4 ms·
There’s an ongoing debate on “guys” being non-inclusive. I don’t personally buy into it, but that doesn’t make it an invalid position. I generally recommend cal
by d4mi3n 8y ago
There’s an ongoing debate on “guys” being non-inclusive. I don’t personally buy into it, but that doesn’t make it an invalid position. I generally recommend calling people what they want to be called and exercising common courtesy.
- jfk13 8y agoThere's certainly a history of "guys" being used specifically for men, as in "Guys and Dolls"; however, there is also an (increasing, I think) acceptance of its use in reference to mixed or even all-female groups. But not everyone is equally comfortable with that usage. In many contexts I think it should be clear enough whether an inclusive or gender-specific meaning is intended, but some people may prefer to avoid any risk of misunderstanding by choosing a different word. And unfortunately, as seems all to common these days, some may choose to see offence where none was intended.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]