this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
79 points (81.6% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

7045 readers
155 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
lemann@lemmy.world
ptz@dubvee.org
79
"Guys" is ultimately gender neutral (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 6 days ago by allo@sh.itjust.works to c/unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scbasteve7@lemm.ee 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

If it refers to all genders in some contexts, but only to men in others, then it isn't gender neutral.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

It isn't gender natural only in some cases

Waitress is only women, but waiter can mean either.