I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. Using 'guys' is a micro-aggression. A rather minor one, in my opinion, but if it's contributing to an unwelcome environment then we should try to cut it out. However:
> Relatedly, avoid assuming male users in your documentation. Just stop worrying and embrace the singular “they”.
I mean, no I'm not going to do that. Which is to say, I will not and do not assume male users in my documentation, and I will use singular they when appropriate. However I will also continue to use generic he from time to time, because this is a legitimate feature of the English language.
Singular they has been around for a really long time - for a lot longer than anyone has cared about feminism certainly (i.e. 600 years or so at least). So it is not, as is sometimes claimed, some sort of recent invention by feminists to change the English language from the top down. Rather, it has existed alongside the generic he for about as long as people have been speaking English. I use them both freely: in speech I probably use singular they about 95% of the time, in writing more like 75%. Sometimes one sounds better, sometimes the other does.
If he is a pronoun which is used by English speakers in both a gender specific sense and a gender neutral sense, then that's what it is. The argument against generic he seems to presume that in fact there is no generic he, and that all instances of generic he in speech and writing are in fact instances of presumed maleness. I've never really seen this argued though, it's just always taken as a given. I do not take it as a given - is it really so hard to imagine that a word would have two functions? Most languages do this all the time, and English is no exception.
When there are instances of sexism ingrained in our language we should make the effort to remove them, but this often-cited example of same does not foot the bill in my opinion. I will go to great lengths for the cause of feminism, but I will not needlessly degrade the beauty of my native tongue.
I agree with the author that a guy is a man is a guy. Using 'guys' is a micro-aggression. A rather minor one, in my opinion, but if it's contributing to an unwelcome environment then we should try to cut it out. However:
> Relatedly, avoid assuming male users in your documentation. Just stop worrying and embrace the singular “they”.
I mean, no I'm not going to do that. Which is to say, I will not and do not assume male users in my documentation, and I will use singular they when appropriate. However I will also continue to use generic he from time to time, because this is a legitimate feature of the English language.
Singular they has been around for a really long time - for a lot longer than anyone has cared about feminism certainly (i.e. 600 years or so at least). So it is not, as is sometimes claimed, some sort of recent invention by feminists to change the English language from the top down. Rather, it has existed alongside the generic he for about as long as people have been speaking English. I use them both freely: in speech I probably use singular they about 95% of the time, in writing more like 75%. Sometimes one sounds better, sometimes the other does.
If he is a pronoun which is used by English speakers in both a gender specific sense and a gender neutral sense, then that's what it is. The argument against generic he seems to presume that in fact there is no generic he, and that all instances of generic he in speech and writing are in fact instances of presumed maleness. I've never really seen this argued though, it's just always taken as a given. I do not take it as a given - is it really so hard to imagine that a word would have two functions? Most languages do this all the time, and English is no exception.
When there are instances of sexism ingrained in our language we should make the effort to remove them, but this often-cited example of same does not foot the bill in my opinion. I will go to great lengths for the cause of feminism, but I will not needlessly degrade the beauty of my native tongue.