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.
“Y’all” is better anyway. And that’s from a damn Yankee. (Well, New Englander).
I tend to prefer “Folks”.
I once worked with a woman who transitioned. She asked us to try not to use the phrase “guys” because she worked so hard to not be called a guy. Took me weeks of screwing up, but I was able to switch from “guys” to “folks”. I no longer work with her, but have continued to use folks as it feels more inclusive.
Y’all rolls off my tongue more smooth.
How about a portmanteau of y’all and folks:
Y’olks.
“Peeps” works too!
As someone who’s started to embrace it more recently, there’s nothing as satisfying as throwing out some monster like y’all’dve.
Y’all’re embracing pure beauty
Ha, I’ve said y’all’done several times.
“Yinz” if you want to be sophisticated.
I have donuts as to whether 90% of U.S. folks would know what that is.
Yinzers know.
Nope. Pittsburgh yinz is less sophisticated than the victorian English y’all.