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.
Buddy is masculine?
Could be. Depends on a bunch of factors. But as a trans person I’ve never encountered someone who’s trans and feels that it’s masculine.
Fellow humans
This is how you get a visit from humans at AARO https://www.aaro.mil
“Nanu nanu.”
deleted by creator
I’ve started using “hello chums”
gamer(s)
Earthlings is the only valid option
I prefer humanoids. One can never be too careful…
Earthicans
Earthletes.
Bitch or bitches
Come on, bitch is as gendered as dude and guys /s
“Buddy” is gendered?
i only use buddy for dogs and puppies
Yep. It’s a name for teen boys or for men that are significantly younger than the speaker. Typically said by men rather than women too.
No one says “Hey buddy” to a teen girl, or to a woman a couple of decades younger than them
I do
Interesting, I use it pretty much interchangeably with “friend”.
I’m not no one. Buddy can be used for pretty much anyone. You’re definitely right about it addressing younger people though.
My boyfriend’s nephew calls me buddy and I am a woman about ten years older than him, we are both adults so he isn’t a confused toddler either. It might vary regionally. It simply means friend in our case. I don’t think he is trying to make me out to be younger than him. Maybe it is his way of declaring I am “one of the guys”, however.
I feel like “guys” is definitely colloquially gender-neutral in most contexts.
“Fireman” is clearly a patriarchic term that literally has “man” in it. In English “firefighter” is commonplace nowadays, but in my native Finnish, a lot of professions have “man” in the term, much in the vein of “policeman”, “ombudsman”, the Finnish equivalent of “janitor”, roughly translated directly as “building/house-man”.
We’ve replaced loads. Most of them are good. Some new terms feel natural and get taken into use, but replacing “man” with “person” rarely works for us without feeling incredibly awkward to use.
So my point is that we can reclaim those terms as gender neutral. Context matters. N-word being acceptable among black people is completely acceptable (and actually a very nice tool for emphasis when properly utilised), and it’s even in songs without anyone accusing the artists of racism. (Well, for pop songs at least, no racist hillbilly songs made it to that level.) That being said, it definitely doesn’t take away from it’s power as a slur if someone uses it in such a way.
So I suggest we’ll just use “guys, bro, dudes” as gender neutral and rely that people will understand from context when they’re actually used to address men/exclude women etc.
Also, isn’t “buddy” sort of neutral already? *goes to check* OoooooOoOooooh, it’s from “brother” originally. Guess it’s not as neutral originally.
Well that’s s new one for me.
Dipshits
dawg, home skillet, my glip glops, folks,
hydrogenated oilYou can’t say glip-glop! That’s their word!
it’s really all about context
Potential litigants
Meatbags.
Negative, I am a meat Popsicle.
Fellow bipedal meat-things.
A wise man once said, “I’m a dude, he’s a dudes, she’s a dude. We’re all dudes. Hey!”
Strange though, that when you ask most men how many dudes they’ve slept with suddenly, she’s not a dude…
There’s a very big difference between “dude”, referring to someone you’re talking to, and “a dude”, referring to someone you were talking about.
Not to me there isn’t…
It’s like the difference between “my shit”, “your shit”, and “that shit”. You’re not actually referring to your own things as feces, or calling it “shitty”. It’s just your shit. As in “Don’t touch my shit”. But when you’re referring to someone else’s shit as “your shit” or “that shit” it’s more derogatory. Like, “clean up that shit” or “get your shit out of here”.
The context changes “shit” from derogatory to neutral. Similarly, “dude” can be both gender specific and neutral depending on context.
Note that people are still allowed to prefer not to be referred to as “dude”, but it’s a gender neutral term in many contexts nonetheless.
In the '60s, I made love to many, many women, often outdoors, in the mud and the rain, and it’s possible a man slipped in. There would be no way of knowing.
Then educate yourself. See definitions 1 and 2 for noun and definition for interjection.
That’s just how our language works. You can also use the word “fuck” in many ways that have wildly different meanings.
It’s funny how “just how it works out” always leads to “neutral” words having double meanings that equal “man” but never “woman”
Maybe it’s not “just how it works” and maybe it’s just bias…
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?
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
That’s because context matters.
“You’re shit” and “You’re the shit” mean completely different things
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?
As a former resident of San Diego I have no problem sleeping with dudes. Because everyone is dude.
People think they’re clever when they ask “would you sleep with the dude?” My response is " bold of you to assume that I haven’t." Everyone is dude. You can try to twist things as much as you like but dude normalization reigns supreme.
I was talking about the default assumptions people make when they hear the word. Your circumstances don’t come in to it, unless your claim is that most people share your experiences
In San Diego the default assumption of “dude” is that it can be literally anyone or any thing.
The people there accepted this decades ago. It’s not one person’s experience. It’s a shared experience of millions. It’s a geographically specific situation with the Smurf language phenomenon. Any noun can be Smurf and everyone there understands the smurfing meaning when it’s smurfing said.
Ive generally always agreed with the former comment, but I’ve heard this argument a few times and it does demonstrate the disconnect well. I’ve switched it up to a simple y’all.
Yep. Something that can only ever mean “neutral” or “man” isn’t neutral
Out of the mouth of babes… 🥰
I believe that sentiment was also uttered by another wise man. A man of his time. Mr. Jeffrey Lebowski.
“What’s up everypony?”
