Including just, “Welcome…”. The noun really isn’t needed there.
Salesmen repeat my name over and over when talking to me. Nobody else does that. You don’t actually need to name the people you are talking to, almost all the time.
(Saleswomen aren’t quite so annoying about repeating my name over and over, in my limited experience.)
Is such a clear distinction between offended and annoyed generally understood?
My understanding (corroborated by a quick Google) is that the words are darned close to synonyms. (Annoyed seems to be commonly offered as a synonym for offended, more often than the other way around.) Some sources suggest annoyance is simply milder than offense, but a common thread seems to be that offense implies perceived insult and perceived intention by the offender, as opposed to annoyance’s milder irritant.
The OP used neither offended nor annoyed, but did say “hate,” suggesting (to me) a somewhat strong opinion than annoyance’s “mild irritant.”
Apologies for my having used the word offense, when the OP was, instead, intending to express annoyance. But specifying what the words mean “to YOU”, seems relevant when discussing what the word “guys” might mean to the users.
I think there’s sometimes value in there being some sort of appellation - even if only to serve as padding while the audience starts to pay attention;
You are getting close to one of my pet peeves, “with no further ado…” 
not 
That sort of salutation at the beginning of a speech/public announcement does quite a lot of work. It communicates:
A public address is about to start.
The intended audience for this public address is all of you and includes you personally.
I, the person saying it, am the speaker you should be listening to, so listen.
I hold you in respect.
On the latter point, there’s a reason it’s “ladies and gentlemen”, not “men and women”. Other salutations transmit greater or lesser degrees of respect: “Honoured guests if I may crave your attention for just a moment”, “Oy you lot”, “Silence, scum!” etc. - but these do cover the first three messages above.
As an inclusive salutation I’ve heard “Guys, gals and non-binary pals” but this is an informal register suited to an informal occasion (panto) and not necessarily suitable for e.g. an AGM, formal dinner etc.
Re “Superwoman”
Nerd nitpick- Superman and Supergirl fight on the side of good. Superwoman was originally from Earth 3, where the roles of heroes and villains are switched. She is a supervillain and married to the villainosu Ultraman (no relation to the Japanese hero). She has long been having an affair with Owlman.
Back To The OP
As I have posted about before, every winter city workers put up decorations. They claim the radiant crosses are snowflakes. They are very obviously radiant crosses. I complain about it every year. I occasionally complaun about the words “In God We Trust” on our money. I have added using the word guys to refer to a mixed gender group to my list.
I expect to make some progress on this one. I can mention this, politely, to people I know. Most will not have been aware that some people had a problem with it, and will stop doing it.
So long as we are speaking of mere annoyances - the fact that the idiots in the audience have to be reminded that a scheduled public address/performance is about to start at its scheduled time, and that people in the audience ought to shut up and pay attention - bothers me far more than any specific form of appellation. 
For me, yes. The words are related but not synonymous. Being offended isn’t just a greater degree of annoyance; it almost always involves a sense of personal insult, disrespect, or moral outrage. Offense feels like a personal attack, whereas annoyance is simply bothersome but not necessarily directed at you. For example, a mosquito bite is annoying, but not something to be offended by, whereas a slur is offensive, not just merely annoying.
I mean, I don’t think this is some nitpicking of words – this is how I’ve always understood them and I wouldn’t interchange them in most, if not all, contexts. I think this is generally understood, as well.
Thanks. I was going to say the same thing.
So long as I, at least, am picking nits - the OP’s distinction:
impresses me as being solely about degree, with no suggestion of personal insult/disrespect. If she intended “making a federal case” and “keeping one’s mouth shut, yet bitching” to mean something specific and unambiguous, perhaps it might have been preferable to use those specific and unambiguous terms. I am perfectly capable of making federal cases and keeping my mouth shut about items entirely independent of whether I perceive any personal insult.
Even nerdier nitpick-The current Superwoman is Lois Lane.
We all have our crosses to bear. For example, I’m not a huge fan of Christian normative expressions, like that one.
And there’s never any sentence that requires “hey you guys” instead of just “hey guys”, yet…
There’s also a Catch-Perscriptivism-Doesn’t-Work, which is the real reason why we aren’t gonna change anything.
Well crap. I more or less abandoned DC when they couldn’t stop rebooting the multiverse. Now, I see Absolute Batman. The symbol on his chest does not look like a bat. I have many other problems with him.
My preferred solution to all of this is to consciously eliminate gender from language in any context where it is irrelevant. Not easy to do, and awkward at times, but for me it’s the right direction to go.
As a middle school teacher I found this challenging at first but with practice it becomes comfortable and natural, at least until new habits tangle with entrenched traditions. A vivid example came with the model railroad I used as a teaching tool - when running a train a group of students took on the roles of the crew, traditionally Engineer, Fireman, Brakeman and Conductor. Changing Fireman and Brakeman to Fireperson and Brakeperson felt ridiculous at first, but over a period of a few years it became completely normal for me (and the students had usually never encountered the original terms so were not the slightest bit ruffled).
One summer I gave a presentation at a national convention of model railroaders about my use of model trains in the classroom. When I mentioned the roles I had forgotten the change, and my audience (of mostly autistic old geezers like me) completely freaked out, as I should have known they would.
Change is hard and takes a long time, and we can’t erase the past, no matter how unpalatable to our current sensibilities. People do resist change and can dig in defiantly, but we can keep moving in the right direction a little at a time.
I swap person for man as well, but it feels and sounds clunky. I wish we had a short sound that fit better. The pronoun ‘one’ would work better to slot in for ‘man’, but since we don’t use it very often, it would be weird. But if it worked we could say something like policeone/policeones rather than policeman/policemen.
One small step for one… One giant leap for one’s kind.
Armstrong was taking the step. Armstrong was a man. The gendered implication in that case was accurate.
He could, I suppose, have said “a human” or “a person”. That would have sounded quite odd at the time.
But do men work as “charwomen”?
Some terms can be easily rendered non-gendered just by shortening them. These days I almost always see/hear people refer to “the chair” of a board or committee. When I was young the term was “chairman”. “Char” seems to fall into that category.
How did Chris feel about that? It seems to me to single them out.
I would have dodged the “ladies and gentleman” business altogether; as you say is done at your company. I also rarely hear “ladies and gentleman” nowadays.
Store clerks, of whatever gender, sometimes also do that to me. It’s particularly annoying because they’re using the name on my credit card – which is indeed my legal name, but is not the name I ordinarily go by. Their bosses, in instructing them to use this fake familiarity, are instead underscoring how fake it is.
Agreed – but adding that it’s entirely reasonable to be offended by a slur that isn’t directed at you personally or at any of whatever social groups you’re part of. Slurs need to be generally socially unacceptable, not words considered to be fine as long as nobody they’re directly aimed at is within hearing.
Mostly we just say “police”. Which works fine.
“Firer” and “braker” sound weird at first, but might catch on. Just plain “fire” and “brake” don’t seem to work in that case.
I agree. I’m not faulting Armstrong for using a gendered term. “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” is undeniably poetic and perfectly suits the gravity of the moment.
I just wish he hadn’t fumbled the line—poor guy forgot the most famous “a” in history!
I like that very much. I had been trying to think of a good term. As for “police” when speaking formally “police officer” or “the police” and “cop” for informal use.