Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dirlewanger | Hacker News Reader

While GitHub seemingly handled her employment poorly, this person sounds horrible to work with:

>Was politely calling out a data scientist on a problematic and transphobic survey answer a demonstration of lack of empathy?

How presumptuous. Ever thought that maybe the person putting it together didn't know any better? What does framing oneself as the victim accomplish here?

In addition, this is hilariously ironic given that GitHub employed (still employs?) people who actively promote racism against white men (and women): http://www.businessinsider.com/github-the-full-inside-story-...

View on HN

> I was very disappointed at this 101 mistake, and sadly opened an issue referencing the question. The body of my issue read:

> "'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."

She was disappointed. She explained her problem with the survey in a non-judgmental way- "This question is based on a false premise, the correct way to ask this question is X". I don't see how she could have handled this particular interaction any better.

Sure, we just have to reword it - something like this may be less confrontational:

> "Hi! I have a suggestion on question #14. I think we can improve this to be more inclusive by replacing the options w ith "male", "female", "gender queer" "non-binary", (...) Since transgender people may or may not associate with a gender, we have be a little careful when asking for a gender. Hope this helps!"

When I write emails, I always pretend to "YELL" the email in the most dramatic way possible. If it sounds potentially confrontational yelling what I am saying, it could be intimidating for some people.

By defusing the way you talk to others, you make them feel more comfortable around you. The more comfortable people feel around you, the more they trust you and listen to what you say. It's a win-win :)

That's actually great advice.

As someone who has a naturally terse communication style and who does not react emotionally to people who send emails like e.g. "Send it" instead of "Send it to me, thanks.", I have had to train myself to realise that any form of text communication conveys tone with huge imprecision. If you didn't see someone smiling at you in the corridor and then you send an email to them saying "Yep" the entire tone of the email changes vs. if you saw the person, grinned, said hi and then sent the exact same email.

It's not fair, and bright people very often feel like morons adding exclamation points and smiley faces made out of punctuation to their written comms. but trust me when I say that it can TOTALLY obviate a whole bunch of grief and is, I think, incumbent on you the communicator to improve just as much as it's incumbent on the recipient to not react emotionally.

To me you're all arguing about the wrong issue.

Some data scientist made a small survey faux pas, and now they're being called out in a lengthy blogpost about how bad and un-inclusive the company was to work for.

How can anyone work with this person without feeling like they're standing on eggshells? How must the woman who wrote the survey who was just doing her job feel today if she reads this?

The post would never have been written if the author of the question hadn't immediately escalated by complaining to her manager. The data scientist was not walking on eggshells- they felt perfectly justified in escalating the situation. Even the manager didn't have a problem with how she'd handled it!

I read it as an indictment of the company and its procedures. The data scientist was not even named. The bulk of the post is indicting management, HR, company culture, and insane bureaucratic nightmares designed to push someone out.

> they felt perfectly justified in escalating the situation

So they should have been, being accused of transphobia is a serious accusation. Anyone accused of anything like transphobia, homophobia, islamaphobia or any other of these discriminations is absolutely right to escalate the matter straight away to their manager or HR.

> The data scientist was not even named

She was gendered, how many data scientists work at GH? How many are female? She was narrowed down enough that she may as well have been named IMHO and transphobic is a serious mark on her character. Especially from someone who has tried to push people off projects before for being transphobic.

If the account is to be believed, she was not accused of transphobia. She was told about a question that was misphrased. Even the author's manager couldn't articulate anything she'd done wrong.

The "transphobia" judgement by the poster comes later in the post, and it is addressed to the question itself, not the author of the question.

Agreed. That was an entirely reasonable and professional comment. It briefly states the problem, demonstrates it, and offers a solution.

Thought I was alone on this. I think she read it poorly, and to call it a 101 mistake that she 'sadly' had to correct seems a bit unfair to the data scientist. But none of that comes across in her comment, which is extremely professional.

EDIT: Just saw your comment below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704575). Makes perfect sense, and I see her point now.

Just think it's worth mentioning that she doesn't seem to present evidence that the data scientist was "transphobic". She seems to discount the possibility the data scientist was unaware of how to properly ask that question on surveys (as am I). Perhaps she had more personal experience with the data scientist in question to justify this claim, but that should of been included here.

> Just think it's worth mentioning that she doesn't seem to present evidence that the data scientist was "transphobic".

She doesn't say they were. She says the question as phrased was. That's a big difference.

You are correct, thank you for pointing that out. However, she is still assuming that the question was phrased in a "Transphobic" way. Perhaps she reads it like that, but I doubt that was the authors (or questions) intention. Perhaps i'm wrong

Having grown up around a lot of gay and working closely with a number of trans people, I have come to the conclusion (possibly wrongly), that they will forgive a lot of "-phobic" speech, as long as you accept the criticism they provide.

One of the critiques I often got was to be more gender inclusive in my speaking. Which a lot of people do now (re: replacing he/she with they). From what I read, it seemed like this person would provide feedback that would either be ignored or the contributor/employee/whomever would actively retaliate against.

It really isn't how you mean something, it is how you make someone feel. If you are trying to run an inclusive community, that distinction is very important.

All of the "accidental racism" of years past have now become "accidental -phobic".

I don’t think anyone, including the author, thought that the intention of the question was to be transphobic. That doesn’t mean it’s not a transphobic question, though. Especially when the point of the survey was to gauge engagement in Open Source by marginalized people, having such a mistake can be seen as pretty tone deaf, and imply that the company really doesn’t care.

I think it's not an assumption so much as an observation based on her definition of transphobia. This is the point I'm trying to get at throughout this thread: Github says she was fired for the way she conveyed her beliefs, and not what they were. I disagree. Those who do agree seem to be mainly those who disagree with her beliefs. I'm trying to understand that disconnect.

You can be transphobic by omission. For example, not taking any time to research the issue ("Is 'transgender' a gender?") before writing a study question, and then getting angry when someone tries patiently to educate you.

It's not what's in people's hearts that counts. Someone can truly believe that blackface is not racist, but that doesn't mean that it's not racist when they do it.

> You can be transphobic by omission.

I don't agree. Any definition from a reputable source on the term "transphobic" implies or directly states that transphobia is, specifically, a fear or dislike towards trans people. Not researching what transgender means or what a survey should include for genders in the year 2017 may be stupid or ignorant but I just don't see how it meets the bar for being "transphobic", especially when the person who is making the error of omission has no problem with trans people!

As an LGBT person I really think that people need to stop inferring malice where there is none. Not only does it not accomplish anything, it simply aggravates people who would otherwise be friends and allies and creates further divisions. If I pointed out every single time a friend or family member accidentally misgendered someone or said something that I thought was not 100% PC, I would be spending a lot of time alone.

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.

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.

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.

Whatever the perceived tone, what Caroline didn't do was suggest improvements, provide examples. It was a teachable moment.

> 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.”

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-inclusiv...

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.

> 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.

Then I apologize for being a dullard.

Belated personal story. I know multiple transgendered persons (friends, family, at work). So I'm at least partially familiar with the issues. Many of my friends work on LBGTQ policy issues, to which I've given money. I've even marched in our local Gay Pride parade.

My bestie recently told me she's now dating a transman. I looked askance. I had never heard that term before. I wondered if she meant transvestite, transgender, transexual... She got upset. She thought I was judging.

Nope. I just didn't know what transman meant. Oh. She explained and everything was cool again.

Though this is not my cause, I am here to help. I'm an ally for equal rights, justice, responsibility, and so forth.

Just tell me what words you want me to use.

> 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?

She exactly said what was right. She said EXACTLY what to do. There was absolutely no guesswork involved. She said that you should ask if one is transgender as a separate question. How is that not explicit?

Show vs tell.

With examples, like this: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-d...

Wrapped with pleasantries, like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704542

The only reason I now have any notion of an appropriate phrasing is because I was curious enough to seek examples. (Unlike the aggrieved data scientist?)

If nothing else, this mini-thread illustrates the challenges with communication, even when all parties have the best of intentions.

I fail to see that you have had this discussion in good faith. I believe you are holding her to a higher standard than you would have someone else.

She said EXACTLY what to change. She was not rude about it. To try and nitpick that away leads me to believe you have an agenda to push.

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.

Do you think this person is unusual in her communication style? She posted the complete text of the "problem" comment. If you got that message from a colleague, would you consider it unacceptable? Why or why not? If yes, what could she have said that would have made it OK?

How would you answer her core question of whether or not the comment she made is appropriate?

Re-structure the question and switch gender out for cake flavors.

"What flavor of cake do you prefer? Chocolate, vanilla, or sheetcake?"

the feedback coming back as...

"'Sheetcake' is not a flavor. Sheetcake may be vanilla, chocolate, red velvet, lemon-poppyseed... If you want to know if a survey respondent likes sheetcake, you need to explicitly ask that question."

... it does seem kinda grating but not overtly so. It could have been nicer but also could have been more rude.

I completely agree. I know and have worked with many people who communicate that way. I'd probably prefer it if they didn't, but I also don't generally have a problem when they do. I would feel that the explanation was unnecessarily pedantic and perhaps the slightest bit disrespectful in its assumption that I didn't know what I was talking about, but I would assume that was unintentional. It's interesting that the reaction from this data scientist individual came back so extremely negative.

The more I think of it, this whole thing is like something out of Portlandia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portlandia_(TV_series)

I'm disgusted at her reflection that the question was transphobic, not that she commented on the difference. Whether the data scientist overreacted or not is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant because it's the reason she was fired, and hence the reason the post exists. The fact that you disagree with her assertion about the question seems to be the irrelevant thing to me.

No, it is irrelevant. The fact that the incident got her fired is a failing with GitHub's management and dearth of communication. Playing the victim card and shitting on the data scientist is misguided.

But it seems to me that if GitHub failed her in its practices, she was a victim. Why wouldn't she be?

Calling a comment transphobic in no way implies that the speaker of that comment is transhpobic. It is a description of what's been said. The same way if someone was to say something that could possibly be construed as racist. If someone points that out and says hey that statement is racist, that's not calling that person racist. They might be. They might not, but that statement in and of itself implies no assertion on that actual person.

In short, calling the statement in question transphobic is correct.

>Calling a comment transphobic in no way implies that the speaker of that comment is transhpobic.

Then what does it imply, that the comment has a phobia of or holds hate for trans people?

If I call your post autistic, does that not imply I think less of you for making it?

Intent is the difference between being transphobic and being ignorant. The survey question was ignorant.

How silly it sounds to anthropomorphize the question that way should tell you that you are wrong in this case. A question doesn't have a brain to be ignorant with, nor does it have intentions of any sort: once someone has written it down, it just is.

In TDD, do we talk about a unit test succeeding because I intended for it to fail and it did? No, we say it failed because the actual result is red. I didn't fail, but the test sure did.

Intention doesn't change the impact of communication; if the intent doesn't match the actual outcome, what it means is that the author probably wanted to change it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com