But it’s not just gender-neutral; it’s also used to refer to males specifically. Which, I think, is why it bothers the people it bothers.
(And when it’s used to specifically refer to males, what’s the parallel for females? “Guys and girls”? “Guys and gals”? “Guys and dolls”? I don’t think there’s anything that someone woouldn’t object to. But that’s a whole nother issue.)
I wouldn’t have said I’ve heard ‘guys’ used for mixed gender groups that frequently here in the UK, but I also can’t think of a common alternative, so now I’m wondering if I just didn’t notice. 
I do find it annoying when writers assume all their readers are men. I particularly remember reading a Martin Gardener book as a child where he not only assumed the reader was a man, but that he’d have a wife. Modern authors are much better about this sort of thing, even if they still use a generic ‘he’ for convenience.
How about ‘humans’. Kind of a jokey way of addressing people, but this guy pulls it off well:
Yeah if there’s a safer alternative to guys I’d definitely like to know it.
Words like “everyone” and “people” don’t work in as many sentences.
But, thinking about it, it is possible to use a basket of alternatives to avoid saying “guys”. If guys does cause offense, then I would switch to doing this.
Same here. Another alternative is “all of you” as in “What can I bring all of you?”
And yeah, I’m not a guy…
This is the first I’ve ever heard that “womenfolk” can include children.
“Males”, of course. I use “female” and “male” as nouns equally often, and in the same contexts. Maybe it isn’t all that often, but it does come up… Like, say, in this very thread. Do <women and girls> object to being called “guys”?
Grown women being referred to as “girls” is a major pet peeve of mine, as well, especially considering that men are almost never called “boys”. Also note that an attractive woman is referred to by a word that means “infant”, while the comparable terms for a man are either “a large piece of something” or “a male animal kept for breeding purposes”.
I have a colleague from Liverpool who says ‘youse’. I do enjoy hearing his accent on calls, but I’m not about to start saying ‘youse’ or ‘y’all’ or ‘folks’ because they aren’t used round here. I blame the French for this problem: English had a perfectly good word for singular ‘you’ (thou/thee), and then the Normans invaded and people started using the plural for just one person to indicate respect, and eventually it was adopted for everyone and we can’t easily make the distinction.
One guy at work explained that it is intended to make women feel that they are an equal part of the work group and are not in any way being objectified. The theory being that women will feel comfortable because of that. In that regard, it doesn’t bother me at all. I’ve never heard a guy or guys call me or my girl friends “guys” when they are chatting us up in a social setting. I think that would be kind of weird.
‘Folks’, is probably as close as it gets, but it doesn’t roll off the tongue in the same way as ‘guys’.
Just wanna point out in a thread on eliminating bias from language, “Southern hick” is, even jocularly, hackles-raising. Y’all might wanna avoid that as well.
I think in discussions like this, folks want bright lines, and end up yelling past one another. The following things seem clear to me:
Can we all agree on all of these things?
My conclusions from this are:
a) English tends to treat masculine as the default, invisible gender, synonymous with humanity. Women are a deviation from the default, such that “guys” and “man” can refer to a mixed-gender group, but “gals” and “woman” never do. And that’s a problem.
b) There are alternative terms that work in almost every context.
c) I may as well use an alternative term when I can.
d) If I make a mistake, I’m not going to beat myself up, nor will I lose my shit at someone else who uses “guys” or “dude” in a gender-neutral fashion.
A good summary. I am not sure whether (5) is true here in the UK though.
However, I always like to err on the side of caution, and just the question of whether this might potentially be offensive, makes it not the safest option. I think I’m going to try going with “folks” plus supplementing with “everyone”, “people”, “y’all” for situations where “folks” doesn’t work.
That seems reasonable. I think I’d probably add:
You can’t really control how people will address you (in gender terms or otherwise) and sometimes what seems innocent to them will seem offensive to you; talking about it in general (as we’re doing here) is a good way to get thoughtful people to think more about it, and is probably the most productive thing you can do if you want change to happen, but some people won’t change and the best you can hope for is that the thing you dislike about them will die when they do.
If you have good rapport with the group you are addressing, and the situation is informal, there are jokey options such as “OK children…” and “Alright you lot…”
I kinda like the idea of “bitches” being used for mixed-gender groups, but it’s not gonna work for a variety of reasons. Like, you really gotta read the room on that one.
I deliberately said “meaningful” to describe the number of objectors, because even if it’s just one women in twenty who objects, it’s enough that it means I should be aware of the possibility. It’s not like people who object to the word “tangerine,” who are such a vanishingly small group that I don’t need to worry about them.
Can’t speak for the US, but in the UK we say “Lads” as a commonplace - as in A Lads’ Night Out. I posted a photo of that sort of thing, with some comment about The Lads, just a couple of weeks ago. Two in our sixties and one over seventy.
j
Yeah, that one pretty much only works if you live with your team.
Interestingly (but tangentially) I think if anyone tried to address a mixed or all-male group as ‘girls’ or ‘ladies’, it would very likely be taken to imply that the group was misbehaving in some stereotypically-female way.
No it should read “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all y’all are created equal…”
I belong to a group where I’m the oldest member by a noticeable margin, and they frequently look to me for wisdom and guidance. (Why they expect these from me is a mystery outside the scope of this anecdote.) When I address them collectively, I generally call them “larvae.” Which is (a) another example where reading the room is mandatory, and (b) hilarious.
I’ve actually noticed this within the past year or so. Not in direct address, but in referring to others. I will see, for example, someone post a picture of themselves and their friends on Facebook, with the caption, “A great night out with some of my favorite humans.” Or talking about the local community theater: “These humans put on a wonderful show, don’t miss it!” That kind of thing.
It strikes me as weird, and I can’t figure out what connotation “humans” has that wouldn’t be equally provided by “people.”
I imagine it’s just a mild joke. Calling people ‘humans’ might imply you’re an alien, at least that is my impression of how it is sometimes understood on this planet - I’ve only been here a little over half of one of your centuries.