alienated

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...

> 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.

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?

> but I see no reason to think the diversity of background has any impact on technical contributions

Exactly this. The internet is the great equalizer. There is no need for anyone to know anything about me unless I choose to bring it up.

For a technical project, conducted and run over the internet, my work can stand entirely on its merits in a way that would not be possible in a regular office environment.

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.

Since you are prepared to make that argument, in what way will it benefit?

Does the color of my skin, my gender or my sexual orientation matter when providing feedback for a project such as this?

I would argue that those things are entirely irrelevant in this context, and wouldn't want them connected/associated with any contribution I made.

> 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