I do think it's a tad problematic to refer collectively to people, regardless of their gender, with a term that is traditionally masculine. That implies the "masculine default" that is so much a part of patriarchal culture.

The expression "you guys" is so idiomatic that the masculinity may be lost, but it's one instance in which I think the Southern "y'all" is actually preferable because it is subtly more neutral.

I don't even think it's always wrong to reference gender; there are circumstances where an acknowledgement of it is critical to communicating full meaning. However, this sounds a bit like the argument that "all men are created equal" refers to "mankind" as in "humankind" and everybody knows that "men" doesn't mean "men only," um, right?. I'm not saying that the commenter was correct in responding unkindly, but I disagree with the idea that it doesn't matter that common expressions are not gender-neutral but masculine-default simply because of the frequency of their usage.

I posted this on my journal, to get some feedback...

As fluid as "guys" is, I try not to use it (often in vain, it is deeply ingrained in my vocabulary) because its counterpart, "gals" is not as fluid. This may seem kind of arbitrary, but thinking about this particular language foible, I wondered how most men would react to being called "gals" when in a multi-gendered group. I envisioned at least some recalcitrance, and so I decided using "guys" probably isn't the best thing to do, although like I said I'm not as strict with it as I could be. I also virtually never get offended when someone refers to a group I am included in as "guys" because really, I just have so many other things I'd rather rail against.

I think my example about "gals" is a vital one, though, and I'm interested to see if it would be proven out. Is there a double standard involved in this little word pairing? Is it troublesome that we default to the male of that pairing when talking about a mixed group? Sure it probably doesn't cause any immediate harm to, well, anyone, but it is something to consider.

I don't mind people who deconstruct and criticize our use of language. I enjoy it. I just don't really practice it myself all that often. And if pressed, will usually give way to a view I think is perfectly valid, because it is just not that hard to think about changing my language, and even sometimes a welcome challenge.

1. Being referred to as a "guy" does not bother me. I use it to refer to a group of people of mixed gender, and honestly don't see what the big deal is. I've addressed women with the "Hey man" phrase, and don't see how it could possibly be offensive, unless there is something inherently damaging in being associated with men. You all know I don't buy into gender as biological destiny.

2. I'm pretty certain that one of the staff is male, but I could be wrong.

3. Although I use the term "ladies" indiscriminately as well, I think "guys" is more suitable than "ladies."

And a snarky PS:
If I hear one more person unimaginatively make a gripe while dissing the tagline (i.e. implying and/or stating that we lack brains for whatever reason is most convenient to your own rhetoric) I swear I'm gonna scream. The personal attacks are rude to begin with, but if you are going to do so, be truthful and use some creativity for the love of god.

This is partly an issue of formality v. informality, isn't it? Regular posters are unlikely to take issue with how April chooses to address them, which is probably why you felt comfortable saying 'guys'; but then someone comes in from outside and feels excluded by that. That prickliness seems to me to be as much a consequence of the fact you were relaxed enough not to have to watch your language as of the language itself. It's somebody aware of a 'need' to establish and defend their own feminist credentials, and not understanding that some of us are secure enough in our beliefs not to have to do that in every casual remark we make.

I wasn't offended by the term because I knew you didn't mean it in a sexist way (though you could argue, if you were so minded, that it's slightly anti-male to refer to us as 'guys' when we're being troublesome...)

To clarify, yes, one member of our staff is a man. Several of our readers are male, some are transfolk who don't use gender pronouns. I don't think that makes a case for calling everyone by male-gendered terms; it's just more information. ;)

I hadn't thought about the academic side of feminism on this issue, but the idea of minding our language in casual remarks doesn't appeal to me. I think we're a more relaxed group, and someone very interested in language deconstruction won't find the conversations they're looking for here.

It doesn't personally offend me, and I see your point, but I do sort of agree with house9 as well. If it really came down to it, I guess I'd prefer not to be referred to as "you guys". But I'm not really too concerned about it.

After having lived in Texas for 15 years I do tend to use "y'all" rather than "you guys" but I grew up with "youse guys" being the way everyone was referred to. It never had meaning singularly being "males". I never heard the word "gals" except on television and yeah, it's such a wierd word I hope to never hear it again either. And I think that's the crux. Even if "gals" is the female counterpart of "guys" it is so seldom used that it can be called defunct. Referring to all people as "men" doesn't work (except when I need a bathroom and the one that says "men" doesn't have a line), because the word "women" is still in use. So the bottom line is, I don't mind being called "one of the guys". It's much preferable to "one of the gals".

Another thought as I was writing "fellow Americans" on my blog. How do you feel about "fellow"? There isn't really a female alternative for it. I sometimes use "sister" but given the "no alternative" or "defunct alternative" argument I made in my last comment, I guess we're all "fellows" too.

Not that etymology is the be-all, end-all, as the fluidity of language has been noted here, and while I don't entirely think it's okay to call people "guys" unless the genderization is intentional and meaningful (e.g. a friend's comment to me once that "you're such a guy," meaning that I have a butchy streak), I also agree that in the grand scheme, it's not the biggest deal... a lot of rambling to get to a small point here, which is, to the extent that etymology's useful:

The OED indicates that "guy" derives from Guy Fawkes, and "Guy" has, of course, been a man's name for a very long time. "Fellow," on the other hand, derives from an old English word that means "business partner." I'd argue that "guy" is male and "fellow" is neutral; no feminine equivalent is necessary for a non-gendered word.

To Vic- The "fellow" wouldn't bother me, but "American" might :)
(Considering Canada)