Personally, after reading through the comments, I found some particularly important/interesting points:
Really? The simple use of the word "girls" is sexist now?
-Boltclock
@Infinite Recursion: I'm pretty sure the simple act of using a gender word is not inherently sexist (or use of any other description = prejudiced). That being said, it took me more than a few rereads to get that implication given that the only change was a single word, and I have to admit that it is pretty sinister.
-Boltclock
@InfiniteRecursion You should read the whole answer. Context matters. Using “girls” to mean “assistants” is sexist. But the answer related some historical facts where some of the people involved were unmarried women, so “girls” is factual, not sexist, in that context.
-Gilles
@Gilles I am an unmarried woman, so by your definition it would be factual to refer to me as a "girl". I am 65 years old, with a doctorate in computer science, over 30 years working for computer manufacturers, and an inventor on half a dozen US patents. Would you use "boy" to refer to an unmarried man with similar background? If not, that use of "girl" is sexist.
-Patricia Shanahan
Right. So basically we have a two things here:
- the OP wants to specify the gender of the people he was mentioning, which is perfectly harmless
- 'girls' can be taken as offensive, as it can be perceived as referring to a combination of age and gender
Here's how I see it: the OP meant to use girls in the context of girls and guys, not the context of girls and boys. The main difference is that the former is used to specify groups by gender, while the former also specifies age.
Now, seeing as that some people seem to keep assuming the latter as opposed to giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP, we need a better word. Since the tone of the writing is quite casual, ladies may be a better term.
note: IMHO, if you give the benefit of the doubt to OP, girls seems just fine to me.
