The term 'guys' is a regionalism, used to mean "a group of people" in much of the US, and (because Hollywood) increasingly throughout the English-speaking world.
In the UK, few communities will tell you off for the term "guys" implying that the group is actually comprised of mannequins designed to be burned on a bonfire; in the US, few will tell you off for implying it is comprised of males.
There are some online subcultures which do object to gendered regionalisms like this - and speaking of regionalisms, I'm not sure why, but this class of communities seems to be very much a California thing. They're not a Left-wing thing, though: I very much doubt you'll ever encounter this in any Austin-based community, for example!
In general, though, any online subculture which has a policy of shaming any terms of regionalized speech such as "youse guys", "guys", "folks", "chaps" or "y'all" is discriminatory, unpleasant, and toxic: such communities are to be avoided and censured.
These communities will typically be exceptionally elitist, but will often claim the policies are there to try to "reduce discrimination": the true purpose and actual effect however, is to alienate, externalize and drive out those who do not speak the appropriate shibboleths. This in turn has a chilling effect on casual speech.
One of the reliable signs of a friendly online community is that regionalized speech will in all cases be embraced and broadly welcomed, and this can even be represented in official policies requiring linguistic tolerance.
Linguistic differences and confusions over terms which are regionally offensive, are not only tolerated but discussed with delight at the differences, rather than offense; intended meaning by the speaker is always given priority over etymology, offensive or otherwise.
So people will laugh at how "a pat on the fanny" is remarkably more offensive in the UK, without censuring the person who said it in the first place.
Such practices strongly encourage people to express their diversity, to feel free expressing themselves comfortably as casual speech, and in turn drives community involvement by those who are not "first-language English".
If someone means to give offense, they can do so just as well using words that carry no negative etymological or phonetic baggage; "you fail to understand common English usage, which reflects poorly both upon you, and upon your teachers."
And people can use words with this negative baggage in non-offensive ways: "The company's niggardly meal allowance has become a tar-baby. Call me a blackguard, but I'll use the money for fags and a picnic for the guys instead!" (though since this sentence has been deliberately crafted to have a high density of potentially-offensive terms, so could be taken as a deliberate troll). Any community which takes offense at any of those words in isolation, though, is certainly a community to avoid.
In short: if it causes offense, best to avoid the offended community.
If concerned, pick another term instead: when in doubt, I like to use "peeps".