AITA for using the word guy to refer to a woman?
In today’s evolving social landscape, even casual language choices can spark heated debates. A young man from a botany lab recently found himself at the center of one such debate when he casually bid farewell to his group—consisting of two men and one woman—with the familiar “see you guys later.”
His female lab mate, who’d given off “um, actually” vibes since day one, wasn’t having it. She promptly retorted that his greeting excluded her by implying that only men were addressed as “guys.” This minor moment quickly escalated into a larger discussion about the inclusivity of everyday language.
This incident sheds light on the delicate balance between habitual speech and conscious inclusivity. While many have grown up using “guys” and “y’all” as gender-neutral terms, not everyone feels comfortable with the practice—especially in environments that are trying to be more sensitive to gender issues. This clash of perspectives in a professional setting highlights how our everyday words, though intended casually, can be interpreted in ways that spark significant debate.
‘AITA for using the word guy to refer to a woman?’
Language is an ever-evolving tool, and its usage can reveal as much about our social values as it does about tradition. Renowned linguist Geoffrey Pullum has often noted that many words in English evolve far beyond their original meanings, becoming flexible and, in many cases, serving as gender-neutral terms in casual contexts.
In this instance, the young man’s use of “guys” reflects a long-standing habit rooted in everyday vernacular—a habit that, for many, has become divorced from its gender-specific origins. However, the expert perspective also recognizes that language carries emotional weight. While “guys” is widely used and accepted in informal speech, it can still trigger discomfort among individuals who are more attuned to gender inclusivity.
In settings like a modern botany lab, where diversity and sensitivity are increasingly valued, even well-intentioned words may inadvertently exclude or diminish others’ identities. The incident underscores a broader point: when communicating in diverse environments, it might be beneficial to adjust our language, not because one term is inherently wrong, but because the impact on others matters.
Ultimately, the balance lies in respecting established habits while remaining open to evolving language norms that reflect a more inclusive society.
Here’s what Redditors had to say:
Reddit’s community was split yet vocal on the issue. A significant number of commenters defended the casual, gender-neutral use of “guys,” emphasizing that it has long been part of everyday language without any negative intent. They argued that the young man’s greeting was simply a friendly, informal sign-off.
On the other hand, several users highlighted that words have origins and connotations, and what feels natural to some might feel exclusive to others—especially in fields like STEM, where inclusivity is actively promoted. Overall, many agreed that while the intent wasn’t malicious, being open to alternative greetings like “folks” or “everyone” could prevent unnecessary friction in diverse work environments.
This story forces us to reconsider the intersection of habit and inclusivity in our daily language. Is it fair to hold onto a term that many view as benign, or should we evolve our vocabulary to accommodate shifting social norms? Can a casual greeting inadvertently undermine the inclusive culture we strive to create? We invite you to share your experiences and opinions.
What do you think—should language adapt to reflect a more inclusive mindset, or is intent enough to justify its continued use? Join the conversation and help us navigate these subtle yet impactful aspects of communication.
