“Gals” to my ears just sounds stilted, old-fashioned, folksy, and just odd. Now, there’s no reason that can’t change with an uptick in usage. It’s just that in my dialect it’s a conspicuous word.
As I have posted elsewhere, it is a reference to traditional Zimbabwean sorghum beer. Certainly an aquired taste. Not recommended. It is nothing like beer, aside from being alcoholic. More, a weakly alcoholic porridge.
It looks and smells like vomit and often becomes vomit. It takes some personal strength and teenage level determination to get used to it.
It ranges from 5 to 8% ABV as it is sold still fermenting. The best flavour is at the start, the best kick is at the end. It is so cheap that we sought out the freshest…
To convince our female friends to join us in drinking we would add a 500ml chocolate milk to a 2 litre cup. Because it only came in 2L measures (it is now available in 1L)
The 2L plastic bottle came out during Gulf War 1, when Scuds were flying over the middle east. Formerly Chibuku (the commercial name, not the nickname) was sold in paper cartons, like milk.
If you are not a brave teenager… this drink is not for you.
Gals is certainly better than dames, but “guys and gals” sounds slightly clunky to my ear. I like concise speech. However, I don’t use any of these terms very often.
Er, what @Johanna said, i prefer you not use “females” as a noun to refer to women in non-clinical settings.
As for “ladies”, it depends on context. It is sometimes used condescendingly, to make it clear that the ladies are more fragile than the others. But the vast majority of times it’s used it’s fine. “Ladies and gentlemen” or “ladies and gents” might be overly formal for some situations, but that’s as much a problem with “gentlemen” as with “ladies”. If a server walks up to my table and says, “can i get you ladies something to drink”, that’s certainly fine.
I guess one advantage of “guys” is that no one ever uses it to single out the women to subtly put them in their place. 
One thing’s certain: you just can’t make everyone happy. Even with the best intentions, there’ll always be a few folks—maybe just a vocal minority within a minority—who take issue with a word or phrase, even if the rest of the group is totally fine with it.
So, what’s the move? If 99% of women are cool with “gals” or “ladies,” does it really make sense to toss those terms for the 1% who don’t like them? Probably not—unless you’re speaking directly to that 1%. If you know a particular crowd isn’t into a certain term, sure, switch gears. But if you’re addressing the larger group, there’s no need to twist yourself into a pretzel.
It’s doubtful any term could be found—or invented—that would appease everyone in any group when it comes to how they’re addressed. The minority (the 1%) within a minority may prefer a term that the majority of that minority doesn’t like. (Females aren’t actually a minority, but you get the point.)
That logic holds up across the board, whether it’s about race, religion, or culture. There’s always going to be a tiny segment with its own preferences. The trick is to read the room, stay adaptable, and aim to be respectful—without bending over backwards to cover every possible viewpoint.
Let’s face it: language is like a favorite pair of sneakers. You might need to adjust the laces now and then, but there’s no need to overhaul your whole wardrobe trying to keep everyone comfortable.
I don’t find it offensive but I definitely don’t like it.
Would prefer it not be used but it’s commonly used in many situations and I adjust.
I don’t think you could.
I don’t much like it as a singular one, either. It does depend to some extent on the context.
I’ve heard it as genuinely condescending or as othering way too many times.
The formal “ladies and gentlemen” in a suitable context for it is usually OK; but we’ve realized that it leaves out some people.
It’s better than “dames”; and in some contexts it’s fine; but if the men are “men” or “Mr.” or “sirs” and the women are “gals” there’s a problem, and that might be what the women who complained are hearing, even if that’s not what’s meant. And to some women it comes across as “girls”, and they’re all grown up.
And yeah, “females” as a noun outside a medical context is right out.
Did you do that on purpose, to make a point of using “females” as a noun because you’re refusing to adjust your language? It’s already been objected to a number of times in this thread.
Figures rectally derived? I don’t know exact percentages, but my (also rectally derived) guess is that it’s a lot more than that.
‘1%’ is basically shorthand for ‘a small subset.’ If you track down an exact figure, awesome—toss it in. But that’s not really the heart of the matter. No matter what label you use, there’ll always be some subset of that group—usually small—who doesn’t like it. And if you switch terms for them, another subset will just pop up with their own objections. It’s nearly impossible to find a label that everyone agrees on (I believe this very thread demonstrates that), so you do your best with good intentions and adaptability, and hope to ruffle as few feathers as possible.
No, I used ‘females’ the same way I’d say ‘males’ in similar context—like, “males aren’t actually a minority”. If you prefer men/women, that’s fine. Maybe that’s more grammatically correct—I don’t know. I don’t refuse to adjust my language; I do it all the time. It’s just not always apparent who’s language to adjust to.
Multiple people in this thread have objected to “females” as a noun outside of medical contexts.
True. But it’s also true that assuming that the subset of the group who don’t like the particular terms you’re using is minute, without evidence, is really not a good way to go. You may wind up pissing off a large proportion of the people you’re talking to. And that argument, if you simply assume that whatever term you’re using is only disliked by a minute fraction, can be used to defend any use of language whatsoever.
I read that as an extremely small subset; essentially negligible.
The Monty Python phrase was “About one; call it none.”
Many people who refer to women as females would never refer to men as males. And there’s the problem.
Female women = women
Females = female dogs, female cats, female birds, etc.
This. Some years ago there was a company-wide communication about females in management. I wrote an email to the communications team and mentioned that it was wrong.
The woman who wrote it, a non-native English speaker, protested that it had been approved by others and brought in another native English speaker.
Who promptly backed me up and apologized. The story was modified.
One of my coworkers uses “Hello everybody”.
I’m of the opinion that it someone’s gender should not be at the forefront of every conversation. I would prefer a gender neutral solution to Mr./Mrs. and “Sir” and “Ma’am”.
When I first started dating my husband, his parents had two daughters, one son and two female dogs and one male dog.
I had to pay attention because his dad would mention “the girls”, and it wasn’t always clear if he was talking about the daughters or the dogs. “Did the girls already eat?”.
Yes. The gendered term can often be left out entirely.
Wikipedia suggests “stoker” for fireman.
I find it offensive to be called a female.
There is sometimes an overlap between those who use “ladies” for women and those who use “ladies” as a demeaning term for men. So another reason I don’t like “ladies”.
That works better. I didn’t think of that. “Firer” could mean all sorts of things; “stoker” is clearer.
On a somewhat related note, can anyone explain to me why we say “you are” instead of “you is”?
Probably because “you” was originally plural. The singular was “thou” (and would have been “thou art”, not “thou is”.)
I think this is one of those linguistic drift situations. Kind of like “nice guy.” I typically refer to women as women, but sometimes I do use female in the same context I would use male. At work I might refer to male and female employees as in, “Our dress code doesn’t need a separate list of acceptable clothing for male and female employees.” Until fairly recently, I don’t think I commonly heard anyone refer to an individual woman as a female outside of the Ferengi on Star Trek the Next Generation.
But now that I think of it, I still don’t commonly hear people refer to women as female. I must not be watching enough Andrew Tate.
This makes me chuckle. The idea that 1% is “extremely small” or “negligible” probably depends on what we’re talking about.
Accurate step counting on a smart watch? Negligible error.
My “savings” bank account offers 0.3% interest…1% would be massive in comparison.
Number of planes crashing on takeoff? Absolutely mindbogglingly horrifying massive freaking tragedy (think 7 planes crashing per day out of London Heathrow alone!)
I think offending 1% of any audience with gendered language is an unacceptable level; it would be preferable to offend fewer than that, surely? Especially when not using any such words is an easy and effective way to accomplish that?
Again, that’s an adjective. The objection is generally to using “female(s)” as a noun. And as you say you’re pairing “male and female” equally.
Have you considered there might be a portion of the audience offended by someone lumping them into a singular group using non-gendered language?
Limiting this to the general thread subject, I doubt anyone has ever noticed or been offended by their group being addressed by someone saying, for example, “hi, everyone, how can I help you today?” or just “hi, how can I help you today” vs “hi guys, how can I help you today?”
“Welcome” is not offensive to anyone compared to the possibility of causing offense with “welcome guys” or “welcome, ladies and gentlemen” (which excludes those who identify as neither). The gendered term is unnecessary and you probably would never notice if it were omitted, while people do notice if it’s included.
I’m not suggesting that we should refer to all people as Mx (“mix”) and “they” just to force gender-neutral language. I absolutely see how people would be annoyed and offended by that.