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
    30
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 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
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.