I agree entirely, it is really about context and tone. Referring to women in the work environment as "gals" or "chicks" is totally disrespectful.What about guys who aren't calling a square dance using "gals"?
"Gals" doesn't bother me. Neither does "chicks." I use "chicks" all the time, and refer to men as "dudes." I understand why some women might find the terms offensive, but in my experience they don't come loaded with the kind of spineless misogyny that "females" usually carries, and so I am fine with them.
I had a boss --an older man, very Southern-- who would always refer to the female department mangers as "gals." I HATED that, especially since the male mangers were always refereed to by name but the women were just "gals:" You're a great gal, go get that gal in charge of housewares, one of the gals is on vacation this week; hey, gal, get this done for me, will ya? UGH. I don't even know if he ever learned my name.
I suppose it really depends on context and tone. If it feels disrespectful or groups all the women together while the men are treated as individuals, then it really pisses me off. When I was growing up, back in the Dark Ages, "chick" was very disrespectful and had a negative connotation but I think now it's used in a much more humorous manner and younger people find it very cute.
Totally different path:
Are you turned on or off by a person's height? My husband is quite tall and his best friend is quite short. His friend says that tall men get more attention and respect--have better luck with the ladies. I find myself attracted to actors of various heights, but most of them are probably considered tall or average height.
Personally, I'm very much turned on by height. Especially extreme height (I even listed it in my turn-ons, like, 6'4" and higher height). However, I'm not similarly turned off by shortness, and one of the hottest guys I ever dated was only 5'4".