
Guys, “guys” is perfectly fine for addressing diverse groups - mpweiher
http://blog.metaobject.com/2015/06/guys-is-perfectly-fine-for-addressing.html
======
xCathedra
The real issue is that just over a century ago we lost a 2nd person plural
pronoun and haven't really found a good subsitute since. When "you" took over
for "thou" as the 2nd person singular pronoun we never replaced the original
use of "you" with anything. So "guys", "y'all", "youse" are all attempts to
fill the gap.

~~~
antihero
Folks kinda works. I usually use "guys" when addressing people, but when being
extra sensitive (eg, if I'm addressing a bunch of MTF trans girls), I'll be
careful and use "folks".

To make a list, for things that I use in a "Hey ___, ..." context, with
varying levels of casual:

    
    
        - Guys  
        - Folks
        - People 
        - You lot
        - Motherfuckers/jerks (other insulting term that's obviously not meant in earnest)
        - Mateys
        - Chaps (debatably gender biased)
        - Team (or other factual statement e.g. colleagues)
        - Everyone
        - Dudes (also debatably gender biased, but depends on how well people know you. I call everyone dude, I am probably immature)
        - Reprobates/scallywags/some other sort of old world sounding term.

~~~
jnevill
Yep. "Folks". I use it in all of my communications to my group (I am not the
manager). I've tried others: "Guys" is clearly gender specific, "Ya'll" is
pretty informal (although I use it on occasion), "Team" is barf-o-rama.

"Folks" works well. It's reasonably formal but not gross and, best yet, its
inclusive.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
HN is a fantastic resource for non - native English speakers. "barf-o-rama"
added to dictionary.

------
MattGrommes
It's not about offending people. It's about including everyone. I've taken my
daughter to Girl Scout meetings and had to hear 'Ok, moms...' constantly. It
doesn't offend me but it doesn't make me feel like a part of the group either.

~~~
mc32
I think you're taking the words too literally. The adult women could be aunts,
guardians, sisters, adoptive mothers, biological mothers, etc. We can always
seek out ways to find words to be unfit in a sentence, but, the purpose of
speaking is to communicate. Normal people will understand that 'moms' in this
case means any adult who in this scenario is representing a child in some
capacity. It's shorthand.

Sure, the speaker could have included all possibilities when addressing the
audience, etc., but why? We know what they mean, they didn't intend to exclude
you in any way and as an adult you can process the exceptions (moms, the
bathrooms are there) you can figure out where the men's toilet is.

If we concentrate on people's speech patterns, we can always find faults.
There are better things to spend your energy on. We could also embark on
pluralization vs apostrophe too, it's a noble cause, but we all know what
people mean.

~~~
murbard2
I think OP is well aware that the speaker isn't specifically addressing moms
and only moms. But even knowing that, it can make you feel less included,
which is in itself unpleasant, even if on a more rational level you know that
you are included.

~~~
mc32
I've been in these situations and I really don't feel excluded at all by
casual language. I'm sure I could, if I wanted to find cause, but I don't
because I understand the subsurface meaning of what people are saying.

------
hyperpape

      With the Political Correctness police gaining momentum again after being laughed out of the 80ies
    

People say this kind of thing, and I know there are terms people have
suggested that I find kind of silly.

However, we know better than to call people negros, and most of us know not to
call a grown woman at work a "girl", (or a black man "boy").

The principle is pretty clear, we're just haggling over the details.

Essentially no one disagrees that there are some words that are overtly
insulting, and others that are more or less subtly patronizing. We (myself)
included, just have a knee-jerk reaction that "of course this one's ok". And
we're probably right some of the time, but we're wrong other times.

~~~
richmarr

      With the Political Correctness police gaining momentum 
      again after being laughed out of the 80ies
    

Maybe he has a point, maybe he doesn't, but when he talks like that I'm
inclined to wait for someone who's not an ass to make the same argument and
listen to that.

------
flippinburgers
This "right to be offended" train of thought is parroted often by religious
groups to try to remove speech and images that they do not like. I've been
relentlessly called "too skinny/gay/etc" by people throughout my life and, yet
people are getting upset about something that is gender neutral like "guys"?
Give me a break. God forbid they actually have to deal with somebody who
actually isn't nice or intentionally targets them about some aspect of who
they are.

~~~
smackfu
See, I would have thought someone who has been discriminated against would
have more sympathy, not less.

~~~
Zuider
As someone who has faced racial and religious discrimination, I would say no.
I prefer it when people are more easy-going. Fine if you don't like who I am
as long as you leave me alone.

I see this as another descent into a general milieu of intolerance and
hostility, a kind of madness of crowds that seems to possess cultures every
few decades. This rarely ends well.

------
smackfu
I'd argue the term "PC brigade" is not perfectly fine if you want people to
listen to your arguments.

~~~
mpweiher
The PC brigade won't listen to reasoned arguments anyhow, so no loss.

~~~
Zuider
Nobody expects the Inqu^H^H^H^H PC brigade! It is probably better not to catch
their attention anyway.

------
adaml_623
"Hi everyone".

I like using "Hi People". Because it's kind of nice and acknowledgementy.

I will judge you by all the things you say and all the things you do. But
that's human nature isn't it.

Edit: I can't use the otherwise excellent y'all because it's not compatible
with my nationality/accent :-)

~~~
anonydsfsfs
"everyone" is offensive to people with dissociative identity disorder. Such
people have multiple identities (or personalities), so they are not "one".
You're basically erasing they're identities by using such language.

~~~
DanBC
DID does not exist in the Tumblr version that gets talked about a lot. Actual
DID is rare and has different forms. The DID you're talking about affects
maybe 0.1% of the population.

Women, on the other hand, are about 50% of the population.

~~~
anonydsfsfs
Whether it's 0.1% or 50% of the population doesn't matter, the point is it's
offensive to some people, and it takes no effort to stop using it.

------
grayclhn
I mean, even if you personally feel that "guys" is totally fine for mixed
gender groups, it clearly bothers some people. So why not say, "hey,
everyone..." instead of "hey, guys..."?

~~~
arca_vorago
"So why not"

Why not? Because I'm growing increasingly tired of having to keep up with all
the various people who are offended by trivial bullshit so that I can adjust
my own language to fit them.

There is no right to not be offended, and I think that fact is a core part of
freedom of speech, both Constitutionally and socially.

Edit (the following line is out of place and unwarranted in this discussion
but I will keep it in for the sake of posterity.): We live in a harsh world,
and there is some nasty shit out there. I think people need to learn to grow a
thick skin already.

Don't misunderstand me, I fully embrace peoples right to request people to
change some of the common word usage, but I also support the right of people
that don't want to do so.

“I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you
to continue to write.” - Voltaire

[http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/349](http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/349)

~~~
sp332
_I also support the right of people that don 't to do so._

But you seem to be against those people accepting consequences of that action.
What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or
decide to remind them each time that they are offending me? They should accept
my decision and not tell me to "grow a thick skin" and pretend that their
offensiveness is my fault.

~~~
arca_vorago
"What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or
decide to remind them each time that they are offending me?"

Let me clarify a bit please, I fully support people trying to educate people
on potentially sensitive verbiage, and their ability to remove themselves from
a situation where they aren't comfortable. I think you are right and my "grow
a thick skin" comment was unwarranted so I have put an edit in saying so. My
primary issue is this:

Censorship, full stop. Don't like something? Ok, tell the world your reasons,
and try to convince it to follow your lead. Don't, however, use
"offensiveness" as a tool of censorship of things you don't like. That's my
main point, so sorry if I muddled it a bit. Censorship from either point of
view is my issue.

Of course, you also have to take into consideration that I am saying this from
a decidedly American perspective, where freedom of speech is respected to a
higher degree than almost anywhere else.

I think Christopher Hitchens put it well.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIU96N7ciXM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIU96N7ciXM)

~~~
kennywinker
What part of "hey people, please don't use 'guys'" is censorship?

I still say 'guys' pretty regularly but every time I do I now check in with
myself and think "was that a strongly gendered use? could I have said it
better". Not because I feel forced to protect everyone around me, but because
I want to do better at including people.

And finally, the obligatory "Free Speech" xkcd:
[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
Zuider
>And finally, the obligatory "Free Speech" xkcd:

Which could be translated as:

"Nice free speech you got there. Shame if there were any 'consequences'..."

True, one of the necessary conditions for free speech is that the government
does not punish unpopular views, but another, even more important and vitally
necessary condition underlying free speech is the tradition of respectful
disagreement. This tradition is one of the prime values of the enlightenment,
and it was hard won, emerging as it did from the repressive regimes and brutal
religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries where people believed that they
were under a divine imperative to eliminate all dissent.

The idea being propounded by the xkcd comic, that it is justifiable to mob,
harass, shout down, and punish people you disagree with is deeply incompatible
with enlightenment values, and represents a step backwards into barbarism.

~~~
grayclhn
It's interesting to see this viewpoint given as a reason to continue using
language that we've been told is offensive and exclusionary towards a large
group of people. (If you disagree with "offensive and exclusionary,"
substitute in "plausibly impolite" which doesn't change my main point and
seems inarguable.)

~~~
Zuider
The dose makes the poison.

The difference is that you see fit to declare holy war over very trivial
micro-offences, while the religious factions after the enlightenment managed
to interact peacefully despite profound disagreement with each other.

------
mc32
While I personally am a little less casual with language and would avoid
saying something like guys or gals or peops. Before we get too exact about
language, we have to understand how casual language has been accepted in
schools and in society.

People will say things like 'thanks man' thanks buddy --when I don't know them
well and not their buddy -I could find it offensive, if I were of the sort;
It's not as if they don't know my forename. This is what society has allowed,
along with the acceptance infantilization of adult behavior. Moms and dads and
other adults wanting to appear hipper and cooler by adopting juvenile language
--like guys.

So before you castigate people for their unconscious language choices, (lots
of women use 'guys' to include both sexes), understand why.

Moreover, as with many words, they can have multiple meanings depending on
context. Let's take sanction. We know the meaning given a context. Same with
'guys', or the pronoun 'you'

------
js2
I wonder how generational or regional or maybe even contextual this is? A
couple years back, I overheard a young teenage girl address the rest of her
female soccer teammates with "hey guys." Is it not exclusionary when said by a
girl? When addressed to a group of all girls? When not in a professional
setting?

~~~
mpweiher
It's not perceived as exclusionary by >90% of the people in the informal poll
cited.

~~~
smackfu
"Informal poll" == "possibly true facts"

------
bcg1
This is a great example of mistaking a nuanced social issue with one that has
a binary answer. In many social situations saying "guys" is not gender
specific... but that does not mean that it is "perfectly" fine to use in all
cases. Some people may find it offensive or exclusionary in some cases and it
doesn't hurt to be respectful of that.

We should of course be on the lookout for those who would try to chill free
expression via enforcing some sort of Orwellian newspeak by making baseless
accusations of being offended/excluded/discriminated against... but those
people are rare, pretty easy to spot, and outnumbered by good people who have
legitimate complaints. And BTW if you want to have credibility when calling
out the former, it might be a good idea to be respectful and earn gravitas in
the eyes of the latter.

------
cmdrfred
Bikeshedding while Rome burns.

------
jseliger
I noticed the "guys" issue years ago, when I was teaching and needed to get
the class's attention: [http://jakeseliger.com/2010/03/21/hey-guys-read-
this](http://jakeseliger.com/2010/03/21/hey-guys-read-this). I still haven't
found a good replacement: "Everyone" sounds a little too formal, and talking
to "everyone" using that word makes it sound a little too much like talking to
no one.

------
arbitrage
Appeal to dictionary? Perennial favourite distraction and obfuscation
technique.

Because, you know, common usage never changes.

------
unoti
"Guys" is fine, except when it isn't. It's a pain point for some people, and
it's reasonable to be sensitive to that.

> Yeah, and medieval oppression was actually real, unlike some other
> "oppression" I can think of.

That crosses the line into the ridiculous, and is precisely the kind of poison
we should try to avoid. Oppression means longstanding cruel treatment or
control. The author doesn't perceive longstanding class, gender and race based
control and oppression over the last few generations in our society. That
makes the author maybe not a great source to take advice from on the topic at
hand.

~~~
jnevill
Oh god. So much this. Author is a ding-bat for pulling that terrible argument
out. It makes it very hard to take the rest of the argument seriously when
poorly thought out garbage like that is introduced. "I don't notice or feel
the oppression, therefore it must not exist. Sample size of N=1 is good enough
for me". Thick.

~~~
mpweiher
You really think the "oppression" of women in western industrialized nations
today is comparable to the oppression of a conquered people in medieval times?

~~~
unoti
Certainly not, no-- but that doesn't make the oppression we're talking about
not real. We've come a long way. The oppression today is not anything like it
was 50 years ago. But just because we've come a long way today doesn't mean
that we need to quit striving for the ideal and trying to do better tomorrow.
That's a fallacy. If everyone always thought that way, we'd have just been
done when we gave women the vote a hundred years ago. Or maybe the 3/5ths
compromise was a big improvement over the status quo at the time. I certainly
don't think the oppression of various groups in the West is comparable to
oppression of conquered people in medieval times; but that's no excuse to
claim that the oppression of various groups in the West in modern times is not
real.

~~~
mpweiher
What oppression?

~~~
DanBC
Just for clarity: are you saying that women don't face any oppression in the
US? How about Europe?

~~~
mpweiher
I am asking how women are oppressed in western democracies.

------
LanceH
It's almost like words can take on different meanings depending on context.

------
NoGravitas
In my language variety, the issue never comes up. A group of people is always
addressed as "y'all". "Guys" would sound weird whether the group was mixed
gender or not.

------
Torgo
I prefer to use "people" but I have also found that I prefer to spend my time
around people that wouldn't have cared if I used "guys".

------
sardonicbryan
I just use "Hey folks" in mixed company. I have a strong compulsion to be very
accurate/precise about things though.

------
k__
A guy I work with also always says "The boys" or "The guys" when referring to
his co-workers.

It just feels strange to me, even if they are all guys.

In German we have "Leute" which means "People" but doesn't have a singular.

------
alwaysdoit
I'd love to see stats broken down by age. Anecdotally, it seems older people
tend to see it as less gender neutral, and younger people tend to see it as
more gender neutral.

~~~
smackfu
If you click through, the stats are basically junk. Self-selected survey
distributed via Twitter.

------
cmsj
An interesting experiment to try is to say "girls"/"ladies" instead of "guys"
for non-gender-specific uses, and see how weird it feels.

------
Jonovono
I use "Hey, civilians" just to be safe.

------
murbard2
What the poll shows is that it's only considered neutral when plural, and in
the vocative case.

~~~
mpweiher
Exactly. Which was the case being discussed. As discussed.

------
toxican
This is a great opportunity for "Ya'll" and "Yinz" to rise in popularity.

~~~
Zuider
Or bring back the original 'ye'. It is still in use in some parts of Britain
and Ireland.

------
jilted
Question for the Room.

------
nlake44
Do the platinum rule: Treat and teach others the way they want to be treated
and taught.

~~~
notacoward
...except that you can't know that ahead of time. Some people are unreasonably
touchy, or even looking for an excuse to start a fight. I found one among my
followers on Twitter the other day, using my _positive_ reference to a group
as an excuse to burnish his own Enlightened Person credentials. We can argue
over whether they're few or many, but to deny they exist is to leave the realm
of rational or productive discourse. The best we can do is make an estimate of
how a _reasonable_ person might want to be treated and taught, and that's what
the OP is trying to address.

------
paulhauggis
I won't stop using it. I think it's bullshit. I'm honestly sick and tired of
the language police trying to change society because they are somehow offended
by a word that is non-offensive.

The word "cis" and "mansplaning" are both pejoratives..and it offends me. But
it doesn't stop those same people who don't like the word "guys" from using it
(and making it normal).

This is my problem with the entire discussion about this. It's not about
removing offensive words or "equality". It's only about giving power to one
group of people. The politicians love it because whenever there is an US vs
Them mentality, they can take advantage and win votes.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
"cis" isn't a pejorative in any sense I've seen it used, can you expand on why
you think it is?

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
It's as much a pejorative as 'hetero', which is to say not at all.

