The (Shorter) Oxford English Dictionary says of "guy": 3. A man, a fellow; in pl. also (chiefly N. Amer.), people (of either sex). colloq. (orig. N. Amer.). On

The (Shorter) Oxford English Dictionary says of "guy": 3. A man, a fellow; in pl. also (chiefly N. Amer.), people (of either sex). colloq. (orig. N. Amer.). One of the main situations I've seen "you guys" used is actually women speaking to women. I can see how some women would take offense at it in their dialect "guy" can only mean "A man, a fellow". I personally think the non-gendered plural use of it provides an important grammatical function in a language lacking a second-person plural pronoun. In the southern U.S. they have "y'all", in Pennsylvania they have "yinz", in Elisabethan England they had "ye", but my dialect of English has nothing---except "you guys". It is what we make of it---if we want to be an offensive, sexually scandalizing term then we can have it that way. If we want it to be a useful second-person plural pronoun then we can make it that. I'm hoping for the latter.