Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site sunybcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!colonel
From: colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: \"Guys\" is to \"<?>\" as ...
Message-ID: <2362@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 20:05:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.2362
Posted: Wed Oct  9 20:05:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 05:36:07 EDT
References: <305@decwrl.UUCP> <2@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Save the Dodoes Foundation
Lines: 13

> In article <305@decwrl.UUCP> dyer@tau.DEC writes:
> >	The problem is that there *isn't* another word that would fit here.  One
> >uses either "girl" or "woman."
> >P.S.:  Don't be fooled into thinking that "gal" is a good match for "guy."
> >"Gal" is just another way of saying "girl," so it is just as unacceptable.
> 
>      What we seem to need is a word with similar origins as "guy": i.e. a
> short, one-syllable, slightly old-fashioned woman's name.
>      Any suggestions?

This strikes me as being very sexist!  Why not use a single bizarre
word for both sexes, like "goons"?  If I remember right, Segar's goons
came in (at least) two sexes.