Talk:soy boy

Etymology

Isn't there also an implication that soy-based foods are preferred by hippies/leftists/vegans or what not? Equinox ◑ 18:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's part of the cultural context, but I don't think sources support that as the main reason for its adoption. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. If the ety says "soy feminises men" but there's nothing to say which men, then why wouldn't "soy boy" apply to every man on Earth? Equinox ◑ 03:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Does every man on Earth eat soy? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't believe you can't see the very obvious point I'm making, so I must be idiotically missing something. Please spell it out. Equinox ◑ 08:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't know. I think the ety is even better now, so maybe that solves your issue? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Expanded the etym a bit. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Citations

Both citations (2017 Hosie and 2018 Adams) are mentions, not uses. Equinox ◑ 03:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I moved 2018 to the Citations page, as it supports the definition being correct (though not the definition existing), and removed 2017 altogether, seeing as it isn't even durably archived. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The sense which I gather is being referred to above was removed in diff 60073656, which I let stand because it indeed had no citations. I did not try to find citations, either, though, so maybe it exists - we could RFV it... - -sche (discuss) 09:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)