David Morrison wants Australians to stop saying gender-based terms like 'guys'!

[dmitridr]

Hey guys,

I was just browsing Google News last night and happened to come across this recent article on the ABC website:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-01/david-morrison-wants-australians-to-stop-saying-'guys'/7465824

Australian of the Year and former Army chief David Morrison says the term "guys" should no longer be used in workplaces.

The retired Lieutenant General on Wednesday launched a new Diversity Council Australia video which aims to crack down on language which excludes minority groups.

"Exclusive language, gender-based language or inappropriate language, has as much a deleterious or disadvantaged effect as something where you're saying something blatantly inappropriate to another human being," General Morrison told ABC News Breakfast.

As we know, 'guys' is often used a way of signalling plurality of the personal pronoun 'you', because in English 'you' can be singular and plural! So, the term 'guys' helps to signal this plurality to other speakers (e.g. you guys). However, David believes that this term could be construed as somewhat discriminatory and excluding females due to its denotative meaning (male).

However, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop cautioned against interfering with freedom of speech.

Ms Bishop said words such as "guys" were generic enough they should not cause offence.

"I don't think we should try and interfere with the freedom of speech in this country to a point where people are too concerned about day-to-day conversations," she said.

This is a touchy-feeling topic as I believe it could be subjective. The term 'guy' traditionally referred to just a male, but being used in everyday communication it seems to show plurality rather than being male-specific.

Just some food for thought! Do you think this is an example of political correctness going too far?

Dmitri.

[pi]

PC police gone a little too far on the use of "guys" point. I know many females who refer to other groups of females (and males) as "guys". I think recently, "guys" has become a collective noun for people, especially young people, regardless of where one is on the gender spectrum. I see no problem with it's use.

[dmitridr]

PC police gone a little too far on the use of "guys" point. I know many females who refer to other groups of females (and males) as "guys". I think recently, "guys" has become a collective noun for people, especially young people, regardless of where one is on the gender spectrum. I see no problem with it's use.

Totally agree!

[thushan]

PC is only appropriate when people are being denigrated. The use of "guys" is used so generically that to most of the populace there is no offensive connotation with it, so PC-bashing it is inappropriate.

[grannysmith]

PC is only appropriate when people are being denigrated. The use of "guys" is used so generically that to most of the populace there is no offensive connotation with it, so PC-bashing it is inappropriate.

Here's the man :p

The instant I saw this article I was like damn, Mr Morrison should've said it a year earlier. But yeah, this is definitely an example of PC going ape ****

[calculatedrisk]

Great example of PC gone mad. Surely there are more important issues out there.

[Maz]

yeah i agree with all of you 'guys' (and i don't know your gender  )
I kinda think Australia has a style for this kind of slang, informal language that isn't always meant to be taken in
a literal sense. Most people these days have fit that word into the genera neutral category so i don't really see the harm in it 

[meganrobyn]

The problem is, these are all arguments that have been used before, in instances where something seen to be 'normal' has been criticised as exclusionary or as betraying implicit hierarchies and power imbalances of sex, race, etc. Terms that betray our real-life, manifest in experience and actions and choices, having a quantitative impact on actual outcomes etc etc attitudes and structural inequalities should always be challenged. Language defines how we think and our tangible reality; unless we query the language we use, we're never going to change any of the 'important' shit. You wouldn't call a group of men or a mixed-sex group 'girls' (unless you were being subversive), so the only reason 'guys' has entered unquestioned territory is because of the norms of a patriarchal power structure. So, yes, it should be questioned and we should be made mindful - we should be aware of the systems we're supporting or challenging when we speak.

[zsteve]

Yep, definitely. iirc 'guys' being used for both genders is something of an Americanism that has taken root in the general Australian variety. It does still have its lingering male connotation, e.g. 'guys and girls'.

And anyway, it's not like anyone else has expressly complained about it. I think Morrison is trying to fix a problem (the use of 'guys') that doesn't actually exist.

[pi]

It does still have its lingering male connotation, e.g. 'guys and girls'.

I don't have the English language prowess that you do, but I've always seen it as "boys and girls", and "guys" really being something that's been used for both genders, as per my above post. This has pretty much the case for as long as I remember it. Perhaps one could suggest "guys and gals", but who honesty says "gals"? Have never heard anyone say that haha.

[EvangelionZeta]

The problem is, these are all arguments that have been used before, in instances where something seen to be 'normal' has been criticised as exclusionary or as betraying implicit hierarchies and power imbalances of sex, race, etc. Terms that betray our real-life, manifest in experience and actions and choices, having a quantitative impact on actual outcomes etc etc attitudes and structural inequalities should always be challenged. Language defines how we think and our tangible reality; unless we query the language we use, we're never going to change any of the 'important' shit. You wouldn't call a group of men or a mixed-sex group 'girls' (unless you were being subversive), so the only reason 'guys' has entered unquestioned territory is because of the norms of a patriarchal power structure. So, yes, it should be questioned and we should be made mindful - we should be aware of the systems we're supporting or challenging when we speak.

As a regular user of "guys" I agree strongly with this. I don't necessarily think the use of "guys" is the most important gender issue of our time, but I think it's worth thinking about how our default identification for a group of people has gendered connotations (as if men are the "default" of humanity...much in the same way we use words like "mankind", etc.).

To Thushan, I think it's absolutely the case that sometimes we should be PC even if the thing in question doesn't cause offence. For example - we should question the fact that most speaking characters in Hollywood films are male, even though this doesn't necessarily cause explicit "offence", because it sets a norm that women are less "human" and more "objects" (or secondary to the stories of men).

[teacher28]

"guys" has become a collective noun for people, especially young people, regardless of where one is on the gender spectrum. I see no problem with it's use.

I was just thinking about this word yesterday; thinking about how it is simply a plural noun as you said. When I hear someone refer to a group of people with this word I don't see males, just people.

Although what meganrobyn and EZ point out is worth considering...

[pi]

Somewhat relevant (mainly the beginning of the article, it kinda moves into other issues after that): http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/cheltenham-girls-high-teachers-at-exclusive-girls-school-told-to-preach-gender-neutral/news-story/c9777cad2f4e9bdccde15d3972820d21?login=1

Cheltenham Girls High: Teachers at exclusive girls school told to preach gender neutral

Miranda Devine, The Daily Telegraph
July 19, 2016 10:44pm

TEACHERS at an all-girls school in northwest Sydney have been asked to  stop  referring  to  their students as “girls”, ladies” and “women”and to instead use “gender-neutral” ­language.

The request to teachers at Cheltenham Girls High School came in a staff meeting last term to discuss ­implementation of the controversial Safe Schools anti-bullying program for lesbian, gay and transgender (LGBTI) students.

Also at the meeting, a copy of the NSW anti-discrimination act was displayed, according to an insider, and staff were informed by the teacher chairing the meeting that if they did not support decisions of LGBTI students they would be breaking the law, would be considered homophobic and were not welcome by the school.

Some concerned parents have started a petition and complained to teachers and to their local Liberal MP Damien Tudehope, saying their children feel marginalised and ­excluded if they don’t participate in LGBTI activities at the elite, ethnically diverse public high school.

Teachers have helped a group of students at the school form an LGBTI “Queer-straight alliance” club to promote LGBTI issues, such as Wear it Purple Day.

Other events included the temporary removal of an Aboriginal flag from a flagpole inside school grounds last month, which was ­replaced with a rainbow flag at half- mast for a week to commemorate a US terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando.

“(Some of) the parents are saying that at (LGBTI) events like Rainbow Day and Purple Day that if their daughter doesn’t comply with what they perceive as the school directions their daughter is ostracised,” Mr Tudehope said.

He said parents from another school in his electorate had also approached him with similar concerns.

One mother who met principal Susan Bridge to express her concerns about the Safe Schools program was dissatisfied with the meeting, which resulted in the principal sending her a copy of the NSW Department of Education’s policy on homophobia.

Ms Bridge did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.

Mr Piccoli said: “I have asked the ­department to investigate these complaints promptly, in accordance with departmental policy.

“All schools are required to conform with federal government guidelines. I am advised all schools are following these guidelines. I have asked the secretary to confirm this is the case at all schools, including Cheltenham Girls High School.”

Dr Kevin Donnelly, senior ­research fellow at the Australian Catholic University and co-author of the Review of the Australian Curriculum, said the use of gender-­neutral language such as “students” in place of “girls” and “boys” was part of the Safe Schools agenda to erase gender differences.

“They say it’s hetero-normative to talk about men and women, boys and girls, because it’s reinforcing a binary stereotype,” he said. “I disagree with all of that, but I can understand why the school would be doing it. Gender ideology is undermining any traditional sense of what it is to be a man or a woman.”

[meganrobyn]

Okay, so I'm quite sure this 'news' has been reported as fiction - but it's an example of the kind of shit that gets written when people are scared about change or the status quo being challenged. They try to make it into a straw-man so others won't think about the legitimacy of it.

However, EVEN IF a school had been asked to remove gender-specific language, I find it hard to see why it's the terrible thing it is being outraged to be. Gender is a social construct, different from biological sex, and the way our society is structured it is a hierarchical construct - that is patriarchy. The gender norms favour the male gender. By switching gendered ideas for gender-neutral ones, it might be seen as unnecessary or a pain in the ass (or a threat to people who are made uncomfortable by change or don't want to lose their privilege), but it also a) reinforces the idea that identity isn't dependent on gender stereotypes (which I think is a great thing), and b) chips away at the gender hierarchy.