[hug]

If it appears that I ignored your comment, it's because I was assuming you weren't making the mistake you now appear to be.

Your argument seems to be that the inclusion of the 2nd-party plural "you" somehow removes the gendered nature of the word, which is not the case for this word or for any other.

I assume you believe that "boys" is gendered, and I assume you will admit that "you boys" is still gendered.

You admit that "guys" is gendered, but you will not admit that "you guys" is still gendered, without being able to provide any sort of evidence as to why.

The second case is identical to the first, the only difference being your specific idiolectical definition, which unfortunately is not generalisable to the English language as a whole.

[manigandham]

Please don't make wild assumptions. This isn't a trial. There's no evidence or admittance of anything needed.

These are accepted grammar rules. "you guys" as a second-person plural term is accepted as gender-neutral. "guys" in the third-person is not.

Arguing that the 2nd-person usage is not neutral is the new challenger position and you would need to provide the argument for why the accepted usage should change for the rest of us.