Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: \"Guys\" is to \"<?>\" as ...
Message-ID: <32066@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 18-Oct-85 12:17:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.32066
Posted: Fri Oct 18 12:17:13 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 05:37:17 EDT
References: <305@decwrl.UUCP> <2@ubc-cs.UUCP> <2362@sunybcs.UUCP> <1758@watdcsu.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 29

> I may be suggesting something that somebody's already suggested before.
> Anyway, my idea is based on something overheard at a restaurant.
> Two women were sitting at the table next to mine, and a waitress came
> up to them and asked them "Are you guys ready to order yet?"
> 
> My suggestion: guys

I agree.

I frequently call my daughters "guys" or "guy" as appropriate.

No, I *didn't* want sons; I wanted daughters.

I think "guy" or "guys" *is* an appropriate generic or can be made
one.
.
.
.
> There are too many thick books about thin subjects.

I think much of the incessant debate over whether "." is an acceptable
generic or whether "." carries nasty male overtones, etc. ad nauseum
fits nicely into this category.
-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa