[umanwizard]

Your argument is dubious for two reasons:

1. You assume that “guys” is the male equivalent of “gals”. It’s not — the latter is much more strongly gendered. Your argument is circular, because you assume that “guys” is gendered as one of your axioms.

2. You are talking about “hey guys”, whereas I was talking about “you guys”. The whole point of my post was that you can’t understand the meaning of “you guys” simply by referencing the meaning of “guys”. They are completely different words, and their only relationship is historical, even though one is a substring of the other. Even if “hey guys” is mildly gendered (which I’m not sure of, but I’m at least willing to believe it’s possible), “you guys” absolutely isn’t, empirically.

[JimTheMan]

You guys is a gendered term and a perfectly reasonable axiom.

And because it's used by everyone, I submit this is true in the court of public opinion.

[DiggyJohnson]

If you’re not being sarcastic, “you guys” is never (and I know how strong that word is) gendered. It’s literally a synonym for “you all”, ‘y’all’, or ‘you’ (plural).

Are you a native speaker? I’m genuinely curious because I can’t imagine this not seeming ubiquitous to a person that’s grown up in American English.

[umanwizard]

I have to admit I don’t understand your point or what you’re trying to say.