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.
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…
Then educate yourself. See definitions 1 and 2 for noun and definition for interjection.
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 be referred to as “dude”, but it’s a gender neutral term in many contexts.
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 rains 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
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?
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.
So, neutrality is a spectrum? How do you define the different parts of the neutrality spectrum?
That’s a claim that needs some data to back up.
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.