I know. I'm not questioning the intention, I'm requesting the term not be used that way -- it is known to alienate people.

Communication is a two-way street. A polite speaker has to take into consideration how their audience wants to be addressed, but polite listeners need to take into consideration that the speaker's words are the speaker's. My autistic brother will get very anxious when he anticipates a specific phrase in response to something but the person words it differently from how he expects, and he then insists that the person repeat the phrase with the "correct" version. The motivation is different from blind political-correctness, but the crime is the same. Words are symbolic of experience, and even though we all generally agree on what words mean, different people associate them with different experiences, so they essentially have reimplementation of the same word. Why should one person have to fully accomodate one person's implementation of "guy" while the other person just ignores what they know the first person means by that word?

> it is known to alienate people.

So is language policing.

The Rust Code of Conduct [0] states:

Don’t just aim to be technically unimpeachable, try to be your best self. In particular, avoid flirting with offensive or sensitive issues, particularly if they’re off-topic; this all too often leads to unnecessary fights, hurt feelings, and damaged trust; worse, it can drive people away from the community entirely.

You've brought up something off-topic (and potentially sensitive) when there was no real need, and definitely no ill-intent in the original - and just like the code of conduct predicted, it's already starting to develop in to unnecessary bickering.

This sort of language policing is exactly the type of thing that can drive people away from a community - and was not really necessary in the original context.

As per the Rust Code of Conduct the correct response would have been:

if someone takes issue with something you said or did, resist the urge to be defensive. Just stop doing what it was they complained about and apologize

Now, before you go on to defend yourself, the CoC further states:

Even if you feel you were misinterpreted or unfairly accused, chances are good there was something you could’ve communicated better

And that's something worth considering.

Now, I know that the Rust Code of Conduct states that it is only enforced on official Rust venues, and so there is no expectation of you following it here on HN, but as a respected member of the Rust community I would hope it was something you would still follow in a public forum, out of respect for what it stands for.

[0] - https://www.rust-lang.org/conduct.html

You know, if you feel the need to make an account to post what amounts to a rules lawyering comment to what you perceive as a language police comment, perhaps you're taking the wrong approach. There are less blunt methods.

You are right, and I apologize.

It was done to belabor a point. Namely that for a community that aims to be welcoming, belaboring that point can actually make it less welcoming.

It is taxing to participate in an environment where common language usage causes people to take offense where none is given or intended.

Using the word "guys" to describe Rust developers is not offensive; it's just incorrect.

How is it incorrect - 'guys' (plural) is not gender specific, and refers to groups of people regardless of gender.

In addition to general usage anecdotes (of women using this word to address groups of women), I'm happy to provide dictionary citations if you'd like?

"Guys" is a fairly complex term[1]. Its common gender association changes when used plurally from male (when used singularly) to non-gendered. Like "man", when used in place of "humanity", I believe it's a holdover from a time when it was entirely acceptable to be dismissive of half the race. As such, it's probably appropriate to be at least a little sensitive to the topic, since it's not just a matter or speech norms, but a reference to past inequality.

1: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gend...

> I believe it's a holdover from a time when it was entirely acceptable to be dismissive of half the race.

Ironically, when it was entirely acceptable to be dismissive of half the race, separate words were used - explicitly calling out a difference between groups. 'Guys' as a gender neutral term is a relatively recent phenomenon, and in many ways is an equalizing term.

> As such, it's probably appropriate to be at least a little sensitive to the topic

Alternatively you could argue that it's appropriate not to be over-sensitive to common, and innocent, language usage.

Later in this thread, someone even uses it specifically to refer to only men:

> The reason I said hostile is that in most discussions on Hacker News and Reddit a lot of people argue that the only reason women are so under-represented in tech is that all the guys are very hostile to women. This survey goes against that. For some reason they refuse to believe that some things are more interesting to women than men and vice versa.

I can happily find a reference (though not in this thread) to a woman using it to refer to a group of all women if you like...

Since we both have anecdotes, anecdotes are clearly not going to "solve" this.

> it is known to alienate people

I've not heard this before. Citation?