It's not incorrect. Guy does mean "a man." Gal means "a woman." Those are their uses today. They are as gendered as "man".
And just so I can get really pedantic: gender is inferred as a context of speech. If you are calling a cis-woman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred you are speaking colloquially. If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensive.
And more to the point of the context of the (now-deleted) comment: if you say "guy", "he", "him", and "dude" all about the same subject, you are calling the subject a man. You can't argue your way around blatantly misgendering someone multiple times.
Linguistically, "man" is still gender neutral in many contexts and even any dictionary recognizes this. Oxford, Cambridge, take your pick! Usually cited as #2 or #3 in the list of definitions.
>If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensive.
To 'some' and I prefer that 'some' do not speak for 'all'. In case I need an example: I do not take offense at this. I prefer people continue to use whatever gendered pronoun they're more comfortable with. I don't need or seek their validation and I'm not so fragile that their choice of word bothers me.
That's the thing about language though. It is because you choose it to be so. Other people choose for 'guys' and 'dude' to have a different meaning.
Collectively we decide who wins. Nobody is right or wrong in the present because it's a never-ending battle over an idea. Words change over time - always have and always will.
You can only be right historically in context. 'Guy', _historically_, does not mean 'man'. What it means now is your interpretation. You should not get so bent out of shape because other people disagree with you.
There is an inherent problem with basing gender-politics around the meanings of words. How do you deal with people coming from languages that do not have gendered pronouns that are trying to translate their language into English? Do you beat them over the head for how wrong they are (before you say no, I've seen it countless times)?
Also hey, guess what. 'He' has seen use as a gender-neutral pronoun well into the 1960s.
No, intent is what matters, not your feelings about certain words. I can't control whether you get upset or not but I can control whether I intended to offend.
Note this is not the same as ignoring someone's expressed choice (when being directly addressed) if they have an issue with certain words.
You have lots of control over whether someone gets upset. Don't call someone a racial or sexual slur and don't misgender them, for example. If you know some use of language is or could be problematic, don't use it. If you're not aware what language that may be and accidentally offend someone, obviously you shouldn't be held at fault, but you should then take it upon yourself to learn what the problem was so you don't repeat it.
Because I personally know people who see 'guy' as a gender-specific word - and because the dictionary says "guy" means "a man" - I know i'm not going to ever call a woman "guy", because it may offend them. I think this is a pretty simple concept...
> If you know some use of language is or could be problematic, don't use it.
I believe this is the disconnect between your argument and the prior commentor's comment. This falls under "Note this is not the same as ignoring someone's expressed choice (when being directly addressed) if they have an issue with certain words." The issue is whether the person speaking should know and consider guys to be gendered, and possibly offensive. The fact some people are saying it's not gendered is evidence that's it's ambiguous to some people. To assume someone was purposefully misgendering you without knowledge of whether it's an honest mistake, as we've seen it might be, is not conducive to communication.
> Because I personally know people who see 'guy' as a gender-specific word - and because the dictionary says "guy" means "a man" - I know i'm not going to ever call a woman "guy", because it may offend them.
Which is fine, but you've been presented with evidence that all people don't necessarily have that same knowledge. You can continue to assume that this knowledge must be universal and people that act in opposition to it are doing so purposefully and without regard for the feelings of others, or you can extend the benefit of a doubt, and assume until further evidence to the contrary that they are misinformed about what you believe to be true. I believe giving the benefit of a doubt it more useful and leads to better outcomes in almost every respect.
And just so I can get really pedantic: gender is inferred as a context of speech. If you are calling a cis-woman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred you are speaking colloquially. If you call a transwoman "guy" or "dude", it is inferred [by the subject] that you are mis-gendering them, and is offensive.
And more to the point of the context of the (now-deleted) comment: if you say "guy", "he", "him", and "dude" all about the same subject, you are calling the subject a man. You can't argue your way around blatantly misgendering someone multiple times.