A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
Hey! I've noticed that in this post you use "guys" as a reference to the entire community, which is not made up of only guys but a variety of community members.
I'm running an experiment and hope you'll participate. Would you consider changing "guys" to a more inclusive term? If you're open to that, please let me know when you've changed it and I'll delete this comment.
I for one hope that Hugo leaves his post as is - nice job Hugo - I've found it helpful.
The term "guys" in the context it is used refers to "persons of either sex" (ref Collins English Dictionary). That is the common usage.
You chose to take offence by insisting that the term is exclusive when there is no indication that any such thing was intended. The offence here is requesting that Hugo reword his post to suit your incorrect interpretation of the language. Stop it.
A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
The defense of the dictionary term doesn't speak to what I'm speaking to, which is a feeling of inclusion. I am not suggesting that Hugo change anything except a small phrase, and I don't believe it would impact the helpfulness of the post at all.
As I explain in the linked post, it seemed like a minor change that could be made easily that my anecdotal evidence suggests would make others feel slightly more welcome, so seemed like a win to me. If you or he disagree, we'll have to leave it there.
I disagree, but unlike you I'm open to continuing the discussion.
The point of the dictionary defense is that the language is being used appropriately. You have no grounds for your request.
If there are anecdotal others that find "guys" in this context exclusive then the problem lies with them - they take offence when none if offered. You should be focusing your attention on educating them, rather than trying to rework the use of language to fit within your arbitrary definition of what they may consider to be inclusive.
A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
I mostly didn't want to force someone to have a debate on the topic, given that I was dropping in to your post to make an ask of you.
My point is that while the dictionary definition means one thing, the perception of such wording in a specific context -- for example, the male-heavy tech industry -- is different than the dictionary definition. So while you're technically correct, your point is not the point I'm trying to converse around.
Yes, the dictionary definition is technically correct, and we can use that reason if we want. My experiment is that, based on my own anecdotal evidence from doing so, we can make the experience that much more welcoming for others with almost zero effort.
Firstly, not my post, so you aren't making an ask of me - I just happened to be reading it about the time you added your experiment, and I'm tired of this social justice go out of your way try to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy rubbish.
Secondly, you are concerned enough that you don't want to force a debate, yet you are happy to shut it down unilaterally? That is inconsistent. More likely you don't want to hear a different opinion.
My point is that your approach is wrong headed. You are trying to change the wrong thing, the author and their post, when the actual problem lies in the reader. Your approach is the easy one, as you can easily identify and make a request of the author, but that is not an excuse for trying to fix your anecdotal problem the wrong way.
Might there be readers who find "all" more inclusive than "guys"? Sure. Should we be changing our interpretation and usage of the language to suit THEIR interpretation? No - that is a slippery Orwellian slope.
A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
I'm tired of this social justice go out of your way try to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy rubbish
The last heading of the post specifically addresses this:
"Roar! You're being politically correct / censoring / controlling! Social Justice! Blargh!"
This post is meant for those who are generally empathetic and want to improve the experiences people have within the community.
If you feel similar to the heading above after reading, you are not the target audience for this post, as you may be more interested in your own experiences than the feelings of others. Feel free to disregard this, but I hope you'll consider it someday.
My attitude is that it costs nothing to be kind. So my goal of the post, as stated in the post, was to make an observation and a suggestion -- which folks could choose to take or leave. The goal is not to turn someone's post into a battleground; should the author choose to react warmly to the observation (as many have), they could change the text at almost no cost. But I have no intention of arguing the value of empathy with someone else.
My post was intended to say "I did a thing -- others reacted warmly and felt more included. Might I therefore encourage that behavior more widely, so that even more others will feel more included or more warmly welcomed?" My anecdote wasn't a problem, you see -- it was an anecdotal solution, that I found by accident, and thought might be nicer to spread more widely.
Doesn't seem like the kind of thing that really needs much debate. I can't convince you to truly care about the perceptions other people might have over a dictionary definition (though I'd ask you to consider -- who gets to make definitions for things? Is it the marginalized?). And I believe my post was far from attempting some mandate of language; it was a (pretty positively worded) suggestion, and not at all a crusade. So the defensiveness is a little surprising.
My observation was pretty straight-forward: "Guys" doesn't mean all people (particularly in the perceptions of the underrepresented folks in our community). My ask wasn't egregious: would someone consider changing the language? And I'm not here to fight about it; someone can simply say "no" -- and some have -- and I've happily left it at that. It may be worth considering why this ask and approach feels like such an affront.
I'm glad you are aware that "It may be worth considering why this ask and approach feels like such an affront." I hope you get there soon.
You are correct in implying I am unconcerned about the perceptions of others - that is their business, not mine and not yours.
Your "pretty straight forward observation" is wrong.
Common usage is that "guys" in this context is gender neutral.
Sorry that you refuse to see that.
Your approach and ask is an affront because it tackles the problem from the wrong end - putting the onus of implementing the solution on the author who has done nothing untoward.
Further, your solution is misguided, as however you change the wording there will always be some, marginalised or not, that perceive it differently from what was intended. You will be endlessly reworking the language to remove the next perceived slight. Accept that the problem here is in the interpretation and move on.
A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
So like I said previously, there's no real point in continuing this conversation -- you were never the intended target audience, as you would rather argue against changing to maybe help other people feel welcome. That's fine then; I'm not going to change your mind and I have no intention of making some grand argument here except "maybe this would help other people feel good with no effort, and maybe that's not such a hard/bad thing."
If you'd like to make arguments about why we should never change things because there will always be people that perceive it differently, you're simply not the intended recipient of my message. I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people, and what they might feel, despite what the dictionary definition of a word may mean. And I feel like the fact that you created your account today, and seemingly only to join in this discussion, further solidifies that.
So I wish you the best, and will likely be spending no more of my time on this conversation.
Yes I created this account explicitly to reply, as it was the first time I've been to this site (Google is my friend) and it was a necessary step to replying.
How does that invalidate or give less weight to my argument?
You are implying I'm only here to troll you?
I am here because I found your request to be offensive.
To reply to a thread that is months old requesting a one word change to maybe make some people feel better about themselves is both absurd and disrespectful to the author.
It is telling that you are unwilling to converse with those outside your target audience. But as long as you feel good about yourself. Have a good one.
A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
You do realise how easy it is to interpret that first clause as sarcasm, implying that my opinions are worth less than yours as I'm new here?
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but my overwhelming suspicion is that, consciously or subconsciously, that was the intent.
Do you see the problem with trying to tweak wording yet?
In the process of trying to fix one word your own words can be interpreted as inherently biased and unwelcoming.
So consider adding hypocrisy to the list of problems with your approach.
And have a good one. (and yes - that can potentially be misinterpreted as well - but I'll leave that up to you ;-)
Hi @Kent, @Sean, I just want to help find a middle ground here. Dev.to is a great community and it's a bit disconcerting to find such discussion here. Especially considering that most of it is not really about the article itself (thanks Hugo for writing it).
I think we can all agree that being inclusive is better than the opposite, and I think that Sean meant well by reaching out. I believe that a direct outreach via DM or email would have been better, and I encourage that type of approach in the future as it gives the author an opportunity to respond in a private space.
However, I would not describe the request as offensive in itself. @Kent, it's great that you joined the community, but please take some time to get familiar with it. The code of conduct itself promotes "using welcoming and inclusive language", which is what we're talking about here.
It would be great if we do not push this debate further. @Kent I think you made a good point about how to approach authors, but @Sean's initiative is quite in line with what the community is pushing for.
Thanks @stenpittet
, well put on all counts. Our Code of Conduct clearly outlines our position that all community members should make an effort to use welcoming and inclusive language. I don't think the usage of "guys" presents a violation whatsoever (I've surely used such language without second thought many times), but I absolutely agree that Sean's (@seankilleen
) heart is in the right place with his experiment. I, for one, think it's a great nudge for all of us, and the outcome is hopefully that we're all a bit more mindful about the language we use and how it affects others.
Kent (@warthog618
), welcome to the community, and thank you for joining the conversation. I'm encouraged that you and Sean each had an outlet to express your points without it devolving into ad-hominems and the like. We're all too familiar with the pedantic, zero-sum, spirals that can oftentimes affect other online communities, and we're hoping to avoid that here. Thank you both for remaining civil and respectful.
I recognize that all of us are trying to make a legitimate attempt to further a discussion that's important to us, but it looks like this specific back-and-forth has run its course. I'll echo Sten's hope that we can leave this for now.
A mind at work. Microsoft MVP && Passionate .NET dev lead && VP, Innovation and Products at SCT Software. Opinions here are mine. Trying to be all the human I can be with the time I have.
Hey! I've noticed that in this post you use "guys" as a reference to the entire community, which is not made up of only guys but a variety of community members.
I'm running an experiment and hope you'll participate. Would you consider changing "guys" to a more inclusive term? If you're open to that, please let me know when you've changed it and I'll delete this comment.
For more information and some alternate suggestions, see dev.to/seankilleen/a-quick-experim....
Thanks for considering!
I for one hope that Hugo leaves his post as is - nice job Hugo - I've found it helpful.
The term "guys" in the context it is used refers to "persons of either sex" (ref Collins English Dictionary). That is the common usage.
You chose to take offence by insisting that the term is exclusive when there is no indication that any such thing was intended. The offence here is requesting that Hugo reword his post to suit your incorrect interpretation of the language. Stop it.
Thanks for considering!
For the record, I didn't take offense.
The defense of the dictionary term doesn't speak to what I'm speaking to, which is a feeling of inclusion. I am not suggesting that Hugo change anything except a small phrase, and I don't believe it would impact the helpfulness of the post at all.
As I explain in the linked post, it seemed like a minor change that could be made easily that my anecdotal evidence suggests would make others feel slightly more welcome, so seemed like a win to me. If you or he disagree, we'll have to leave it there.
I disagree, but unlike you I'm open to continuing the discussion.
The point of the dictionary defense is that the language is being used appropriately. You have no grounds for your request.
If there are anecdotal others that find "guys" in this context exclusive then the problem lies with them - they take offence when none if offered. You should be focusing your attention on educating them, rather than trying to rework the use of language to fit within your arbitrary definition of what they may consider to be inclusive.
I mostly didn't want to force someone to have a debate on the topic, given that I was dropping in to your post to make an ask of you.
My point is that while the dictionary definition means one thing, the perception of such wording in a specific context -- for example, the male-heavy tech industry -- is different than the dictionary definition. So while you're technically correct, your point is not the point I'm trying to converse around.
Yes, the dictionary definition is technically correct, and we can use that reason if we want. My experiment is that, based on my own anecdotal evidence from doing so, we can make the experience that much more welcoming for others with almost zero effort.
Firstly, not my post, so you aren't making an ask of me - I just happened to be reading it about the time you added your experiment, and I'm tired of this social justice go out of your way try to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy rubbish.
Secondly, you are concerned enough that you don't want to force a debate, yet you are happy to shut it down unilaterally? That is inconsistent. More likely you don't want to hear a different opinion.
My point is that your approach is wrong headed. You are trying to change the wrong thing, the author and their post, when the actual problem lies in the reader. Your approach is the easy one, as you can easily identify and make a request of the author, but that is not an excuse for trying to fix your anecdotal problem the wrong way.
Might there be readers who find "all" more inclusive than "guys"? Sure. Should we be changing our interpretation and usage of the language to suit THEIR interpretation? No - that is a slippery Orwellian slope.
The last heading of the post specifically addresses this:
My attitude is that it costs nothing to be kind. So my goal of the post, as stated in the post, was to make an observation and a suggestion -- which folks could choose to take or leave. The goal is not to turn someone's post into a battleground; should the author choose to react warmly to the observation (as many have), they could change the text at almost no cost. But I have no intention of arguing the value of empathy with someone else.
My post was intended to say "I did a thing -- others reacted warmly and felt more included. Might I therefore encourage that behavior more widely, so that even more others will feel more included or more warmly welcomed?" My anecdote wasn't a problem, you see -- it was an anecdotal solution, that I found by accident, and thought might be nicer to spread more widely.
Doesn't seem like the kind of thing that really needs much debate. I can't convince you to truly care about the perceptions other people might have over a dictionary definition (though I'd ask you to consider -- who gets to make definitions for things? Is it the marginalized?). And I believe my post was far from attempting some mandate of language; it was a (pretty positively worded) suggestion, and not at all a crusade. So the defensiveness is a little surprising.
My observation was pretty straight-forward: "Guys" doesn't mean all people (particularly in the perceptions of the underrepresented folks in our community). My ask wasn't egregious: would someone consider changing the language? And I'm not here to fight about it; someone can simply say "no" -- and some have -- and I've happily left it at that. It may be worth considering why this ask and approach feels like such an affront.
I'm glad you are aware that "It may be worth considering why this ask and approach feels like such an affront." I hope you get there soon.
You are correct in implying I am unconcerned about the perceptions of others - that is their business, not mine and not yours.
Your "pretty straight forward observation" is wrong.
Common usage is that "guys" in this context is gender neutral.
Sorry that you refuse to see that.
Your approach and ask is an affront because it tackles the problem from the wrong end - putting the onus of implementing the solution on the author who has done nothing untoward.
Further, your solution is misguided, as however you change the wording there will always be some, marginalised or not, that perceive it differently from what was intended. You will be endlessly reworking the language to remove the next perceived slight. Accept that the problem here is in the interpretation and move on.
So like I said previously, there's no real point in continuing this conversation -- you were never the intended target audience, as you would rather argue against changing to maybe help other people feel welcome. That's fine then; I'm not going to change your mind and I have no intention of making some grand argument here except "maybe this would help other people feel good with no effort, and maybe that's not such a hard/bad thing."
If you'd like to make arguments about why we should never change things because there will always be people that perceive it differently, you're simply not the intended recipient of my message. I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people, and what they might feel, despite what the dictionary definition of a word may mean. And I feel like the fact that you created your account today, and seemingly only to join in this discussion, further solidifies that.
So I wish you the best, and will likely be spending no more of my time on this conversation.
Yes I created this account explicitly to reply, as it was the first time I've been to this site (Google is my friend) and it was a necessary step to replying.
How does that invalidate or give less weight to my argument?
You are implying I'm only here to troll you?
I am here because I found your request to be offensive.
To reply to a thread that is months old requesting a one word change to maybe make some people feel better about themselves is both absurd and disrespectful to the author.
It is telling that you are unwilling to converse with those outside your target audience. But as long as you feel good about yourself. Have a good one.
I look forward to seeing your other contributions to the community here, and wish you all the best in the future.
You do realise how easy it is to interpret that first clause as sarcasm, implying that my opinions are worth less than yours as I'm new here?
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but my overwhelming suspicion is that, consciously or subconsciously, that was the intent.
Do you see the problem with trying to tweak wording yet?
In the process of trying to fix one word your own words can be interpreted as inherently biased and unwelcoming.
So consider adding hypocrisy to the list of problems with your approach.
And have a good one. (and yes - that can potentially be misinterpreted as well - but I'll leave that up to you ;-)
Hi @Kent, @Sean, I just want to help find a middle ground here. Dev.to is a great community and it's a bit disconcerting to find such discussion here. Especially considering that most of it is not really about the article itself (thanks Hugo for writing it).
I think we can all agree that being inclusive is better than the opposite, and I think that Sean meant well by reaching out. I believe that a direct outreach via DM or email would have been better, and I encourage that type of approach in the future as it gives the author an opportunity to respond in a private space.
However, I would not describe the request as offensive in itself. @Kent, it's great that you joined the community, but please take some time to get familiar with it. The code of conduct itself promotes "using welcoming and inclusive language", which is what we're talking about here.
It would be great if we do not push this debate further. @Kent I think you made a good point about how to approach authors, but @Sean's initiative is quite in line with what the community is pushing for.
Let's not forget to thank Hugo for his work.
Thanks @stenpittet , well put on all counts. Our Code of Conduct clearly outlines our position that all community members should make an effort to use welcoming and inclusive language. I don't think the usage of "guys" presents a violation whatsoever (I've surely used such language without second thought many times), but I absolutely agree that Sean's (@seankilleen ) heart is in the right place with his experiment. I, for one, think it's a great nudge for all of us, and the outcome is hopefully that we're all a bit more mindful about the language we use and how it affects others.
Kent (@warthog618 ), welcome to the community, and thank you for joining the conversation. I'm encouraged that you and Sean each had an outlet to express your points without it devolving into ad-hominems and the like. We're all too familiar with the pedantic, zero-sum, spirals that can oftentimes affect other online communities, and we're hoping to avoid that here. Thank you both for remaining civil and respectful.
I recognize that all of us are trying to make a legitimate attempt to further a discussion that's important to us, but it looks like this specific back-and-forth has run its course. I'll echo Sten's hope that we can leave this for now.
Hugo (@hugodias ), thanks for a great article!
Hey guy! go find some work to do and stop to be so annoying about the word "guy"!
Totally cool and productive response to a comment from almost a year ago. 👍