“Hey Guys!” The Importance of Teaching Gendered Language Use in English Language Teaching
Jennifer Marshall, University of Derby, Derby, United Kingdom
Introduction
A guy is a dude, bloke, chap, or lad. So why do we use it to address men and women? Imagine if we called a group of men gals or chicks? It is a masculine term, and when used to address a female, it is certainly not inclusive and potentially offensive. It is so deeply ingrained in our everyday vocabulary that you are likely to hear or see it used several times a day; at work, on the TV/radio, and on multiple social media platforms.
The ubiquitous word guy can be originally traced back to Guy Fawkes, the most famous British soldier associated with the attempt to blow up the Palace at Westminster in 1605, otherwise known as the Gunpowder Plot (Carey, 2016). This failed attempt is commemorated every year on the 5th of November on “bonfire night” by burning an effigy of him made from straw and old, tattered clothing. These effigies, known as guys, became another word for man by the middle of the 19th century and by the 20th century when used in the plural to refer to a group of people regardless of gender. This historical evolution in meaning opens the door to broader discussions about gendered language and the ways in which certain terms, like guy, are perceived as inclusive despite their distinctly male origins.
There are countless examples of gender specific words in the English language. For example, sister, brother, girls, boys, duchess, duke, niece, nephew, madam, sir, women, men are just a few words that are not commonly used to address all genders. Why is guys any different? This word is not gender neutral as some people might claim (Metcalf, 2019). Other masculine words include postman, fireman, and policeman. While feminine forms exist, in modern usage we tend to use these words for everyone regardless of gender. This article will explore the usage of guys from a feminist perspective and why it, despite its masculine origins, warrants a place in the English Language Teaching (ELT) curriculum.
Feminism and Language Use
Feminism is not a unified, collective body of thinking but the one idea in common is the belief in equality between genders (social, economic, political, and cultural). In feminist theory, gender has emerged as something distinct from biological sex but is defined differently depending on one’s perspective (Viveros Vigoya, 2018). While sex refers to the physical or biological characteristics of an individual, the World Health Organisation (WHO, n.d.) defines gender as
the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. (para. 1)
The above definition of gender is offered by a health organisation, but its global perspective makes it appropriate for an international academic audience. It also lends itself to discussions around structural inequalities like access to healthcare and education, as well as issues of discrimination within an international standard, whereas gender is theorised differently according to various feminist movements. The WHO definition also acknowledges that gender is fluid, dynamic, and inclusive.
However gender is defined, the fundamentals of feminism include reducing gender inequality/sexism/oppression, addressing imbalances in power between genders, and challenging societal norms/stereotypes/patriarchal structures. To that end, some common goals across a feminist perspective include challenging harmful stereotypes and creating inclusive policies and education systems. These goals require us to scrutinise the language we use that perpetuates existing hierarchies. This includes critically examining everyday expressions, media representations, academic frameworks, and policy language that embed gender biases or marginalise certain identities.
Gender biased language excludes one gender or the other and suggests one is superior over another. To take an example, sexism is the discrimination or prejudice based on a person’s sex or gender. Sexist language refers to the use of words such as mankind, fireman, policeman,and postman when addressing women. The use of this language is a reflection of our male-oriented society and serves to maintain gender bias, something which feminism is keen to end. Language is a powerful tool and can either make people feel valued or excluded. Being aware of the impact language can have on people through a feminist lens can help create a more inclusive, just, and equitable society.
Inclusivity
The English language classroom provides an important learning opportunity to understand how the choice of words we use impacts others, and teaching what inclusive language is or is not should be a priority. According to the Linguistics Society of America (2016), “inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities” (p. 1). Inclusive language is focused on honouring people’s identities rather than not offending (Sosa, 2020), although this is an added benefit. Teachers of English are well placed to lead the way on discussions on why language matters.
Feminism suggests a need for educators to teach learners how language reflects and reinforces power structures, particularly around gender. “Hey guys” sends a subtle message of discrimination and exclusion. Learners of English need to understand this and be able to choose more appropriate language. For example, “Hi everyone/all” is much more inclusive and there is less risk of offense too. The use of genderless, neutral words (e.g., children, siblings, everyone, person) should be part of the curriculum. The American Psychological Association (APA, 2020) state that we need to “avoid using adjectives as nouns to label people (e.g., “the gays,” “the poor”) or labels that equate people with their condition (e.g., “amnesiacs,” “schizophrenics,” “the learning disabled,” “drug users”)” (p. 133). We should use adjectival forms or nouns with descriptive phrases instead. For example, “poor children” or “people with learning disabilities.” We can also model inclusive pronoun use (e.g., “they/them”) and encourage students to share theirs if they wish. This inclusive approach emphasises person-first or identity-affirming language to avoid dehumanising and reducing individuals to labels.
In addition to inclusive vocabulary expansion, the ELT classroom provides a good platform for conversations on how to avoid stereotyping but also around celebrating diversity. Classroom materials can be diversified to mirror a range of identities, cultures, and experiences. Teachers of English, for instance, should choose texts that are not gender biased and reinforce stereotypical roles (e.g., women portrayed as secretaries), and they should not make assumptions about family dynamics either by using gendered terms such as “husband” and “wife” but “partner” or “spouse” instead. This not only promotes equity but can create a sense of belonging too. Moreover, inclusive language varies across cultures and languages. Educators can encourage learners to reflect on how their own linguistic backgrounds shape their understanding of identity and respect. Finally, educators can create a safe space to encourage discussions about identity, the use of chosen pronouns, and normalise asking for them rather than assuming. The teaching of inclusive language through a feminist lens gives learners a solid reference point for respectful communication.
Conclusion
Language matters. The causal tone of “Hey guys” is not an innocent greeting. A feminist perspective on English language use helps us to understand why it’s important to reflect on the origin of words and their potential bias. “Hey guys” gendered origin reinforces notions of a male-dominated worldview. Simply put, it is not inclusive. English language teachers are well placed to challenge such language and help us move towards a more socially just and inclusive society.
References
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165–000
Carey, J. (2016, November 3). Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot. The History Press. https://thehistorypress.co.uk/article/guy-fawkes-and-the-gunpowder-plot/
Metcalf, A. (2019). The life of Guy: Guy Fawkes, the Gunpowder Plot, and the unlikely history of an indispensable word. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190669201.001.001
Northwestern University. (2019, October 16). Inclusive language guide. https://counseling.northwestern.edu/blog/inclusive-language-guide/#gender
The Linguistic Society of America. (2016). Guidelines for inclusive language. https://www.lsadc.org/rc_files/10/Inclusive_Lg_Guidelines.pdf
Sosa, K. (2020, September 9). Say this, not that: A guide for inclusive language. The Diversity Movement. https://thediversitymovement.com/say-this-not-that-a-guide-for-inclusive-language/
Viveros Vigoya, M. (2015). Sex/Gender. In L. Disch & M. Hawkesworth (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of feminist theory (pp. 852–873). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328581.013.42
World Health Organization. (n.d.). Gender and health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
Dr. Jennifer Marshall is the Assistant Head of Discipline for Education, Childhood and SEND at the University of Derby as well as the Chair of the Research Ethics Committee for the College of Arts, Humanities and Education. She is a highly experienced Senior Lecturer in the field of comparative/international education and TESOL.