gender-neutral second-person plurals

[firecat]

I left this datapoint in selki's journal. (She said that the word "guy" isn't "some sort of modern gender-neutral salutation". Let me be clear that I completely respect this viewpoint.)

"Guys" or "you guys" has a completely gender-neutral connotation to me...but only when used as a second-person plural pronoun, the same way people use "y'all" or "youse". It feels wrong to me to address or label a woman or girl as a "guy" or to say "Those guys over there" when referring to a mixed group or a group of women/girls. But I'll comfortably say "OK, you guys..." even to a group of all women.

This isn't modern; I've been doing it my whole life and I'm over 50. I grew up in Michigan; I wonder if this is a regional usage.

In contrast, "dude," "men," "mankind," and "he/him" have a male-only connotation to me, although I can hear other people use "dude" in a gender-neutral manner. (I can't do that with the other words.)

Thoughts? Datapoints?

I also use "y'all," "youse" (but they don't feel like "my language"; they feel like I'm stealing them from other people's language), "peeps," and "folks." ("Peeps" feels modern to me, and "folks" feels old-fashioned.)

Comments

[adrian_turtle]

I don't use "you guys," to address a mixed gender or female group, myself, but whether that usage bothers me depends on the *speaker*. If a woman or elderly man says it, I don't assume sexist intent the way I do if a younger man says it. Even though there hasn't been a deliberate attempt to reclaim the usage, like there is to reclaim more specifically insulting terms, members of the insulted group can use the term if they like. (And people my parents' age? Eh, I don't expect them to keep up.)

[firecat]

For me "assuming sexist intent" and "getting snagged when a term is used in a way that doesn't match my connotations" are separate most of the time.