228

I commonly use the word 'guys' to refer to a group of males colloquially. It's colloquial but not rude, off putting, condescending, patronizing (though I wouldn't use it with a group of men at a board meeting (hypothetically of course), unless I knew them). So, some that I would not consider as replacements would be

  • buddies: too old-fashioned
  • dudes: too informal
  • boys: too patronizing
  • men, gentlemen: too formal or false respect

I realized that I had also been using it for any group of people, males and females, even just females. It worked for me and I didn't think of the gender implications, that women might not care for it. No one ever complained, directly or indirectly (rule of life: sometimes people don't complain about things they should).

But it occurred to me (maybe by reading something that sparked realization) that the intended hearers might not all care for it.

What might be a female gendered or non-gendered version of 'guys'?

Some that I've considered don't feel right about (though these may be reasonable answers) are:

  • dolls: too old-fashioned
  • babes: too informal
  • ladies: too formal or I've heard from women, too creepy
  • women: too factual
  • girls: too patronizing (as much as 'boys')
  • everyone, you all: too bland
  • y'all: perfectly non-sexist but too regional (might work, but not everywhere)

Hopefully I haven't eliminated all the possibilities -- any suggestions?

aparente001
  • 21,530
Mitch
  • 71,423
  • 5
    Was wondering about this too. – JFW Apr 02 '11 at 13:55
  • It'd be nice to know from those who might confirm or disconfirm more reliably the female reaction. I could ask people face-to-face, but that can be weird. – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 15:57
  • 61
    ...As a female, I don't have a problem with "guys." I use it myself in the same indiscriminate way. So do all my female friends. We would not say "gals" unless mocking something or other. that's my experience at least. – kitukwfyer Apr 02 '11 at 18:15
  • 8
    From all the answers, it's clear that using a masculine term (eg "guys") is considered sexist (see Leopd's comment), and using a feminine term (eg "gals") is also considered sexist (see The Raven's answer). The only way to be safe, then, is to use a gender-neutral term, eg "people". Of course, if you use "guys" for males and "people" for females, you're just reintroducing a distinction: you should stick to "people" for everyone. – LaC Apr 02 '11 at 23:46
  • 20
    @LaC: That's certainly one way to do it. I think, however, it'd be preferable to just eliminate the masculine connotation of "guys." That seems, from where I stand, to be happening anyway. Why not encourage it? Besides, not to be cliche, but, you can't please everyone. I'm sure there are men and women who would be offended at the asker NOT distinguishing them from the opposite sex. Probably as many as would dislike being so distinguished. I think it's safe to say most people are going to be more concerned with what you have to say than your mode of address. – kitukwfyer Apr 03 '11 at 01:30
  • 2
    we really live in a male world :( – jokoon Apr 03 '11 at 08:12
  • 16
    @kitukwfyer: but then "guys" will go out of fashion, and there will be a new term to refer to males, and the cycle will start anew. We might as well get off the euphemism treadmill and admit that for a man to talk to women is inherently sexist. – LaC Apr 03 '11 at 09:55
  • 1
    @gokoon: Only until we perfect cloning. Then males will be redundant and we can forget all the bother caused by having two sexes! :P...Although, let's face it, it's English. We'd only find more inconsequential things to fuss about XD. – kitukwfyer Apr 03 '11 at 17:45
  • 1
    @Mitch Not sure if this'll make you feel better, but apparently you aren't alone. :) http://www.wastedtalent.ca/comic/it-cant-hurt-ask – kitukwfyer Apr 11 '11 at 21:30
  • @kitukwfyer: lol nice. though hey!!! at the cloning. we have at least one, maybe two OTHER qualities as males >:P – That Realtor Programmer Guy May 06 '11 at 05:38
  • From Limmy's Show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im3Zj9ZBsyU – Hugo Aug 29 '11 at 13:25
  • 1
  • 2
    @LaC you're trolling, right ? – Ven Jun 12 '14 at 09:39
  • 1
    Merriam-Webster defines "guy" as "person —used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex." – Nicole Jan 10 '15 at 01:24
  • Hey! You're list of collective terms for women left out both "dames" and "broads". I'm not recommending anyone use either, unless they want to sound like they just got out of a time machine from the '30s, but as long as we're listing silly collective terms... – Parthian Shot Mar 25 '15 at 23:14
  • @Mitch at the end of your third paragraph you have, "might not all care for it." Shouldn't you say, "might not all agree with it," or "might care for it"? If somebody doesn't care for something, they are indifferent. – ahorn Nov 05 '15 at 21:15
  • 1
    @ahorn You are being too literal. If somebody doesn't care for something, that means they don't like it. "I don't care for key lime pie" means I don't like key lime pie. " I don't care about KLP" could mean you're somewhat noncommittal. – Mitch Nov 05 '15 at 23:10
  • 1
    “Y’all” is regional but “you all” is not. You can simply say “all” or “everyone” which have the benefit of accuracy and inclusiveness. – Simon White Jan 24 '16 at 23:47
  • Slightly relevant, see recent Slate article – Mitch Feb 11 '16 at 14:54
  • Another discussion with link to an article (sort of behind a paywall) stating that 'guys' has been mostly inherently neutral in AusE (and with dictionary support by the Australian Macquarie dictionary). – Mitch Oct 17 '16 at 22:29
  • Related post at Meta.SE: https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/341447/287826 – aparente001 Jan 02 '20 at 05:04

21 Answers21

220

“Guys” can be used in English as gender neutral to refer to a group of mixed gender.

You will even hear women refer to other women as “guys.”

The closest linguistic equivalent with a feminine tilt would be “gals.” “Guys and gals” is a rather informal variant of “ladies and gentlemen.” (Note the reverse order.)


Edit: As noted by @kitukwfyer in the question comments, it is possible for “gals” to be derogatory when used by itself so be careful. It’s not likely to be a problem used in the pairing above. Used carefully it’s probably safe, but used by itself it could be heard as mockery.

Saying the following is unlikely to offend anyone:

“The gals talked in the kitchen while the guys went out to see Fred’s new truck.”

But walking up to a couple women on a street corner and saying this might get a strange reaction:

“Excuse me gals, where is the grocery store?”

Saying this to a couple girls might make them doubt you:

“Hey gals come with me.”

But if you are explaining some game instructions and say the following it’s likely to be fine:

“Alright, guys on this side of the room, gals on the other.”

Caleb
  • 4,339
  • 2
    Saying "guys" is a valid gender neutral pronoun is a lot like saying "he" is a valid gender neutral third-person singular pronoun. Although many style manuals said this was true for a long time, it is now generally considered sexist. – Leopd Apr 02 '11 at 17:57
  • 12
    @Leopd The usage I hear on the street says this is going the opposite direction. I understand the now much more restricted use of "he" in neutral contexts in favor of "they" (even for singular) and the like, but usage among the fairer folkd of "guys" seems to be going the opposite way. – Caleb Apr 02 '11 at 18:03
  • 41
    +1: I hear females call other females "guys" all the time. e.g. "Come on, guys - hurry up." (even if the group is 100% female) I've heard it used this way on television quite a bit too. (mostly by younger generations, though) – Adam Apr 02 '11 at 18:54
  • 6
    @Leopd is it really sexist? Does that mean languages like Finnish are sexist, because they have only one non-gendered pronoun? –  Apr 02 '11 at 19:32
  • 3
    @Noah: No it doesn't mean that for Finnish. English has two pronouns, so using one over the other is discriminatory. If all you have is one, then it isn't naturally gendered. – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 20:04
  • 3
    The real problem here isn't Finish (or Turkish which I speak and also doesn't have gender pronouns), it's whether there is any evidence to back up @Leopd's statement that using "guys" neutrally "is now generally considered sexist". The vast majority opinion here seems to say the opposite. – Caleb Apr 02 '11 at 20:21
  • @Caleb Vast majority? I'm not weighing in either way, but are you using this comment thread to make that deduction? – jbelacqua Apr 02 '11 at 20:25
  • 11
    @Mitch It's only "discriminatory" if you attach masculinity to the word "guys". I do not. (Discrimination also implies intent, so I think you've crossed the line there.) My choice of "he" to refer to everyone is arbitrary, therefore, I do not discriminate. –  Apr 03 '11 at 00:02
  • @Noah: I understand how you can think that way but don't agree with it. Also current cultural practice also disagrees (see Leopd's comment). – Mitch Apr 03 '11 at 02:15
  • 3
    +1 To the question, for raising an interesting potential linguistic bias. @Noah: The problem is precisely that discrimination doesn't imply, or require, intent; it's frequently the completely unconscious discrimination that's the most painful to experience. I agree with you completely that it's relevant only if "guys" implies masculinity, and it's definitely moving away from that meaning... but the roots are definitely still there. (Related: your choice of "he" may be arbitrary, but unless you chose it by tossing a coin, it possibly wasn't a 50-50 random choice.) – Tynam Apr 03 '11 at 12:32
  • @Tynam not sure what you mean by "unconscious discrimination." For example? –  Apr 03 '11 at 12:40
  • 5
    @Noah: I just typed a detailed real-world example, then realised it no longer has anything to do with this question, so I'm going to summarize, then stop. Simple example: Humans unconsciously favour tall people. If you ask the boards of major companies how they pick the boss, you'll hear about intelligence, drive, business skills, experience. They'd mostly deny - honestly meaning it - that height has anything to do with it. But somehow Fortune 500 CEOs average nearly 6' tall - statistically a massive shift from the general population average. We don't decide on the basis we think we do! – Tynam Apr 03 '11 at 14:44
  • I said "discrimination implies intent," not "discrimination requires intent," but I'll let the Court draw the lines. –  Apr 03 '11 at 15:09
  • 1
    @Tynam: It's only a couple of inches off from the average American guy. Which probably at least ¾ of them are. – intuited Apr 04 '11 at 09:32
  • 8
    @Noah: Fair enough. @intuited: A lot more than 3/4; right now 485 out of 500 are men. But there's no "only" about it - because that's still more women than men under 5'6". In one of the most notoriously glass-ceiling, male-dominated areas in business, being a short man is even worse for your chances than being a tall woman. (Of course, women average shorter, so gender-bias is related. Would you like to guess how many below-average-height women are in that list? If you're one of the 25% of humans who're female and below average height - here's a job you're not allowed to have.) – Tynam Apr 04 '11 at 11:40
  • An article linked from a recent post on SE blog warns about the use of guys in gender-neutral meaning and offers alternatives: Ways Man In Tech Are Unintentionally Sexist – Palec Aug 19 '15 at 07:42
112

I often use folks when addressing a group, both in public speaking and in email. Admittedly, it is a bit, er, folksy for business email, but it saves me time in thinking about the issue.

Edit: another informal term is gang. For email, I would only use this for colleagues within my department or team, and not to those outside of the team. e.g. "Hey gang, remember that the server is being rebooted tonight."

  • 3
    I agree with this assessment. It works, but with a ...folksy connotation. – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 15:53
  • 9
    Folks is good, it doesn't come of as derogatory like gals does. – dan_waterworth Apr 02 '11 at 19:24
  • 4
    +1 for 'gang' too (if I could) – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 20:06
  • 7
    I'm not a huge fan of folks, though I can't quite put my finger on it. Perhaps it sounds a bit rural? – Cerberus - Reinstate Monica Apr 03 '11 at 03:52
  • Cerberus (and Mitch), a fair point. That is one danger... I think it can be mitigated with proper tone of the email (much as one can use "ain't" in a crisp way), but that is subjective on my part. – Michael Easter Apr 03 '11 at 13:12
  • Gang is really Scooby-Doo. – intuited Apr 04 '11 at 09:34
  • 3
    Despite the popularity of 'guys' as a gender neutral term for 'guys', I'm going to accept this one as 'the answer'. 'gals' and 'ladies' don't sound right. And most likely, in actual practice, I will probably go with "hey y'all" (natural in my idiolect) or the boring "hey, everybody". To really decide on "guys"'s (or any word for that matter) acceptability, we'd have to do a real trial, account for gender of the hearer and speaker, etc, etc. – Mitch Apr 05 '11 at 13:30
  • @Michael: sorry for the 'unaccept'...I asked around (to women) and they universally said 'guys' was OK. I'm still suspicious, but the real live data won out. – Mitch May 15 '11 at 18:40
  • I like the folksy-ness of folks, but in the service industry, this is used as cover for calling people fucks: "Have a good night, fucks; hope you enjoyed your dinner!" (I hope I don't lose my HIP card for sharing that with the mundanes.) – Kit Z. Fox May 16 '11 at 19:16
  • 1
    "Hi all," or "Hi everyone," are also greetings I use and hear frequently in business, both in addressing a room and in email. "Folks" or "gang" are only used for a small team, as you said. Still, I hear these more than "guys," except when I am among mostly speakers who are my peers or younger. – aedia λ May 24 '11 at 16:08
  • I agree with Michael - "folks" is the best gender-free term, though if you feel it's unnatural, just say it with more conviction. This is easy for me, since I live in the Midwest. Usually best to err on the side of excess formality - at worst, it sounds like you care too much about formality. – chinoso Apr 02 '11 at 18:02
103

Especially in these rapidly changing times, we must be careful not to make false assumptions about our addressees.

For this reason, it’s important to use broad, inclusive appellations like sentient life forms and beings.

If there is a chance that one or more of the group members may have ceased to be by the time your utterance has been processed, you should use the term entities or conceptual units. If all bets are off, you can’t fail to address the addressees appropriately and correctly with the term addressees.

Canadians is also universally acceptable.

intuited
  • 1,396
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 6
    I'll admit, that last one made me smile...:) – kitukwfyer Apr 04 '11 at 18:16
  • 13
    OK, this one's hilarious. – Tynam Apr 05 '11 at 08:13
  • 6
    Well, addressees is better than To Whom It May Concern . I don't know what other Beings think, though. – jbelacqua Apr 08 '11 at 02:39
  • 7
    Cripes, where's the like button? – Kit Z. Fox May 16 '11 at 19:18
  • 5
    Effectively covers ALL corner cases - perfect. – Ricibob Mar 29 '13 at 18:10
  • 4
    This was funny until the random "Canadians" comment that holds relevance only to about 5% of the world's population. This is an international community. This is not an "American" community. Thank you. – Lightness Races in Orbit Jun 12 '14 at 09:32
  • 25
    Nice, though sentient life forms makes some assumptions about the audience that I cannot always in good faith make. – Paul Draper Jul 02 '14 at 05:29
  • 2
    "If there is a chance that one or more of the group members may have ceased to be..." You must be referring to the metabolically challenged addressees? – Teemu Leisti Mar 12 '15 at 12:36
  • 1
    I notice a lot of guys think they get to decide if language is sexist or not, even to the point of "correcting" women. That's not how it works, guys. – neuronet Dec 11 '15 at 17:16
  • You, dear addressee, have a fine sense of humor. Hats off! – Luis Artola May 23 '16 at 18:49
  • 2
    This language is technically correct -- the best kind of correct! But it potentially excludes those who believe in the interconnectedness of all beings, since they don't believe in individual things. – Ber Nov 23 '16 at 11:04
  • All: on second thought, "all" works for the latter edge case and is colloquial English to boot. – Ber Nov 23 '16 at 11:15
  • 4
    @LightnessRacesinOrbit I was under the impression that Canadians had been discovered —and found to be typically likeable— by the peoples of many countries outside of America. Is this not the case? – intuited Dec 03 '16 at 15:12
  • @intuited: I would agree that Canadians are generally considered likeable, but not to the degree that we'd go out of our way to substitute the term "Canadians" for a more generic term. We don't really think about Canadians on a day-to-day basis, or really ever unless something topical comes up. The origin of the substitute term's use in this answer (and the social factor upon which the "joke" relies) is geographical proximity, and that only applies to a fraction of its audience. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 03 '16 at 15:15
  • +1 I would have said critters, but this might be offensive to non-squishy intelligent life forms, such as the REALLY intelligent AI entities that we are now being told to fear. – ab2 Feb 10 '18 at 21:28
33

Gals comes to mind, as in the commonly used expression guys and gals.

Guffa
  • 9,561
  • 8
    As much as this seems to be a parallel ('guys and gals' is a phrase) using 'gals' feels too dated to me. – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 15:51
  • 4
    @mitch: Not in south-eastern USA. I hear it very often. – Adam Apr 02 '11 at 18:55
  • 3
    In southern UK 'guys and gals' is pretty dated too, but it's still quite common among middle-aged speakers (often with self-mocking overtones).Younger people on average seem to avoid acknowledging in their standard chit-chat that these gender differences even exist. Much as most of us don't feel the need to keep distinguishing the blacks folks from the white folks, in ordinary conversation in multiracial company. – FumbleFingers Apr 02 '11 at 22:36
  • @FumbleFingers: Sadly, I've found that we in the UK are ahead of the international curve on that one. – Lightness Races in Orbit Oct 14 '14 at 09:28
  • It should be ladies and gentlemen or people, if you talk about different genders, and guys to me sounds like guys only which are men only. Women and Men are different so it does matter that you point out which gender they are, it's the same with Black, Yellow and White people, they look different and have different cultures, so it does matter. – AnonymousUser Dec 07 '22 at 05:16
22

You can also use guys to address a group of women. See my response to the question "What is the possessive of 'you guys'?"

Robusto
  • 151,571
18

"Gals" is, while traditional, also diminutive, patronizing, and potentially chauvinistic. It is possible to use "gals" in certain contexts, but these are carefully circumscribed.

As others note above, women are commonly seen to use "guys" among themselves and that's a safe default when in doubt.

The Raven
  • 12,593
  • 2
    Agree about 'gals', but I'm finding that 'guys' just doesn't sound right to women...coming from a guy. – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 20:12
  • @Mitch Agreed.... I don't know of a good substitute. I tend to use an opening phrase like, 'Could you all....' – jbelacqua Apr 02 '11 at 20:27
  • I have found the acceptance of 'gals' to be largely geographic also. – Sam Apr 03 '11 at 01:43
14

As many people have noted, it's perfectly appropriate to call a group of girls "guys."

If it's really making you uncomfortable, you can also just say "people." Among my circle of friends we say "peoples," but obviously that's informal. Girls also use "ladies" among themselves pretty informally, although I have to agree, coming from a male it would seem...stilted in most contexts, and perhaps a little odd.

Theoretically, you could just dispense with it entirely. Just say "Hey...!" Or wave your arms around a bit. That'll get attention, and, in a colloquial setting, it probably won't be the bad kind. Still, definitely trust your own judgement when it comes to arm-waving.

If you really need help, why not ask the women in your family or close friends what they like to be called? Odds are they'll have the best answer for wherever you actually are.

kitukwfyer
  • 3,753
11

Like Guffa, I'd go with gals, which is the most “symmetric” term to guys.

Apart from that, you have lasses (mostly Scottish, though), chicks (a tad derogatory), maiden (dated), damsels (literary), wenches (archaic and derogatory).

F'x
  • 38,736
10

Apart from guys, which is fine and the most obvious choice, as others have mentioned, you could use ladies, which has a tinge of both irony and flattery. Most women appreciate this. Ladies is best accompanied by slightly exaggerated punctilio if the speaker is a man.

  • 'Ladies' has too much connection with its parallel 'gentlemen'. What is 'punctilio'? – Mitch Apr 02 '11 at 16:44
  • According to Merriam-Webster: 1: a minute detail of conduct in a ceremony or in observance of a code 2: careful observance of forms (as in social conduct) – PSU Apr 02 '11 at 18:47
  • 1
    Wow, I thought I knew what punctilio meant before I read the definition. Now I have no idea. – intuited Sep 03 '12 at 13:21
9

For a non-gendered rather than feminine option, you might consider:

Peeps (informal)

People (often used to refer to a person’s friends or associates)

Example:

thanks for the feedback, peeps!

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/peeps

8

It's lose-lose. There's always someone you'll upset or offend no matter which word you use. So instead what you do is figure out what person considers which term to be derogatory and which term to be complimentary, and figure out which type of person you'd actually rather be friends with. Pick that word, and use it. If you offend someone, they're not the type of person you want to associate with anyway.

For this reason I usually stick with 'girls' - I've never met anyone I liked who took offense to it. I've never had to deal with teenagers, who are the only girls I would say might have a legitimate claim to it being patronising, so I might go with 'ladies' but not 'young ladies' in that case.

migo
  • 375
  • 3
    Hmm, perhaps you and I like different types of friends, but unless you're around the same age, or if you're flattering older females, I've found that adult females tend to view being referred to as 'girls' (legitimately, IMHO), condescending or patronizing, particularly for short or petite females. OTOH, referring to teenagers (esp. younger ones) as 'girls' or 'young ladies' seems appropriate, being careful to not use those words in a derogatory way. As you say, some will take offence at anything, but they are, in fact, what those words describe. whereas calling them 'ladies' seems obsequious. – GlennFromIowa Nov 26 '14 at 23:40
6

Dolls. the analogous term for females is Dolls, hence Guys and Dolls

  • 7
    Where I grew up, "doll" would be considered on the level of "darling" or "sweetie," which is to say I wouldn't advise using it unless you want to seem overbearing and quite possibly a creeper, unless you're family, in which case I'd think it was mockery. Note: I grew up in Virginia. – kitukwfyer Apr 03 '11 at 01:36
  • its a play, i was screwin around – jon_darkstar Apr 03 '11 at 03:47
  • 1
    Facetious but funny. I was going to raise this for discussion anyway, as the musical in particular is evidence that "guys" is still partly a gendered term. – Tynam Apr 03 '11 at 12:34
  • @Tynam, I'm not sure a play from the 1950s can be considered modern, especially given the massive spike in popularity of the term "guys" that occurred in the mid-60s – Adam Katz Mar 06 '15 at 03:08
  • @AdamKatz: That is a good point, but I would assert that the large increase in the use of "guys" in the 60s-70s is still using it in the same, gendered, way. I can't recall a source for the mixed-gender usage before the late 70s / 80s. (The rise since then clearly includes the modern, mixed-group usage.) – Tynam Mar 06 '15 at 09:00
6

Well this one may be beaten to death, let me add one note that seems to have been glossed over: In practice, terms for men and women are not necessarily symmetrical.

For example, by the dictionary definition, ladies and gentlemen are parallel terms. But in practice, ladies is often used as a generic term for a group of women where we would be very unlikely to say "gentlemen" if they were men. Likewise, it is common for people to say, "The ladies in our club ..." But they would rarely say, "The gentlemen in our club ..." -- not unless they were trying to make some sort of point about the membership. They would almost certainly say, "The men in our club ..." A bathroom for males is routinely called "the men's room" while the equivalent for women is usually called "the ladies' room", not "the women's room".

If you call a 40-year-old man a "boy", he is likely to take that as a put-down. But it is common to refer to women of any age as "girls". Some women find the term demeaning, but most do not. It depends on context, of course. (Personally, I suspect the difference here is that women generally like people to under-guess their age, while men prefer to be thought of as "mature". I think an amusing research project would be to ask people what age they would most like people to think they are, or what age they think is "ideal". I suspect women would average at something in the early 20's, while men would average around 40. Just speculating wildly.)

If a man refers to another man as his "boyfriend", everyone would assume this means that they are homosexual lovers. But women frequently refer to other women as their "girlfriends" with no such connotation.

You also sometimes get very specific connotations. Like, a "ladies' club" is normally understood to mean an informal, non-commercial social group for women, like a book club or a charitable organization. But a "gentlemen's club" is understood to be a business that features alcohol and strippers.

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
Jay
  • 36,223
5

I actually rather agree that gals is the closest, at least in more civil conversations. Not to be crude but I've got to say: 'bitches' comes pretty close in many circles these days to being a similar level of gender neutrality and similar usage while technically maintaining gender-bias. :)

Common when referring to mixed-gender groups:

How's it going guys?

-

What's up bitches?

Of course when it comes to being polite and avoiding offense, this isn't very useful! If in doubt and somehow in a critical situation, keep it ultra neutral: Hello everyone; hi people.

Usually, while I find gals closer, guys and ladies seem to match up more kindly. They don't flow very well in the same sentence however.

  • 8
    No, bitches is the feminine version of niggaz. – intuited Apr 04 '11 at 09:11
  • 1
    I see lol, missed that when u posted it first. The differences in urban dialects has always fascinated me ;D – That Realtor Programmer Guy May 06 '11 at 05:29
  • 1
    Thank you, this comparison made me crack up. (That said, I only refer to all male parties as "guys" and never refer to "bitches" or "dolls" except in jest. "Hey you guys" and similar phrases are not really in my vernacular due to this.) – Adam Katz Mar 06 '15 at 03:11
4

In this context it often means "people" as much as or more than "males".

4

I disagree with using the word "guys" when addressing a group of women. You would not address one of them individually as a guy obviously. You could say, as I often do, "She's a nice gal;" however, you would never say, "She's a nice guy."

Nonetheless, I think we use far too many colloquial words and expressions these days, and could stand to formalize our speech a little. "Ladies," to me, is the best way to address a group of women.

DAWR
  • 411
  • I heartily agree that most social and business situations would benefit from a bit more formality. I find "guys" offensive when applied to women, and equally when applied to men in a formal setting. "Guys" is pseudo-friendly. – Theresa Oct 13 '14 at 22:19
  • So what about the custom of singing "For she's a jolly good fellow"? I always thought that was odd (and singing it is probably much less common than it used to be, in general), but that's somewhat analogous. Although, I believe saying "She's a nice guy" about a woman might be slightly better accepted than if you said about a man, "He's a nice gal." ;) – GlennFromIowa Nov 26 '14 at 22:49
  • Lots of people use "nice guy" to refer to women. And plenty of women say, "No more Mr. Nice Guy" when they're at the end of their rope. – aparente001 Jan 02 '20 at 05:01
3

Lady-guys?

Although lady-boys seems to have a slightly different meaning.

tchrist
  • 134,759
mgb
  • 24,191
3

Posting an answer in 2020 since the question — and accepted answer — date back to 2011 and I believe some things might have changed between now and then.

While “gals” is technically be the feminine version of “guys”, I would recommend avoiding it if at all possible.

This is especially true in business and professional settings where people are not necessarily there to be “friends” but you aren’t enemies and you ultimately have to work together in some functional way.

While Caleb’s answer — the currently accepted answer — is well thought out and provides some decent rationale, I find it a bit problematic. At its core, the word “guy” is clearly defined as “A man.” in the Oxford English Dictionary and “Man, Fellow” the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the Merriam-Webster definition also accounts for a plural “guys” by stating the following:

“Used in plural to refer to the members of a group regardless of sex.”

The fact that the singular is gendered and the plural is neutral might not seem like a big deal, but in many ways it makes no sense as a general rule and — honestly — seems confusing.

So I did some research and found some pertinent online posts, articles and resources that discuss the issue. My personal big takeaway from this stuff is that in casual use, “guys” is an acceptable gender neutral plural. But in more formal business and professional settings but should be avoided.

For example, this Vox piece from June 2015 quotes Jeane Anastas, a professor of social work at the NYU Silver School of Social Work who states:

“Whatever Webster’s dictionary says about the plural ‘guys’ and despite the fact that I sometimes catch myself saying ‘you guys’ to people of all genders, ‘guy’ is a gendered word.”

And this August 2018 article in The Atlantic refers to this 2002 essay by Sherryl Kleinman, a former professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, titled “Why Sexist Language Matters (PDF)” which states in simplest of terms:

“That women primarily exist in language as ‘girls’ (children), ‘sluts’ (sex objects) and ‘guys’ (a subset of men) makes it less of a surprise that we still have a long list of gendered inequalities to fix.”

This piece in ABC Life from August 2019 focuses on the business and professional side of things with this quote from Lisa Annese from the Diversity Council Australia:

“In the workplace, you cannot reasonably predict the impact that your words have on other people. If you’re a leader and you’re addressing a whole group of people, isn’t it better to use a more accurate term?”

And this April 2019 post from HotJar’s blog echoes the sentiments of how even if the intentions were good; the effect can still be negative to those who don’t identify as “guys”:

“Even though most people who use the term don’t do so with the intent of it being sexist or exclusive of women, it can and often does cause women to feel left out of the conversation.”

The overall point being that while “guys” is currently considered gender neutral to some, the fact that it’s singular is clearly gendered makes the word truly problematic in the literal sense.

So my advice is to just use gender neutral — yet welcoming and friendly — phrases like these when dealing with business and professional situations:

  • “Hey everybody!”
  • “Hey people!”
  • “Hey all!”
  • “Hey y’all!”
  • “Howdy folks!”
  • “Welcome team!”
  • “Ladies and gentlemen!”

And in casual situations? That is your judgement of course. Heck, you can say something like, this in in casual situations:

  • “Hey jerks!”
  • “Deadbeats! How are you doing?”
  • “How do you do, fellow kids!”

Because at the end of the day, being a jerk, deadbeat or an old creep pretending to be a kid is a genderless role.

2

I use "guys" or "folks" for both genders if the group is mixed, "ladies" if the group is distaff. I used to begin business correspondence with "gentlemen" but have been slapped down about it to the point where I substitute "gentlebeings", "gentles" or some other coinage unless I'm sure I'm addressing a sexually homogeneous audience (which gets "gentlemen" or "ladies" as appropriate). God only knows what I'll do with all the varieties in between...maybe just revert to "hey" and be done with it.

PSU
  • 1,826
2

Less is more. In face-to-face meetings you can probably drop the term "guys" completely.

If you think about it, the main purpose of these locutions is to get attention and unite the speaker with the listener at the beginning of a speech, as in Friends, Romans and countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to bury Caesar, etc.

The difficulty of finding a good substitute for "guys" suggests that the usage itself may be obsolete.

2

Surprisingly, it appears that nobody has mentioned the very simple term: "women". Quite often, I've heard men refer to other members of a group as "men" (usually followed by an imperative of some sort):

Men, let's get down to business...

But I do admit that it generally tends to be used in a humorous sense more often than not. And it's probably true that its female counterpart "women" is very rarely used when addressing a group. Still, I thought it was worth mentioning.

(By the way, in Ireland, groups of rural women in particular often refer to each other as "lads".)