[skywhopper]

Regardless of what you think about it, plenty of people disagree. As a plural, sure "guys" can generally mean a mixed group, but as a singular noun used in a generic sense (eg, "we need a devops guy"), I challenge you to find any native English speaker to whom "guy" primarily denotes a woman.

In a professional setting, it's important to use language carefully. And in a situation like this where you have evidence that at least some people feel using "guy" and "guys" is a poor choice, and where there are plenty of equivalent alternatives ("folks" is my go-to), the only reason to use "guy" is to be a jerk.

Don't be a jerk.

[sejje]

GP: > "Guy" and "dude" are definitely gender-nonspecific

You: > find any native English speaker to whom "guy" primarily denotes a woman.

It's not supposed to primarily denote a woman, GP specifically said it's non-specific.

That said, I disagree. I think guy is gender specific, typically. I also have very, very seldom heard a woman called "dude." Certainly the non-specificity isn't universal.

[e12e]

I think the example in TFA is great: I'm not likely to pick up a cute devops guy at a conference (seing as how I'm a straight male). Like it or not, language matters and it is deeply tied to the culture in which it has evolved. If we want to change our culture (to be less misogynistic), we'll have to change the language we use, to facilitate the thoughts we would like to think. It will involve trying out new terms, seeing which ones fit our meaning without being too corny.

As an aside: what is a devops guy/girl/individual anyway? Isn't the core of devops (as opposed to system administration/system development) a holistic approach where everyone has a responsibility for implementing the system as a whole, including both development and day-to-day operations? Hence:DevOps?

[vacri]

You don't even need to make it sexual to highlight the difference. If you say "Can someone help the guy at reception?", most people would head to reception expecting a male.

[Rapzid]

I'm not sure what culture you belong to, but my culture definitely does NOT hate women.

[e12e]

Your culture inherited a language.

[e12e]

I was considering an edit to the effect that misogynistic might be too strong a word -- but on reflection I realized that many (most?) cultures have quite recently (from the perspective of evolving language) either burned women alive as witches, or stoned them to death. So I don't think such a qualification would be warranted. Even if what I might have had in mind might more aptly be described as being "merely" oppressive towards women, rather than woman-hating.

[pherocity_]

Calling an opposing view a jerk if they don't agree, is poor form; regardless the point.

[dan-f]

I'm not for calling people jerks in online forums either, but I think that in this case the point is valid. Someone is behaving like a jerk if they deny the experience of others through lack of empathy. If you (the general you, not you) respond to someone who tells you "this language makes me feel unwelcome" by arguing that their experience of the language is wrong, you are in fact being (quite literally) a jerk.

[general_failure]

Regardless of what you think about it, plenty of people agree.

Stop with you condescending bs