[layoutIfNeeded]

I see! I didn’t know this was the case in the US. I’ve checked my English dictionary and it says:

>guys: Informal Persons of either sex.

I guess it’s one of those differences between British and American English. Good to know, because it seems like one could easily get in trouble for using it incorrectly (in the British sense) in the US!

Thanks!

[seanmcdirmid]

Yes, this is country specific, and girls who take offense are primarily in the USA or have learned American English.

[k__]

The problem doesn't seem to be that it is male in some places and neutral in others, but that it's considered neutral even tho' it's clearly male.

[bayesian_horse]

It doesn't really matter what it "clearly" is. Equally clearly there are women who feel offended by it.

Also please be aware that many comments here are complaining about complaints of a minority (among developers) they don't belong to.

It's really not a big surprise that white male developers don't quite get why black female developers feel offended. Maybe something to think about...

And even if you don't agree that something is offense-worthy, please just acknowledge that some people genuinely do feel that way and that most of them are actually silent on the issue, exactly because of the reactions on display here.

[seanmcdirmid]

Guy is only clearly male in American English. Guy Fawkes was male of course, but the term “some anonymous guy” does not refer to anyone in particular. The word has clearly evolved differently in the states than it did in the UK which originated it.

[bayesian_horse]

That's a big "only" when we are talking about American developers at an American Conference.

[fit2rule]

I got into trouble with this word and American people enough that I just never use it and say 'folks' instead..

[coldtea]

It's mostly people who look for reasons to be offended to validate themselves...