I also support the right of people that don't to do so.
But you seem to be against those people accepting consequences of that action. What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or decide to remind them each time that they are offending me? They should accept my decision and not tell me to "grow a thick skin" and pretend that their offensiveness is my fault.
"What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or decide to remind them each time that they are offending me?"
Let me clarify a bit please, I fully support people trying to educate people on potentially sensitive verbiage, and their ability to remove themselves from a situation where they aren't comfortable. I think you are right and my "grow a thick skin" comment was unwarranted so I have put an edit in saying so. My primary issue is this:
Censorship, full stop. Don't like something? Ok, tell the world your reasons, and try to convince it to follow your lead. Don't, however, use "offensiveness" as a tool of censorship of things you don't like. That's my main point, so sorry if I muddled it a bit. Censorship from either point of view is my issue.
Of course, you also have to take into consideration that I am saying this from a decidedly American perspective, where freedom of speech is respected to a higher degree than almost anywhere else.
What part of "hey people, please don't use 'guys'" is censorship?
I still say 'guys' pretty regularly but every time I do I now check in with myself and think "was that a strongly gendered use? could I have said it better". Not because I feel forced to protect everyone around me, but because I want to do better at including people.
"Nice free speech you got there. Shame if there were any 'consequences'..."
True, one of the necessary conditions for free speech is that the government does not punish unpopular views, but another, even more important and vitally necessary condition underlying free speech is the tradition of respectful disagreement. This tradition is one of the prime values of the enlightenment, and it was hard won, emerging as it did from the repressive regimes and brutal religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries where people believed that they were under a divine imperative to eliminate all dissent.
The idea being propounded by the xkcd comic, that it is justifiable to mob, harass, shout down, and punish people you disagree with is deeply incompatible with enlightenment values, and represents a step backwards into barbarism.
It's interesting to see this viewpoint given as a reason to continue using language that we've been told is offensive and exclusionary towards a large group of people. (If you disagree with "offensive and exclusionary," substitute in "plausibly impolite" which doesn't change my main point and seems inarguable.)
The difference is that you see fit to declare holy war over very trivial micro-offences, while the religious factions after the enlightenment managed to interact peacefully despite profound disagreement with each other.
Hey, if you think that I've advocated censorship or claimed that you shouldn't have the right to say "hey guys" to mixed-gender groups, you've misread my comment.
But you seem to be against those people accepting consequences of that action. What if I'm offended and decide to stop hanging out with those people, or decide to remind them each time that they are offending me? They should accept my decision and not tell me to "grow a thick skin" and pretend that their offensiveness is my fault.