I think because it's unrelated to the original comment. "Guys" was not in question, "attaboy" was. Using "guys" as an argument would be a strawman regardless if the rationale is correct.
WRT "guys"; I know of at least two companies (and I work at one) which try to encourage the use of other pronouns in place to "guys" in order to be more inclusive.
The point was, attaboy could be used in the same way that "guys" is. I don't see how that's a straw man fallacy.
Also, companies promoting switching pro-nouns is an ineffective way to get people to be more inclusive. It's a band-aid. You be inclusive by actually being inclusive.
Seems to me that respecting someone’s feelings of “exclusion” by using pronouns that make them feel included is “being inclusive”
Not every company need change, but if a pretty minor change can have a big impact on someone’s happiness and feeling of belonging, I’m willing to change.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attaboy#2432...
https://dilbert.com/search_results?sort=date_asc&terms=attab...