[rplnt]

I'm fairly certain I saw "guys" used to address even women-only groups in American movies and TV.

Conference that wants to be internationally inclusive, which I assume a conference in English held in Germany wants to be, should not ostracize people based on grammar technicalities.

That's just one word, but pronouns in particular differ greatly across languages. Objects can have genders, occupations can have genders, plurals can differ or be the same, etc.. Someone who is not a native speaker can easily make a mistake that is related to gender.

It's always the intent that should be taken into account, not whether someone was offended.

[c12]

I've never assumed "guys" to be gendered, here it just refers to a group of people.

[Xylakant]

That's why it's pointed out in the CoC - to make people aware that not all people feel included by "guys". I know quite a few that don't.

[dsajames]

They may not feel included, but it's proper English to use guys as an ungendered reference to a group. It's been in the dictionary a very long time.

[Xylakant]

It’s also correct to use a male gendered pronoun in German to refer to a group of mixed gender, even though other options exist. But why do you insist on using a term of which a substantial group of people says that it makes them feel excluded once you’ve been made aware of that fact. What does it cost you to avoid that term? Stomping you right feet and yelling that “But it’s correct! The dictionary says so!” just makes you look like an insensitive jerk. Obviously it’s your call to make - it’s not against the law to behave like an insensitive jerk and nobody wants to deprive you of that right. But I totally can relate that people prefer not to be around other people that insist on behaving like an insensitive jerk just because a dictionary says it’s correct. So if you insist, you have to accept the consequences.

[tekknik]

Spend any amount of time with an ESOL person and you’ll understand why. This is only an issue in primary english speaking countries. English is a complicated language to learn because of all these “rules” primary speakers make up that aren’t actually defined in the language. Also at what point is there a line? should we remove all words that a group of people find offensive? should the people finding the words offensive adjust their viewpoint? i’ve known people finding words like “petty” (as in petty officer) and even “sir”/“ma’am” offensive so should we also stop using those?

[Xylakant]

No, you're not required to avoid any word. You're free to use any word that you choose. You just have to accept the consequences. If you come to my house or my office and - despite being made aware that certain language is not welcome - use those words, you'll have to live with the fact that you're not welcome any more. That's what a CoC does - it points out the ground rules for expected behavior. Start swearing loudly in a church and you'll learn a thing or two about informal CoCs.

[marme]

websters defines it as being genderless when being used to refer to a group of people https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guy

[Avamander]

Especially if the person's native language might not even have genders.

[tekknik]

It’s proper english to refer to a mixed gender group as male. Whether that is “oppressive” or not and whether we should change the english language is another subject and should be outside the realm of a JS conference