Given all the discussion on this forum regarding the use of inclusive language in the DL, why should Carole take offense to Alex's use of the term, "guys?" ("I'm not a 'guy.' I'm a woman...") According to the dictionary, "guys" is an informal term to include both men and women just as Alex notes. Was it not evident from the context that both sexes where included?
It seems it was not evident for Carole and she offered her viewpoint which I can appreciate. Alex and the dictionary give another viewpoint which is common and documented and therefore, I would hope, acceptable. I had presumed "guys" could be understood as inclusive and am pleased now to be properly informed that it indeed, per dictionary, is.
Regarding issues with the RDL, for instance
man-men, current dictionaries and recent past common usage also indicate that it, too, certainly can be understood as inclusive and therefore, I would hope, acceptable. Besides, man-men is a loaded term theologically which guy-guys is not; consequently, fidelity to the revealed truth being professed must be of primary concern, and I would expect that it (
man-men) be given even greater deference regarding inclusivity. That is, we do not find
for us guys and for our salvation ... He became Guy
but do find in the Greek and Slavonic -- and should want to understand and experience also in the English -- of the Creed the profound truth that
for us men and for our salvation ... He became Man.
Dn. Anthony