#26 - Is the phrase "Hey Guys" just a harmless greeting or a subtle form of exclusion?
An exploration of this casual greeting to assess whether it reflects a bigger cultural pattern.
Language is constantly evolving, and few words illustrate this better than the etymological journey of guys. Once a clearly gendered noun, it has gradually become a catchall term for groups, regardless of gender. On any given day, we might use it to call family to the table (“Hey guys, dinner’s ready”), address colleagues (“Hey guys, let’s kick off this meeting”), or refer to strangers (“...those guys over there”) - all with little to no thought about the gender of those we’re referring to.
For most of us, guys is a friendly and informal term that’s devoid of any intent to exclude. But does that mean it’s truly neutral and inclusive? While guys may not rank as my top linguistic offender in the quest for inclusivity, its widespread use plays into a larger pattern: the minimisation of women in language, and by extension, in society.
From gunpowder to gender neutrality
The evolution of guys is a great example of how words shift over time. Etymologists attribute the popularisation of the term to Guy Fawkes, the 17th-century English conspirator behind the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
In the years that followed the foiled attempt to blow up the House of Lords, effigies of Fawkes - often ragged - were burned on bonfires. [Side note: This is a tradition that is still marked annually on 5th November across the UK, but the effigies have largely been replaced with fireworks]. Because of this association with Fawkes, by the 19th century, guy had become a slang term in Britain for a scruffy or oddly dressed man.
The word eventually made its way to North America where it shed its negative connotation and simply came to mean “man”. Over time, guy evolved even further, expanding into guys as an informal way to address groups. By the late 20th century, its usage had widened to include mixed-gender and even all-female groups. Today, many speakers treat it as effectively gender-neutral - but does that make it fully inclusive?
It’s not just semantics
Linguistic shifts rarely happen overnight, and people are often resistant to change, especially when a word feels deeply embedded in everyday vocabulary. The so-called Culture Wars have further complicated this, creating a climate where some push back against inclusive language, while others shut down for fear of saying the wrong thing.
When the use of guys is challenged, it can feel like an overly pedantic concern because, on the surface, the argument for its gender-neutrality is understandable - it’s convenient and lacks malice. Unlike more overtly exclusionary terms, guys is rarely used with the intent of erasing non-male identities. However impact should always trump intent, and whether or not exclusion is intended, its continued use does reinforce the idea that men are the default - the norm.
While it may seem harmless, we all know language plays a significant role in shaping our perception. Several studies have shown that when masculine words are used generically, people are more likely to picture men, often unconsciously. This pattern extends beyond casual greetings—consider how male-coded language dominates professional and public spaces (mankind, chairman, fireman). No single word alone shifts societal norms, but in a culture where women’s contributions have long been overlooked, even seemingly small linguistic habits contribute to a broader pattern of minimisation.
Image rights: © CPG London
This idea of linguistic “default” applies beyond gender. For example, white people are often referred to simply as “people,” while those who are not are grouped under labels like people of colour or BIPOC, marking them as the “other.” Similarly, members of the trans community have spoken about how broad terms meant to include them can sometimes flatten or minimise individual experiences of transitioning. Language, whether intentionally or not, creates categories - some seen as standard, others as deviations.
So, should we all stop saying “guys”?
In my humble opinion, if you’re looking for a linguistic hill to die on, guys probably isn’t it. But if inclusivity matters to you, we should consider alternatives. Terms like folks, everyone, team, or simply all can serve the same function without automatically centring men.
Ultimately, language isn’t just about words. It’s about the narratives we reinforce, the habits we choose, and the small, everyday ways we can create a more inclusive world.
It goes without saying that the use of inclusive language is meaningless unless it’s underwritten by inclusive actions.
So, hey everyone—maybe it’s time to rethink guys.
March Recommendations:
📻 LISTEN: to Power User podcast with Taylor Lorenz
I’ve followed Lorenz’s career for a few years as she’s one of the few journalists who specialise in studying internet culture. Each week the pod looks at how technology and the internet are impacting the world around us. There’s an impressive back catalogue of episodes but if you’re looking for an entry point, I’d suggest a recent episode entitled How Pop Culture News Is Radicalizing You.
You can listen to Power User on Apple Podcasts and Spotify
📺 WATCH: This TikTok by fashion stylist Jennine Jacob. In the video, Jacob raises thought-provoking questions about fashion terminology, particularly the use of words like classy and old money. She hypothesises whether people truly aspire to look classy or if, subconsciously, they just want to look white. It’s a short watch but packed with insightful questions and sharp fashion-sociological commentary.
As ever, thank you as ever for reading this little newsletter. If you like what you’re reading, please consider sharing it with someone you think would appreciate it too. If you have the time to ‘like’ it by clicking the ♡ that would mean a lot to me, as it’ll help more people see it. Especially given that free newsletters are not promoted by Substack. How unfair is that! 😇.
Until next month, take care of yourselves 💛 and each other,
I’ve thought about this word and the lack of inclusivity for years! Thanks very much for addressing it (and I try my best to change words to be more inclusive when I can in applicable children’s books as well: Firefighters vs Fireman).