Well, no, because I wasn’t making an argument about how common either definition is. In fact, my argument was explicitly assuming that “‘Guys’ is gendered,” is the less common usage. The point being, inherent in the concept of descriptivism is the idea that less common usages are completely valid.
Yes, that was what I was rebutting in the other two-thirds of the post:
I said you got halfway through understanding the point and then quit. Here’s what it would’ve looked like to understand the point behind my satirical suggestion:
“Gals” has never been gender neutral, but “guys” has. Why? Why didn’t “gals” end up as the gender-neutral word? And has there been, in the history of mankind, any other word that referred both to males specifically and to all people? And did the race of man look at the word and decide, each individual, whether man or woman, fireman or garbageman or policeman or chairman of a major company–that it was to his benefit to use a less gendered word?
Descriptivism (or, as I prefer, “linguistics”) acknowledges that words change in meaning, and that words can have connotations and denotations, and that it’s worth exploring and unpacking all aspects of a word.
You are correct that prescriptivism has more in common with manners. One commonality is that some jackasses insist that it’s “wrong” to wear white after Labor Day, as if that’s some objective fact, or that money trees at weddings are objectively signs of low class. Those manner mavens are just like the fussbudgets who insist that “I could care less” is objectively incorrect.
But other manner experts look instead at how we can have principles for treating one another well, and also at how our behavior may communicate certain things about our personalities, whether accurate or inaccurate, and we should be aware of what messages others will take from our behavior. They freely recognize both that there’s nothing objectively wrong with wearing white after Labor Day, and also that some folks will think less of you if you do; so if you care about those opinions, take them into consideration when getting dressed in October.
Well, yes, I agree, but the point is that linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism are not distinct ideologies. They’re not black and white, but a very broad continuum. Which of those emergent rules do you accept and document? Which do you classify as informal colloquialisms, and which do you accept as standard English? Which do you reject as now archaic? Which do you flag as offensive and unacceptable in polite company?
The term “prescriptivist” as a disparagement simply refers to those on a particularly extreme side of that continuum. Technically anyone who teaches grammar is in some sense a prescriptivist, because they’re teaching rules. The common derogatory sense of the word is used for those who insist on enforcing rules that are silly.
So I stand by my comment, supported by the cite I gave, that the scope of prescriptivism goes far beyond just grammar, and that anyone disparaging language that’s long been in common use, and seeking to avoid it, no matter how noble their goals of inclusivity, good manners, or avoiding offense, is being prescriptive.
No they are not, any more than anthropology and etiquette are on a continuum. They run parallel, if anything.
Well, no, they’re not two completely different fields. But you’re right that they are completely different philosophies and approaches to language. What I meant and should have said is that people – the speakers, users, students, and the documentors and arbiters of language – are on a continuum, with some leaning more to the descriptivist side and some more to the other.
Jeebus christ kids, get a og-damned room!!
This “You misunderstood me! No, you misunderstood me!” was old 46 posts ago.
Time for a new topic: I propose
Should “motherfucker” be preceded only by “ignorant” or is “stupid” sometimes a better antecedent? Discuss.
Actually to be on-topic for the thread we need to discuss whether and when stating an opinion on this point is valid criticism and when it’s errant (or arrant) pedantry. Or tedious wankery which almost as bad.
But Dad, if we can’t bicker in the Pit, where can we bicker?
Oh, please do bicker forth! And with not only my blessings but my active cheerleading.
Just mix up what you’re bickering about a liitle. Nobody loves a one-trick pony. 
An old anecdote, but -
I attended an all male university, partnered for almost all classes with an all female college, 1978-1981. I was in attendance at more than one planning meeting of organizations where we men were chastised (at varying levels of vehemence) for using “guys” to mean “students from both schools”.
I’ve never quite managed to stop using it, and possibly it is a low hill that even most of the people who are offended feel it isn’t worth expending energy on, but I do try and make note if there is a mix of genders and substitute “folks” or “people” when appropriate (which it usually is).
More recently, my work organization prior to retirement was ~50% women and there was occasional pushback on people of all genders who used “guys” to refer to the team.
By my reading, more than 5% did not. That’s one in every 20 people. That’s a large enough minority to stop me using it.
Also just linking to a chart is a bit poor form - 2300 people where? Which culture, which age range?
Well, since you didn’t link, here it is:
And these are some telling words from the article:
This really isn’t meant to be a scientific study or anything
There’s tons of selection bias, because the survey was only distributed through Twitter retweets.
The framing of the survey is pretty biased – I said things like “someone is trying to convince me that ‘guys’ is a gender neutral term” in my tweets about the survey.
That’s closer, but still not right. There are three approaches to language, two of which I happily practice:
I use both the first and the second approach extensively, and value them both. There’s no continuum here. I reject the third approach. Again, there’s no continuum.
This is our room, motherfucker!
From a linguistics perspective, it’s interesting to compare the etymology of “man” to “guy.”
Man:
Short version: “man” probably comes from “Mannus,” the mythical progenitor of humanity that Tacitus wrote about. Most interestingly, “man” as “human” predates “man” as “adult male human.” It adopted the “adult male” meaning a couple centuries after the “human” definition–but then that became by far the more common definition, to the extent that the word’s gendered connotations became overwhelming. Today, if someone refers to “man” or “men” as a word for everyone–male and female–they catch a lot of side-eye.
Guy:
Short version: this is the coolest thing I’ve learned in awhile. “Guy” meaning “male human” comes from Guy Freaking Fawkes! It goes like this:
So: “guy” definitely was gendered long before it was non-gendered. And it also has an amazing etymology. That doesn’t necessarily affect how we use it today, but I think those gendered connotations adhere to the word, much like they adhere to the word “man.”
My tongue-in-cheek suggestion of “gals” as an alternative is to point out how we shrink from taking a female-gendered word and turning it into a non-gendered word. I suspect that it’s because we still think of males as the default, so it’s easier for us to claim that male words are nongendered than female words.
You mean like when I said
interesting though distinctly non-scientific survey
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I posted that graph to bolster my argument. But as you point out, some of it actually weakens my argument, because at face value it at least narrows down the scope of the contexts in which “guys” would be considered gender neutral. The truth is that I posted the graph for the exact reasons I stated – because I thought it was interesting, and because I thought it illuminated the discussion and helped to clarify some of the issues.
No, it’s right.
However you slice that tomato, you are still teaching grammar, just as teachers have been doing since we’ve had schools. In the past, with its greater formalities, there tended to be a much greater emphasis on Standard English, and along with that, various bits of silliness like the stricture to never end a sentence with a preposition. You’re much more liberal than that and more accepting of linguistic diversity. That’s the continuum. Your position on it has shifted from that of the fearful schoolmarm of yesteryear. And I’m fine with that, as long as you’re educating the kids, which I’m sure you’re doing well.
My objection to this framing of my argument is that it’s extremely misleading, to say the least. In previous posts you’ve taken a few of my casual deprecations and by repeating them over and over again tried to create the impression that I hold the majority of English speakers in contempt and refuse to acknowledge the natural evolution of language. This is not even remotely true.
My hypothesis is that some (by no means all) idiosyncratic usage results from some combination of mishearing, slurring of words, dropping of syllables, or some other phonetic cause. Sometimes it results from conflating words, whereby confusing “regardless” with “irrespective” gives us “irregardless” (if “regardless” means “without regard”, what does “irregardless” mean? I don’t care if it’s been in use for a long time, what the hell does it mean that’s different from “regardless”?) In writing, it often results from incorrect homonyms (“there”, “they’re”, “their”) or just poor encoding of perceived phonetics (“could of”, “would of”).
The point is, these are mistakes. And while in general I think it’s rude to correct anyone’s speech or writing, I think it’s also a disservice to the language when some linguists, apparently fascinated by how these mistakes come about, set out to defend them. They will sometimes champion linguistic blunders as admirable examples of language evolution in action, when in fact it’s just someone who mangled a common expression because they didn’t hear it correctly and never thought about the fact that the grammar or semantics made no sense. Yet there are many examples of where some linguists – Pinker and McWhorter are repeat offenders – eagerly offer post hoc rationalizations for these usages, many of which are manifestly ludicrous.
How are “slurring of words” and “dropping of syllables” mistakes? You use contractions that were almost never used in 19th-century writing. When you write “it’s” instead of “it is,” were you mistaken?
Sure: “could of” is usually an orthographic error. But that’s very different.
Again, this is incorrect. The “fearful schoolmarm of yesteryear” presumably adopted your brand of superstitious prescriptivism. I reject that brand and am not on a continuum with it. Those who claim that “irregardless” is incorrect are simply and objectively wrong, from a linguistics perspective. If they say that it’s not a great word to use in a formal paper–well, I’d say that, too, but only because it’d hinder communication, because people get fussy about it. The word isn’t, in any meaningful sense, “incorrect.”
Yes, like that.
Whyever did I think that?
Oh…
And you’re still glossing over the fact that you just posted the graph, not the article.
I’m a woman and I said something different than what you say women have said. You might not know that I’m a woman (Lord knows I haven’t posted much even though I’ve been here since 2002), but that doesn’t mean the the assumption should be “poster is male unless specified”.
ETA: removed superfluous quote link
They’re not. The consequent transcription into written form, however, frequently is. And that’s because the writer was unfamiliar with the original, or just never gave it any thought.
Oh, come on! The extent to which one adheres to standard grammatical strictures or accepts deviations from them is most definitely a continuum! Even “Standard English” is itself not completely well defined and rife with controversies.
Sure, that’s pretty much where it sits. But my point was that it very likely originated from a conflation of “irrespective” and “regardless”. A mistake.
I admit that my perspective is partly informed by the fact that I’m a technologist. I read academic journals. I do technical writing. Precision in language matters to me.
.AND. is a logical function.
.NOT..AND. is a logical function.
But what the fuck is .NOT..NOT..AND.? Why, it’s just .AND., irregardless! And I sure don’t have no issues with that! 
“Argument’s an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.”
I’ve made my point. Your continued denial of it, based on irrelevancies and tangents, isn’t something I can affect.
You’ve said this before, and it shows. You’re applying the stringencies and requirements of one discipline to another discipline in a way that comes across as superstitious. What makes for good computer coding and what makes for effective human language are not the same.