(The following comments were moved to here from http://mathoverflow.net/a/222943/2926 The discussion is essentially obsolete since the post was edited to remove mention of "guys".)

"self-conscious guys" -> "self-conscious men and women". Also note the assumption that the OP is male. – Greg Martin 20 hours ago

@GregMartin (a) I use "guys" as a unisex idiom (b) it is not hard to find out who the OP is – Yemon Choi 19 hours ago

Your intention might be for "guys" to be a unisex idiom, but that doesn't make it one. – Greg Martin 10 hours ago

Maybe I better should not as a non-native but...I changed "guys" to "folks" as I think it should be (more) gender neutral but otherwise rather similar. In any case, it seems to translate to the "gens" which might have been what Joël would have written in French. – quid 6 hours ago

@GregMartin Fair point. – Yemon Choi 4 hours ago

@GregMartin - I suppose this is getting more and more off-topic, but it is a fact about modern American English usage that the word "guys" can be used in a gender-neutral way. See, e.g., economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/10/slang – alex 2 hours ago

@alex maybe so, but while the text under your link says: 'But it doesn't go into the fact that in modern American English, "guys" in the plural can be directed at a mixed-sex or even an all-female group.' please note it says "directed at," not say "refer to." Indeed, it later says explicitly: ' "Guys" works as a vocative to an all-girl group: "Let's go, guys!" But it doesn't work as a noun referring to them: "The guys are coming over". (Perhaps some people use "guys" this way for women, but I don't think I've heard it.)' And the latter is the usage present. – quid 58 mins ago

Another fact: We control what language we use. Another fact: Language affects culture, and not always for the better. Using male nouns/pronouns to represent all genders has a long history, of course, but it reinforces our stereotypes that maleness is the "default" human status and femaleness is some sort of add-on. In particular, this reinforces the stereotype that math is a man-thing. And that stereotype is extremely harmful. That is why I choose not to hide behind the "fact" you mention. – Greg Martin 57 mins ago

The same point is made on the SE site for English Language & Usage: "Is 'guy' gender-neutral" – quid 55 mins ago

Although I have no wish to drag things on further (Greg is welcome to email me if he feels this would be profitable, salutory, etc) I suggest that since the text has been corrected, the whole discussion starting with Greg's first comment be moved to chat, so as to avoid someone coming along in a few weeks' time and restarting arguments devoid of initial context. – Yemon Choi 23 mins ago

For what it's worth, I've heard "guys" or "guy" also used as a neuter noun (e.g. referring to a mathematical term as "this little guy"). Also for what it's worth, here's a Language Log discussion (but mostly in the comments, and I think mostly about the vocative form): http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2200 Coming as I do from the American South, I do feel a wistful appreciation for the neatness of the construction "y'all" as a catch-all vocative. :-)

quid's note of usage seems nuanced, and I seemed to agree with it at first, but now I'm not so sure (i.e., I'm truly conflicted). If I say "man, those guys in Congress are really screwing things up", both the 'man' and the 'guys' wouldn't logically entail all-male to me, and rather refer to the collective, and yet I feel unable to refute the idea that there may be some subtle reinforcement at work. So getting back to the MO post, the safest option would be to do what was done -- reword the post -- and move on. I agree with Yemon's assumption that Joel intended gender-neutrality, but probably better safe than sorry in these delicate matters.

Finally: I miss 'tea'. It's nice getting away from points and the rigid question-answer format for a change. :-)