788

title (i.imgur.com)

submitted 7 months ago by TehBamski@lemmy.world to c/memes@lemmy.ml

96 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Mobilityfuture@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Guys is technically a non-gendered term - FWIW

[-] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

I haven't seen it used much in a non-gendered way, so I guess that's why it has a clear masculine ring in my head

[-] JoShmoe@lemmy.zip 16 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months 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.

[-] CallumWells@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 months ago

Merriam-Webster would like to disagree with your assertion that it is not "non-gendered"

Thanks to @Mobilityfuture@lemmy.world for the link in https://lemmy.ml/comment/7077751 (I don't know if I could make that link in a better way)

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 months 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@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months 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 3 points 7 months 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@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months 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.