting the position of the person making them uncomfortable, but I think the assumption should be that supporters of the status quo will just become more entrenched if they see people trying to make them uncomfortable, just as those working against injustice can become more committed to their cause when they face opposition.

There is a long history of progressive social movements we can look back on for evidence.

Humans, on the whole, succumb to pressure to conform. And rightly so, the alternative is antisocial; sociopathy.