4 ms·

This was also the line that stuck out to me. I've had some personal experiences with coworkers in my recent career that has turned me on to issues of harassment

by vdnkh 9y ago

This was also the line that stuck out to me. I've had some personal experiences with coworkers in my recent career that has turned me on to issues of harassment in the workplace; I understood the issues before, but it wasn't until it affected someone close did I actually care. As I've been more involved I've seen how fast those active in making workplaces safer/more inclusive outpace those who merely empathize and understand. It's unfair and rude to assign a label to those who aren't completely up-to-date with these new practices, and is in fact counterproductive - you turn off to those whose support you want when you speak down to them as such. This is what makes people afraid of what to say, and makes you look like a "crazy liberal SJW". Calling a survey maker who didn't know "transgender" wasn't a gender is an objective lack of empathy, which makes Github here sound like they really have a point.

s73ver 9y ago
But... she didn’t. She pointed out that the question was a bad one, and that the question itself (not the writer of the question, just the question) was transphobic. Further, she provided the straightforward, no none sense feedback that most people here advocate for, especially when the issues of someone like Linus’ gruffness and straight up meanness comes up. Here we have a story of someone doing just that, without the meanness, and everyone is dog piling on her.
- specialist 9y ago
  Whatever the perceived tone, what Caroline didn't do was suggest improvements, provide examples. It was a teachable moment.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    She absolutely did. She said specifically that it should be a separate question. At some point, I have to wonder whether or not the people who are complaining about these easily debunked things are discussing the topic in good faith.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Whatever the perceived tone, what Caroline didn't do was suggest improvements, provide examples. It was a teachable moment. Seems to me she directly suggested the improvement, after explaining both the reason the existing version was bad and the reason the improvement was better (the two reasons being the same): Quoting directly from the issue she raised, which was not merely quoted but emphasized as a pull-quote in the article: “‘Transgender’ is not a gender. Transgender people may be male, female, gender queer, non-binary... If you want to know if a survey respondent is transgender, you need to explicitly ask that question.”
    - specialist 9y ago
      Okay. Continuing to quibble... She said what was wrong, but did not say what was right. Explicitly. To me, it's an example of "Guess what I'm thinking!" Or more famously, that UI designer who said "Don't make me think!" Granted, a "data scientist" should already know how to survey, be open to constructive criticism. I personally would have no idea how to ask the question. Though I'm not a data scientist, I can use google. http://www.hrc.org/resources/collecting-transgender-inclusive-gender-data-in-workplace-and-other-surveys http://www.hrc.org/resources/collecting-transgender-inclusiv... https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/how-to-write-survey-gender-questions/ https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/how-to-write-survey-... I don't have a horse in this race. I only chimed in because I'm regularly unintentionally offending people, and have been trying to adapt.
      - majewsky 9y ago
        > She [...] did not say what was right > If you want to know if a survey respondent is transgender, you need to explicitly ask that question. How is this not saying what is right?
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > She said what was wrong, but did not say what was right. Explicitly. She explicitly stated both that including “transgender” as a gender identity option was wrong, and that the right way was to ask about transgender status as a seperate question.
- breeny592 9y ago
  It's bit different if you work with them (or in the same company). Linus has a certain, style, to put it nicely, but in the broader open source community. The key point is that this is likely the first time these two individuals had communicated - she effectively introduced herself to this person by saying "you are wrong", or "your work is incorrect". This isn't a professional way in a business to talk to someone. Even a simple greeting and explanation to say "I have some experience in this area, and here's some suggestions that would improve it" is infinitely better than the framing she gives: > I was very disappointed at this 101 mistake > sadly opened an issue referencing the question The emotions portrayed there give a good indication to the tone that the writing likely gave - instead of being constructive it could easily be perceived as hostile. Yes, I think the data scientist over reacted. But I don't think her tone or approach was at all appropriate either.

by vdnkh 9y ago

s73ver 9y ago

But... she didn’t. She pointed out that the question was a bad one, and that the question itself (not the writer of the question, just the question) was transphobic. Further, she provided the straightforward, no none sense feedback that most people here advocate for, especially when the issues of someone like Linus’ gruffness and straight up meanness comes up. Here we have a story of someone doing just that, without the meanness, and everyone is dog piling on her.

specialist 9y ago
Whatever the perceived tone, what Caroline didn't do was suggest improvements, provide examples. It was a teachable moment.
- s73ver 9y ago
  She absolutely did. She said specifically that it should be a separate question. At some point, I have to wonder whether or not the people who are complaining about these easily debunked things are discussing the topic in good faith.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Whatever the perceived tone, what Caroline didn't do was suggest improvements, provide examples. It was a teachable moment. Seems to me she directly suggested the improvement, after explaining both the reason the existing version was bad and the reason the improvement was better (the two reasons being the same): Quoting directly from the issue she raised, which was not merely quoted but emphasized as a pull-quote in the article: “‘Transgender’ is not a gender. Transgender people may be male, female, gender queer, non-binary... If you want to know if a survey respondent is transgender, you need to explicitly ask that question.”
  - specialist 9y ago
    Okay. Continuing to quibble... She said what was wrong, but did not say what was right. Explicitly. To me, it's an example of "Guess what I'm thinking!" Or more famously, that UI designer who said "Don't make me think!" Granted, a "data scientist" should already know how to survey, be open to constructive criticism. I personally would have no idea how to ask the question. Though I'm not a data scientist, I can use google. http://www.hrc.org/resources/collecting-transgender-inclusive-gender-data-in-workplace-and-other-surveys http://www.hrc.org/resources/collecting-transgender-inclusiv... https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/how-to-write-survey-gender-questions/ https://www.surveygizmo.com/survey-blog/how-to-write-survey-... I don't have a horse in this race. I only chimed in because I'm regularly unintentionally offending people, and have been trying to adapt.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      > She [...] did not say what was right > If you want to know if a survey respondent is transgender, you need to explicitly ask that question. How is this not saying what is right?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > She said what was wrong, but did not say what was right. Explicitly. She explicitly stated both that including “transgender” as a gender identity option was wrong, and that the right way was to ask about transgender status as a seperate question.
breeny592 9y ago
It's bit different if you work with them (or in the same company). Linus has a certain, style, to put it nicely, but in the broader open source community. The key point is that this is likely the first time these two individuals had communicated - she effectively introduced herself to this person by saying "you are wrong", or "your work is incorrect". This isn't a professional way in a business to talk to someone. Even a simple greeting and explanation to say "I have some experience in this area, and here's some suggestions that would improve it" is infinitely better than the framing she gives: > I was very disappointed at this 101 mistake > sadly opened an issue referencing the question The emotions portrayed there give a good indication to the tone that the writing likely gave - instead of being constructive it could easily be perceived as hostile. Yes, I think the data scientist over reacted. But I don't think her tone or approach was at all appropriate either.