To not find 'guys' an offensive term?

[DrSheldonCooperPHD]

We have a new manager at work. Our team is 20 people (12 women and 8 men).

New manager held a mini informal meeting this morning, all very nice and very chatty. At the end he said something along the lines of 'thanks guys, great meeting' and one of the women in the team said 'excuse me? guys? That's extremely offensive to the majority of the team who are female!' And walked out of the meeting room.
The MD was also in the room and he and new manager left for another meeting shortly after so I've no idea what happened (if anything) after.

Would this offend you? It didn't even really register with me until she piped up. Everyone seemed very bemused by it all.

I doesn’t bother me, but he wouldn’t have used ‘ladies’ if there was even one man present, would he?

Referring to men as 'ladies' or 'girls' is seen as emasculating and demeaning. It's used as an insult so no, they wouldn't.

Or consider that it has nothing to do with men imposing anything, and is just a natural ebb and flow of language with no real implications explicit, implicit, ulterior, or otherwise. Sometimes a duck is just a duck. Of course we can't call a group of people duckies now can we?

This!

Language changes. It mutates and moulds itself as society changes. If it didn't the Internet would be full of Chaucerian English. Or Latin.

And there's no point railing against it. I hate the way words become debased and lose their meaning by misuse. For example: 'Decimate' does not mean 'annihilate'. It means to reduce by a tenth.
An 'Epicentre' is the point on the earth's surface directly above the focus of an earthquake - nothing else. There is no 'epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak' as I heard one idiot reporter say the other day.

'Hilarious' does not mean 'mildly amusing at best'.

But they are all lost battles. So is 'guys'. Suck it up and join the 21st century.

I doesn’t bother me, but he wouldn’t have used ‘ladies’ if there was even one man present, would he?

The analogue to "ladies" is "gentlemen", and no, using the term "gentlemen" for mixed company would not be used.

"Gals" is the analogue to "guys", and likewise, "gals" would not be used to address mixed company.

So why is it that women keep their sex exclusive term, and men have to share theirs? :D

She’s a tit, OP.

Guys is a mixed gender term. I use it when it is just a female group too. Now if he said “thanks men”, l would be concerned.

I don't find it an offensive term but is does piss me off that the default term for any mixed gender group is the male term, as if male is normal and female is not. Would I say anything in the situation you've described? Probably not. but I would notice and internally sigh.

The day it's as acceptable to say "hey girls" to a mixed group as "hey guys" I will be happy.

And there's no point railing against it. I hate the way words become debased and lose their meaning by misuse. For example: 'Decimate' does not mean 'annihilate'. It means to reduce by a tenth.
An 'Epicentre' is the point on the earth's surface directly above the focus of an earthquake - nothing else. There is no 'epicentre of the coronavirus outbreak' as I heard one idiot reporter say the other day.
'Hilarious' does not mean 'mildly amusing at best'.

Oh, this could be so fun!

"literally" is not a generic filler word to simply provide emphasis.

There is no proper qualifier such as 'mostly', 'pretty' to use in conjunction with the word "Unique"

"The internet" is not capable of feeling, melting down, or clapping back, forward, sideways, or otherwise.

there's no point railing against it.

You're right in one sense because men will always be the dominant sex especially given the number of women on here who 'aren't bothered' Such a great opinion.

Even if one women decides to change her mindset after reading this thread it will be worth it.

Even if one women decides to change her mindset after reading this thread it will be worth it.

And how many men?

@TheSandman women need to stop accepting this language.

Men won't change it unless more women speak up. We could bring up our sons to use gender neutral language but as most women 'aren't bothered' then I think it will be on the next generation of daughters to call out this bullshit.

And so the cycle of women having to change over men showing respect continues.....

sorry posted too soon

women need to stop accepting this language.

The word 'guys' has become almost - it'll get there - gender neutral. In a few years it will have vanished from common usage just like way 'chaps' has. The trouble with trying to regulate language is that as soon as you've got one word nailed down, safely proscribed, sanitised and neutered there's another hundred of the fuckers popped up from nowhere offending people left right and centre.

I'm old enough to remember the endless debates about whether the word 'woman' was itself demeaning and knew people who insisted on 'Wimmin', 'Womon', 'Wymon'.... etc etc.

What a waste of time that all was.

There are better things to do with our energies and more important battles to win.

I have a son and a daughter and I'll say stuff like "Come on guys let's go" I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone said it to a group of people I was in. You hear it in the TV programmes my kids watch all the time so it's just normal to me.

Well, historically there are lots of language where the masculine applies to both male and neutral and the feminine just to female. I am not saying that's right, it isn't, but fighting that is fighting a fuckton of language evolution.

We can either fight each individual instance like the woman in the OP, or we can fight the underlying attitudes which cause these symptoms in the first place. I would rather focus my energies on the latter. Getting irate about each symptom of patriarchal dominance just let's people feel overwhelmed, that they can't do it say anything "these days" and give up.

Focus on the important roots of problems and the symptoms will sort themselves out over time, surely.

I use the word ‘guys’ all the time, even if it’s just a group of girls

@TheSandman Exactly! If we are trying to lose support from loads of women and pretty much all men, focusing on something that 80% of the population have no problem with is bloody stupid.

DD1 was at football and the coach said 'right lads, sit down' so she carried on running around with the ball saying 'I'm not a lad!' He laughed and corrected himself. I've trained her well!

Then there's blokes, chaps, guys, lads, and no female equivalent.

No idea about bloke but:
chaps and chapesses
guys and dolls
guys and gals (it's almost like 'guys' is a gender-specific phrase )
lads and lasses
lads and ladettes (if you remember the 90s)
quines and loons (bit of Doric for you all and interestingly the female is first)

In Orkney wife or even wifey is used for all adult women so e.g. 'the hen wife' would be someone who sold hens or eggs.

What I find hard to understand is why people are resistant to using truly gender neutral language. 'Everyone' is completely standard English, it shouldn't be difficult to avoid a term people find othering. Instead we get people complaining about 'folks', if you don't like it don't use it.

It's really not hard to say everyone.

Ask a straight male how many guys he dated last year- it’s not gender neutral it’s the male default.

I wouldn’t be offended but I might have a quiet word.

Folks is commonly used in my workplace, it annoys me but I can't find a specific reason for the annoyance.
I think I should start using Comrades, although maybe I should check the workplace guidelines first, you just never know who might be find it offensive

Sorry but what a weirdo to come out with that at the end of a pleasant meeting! I call a group of girls guys regularly. It is a bit American but so what. I would have said get a grip if I had been there.

I use guys, chaps, kids, kiddos to mixed sex groups of adults I work with. I am quite familiar with my colleagues I admit. It's a endearment and no one takes offence

Ask a straight male how many guys he dated last year- it’s not gender neutral it’s the male default.

Then we start running into the issue of context. Yes, deliberately using something out of context can make for some awkward turns of phrase. I suppose, taken to its logical conclusion, one could ask a gay man how many guys he dated last year, and he could say none, because how could someone date support ropes?

I think there’s a lot of point missing here. The word for men becomes the default for people. Like chairman. It would never ever happen the other way round because women are lesser and no man would agree to being addressed as a woman.

We don’t have the power to refuse and the idea of being addressed as a man doesn’t cause revulsion because we are not taught to view men as lesser. So bit by bit it becomes the default and loses all sense of what it originally means. But that meaning is still there and that’s why there is not and never could be a female equivalent.

We are lesser. It’s worth thinking about that as you think about whether you mind or not. You don’t mind because you are lesser. Men would mind because they are superior and being called by a word for you would be a fate worse than death.

Yes language changes and yes we don’t want to alienate people. But once you know why the traffic is one way only it’s hard to unsee.