Just looked it up and the entire first page of searches is about how ‘guys’ is masculine and insensitive to women. I disagree. I think the masculinization of the term is like an unneeded extra filter placed over ‘guy’ but the term itself is innocent. Guy Fawkes was a real person. He did something that caused him to be a symbol of the common person. There is nothing gendered about that. It’s the patriarchal culture that then assumed ‘common person’ refers to males. When I think of Guy Fawkes, it is his actions, not what’s in his pants, that is important. So, while there are many needlessly sexist and sexual phrases in English, I do not view ''Guy" as one of them and, instead, view it as a victim of the patriarchy just like you and me. It isn’t an inappropriate phrase to change or remove, it’s one to reclaim for all people; which is exactly in the spirit of the symbol of who Guy Fawkes is.

  • Head@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    Guys will not be neutral until a man can say he fucked two guys last night and mean women.

    • scbasteve7@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I think the difference here, is that you’re not talking about a collective, but instead two different individuals. I agree with OP on this one, and I think “guys” can refer to a collective of humans.

      Is it right? Probably not. Do I think of just a bunch of men when someone says “come on guys”? Not really.

  • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Guy comes from the burning of Guy Fawkes effigies on Bonfire Night. They would create these dolls of Fawkes where he was shabbily dressed and burn him for his prominent role in the Gunpowder Plot. Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot was not because he was an everyday man. He was trying to return the crown to being part of the Catholic church.

    Child made effigy of Guy Fawkes

    In the 19th century, the term guy was used to refer to a poorly dressed man. Eventually, his image changed as a freedom fighter and some, particularly Catholics, saw him as a hero in the 19th century.

    Guy goes back at least a millennium and was always a male name. Its hard to know for sure, but it probably was the word for wood.

    I don’t know if this unpopular, it’s just a contested opinion. Growing up, it was used either presumptively that masculity is the default or gender neutral. These debates are one way language changed. I don’t know why people care as much as they do. Society literally doesn’t fall apart because words change their meaning.

  • username@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    At the end of the day, we use language to communicate ideas to other people. So imo you should just use another word, because if a majority of people think that “guys” is not gender neutral, even though you think it is, the best thing for others to understand you better is still to use what others would consider a gender-neutral word.

    Don’t focus too much on language itself, put your focus on letting others understand you. If people are bothered by a word, just use another one, unless that word is actually necessary for what you want to communicate.

  • A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’ve never minded being lumped into “you guys” and I’m a trans woman. But there are trans women that do mind, so I’m not gonna argue or anything if they tell me they don’t like that term.

    That being said, it does feel weird. Like having a problem with the term “mankind”… Like, I get “man” is a masculine term but nobody means “men” when they say “mankind”, you know?

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Once upon a time “man” simply meant “human”, “wer” and “wif” being the gendered (adult) words, “man” underwent semantic shift while “mankind” didn’t. I guess increasing misogyny due to Christianisation is to blame.

    • ChokingHazard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I have an aversion to folks. It’s too colloquial. If I don’t know you and don’t associate with you don’t lump me in as one of your folks. Folks implies familiarity. Use people. It’s neutral. Just my take, one thing that strongly came out of the mid to late aughts used a lot by Bush and Obama that I really disliked in their communication. My folks are my parents/family. Your folks are your parents/family. “Folks” in general feels slimy like you want to be my family but are just a con man.

      • KingOogaBooga@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        hmm good to know. Most people use Guys and I don’t like to use that in mixed company. People seems a bit pointed to me. too much like “You People” which could indicate a specific ethnic group. I will have to think on it. May I use Peeps and refer to everyone as sugary treats no on eats lol.

        • FryHyde@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          People feels too impersonal and just isn’t ever how I speak. It feels like I’m an alien saying, “hello fellow humans. Let our human group commence the socialization!”

  • JennyLaFae@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    People argue too much about definitions instead of just asking the other party to clarify when they’re using a slightly different definition.

    Context is also very important.

    Reclaim all you want, while respecting people’s boundaries.

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    I agree with you in principle but in reality it’s a changed word that I’m trying to remove from my vocabulary are replace with y’all.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yup. Agree or disagree, it’s meaning has shifted. Language is an ever evolving thing. Computer meant something different 100 years ago. We didn’t have the term fiber optic. There’s always things that change.

  • oo1@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I think it’s pretty genderless, just because I’ve heard enough women use it about women or mixed groups. You can always use his surname instead, just update a bit to modern pronounciation, call everyone: Fuck, Fucks, Fuckers. I think that solves it.

    Calling everyone “homo” is another good one.

    Some languages like French use “ils” for mixed groups (same as male groups). But others like German use “sie” (same as “she/her”). Plurals in german, I think, usually become feminine (die Manner) - although German has many other gender-bending cases that I can’t begin to understand. I’m sure there’s lots of other languages that have a million other features/inconsistencies/expressions of patriarchal domination like this.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      But others like German use “sie” (same as “she/her”). Plurals in german, I think, usually become feminine (die Manner)

      Quick note on German grammar: That’s not feminine, it’s just a plural. “sie”, “die” etc. aren’t feminine prepositions or articles, they happen to be the 3rd person feminine article, and nominative singular articles among many, many other things. When you’re talking about “the march of the women” (der Marsch der Frauen" then women don’t become male, they become genitive (whose march? theirs/hers)

      Also calling Indo-European noun classes genders was a mistake from the very beginning. IE languages do tend to have three noun classes and will sort “man”, “woman” and “thing” into different ones, and refer to individuals using the first two classes, but that’s all there is to it. Noun classes are about ease of reference, in German you can say “the pen and the newspaper are on the table, I pick him up” and it’s clear that you mean picking up the pen because newspapers are “female”. Tables are also male but picking up the table doesn’t really make sense in context. Swahili in contrast goes all-out and has 18 noun classes, “person”, “people”, “group”, “groups”, “animal”, “tool”, “tree”, “abstraction”, “position”, and more, but no gender to be found there.