"Guy" and "dude" are definitely gender-nonspecific these days, and I don't mean just in tech. When those tapes of Tiger Woods were leaked, he called his mistresses "dude". Language has evolved.
While it's certainly possible (and I'd argue true) that they're less gender-specific than they were previously, I think the fact that we're discussing a blog post from a woman saying she felt excluded by "guys" is a pretty clear sign that it's not a gender-neutral term.
Well, I think in many cases the intent by the speaker is to be gender-neutral, including in the cases OP shows. It can be ambiguous and off-putting to others though, and in other areas people usually accommodate (e.g. female chair members are "chairwoman", not "chairman").
It does bring up an interesting subject: what is a good colloquial or informal way of specifying a plural of an individual unit for these sorts of things without resulting to annoying chaining of multiple words like "guys/girls" or "men/women"? DevOps "guys" is out. DevOps "people" doesn't use individual units. DevOps "monkeys" or "ninjas" are kind of gender neutral but sound very...stupid. DevOps-ers sounds awkward. I guess you could go with something like "gurus" but not every hire is going to be a guru.
I suppose the safest option is "DevOps engineers", but that adds some additional formality and isn't so colloquial or simple.
"Folks" doesn't abide by the unit requirement. And the others you offered sound a bit awkward and formal (and also don't really meet the requirement either).
"Folks" is probably the closest thing you'll get though.
Just the other day I overheard a group of teenage girls playing soccer, with one of them periodically referring to her teammates as "hey guys." It was odd enough to me that I took note of it.
I disagree. Many people attempt to use it as a non-gendered pronoun, but I don't think that makes it inherently "gender-nonspecific".
Think of it this way. When you call a male-identifying person "guy" it affirms their gender. When you call a non-male-identifying person "guy" it passively denies theirs. "Guy" is not gender nonspecific, and when you use it that way, it has the potential to make a non-male person feel like their gender identity is being assimilated into your idea of a "guy", whatever that is.
Another thought to leave you with. "Guy" == male when the gender of the person it refers to has not been established. Suppose someone tells you "I saw this guy biking down the street the other day..." Do you ever imagine that they're talking about a woman?
If you believe this is an issue of people simply "taking offense", then I don't think you fully understand this issue. This is a matter of people feeling unwelcome and outcast. Try and place yourself in the author's shoes.
If someone is genuinely friendly and welcoming, and you reject their company because you look for and find offence where none was intended, then that's kinda your problem, not theirs.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
