• JoShmoe@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is very common to hear girls use the term guys, and for people to address a mixed party as “guys”

    • Lem Jukes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like ‘mankind’ right? (/s)

      Sure, language is changing and guys has been veering neutral since the 70s. But claiming the word is outright “non-gendered” is incorrect imo.

        • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree that “guys” is not a gendered term but I don’t like your argument.

          Definitions of words can be very different to how people use them, and we shouldn’t constrain the use of words to their definitions.

          • CallumWells
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree that we shouldn’t constrain the use of words to their definitions. It’s what helps make the meaning of sentences the most clear for everyone. If people had actually done that then the definition of “literally” wouldn’t include “figuratively” and a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided.

            Otherwise we could end up with people saying that when they wrote “all white people deserve to die” what they actually meant was that they deserve to live, since that’s how they use the word “die”. It’s nonsensical to me.

      • Senshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Kind of a bad example, because mankind very clearly stems from ‘humankind’. And people are lazy and prefer using short words. The unfairness is rather that women got stuck with the words requiring more characters. But that is a phenomenon of the English language and not present in others.

        However, in most languages the words for man/male are closer to human(kind) than female/woman, which very clearly shows the historic patriarchal influence, coming back around to your point after all.

        • CallumWells
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interestingly enough, in old English you had “werman” and “wifman” for man and woman respectively, in which case referring to all with “mankind” makes perfect sense. So the originator for mankind seems more likely to be from that than the explanation that it’s a shortening of “humankind” to me.

    • hughesdikus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not technically. Practically. In real world. As slang.

      Cause technically and by definition, It’s still very much gendered.