story
Seriously, just... don't? This isn’t some woke political thing and I dislike excessive policing of language but damn it, there are limits. "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day. At "bro" I will take a stand, thank you very much.
If I understand correctly, we've got: libraryofbabel says "maybe a little too uncritical" ... but that was supposed to be British snark that actually meant "it's a big problem that it's not at all critical"
Then, moab says "Bro" as a pejorative, because he took the original "uncritical" comment as literal rather than sarcastic...
And then libraryofbabel objects to "bro" not because it was used as a pejorative (which maybe she doesn't understand that it is in this context?), but because she interprets it as gendered (which maybe it is in British usage?)
I think libraryofbabel and moab are actually in agreement about the book, and but have both misunderstood the other's sarcasm. Maybe we really do need the /s usage.
> I had no idea it was possible to use male-gendered terms in a generic way
This is just sarcastic, right? "Male gendering" is just a use, no gender is involved in plain terming (outside the obvious exception of intentional gendering)... "Wo-man" specifies "/sensitive/ man", but there is no gender in "man", in "having a mind"... "Human", i.e. "heartly", is not gendered - yet some languages typically correlate derivations like French "homme" with male in default understanding... This should be clear, but just to be sure.
> bro
To the best of my recollection, in the IE roots "brother" is "who assists in the rites" - not necessarily gendered. (Some add that the idea is "supporter".) The suggestion from the term is that of the "brotherhood" - which is not gendered (the idea of fraternity is not gendered). "Sister" should instead mean "welcome" (to some studies): not gendered in this case; others interpret it as gendered ("one's girl" - this is what Etymonline proposes).
> "Guys" I'll let pass no problem, maybe even "dude" too on a good day
That's odd. You wouldn't mind being called "a generic Italo- or possibly French ("Guido" or "Guy")"*; you wouldn't mind being called a "doodle", which has a connotation of "simpleton" - and you refuse "brother", which basically means to imply "getting close to you" (as an opening from the speaker)?
* Edit: Yes, also the explosion of the term and the non-national derivation from "Guy Fawkes" (from the celebration that involved displays of Guy Fawkes ragdolls) should be remembered. Still not precisely complimentary, I'd say.
I often quote what we do in the server-client relation: interpret loosely but express correctly.
It is not just a way of communication: language is one of the factors behind thought: hence, its care must be cared for and promoted.
Sure, also the context and the communication need have a weight. But without compromising into conformism (as in, "doing it wrong because people do").
> its meaning is in the minds of the participants
Awareness has its benefits (the greatest understatement I have ever written); licence has its costs.
> entirely insufficient to justify its use
Why. The competent will always use tools differently than the layman and the amateur. Again the server client (and always the need of good thought in the background): you will express as best as you can and try to be clear (communicatively efficient) within that framework.
Now duly supposing you are not ironic (all ages and paths come here):
You call people "brother"; "brother" means "supportive" (and is used for "openness", "closeness"); if you want to be close and supporting to people, if you want to be an asset (not a liability), you will have to cultivate yourself, to get the wisdom required. Erudition is not yet wisdom, but coupled with the good intention to learn the important things it surely helps.
