So I’ve realized that in conversations I’ll use traditional terms for men as general terms for all genders, both singularly and for groups. I always mean it well, but I’ve been thinking that it’s not as inclusive to women/trans people.

For example I would say:

“What’s up guys?” “How’s it going man?” "Good job, my dude!” etc.

Replacing these terms with person, people, etc sounds awkward. Y’all works but sounds very southern US (nowhere near where I am located) so it sounds out of place.

So what are some better options?

Edit: thanks for all the answers peoples, I appreciate the honest ones and some of the funny ones.

The simplest approach is to just drop the usage of guys, man, etc. Folks for groups and mate for singular appeal to me when I do want to add one in between friends.

  • ShepherdPie
    34·
    10 months ago

    You’re literally arguing that this word should specifically exclude women, while complaining that double meanings never include women. It makes no sense. Why wouldn’t you want to take power over the word to make it apply to women too?

    • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      166·
      10 months ago

      There is no world where “Check out that dude” will mean a woman.

      It will always be “neutral” or masculine.

      And that’s not neutral.

      I have zero interest in fake neutrality

      • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        10 months ago

        That’s because context matters.

        “You’re shit” and “You’re the shit” mean completely different things

        • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          186·
          10 months ago

          Of course. No one literally thinks that “dude” always means man.

          The issue isn’t the obvious truth of the different meanings. The issue is that those different meanings aren’t neutral like they claim to be, because they rely on the idea of men being the “default” state of people.

          There’s a reason there isn’t exactly a large number of words in use that can men “woman” and “everybody” and that’s because most men would be uncomfortable with that.

          Yet somehow, the opposite is fine?

          • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldEnglish
            27·
            10 months ago

            Of course. No one literally thinks that “dude” always means man.

            Your points in this thread are certainly implying that “dude” is always a man. When you say “if a word is either neutral or masc, then it’s not neutral”, then you’re literally saying it always is masc.

            The issue is that those different meanings aren’t neutral like they claim to be

            So, neutrality is a spectrum? How do you define the different parts of the neutrality spectrum?

            because they rely on the idea of men being the “default” state of people.

            That’s a claim that needs some data to back up.

            because most men would be uncomfortable with that. Yet somehow, the opposite is fine?

            I don’t give a single shit about what they think. Why should anyone?

            • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              143·
              10 months ago

              I don’t give a single shit about what they think. Why should anyone?

              I mean, clearly you do. If you didn’t give a shit, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

              And just like you, enough people “give a shit” about man being a stand in for the default human, that despite literally thousands and years of language development not a single case of “woman as the default” has entered common usage.

              That’s what bias looks like.

              • Shanedino@lemmy.world
                11·
                10 months ago

                Hot take alert… Bitch has seen to evolved similar to Australian’s cunt at this point. “Women as the default” but it is still neutrally used.

              • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.worldEnglish
                59·
                10 months ago

                I find your perspective and words judgemental, assumptive, and accusatory.

                I can see no evidence of a good faith discussion from your end, so I will no longer continue with you.

                I hope these words might help you move beyond the veil that causes you to be so assumptive:

                If you look for the light, you can often find it.But if you look for the dark that is all you will ever see.