thanks to caladri

[tim]

Poll #6370

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 12

View Respondents

Check all that apply.

View Answers

I think that groups including people who are not men can be referred to as "guys".
8 (66.7%)

I think that individual people who are not men can be referred to as "guys".
4 (33.3%)

I think that groups including people who are not women can be referred to as "gals", "girls", or "ladies" (take your pick).
0 (0.0%)

I think that individual people who are not women can be referred to as "gals", "girls", or "ladies" (take your pick).
0 (0.0%)

None of the above.
3 (25.0%)

Tickybox.
7 (58.3%)

Check all the sentences that *don't* sound strange to you, if addressing a group including both men and women. (To simplify things, do what everyone usually does and suppose trans people don't exist.)

View Answers

Guys, it's important to do a testicular self-exam regularly.
5 (45.5%)

Guys, if any of you are pregnant, you shouldn't get too close to this MRI machine.
6 (54.5%)

Both sentences sound strange.
4 (36.4%)

Comments

[winterkoninkje]

Ironically, if the target audience wasn't mixed company then I think all the sentences would sound fine. It's the singling out of some of the audience while using a generic term that should address all of them which makes it sound weird.

Since I couldn't decide on a consistent definition of "can" to use for every question:

[luinied]

I'll use "guys" with groups containing women, whether or not they contain men other than me, if I know it's accepted usage among them to refer to everyone - that is, if I've hear the women in the group use it to refer to everyone else. (I guess this would imply that I'd never use it if there was only one woman in the group, which I think is true.)

On the other hand, I never use terms that can't be seen as non-gendered - "ladies", "girls", "boys", whatever - even when I'm referring to groups of entirely that gender. I guess I might if their gender was actually relevant to what I was saying, but it basically never is. (And I don't think I've ever referred to anyone as a "gal" in my entire life.)

Re: Since I couldn't decide on a consistent definition of "can" to use for every question:

[juli]

(And I don't think I've ever referred to anyone as a "gal" in my entire life.)

Civilization thanks you for your contribution and fine example. Would that others would do so well.

Re: Since I couldn't decide on a consistent definition of "can" to use for every question:

[elladisenchanted]

Yes. I generally want to pull my hair out if referred to as a "gal" or as amongst "gals."

[sixolet]

I don't know whether to answer your poll prescriptively or descriptively. -- "how I hear language used" vs. "how I wish language was used".

[naath]

I think "guys" can be (and is) used of mixed groups (or even all-female groups; but not individual women) I'm not sure how I feel about that.

[lindseykuper]

I feel comfortable saying "guys" to address a group of people, regardless of gender. "Example: "Guys, stop the car, we have to go back and get ice cream." I prefer "guys" in that context to "people" or "folks", which to me both sound like something a manager says to their underlings. I'd never say "gals", "girls", or "ladies" in that context, even if I was referring to a group of all women, because those unnecessarily call attention to their gender.

However, I wouldn't say "There were a bunch of marketing guys at the ice cream shop" unless I was specifically referring to a group of only men. Otherwise, it sounds wrong. "People" or "folks" sound fine to me in that circumstance.

I realize this is inconsistent; nevertheless, it's what sounds right to me. But I'm willing to try to change.