Most people using it today probably don’t know it was a direct reference to Guy Fawkes but the people who first started using it that way (to refer to any male) 100% were thinking of Guy Fawkes
It’d be more accurate to say that a singular “guy” is undeniably masculine, but “guys” doesn’t assume that everyone in the group is a guy. Like, a group of 1 man and 9 women could be referred to as “guys” and it’d still be considered proper, but remove that one guy and leave only the women and suddenly “guys” becomes somewhat improper, unless you’re one of those people who uses “guys” regardless of the gender distribution of a group (which is not that uncommon these days).
Wait… Guys is not gender neutral? Nothing in your language has gender until something does… Bizarre.
It’s a boys’ name, Guy Fawkes wasn’t a non-binary they/them third gender thing, he was a male
“guy/guys” is not a word for informally calling someone or a group of people? Like… “Cara/Caras” in Portuguese?
I didn’t know it was a direct reference to the gunpowder conspiracy guy, Guy
Most people using it today probably don’t know it was a direct reference to Guy Fawkes but the people who first started using it that way (to refer to any male) 100% were thinking of Guy Fawkes
It’d be more accurate to say that a singular “guy” is undeniably masculine, but “guys” doesn’t assume that everyone in the group is a guy. Like, a group of 1 man and 9 women could be referred to as “guys” and it’d still be considered proper, but remove that one guy and leave only the women and suddenly “guys” becomes somewhat improper, unless you’re one of those people who uses “guys” regardless of the gender distribution of a group (which is not that uncommon these days).