On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Joe Clark wrote:
>
> By that logic, no writing other than personal correspondence would
> ever be subject to change or evolution, because everything else you
> read wasn't *meant* to insult you. Assuming the reader is male is a
> dangerous practice. (Or female.) There are rather limited
> exceptions-- pregnancy, prostate cancer, that sort of thing.
>
Let me jump in here.  I agree with Joe.  And I have a BA in psychology.
One of the formost things that wastaught to us is to remove all personal
pronouns, even in writing, unless you "know" the person and what gender
they before writing them or addressing them.
A lot of manuels in psychology, are written in the third person
to avoid insulting anyone.  What Joe is saying (coreect me if I'm wrong)
is to just show some respect to the readers.

> "Guys" means males. Using it to address heterogeneous groups is a bit
> rude. It's ridiculous when used to address an all-female group.
>
> Look, you can't get around a basic fact: Assuming unseen readers are
> male is wrong. There are many pleasant gender-neutral alternatives.
> And BTW, these issues have been extensively tested by linguists and
> sociologists. It's not hypothetical.


That's right and it's a very good point.


Sue