I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
I'm aware of how it's sometimes used, but it's all about sets.
A woman isn't a "guy" (singular) even if sometimes she's "one of the guys".
As for plural, the commonly-cited (if slightly tacky) example is that of asking a hetero man, "how many guys have you dated?" to see where the term comes unstuck.
Imagine you'd witnessed a crime and were asked by the police to describe the villains. Would you describe them as, "two guys" if they were women?
"Guys" is not gender-neutral (as your alt-text suggests). It may colloquially be used to describe a mixed group as well as a male group of people, but that's not enough.
"Hey guys" in a fitness club could be followed by "let's split into teams. Could all the guys move to the left of the sportsball area" and nobody would be under any illusions that included everyone.
As for your plural example, again - context is key. The question is obviously using ’guys' to refer to a countable number of single people as opposed to a group as a whole - the question doesn't make sense otherwise. It does nothing to counter the argument that 'guys' is sometimes gender neutral. Nothing breaks down here.
The police example also fails, as the context of the question is clearly asking for specific information about countable individuals
I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
"Guys" is sometimes colloquially used in a gender-neutral way. I'm not disputing that, but I am disputing it being suitable in most situations, or inclusive in general.
A lot of things are valid in narrow contexts, without that making them the right choice in broader ones.
But that's just it, for some groups the usage isn't narrow at all - it's totally normal for them (in the UK for example, this usage of 'guys' is extremely common - you'll even hear females in an all female group addressing the group as 'guys'). Forcing everyone to accept one interpretation of some words as being the 'correct' one is not inclusive in the slightest, and does little to promote diversity. Different groups and dialects use words differently, and that's a good thing.
Do you not find it interesting and amazing that people use language in different ways? Or do you think we should just have a monoculture where everyone does everything the same way, and no-one is allowed to deviate from the perceived norms?
Most people are nice most of the time and would be happy to tell you about how they use language where they're from. Talk to them about it - you might learn something, make a friend etc. I'm fairly sure you'll find 99% of the time that any perceived offence you may have taken is just a misunderstanding
I've been a professional C, Perl, PHP and Python developer.
I'm an ex-sysadmin from the late 20th century.
These days I do more Javascript and CSS and whatnot, and promote UX and accessibility.
Do you not find it interesting and amazing that people use language in different ways
Of course. Paint my position as against that if you will, but those are your acrylics, not mine.
But that's just it, for some the usage isn't narrow at all
I don't think this argues in your favour. "for some the usage isn't narrow"? That's tautological, but I'm going to assume you didn't mean it that way, because if 20% of the population use an expression in the way you're suggesting, that's still narrow.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I'm aware of how it's sometimes used, but it's all about sets.
A woman isn't a "guy" (singular) even if sometimes she's "one of the guys".
As for plural, the commonly-cited (if slightly tacky) example is that of asking a hetero man, "how many guys have you dated?" to see where the term comes unstuck.
Imagine you'd witnessed a crime and were asked by the police to describe the villains. Would you describe them as, "two guys" if they were women?
"Guys" is not gender-neutral (as your alt-text suggests). It may colloquially be used to describe a mixed group as well as a male group of people, but that's not enough.
"Hey guys" in a fitness club could be followed by "let's split into teams. Could all the guys move to the left of the sportsball area" and nobody would be under any illusions that included everyone.
In certain contexts it IS gender neutral and you just confirmed that with an example
As for your plural example, again - context is key. The question is obviously using ’guys' to refer to a countable number of single people as opposed to a group as a whole - the question doesn't make sense otherwise. It does nothing to counter the argument that 'guys' is sometimes gender neutral. Nothing breaks down here.
The police example also fails, as the context of the question is clearly asking for specific information about countable individuals
"Guys" is sometimes colloquially used in a gender-neutral way. I'm not disputing that, but I am disputing it being suitable in most situations, or inclusive in general.
A lot of things are valid in narrow contexts, without that making them the right choice in broader ones.
But that's just it, for some groups the usage isn't narrow at all - it's totally normal for them (in the UK for example, this usage of 'guys' is extremely common - you'll even hear females in an all female group addressing the group as 'guys'). Forcing everyone to accept one interpretation of some words as being the 'correct' one is not inclusive in the slightest, and does little to promote diversity. Different groups and dialects use words differently, and that's a good thing.
Do you not find it interesting and amazing that people use language in different ways? Or do you think we should just have a monoculture where everyone does everything the same way, and no-one is allowed to deviate from the perceived norms?
Most people are nice most of the time and would be happy to tell you about how they use language where they're from. Talk to them about it - you might learn something, make a friend etc. I'm fairly sure you'll find 99% of the time that any perceived offence you may have taken is just a misunderstanding
Of course. Paint my position as against that if you will, but those are your acrylics, not mine.
I don't think this argues in your favour. "for some the usage isn't narrow"? That's tautological, but I'm going to assume you didn't mean it that way, because if 20% of the population use an expression in the way you're suggesting, that's still narrow.