What could possibly go wrong with using "you people" instead of "you guys". That might already constitute entrapment.

Lol yes "you people" couldn't go wrong. Ask Ross Perot.

Why was 'folx' necessary? What's wrong with 'folks'?

So a because a term in one language doesn't have one to one translation with the exact same connotations in another we have to make up a new term? Seems more like a this would simply make the case for folks to become a loan word rather than creating a new term altogether. there are many words in other languages that don't have a direct translation to a English term we don't make up a new word in those cases.

That seems weird. Are you sure? How is folx any better by that metric?

I guess folx just doesn't have any translation to Spanish because it's a recently made up word?

I’m getting downvoted but I’m not making this up:

> Of concern with the term “folks,” for example, is that its translation in some languages is gendered, such as “la gente” in Spanish, which is gendered feminine (see also, phallogocentrism, Derrdiean, and deconstruction).

From: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-folx/

I'm guessing it's because that explanation still makes no sense at all. Of course "la gente" has a gender - it's a noun in a language where every noun has a grammatical gender. Any noun that you would translate into in Spanish would have a gender after being translated. This is something someone would learn about in the first day of class for any language with grammatical gender...

Also, it's ridiculous to imply that the English language, which already lacks grammatical gender, needs to modified so that a translator working with gendered language knows that a noun lacks gender. It's English - they already know that! Besides, the translators choose which word to use when translating anyhow. There's not like there's a strict 1-1 mapping of "folks" to "la gente". In some contexts, you would translate it differently.

It's just such an absurd claim, and it doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

Thanks for giving the source!

That's a lot of words to say "no tengo ni idea de español".

> “folks” can’t be gender-neutrally translated in some languages (e.g. spanish) so folx is considered more inclusive

That makes sense to you? Help me out here, because I feel like I'm going crazy trying to understand this.

"Folk", is just an English word for "people". Isn't it just going to get translated into a totally different word in Spanish anyhow? Why would altering the plural spelling of an English word affect the translation of that word to another language? The meaning wasn't altered by changing spelling. It was gender-neutral to begin with.

‘Folx’ supposedly signals that you care about certain marginalized people.

Folks can be used in a way that is seen as demeaning to certain groups.

This is why so many people just can't take this stuff anymore. It never ends. Someone is always going to be offended. That's the world we live in. I know of people who are offended by my mere existence. Shall I submit to their preferences as well? :)

quiet often they are defend on some hypothetical others behalf.

Mmm, are marginalized people not folks too? Im so very confused. I think I’ll simply become more quiet.

Is smiling at people still ok?

I imagine folx will sometimes be pronounced as “fucks” depending on accent and circumstance. That sounds like a lot of fun haha

Wait until people realise that x looks like/refers in some cases to a cross and we get into religion

That's fucking hilarious. I would be looking for a new job.

Folx? How do you pronounce the x? I'm in a pretty progressive setup and haven't heard that yet.

Aiui, it is pronounced "folks". It is just written as "folx" when in writing, as a weird shibboleth.

I kinda distrust people/institutions who/which use it? (not when they say "folks" though. That's fine.)