> Being a mechanic and being an engineer are both technical jobs which require skill, but one is design focused while the other is system focused.

Right. And such software-based work is always design-focused. You're writing documents that specify how the computer is expected to function. The computer takes those specifications and turns it into something functional. I think you can make a good case the latter is system work, but not something humans participate in.

In the olden days we had to write those specifications in arcane languages that were a speciality to learn. Now you can write the specifications in plain English, more or less. That's evolutionary, but since the advent of the compiler we've always been moving towards the language being more and more like English (or insert other natural language, if you prefer). Such progress is nothing new.

Perhaps it's like the difference between a manual and automatic transmission. Gearheads worried about their personhood might try to argue otherwise, but in reality you aren't not a driver if your car has an automatic transmission. It is not the exact details of the tool that defines the act you are engaging in. Likewise, you don't suddenly stop being an engineer just because the tools have now made it "easy".

> I don't really think of an engineer as being something you can do casually, it's a profession.

You're always free to come up with your own pet definition, but per the record of how the word is most commonly used out there in the world, there is no connotations to one's skill, ability, quality, or anything of that nature that is normally associated with professional engineer. It only refers to the act itself in any capacity. Which, of course, is why we also coined the term "professional engineer". That would have be entirely pointless — and therefore would have never been adopted — if "engineer" already captured that sentiment under common use.