There was a recent post here in the Slack that included the following:

The reason Steve Jobs is a legend in product development is because he had the cojones to order a million units of his products before he knew if it was going to be popular.

I'm personally uncomfortable with "had the cojones". I'd like to discourage the use of that sort of casual gendered language here in the community. At the risk of starting another turbulent thread, I'd love input on: (A) How you feel about this sort of language. Is it inappropriate here? Is it truly inoffensive and would cause no harm? (B) If someone posts something that does toe up to the line, something that is very slightly offensive but not so much so as to warrant a banning or even deletion of the post, what action should I take as a moderator? Let's say I ask the person privately to change the message to use a better wording like, "had the guts". What should I do if they don't make that change?

It don't feel offended by it, but I would also not use that term. I would feel uncomfortable if I was asked to change some term I used. For that reason, I would only ask someone to change something if it was bad, but not if it was very slightly bad.

It went past me without notice 😔, but now that you bring it up, it seems worth addressing. My current mental model is to avoid things that make this forum seem less welcoming. If that's right it seems ok to delete such comments after giving their authors a grace period for people to edit them. Alternatively it may be helpful to call out such comments if that can be done adjacent to the original comment. As long as we make clear that honest mistakes don't reflect (much) on the speaker, just need to be addressed because they may affect some people more than others. Maybe the synthesis is a combination of both approaches: 1. If you spot it before it has a bunch of responses, call it out mildly and tag the speaker. If they edit, delete your comment. 2. If it's too late to call out near enough that someone reading one could reasonably be likely to read the other, reach out privately and then delete after some grace period. Just my first reaction, happy to hear what others think. Historically my bias is strongly packrat, to the extent of wanting to forbid people from deleting their own comments past some point.

I don't like treating this sort of thing like it's shameful. It can be hard to find the right language to communicate an idea, and most of the time, people probably aren't trying to cause harm. Needing to private message someone or delete a warning after a message is edited implies these mistakes are shameful and need to be hidden. I think I'd rather they be addressed in the open as part of the active conversation instead of hidden away in a side channel. I also appreciate explicitness with problems like this. I believe the problem with the phrase 'had the cojones' is that it implies reckless courage is an inherently masculine trait. I think we don't want to encourage people to view reckless courage as a gendered concept. Its possible there's other things you found offensive about it, though. The appropriation of a spanish word or the mention of genitalia, for instance. Talking about these things can be hard because there's not very much firm ground to stand on. Possibly having a set of values you're trying to uphold would give people firm ground to backstop these sorts of concerns? I tend to avoid communities of more than 10 or so people because I find the question of moderation frustrating and largely intractable. For me, the future of coding is an interesting enough topic that its worth trying to engage with a larger community.

It's like that Bobby Knight quote: "People don't intimidate, people are intimidated." Similarly: people don't try to harm, but often people are harmed. This particular case wouldn't harm someone, one thinks, but it's impossible to know, so it's best to stay away from gendered & aggressive similes/metaphors/analogies. The cost is often to humor, since many things that are funny are also borderline. I like the level of sensitivity of communities these days that prefers to not get close to borderlines.

It's an unintentional micro aggression. I'm told that they add up (as a white guy I don't have actual experience of this, of course). I'm an admin on a local (South African) chat group and I would probably DM the person and ask them to try be more conscious of gendered language.

I’d prefer some sort of friendly reach out to suggest editing the language (don’t want it to be hidden, but also don’t want it to be a public spectacle, so idk 🤷 —maybe a channel that’s exclusively for @mentioning corrections to language called like “inclusion-in-progress”. i know you don’t want more channels but it’s always my go-to solution because slack makes it otherwise impossible to sidechannel things)

The second attempt by Ivan, who hates my guts, to try and get me kicked out of the group. I don't remember paying dues to hire a word/thought police. I thought even dinosaurs such as myself were welcome. The term "daring" didn't convey how far at the end of the bell-shaped curve Steve Jobs was in terms of courage, so i used a colorful California term (where i reside) to imply reckless courage, fueled by that most reckless of drugs Testosterone, which is indeed related to the testes. It seems an apt term. Shouldn't the measurement of value be: 1) is the information factual, 2) is it something that the reader didn't know, 3) is it entertaining, and 4) is it something the reader might not find elsewhere, 5) is it relevant to product development. I think my post fired on all 5 cylinders. Most of the people learning programming today we in diapers when Steve Jobs was active, and only know the classic "garage" startup story. They don't understand how unusual a leader he was. The average company like P&G is so cautious that they test for years in tiny places a small change in the fragrance or packaging of their products, carefully trying to extract a 0.1% improvement. That's not how Jobs worked, and that is why he is a legend.

Or... just take input on particular use of language, and carry on

I don't quite measure the level of "offense" of the expression. It seems like a local one with a mix of two foreign languages for me. Even though in French there is an exact similar expression (which is more and more seen as old and is less used) it is not easy to figure out the potential "harm" of this one. But for me, as I know Edward's style, that can be a bit rude and that he likes to rant, I can read between the lines and filter out such language (and to be honest, I missed this particular one). But of course, new people don't know him, and does this kind of language make them find the community unwelcoming? Maybe some friendly reminder from anyone in the community, in reply to the corresponding post could be enough to openly show that this language does not fit the spirit of the community?

Edward, I've tussled with you before, and FWIW I don't hate your guts or anything. I actually really liked this comment of yours[1] and a couple of others recently. Your recent comments have definitely felt significantly more useful to me than the historic average. My read of Ivan isn't at all that he hates your guts or anything like that. It's just that managing a community is hard. Particularly when it has many passionate, strong personalities. (And certainly you and I both qualify on both counts. I'm sure I've contributed to Ivan's burden as well.) The way I think about it is that we're all rough works in progress here, and this forum provides us with a sort of low-consequence kiddie-pool environment to receive feedback in. I consider it good preparation for the unlikely but hoped-for event that one of the projects here starts to have broader influence. You need skills then that you haven't had a chance to practice before, and it's a live situation where events can come thick and fast, so there's no take-backs. I try to stay alive to any source of feedback in preparation for such a time. [1] Link: https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5U3SEW6A/p1593382954014700?thread_ts=1593380993.014500&cid=C5U3SEW6A. I didn't remember that it was by you until your comment.

@Edward de Jong / Beads Project

the measurement of value

This is about values, not value. One of the values we've collectively arrived at is that we should all make an effort to be more inclusive. At the very least, that means being cautious about what we say and how we say it, and gently reminding one another when needed.

I don't remember paying dues to hire a word/thought police

This is a commons. We all work together to uphold our shared values and respect one another.

The second attempt by Ivan, who hates my guts

I hope that you've read the other messages in this thread. Many other folks here would just as readily ask you the same things I have (publicly and privately) if they were tasked with moderating the community.

What if there is something in between always abiding by the rules and being punished for breaking them? What if we agree that we can point out each other’s missteps so we have a chance to notice, can take a moment to reflect, apologize, and then move on? What if it’s not a big deal, yet is still pointed out, and over time we get a little better at respecting each other?

I wasn't personally offended by the comment. It did come off as "colorful" language, but I think that was the point. I viewed interaction as a whole was very intelligent and constructive imo. I considered it a very good first experience with the community, but I also fully realize that I'm a straight american white guy... I do respect Ivan's position as a moderator though. This is a good time to have these discussions. It's a complicated topic. As others have stated, different languages and cultures can interpret phrases differently. I hope this becomes a constructive conversation about being thoughtful with language, and not a witch hunt against a particular post or user.

Good to hear the perspective of a newcomer, @Ray Imber! Re: witch hunt — we've had a few of these conversations in the past six months, in a very general way, about what we'd like the social norms to be here. So this thread is less a "let's figure out what sort of language is iffy" and more "we have a specific instance of something that doesn't sit well with the outcomes of our previous discussions — let's come together to decide how to handle this specific case".

(A) Usage can be tricky — depends on the community and we've got lots of people from all over here. For some "cojones" will be neutral, for some it will be offensive. I guess what matters the most is whether something is said in passing or whether it's over emphasized. (A silly example, having lived in Utah, a person should say "heck" and not "hell" — it's just how it is done.)

The eternal problem of groups too big for its members to know each other well enough for guessing intentions: how to deal with unintended offense? 20 years ago, the dominant stance was "freedom of expression, receivers must learn not to overreact". This was exploited by a minority of aggressors, and now the pendumlum swings back: "don't say anything that might offend anyone". And I am pretty sure that in anther 20 years, the pendulum will be on the other side again, because some communities will be suffocated by an oppressive moderation attitude (not necessarily coming from the moderators BTW). No comment from me on this particular case: I am protected from feeling offended by the barrier of a foreign language. If anyone wants to offend me, be gross or do it in German 😉

I think the focus on whether the phrase was offensive is missing the point, slightly. You may not find the phrase "offensive", in that it's rude or prompts anger, but what we have here is a phrase that (intentionally or not) strongly links someone's attainment and achievement to having male reproductive organs, and that does, unfortunately, continue to perpetrate certain biases that plague our industry, and biases that many people in this industry have to deal with every day. I would hope that the future of coding is one that represents everyone, and so where possible, we should try to make our language representative. To the question of what to do about it, I would treat this similarly to how many communities deal with the issue of "guys" when addressing a group: it's language that a lot of people grew up with, and is a habit we are trying to grow through, and is going to leak into our speech, so we should give a helpful reminder that there's a good opportunity to use more equitable speech, and go from there.

Makes one wonder what current common turns of phrase have vulgar connotations entirely forgotten.

@Joe Nash Your comment is both right and wrong, on different levels. Yes, the comment implies what you say. But why is this a problem? Because it creates negative feelings in some readers. If the implication were obviously wrong, it would be used jokingly. If it were obviously right, we wouldn't been discussing it. "Obviouly" in these statements means "in the eyes of pretty much the whole population". The problem is that it used to be obviously true in the past, as part of a world view that is increasingly criticized for the conclusions it supported. More and more people thus want it to be wrong, or at least irrelevant, and bringing the claim up thus creates negative feelings. But there isn't much of a rational basis for proving the claim wrong (there are more science-based arguments for it being true to some degree), so the option we are left with is declaring it taboo. Which is in fact a workable solution in real life: if you make this claim in a group that considers it inapproriate, there's an awkward silence and everybody stares at you - you will then think twice about doing it again. But we haven't found good techniques for sanctioning taboo violations in on-line discussions so far.

It sounds like you read Devon Zuegel's The Silence is Deafening post, Konrad.

Thanks for the link Ivan - I didn't see it before, but it's right on topic! I wouldn't have thought of DMs for this kind of feedback.

Late to the discussion, but a concrete thing I’ve seen work to gently enforce shared values around language use is Iwazaru. It’s a discord bot that reacts with 🙊 when certain words are used - especially casual sexist or ableist language (words like “crazy” or using “hey guys” to address the community). It works because it just reminds everyone that it’s not the language we want, but it’s not the end of the world. The bot will also be wrong sometimes because it doesn’t understand the context, which actually makes it feel less dramatic when you get a monkey.

@Tor Interesting idea. I wonder how this works out in practice, given the permanence of record in most social networks. Someone will likely write another bot that counts who got the most monkeys. What I like about the DM approach is that it leaves no permanent public trace.

I think the transparency is part of why it can work. The point is not to call out a person who did something wrong, but to remind everyone of how they use language. Some people will feel attacked when they get a monkey, but it’s up to the community to let them know that they shouldn’t be too worried about it.

You are certainly right in pointing out that it all depends on how the community deals with it!

To the question of what to do about it, I would treat this similarly to how many communities deal with the issue of “guys” when addressing a group: it’s language that a lot of people grew up with, and is a habit we are trying to grow through, and is going to leak into our speech, so we should give a helpful reminder that there’s a good opportunity to use more equitable speech, and go from there

This, literally. If you see someone using a phrase you or someone is not comfortable with, just mention it. I don’t like the phrase, but don’t mind it. I see how someone might mind it, and just commenting “maybe skip the cojones” next time would be enough. And I really don’t think anyone will read that and think “Oh no steve had an organ I don’t so I can’t be a good product developer”. People understand metaphors, and that’s a longstanding metaphor that is based in human biology (altho not related to steve’s case I believe). Also a thing to consider is that a lot of us are non-native speakers and have english as 2nd/3rd/n-th language and learned from different forms such as movies and shows, where that kind of language is a normal thing and it’s easier for us to just write how we’re sure sounds good or use expressions we’re certain about. I know senior professionals who send emails with “Hey guys” because they’re uncertain in their knowledge so they minimise the cognitive load by using that. And understanding stuff like that is IMO more important than just wildly policing stuff. It’s not in malice, it’s just human. If we decide that every “potentially offensive” word should not be used, we’ll end up speaking in doublespeak or just avoid it. I don’t want this to be a community where I need to walk on eggshells while trying to discuss something. I’m not here for community drama and karma police stickers, and policing small things such as “cojones” is a nice gateway to this being just another place where good ideas will not be brought to light because nobody wants to offend someone and the mental context burnt to check every word and every possible meaning of your post will not be worth posting it.

The root issues are that the gender balance here isn't what it should be, and we've had people (men and women) not join the community because of that. That's a problem that we're going to collectively work on solving, and you can play as large or small a part in that as you'd like — the #CEXED56UR channel is where drama is going to be concentrated, so ignore it at your leisure. I'm not worried about the specific spectres of doublespeak, eggshells, and policing that you evoke; I am worried about people who would keep things as they are, rather than move out of their comfort zone to make this community a more inclusive space. The offending message (which I've since deleted, since Edward flatly ignored every request I made of him to revise it) was peppered with typographical errors, and meandered and digressed. The points Edward raised, however, handily overcame those issues of expression, and would have come through identically if "guts" had been used. To argue that this distinction matters, and to ignore the other issues, is selective to a fault.

My Alma mater, MIT, did everything possible to stimulated enrollment by women. It was 10:1 men when i was there, and hasn't improved much. It is an observable fact that women are somewhat more interested in people than things, and men are more interested in things than people, and when you consider the tail of the bell shaped curve, even if the median of men's interest in things is only 10% more than the average woman's, when you go out 5 standard deviations at the tail end to the region called "super highly interested in things", which is where programmers are, you will see that the tail is going to be 90% men. This is simple gaussian curve statistics. This is not going to be fixed by any word policing or wishing it was otherwise. The fact is that women are not choosing the field of programming, and for sure are not choosing to participate in this forum which is about the futuristic edge of programming as a field; that's what I call "pure thingness". Even in countries that have spent decades equalizing roles between men and women, men and women still show marked preferences for occupations. When i started in computers there were a fair number of women programmers, because it was considered clerical, and women were known to be more precise at repetitive and clerical tasks. The percentage of women went down as it became more competitive and lucrative. Virtue signaling is an empty gesture. What is going to attract more people - women included - is to have high quality, relevant content to the subject of future computing. The majority of new programmers are from India, China and other parts of Asia. I would estimate 100 million people are learning programming now, most of them outside the USA. Most of these young kids are lusting after working at one of the big firms, so they only want to know what Google, Apple, etc., are up to, and are unfortunately uninterested in the future of programming. I find more senior people on this group than college students, which was the opposite when i was in college; we were enthralled with the latest and greatest.

There are more men programming today than women. Fair. There are also more textual programmers today than visual programmers. I'm here because I think radical change is possible, and I want to make the future better than the present. I don't really think if we stop saying 'cojones' gender inequality is going to go away, but I'm happy to give it a shot for the same reason I'm willing to try out a bunch of half finished future of programming projects. Because maybe somewhere in there is the kernel of a better tomorrow.

I'd be over the moon if we had 10% female membership.

@Edward de Jong / Beads Project those are really harmful stereotypes to perpetuate. My alma mater, CMU, has managed to achieve 50/50 gender parity in computer science by decades of hard work. Outreach to schools, building an inclusive environment, financial support for women’s initiatives. I’ll also, again, emphasize that there are FoC-type communities in academia that have well over 50% women. But just not here.

Re-posting verbatim a comment I made 3 months ago in this slack:

I also want to bring up a subtle philosophical point which I think is

often missed. "Programming" is not a field with a hard boundary set in

stone. It is not like a fixed size garment, handed down from Gods, that

just happens to fit "men" better. It is itself a human created

artifact, shaped and molded by us. So what programming "is" or "should

be" is itself fluid, and it is up to us to shape it further however we

want it to look.

The greater human endeavor of 'computing' is, in the end, about people - is it not? The things are just there to help people achieve their purpose. Who decides what belongs within the subject of 'future of computing'? Who sets the direction, the boundary? More category theory and less C? More visual and less text? More HCI/usability and less lambda calculus? More collaborative less individual? It really should be about any and all these directions, even opposing ones. The design space is wider than we can think right now - possibly the endeavor has been shaped by a narrow river of thought and we are hyper focused on the 'ravine' rather than climbing out and looking at the vast plains (borrowed metaphor, source forgotten). Given that computing now pervades the entire fabric of human life, it is only natural (even dutiful?) that a broad section of humanity is engaged in defining the future.

I would love it if more women entered the field of programming. I think women bring an often fresh perspective. But to claim that somehow because women are not 51% of the field is because of sexism, is not provable. There are more than 7:1 men in other fields like high voltage electrical work. There is nothing stopping women from entering that field. At some point you have to admit personal preference is a factor. It's not like programming is such a high paying field. On average lawyers, doctors, and electricians make more than programmers.

Are we at 49% in this group? 30%? 1%? Or even less? How can we chalk that up to preference alone? In any social system there are many factors at play, and is hard to even know if we've identified all of them. "Preference" is one factor. I wouldn't say sexism is the sole factor but it is a factor. General group dynamics and social conditioning can explain a lot. Often in social situations, preference is overrated I think. E.g. I grew up surrounded by a culture where men didn't cook. Now if you polled the general populace, you might infer that men are "just not interested" and women are. But really this is more of a conditioning than any innate preference. Indeed, surrounded by a different culture, the identity, values and preferences we absorb may be quite different. There definitely is an in-group/out-group feeling which make a person feel more/less comfortable when participating. These could be form along many lines: gender, culture, ethnicity, etc. I think many of these factors have to be countered. I'll note that humans counter an incredible number of 'raw natural instincts and behaviors' as we build social systems with a bit more intention than the 'law of the jungle'. This is just another one of those things. If we think that language etc. is creating an environment that is more closed and less welcome, then we can talk about it. Nobody is thinking anyone is intentionally sexist and discriminating. We just want a welcoming environment.

@shalabh makes a good point about how we define "programming." This group, of any, would recognize that there are accidents (inessential qualities) to how the field has developed that make it not as good as it could be. These same accidents have made programming an activity better suited for some kinds of people over others. Perhaps this is where the technical and the social aspects intersect. Perhaps some of the things that work to exclude some also translate into technical blind spots. Consider the tribes among programmers (e.g. static vs dynamic or functional vs imperative) where each perspective has something to offer to the other.

I have absolutely no problem with these figures of speech, and neither does my wife. In fact she couldn't figure out what was objectionable until I explained it was a left-wing gender thing, and then she asked whether "guts" would also be objectionable and I explained that it wasn't objectionable because both males and females have guts, and she's like "ooooooh". N.B. we are definitely not right-wing.