"'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."
For contrast, this reminds me of Gene Wilder's feedback about his Willy Wonka costume:
Was there really something wrong with that phrasing? How would you improve it? Genuinely curious; I think I'd have phrased it the same way (though at every place I've worked we'd have done a review like this face to face), and I find it pretty non-confrontational.
Enjoyed the letter you shared. Gene is truly missed.
TLDR: They suggest splitting the gender question into two parts.
As you know, this is a super important issue for me. Progress! Exciting! If you're busy, I'll make a pull request. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Thank you, Specialist"
Some people need the sugar, some do not. It's not always easy to work out which is which so you may need to err on the side of caution until you know your co-workers better.
Because empathy is important to communicating effectively. You're looking at the words, but you're not looking at phrasing and tone, which are just as important.
Try this exercise: read the sentence out loud to yourself. Taking a line out of Myers-Briggs, does it sound more perceptive or judging, to you, when read aloud?
To me it sounds judging, as if Coraline already has pre-conceived notions about the person she is communicating with. At the very least, it sounds unnecessarily defensive. The wording is definite, with no room for discussion. In fact, all I see in that wording is a mini "well, actually" lecture.
The reality is that she doesn't know if this was an intentional or unintentional oversight. People leave things out, forget to finish sentences, paint in broad strokes and fine-tune later. From the description, this likely wasn't in its final stages. Maybe it was going to get changed, or maybe it wasn't, but you need to start from the idea that the person on the other end of the sentence also wants the best results.
It's a nice idea to think that people should say whatever they want as long as it's the objective truth, but humans are humans, which means they are subjective and have feelings. I find that people are much more effective workers when they are attentive to the feelings of others.
Another phrasing which is probably just as effective, much less aggressive, and only slightly more wordy:
"Have you considered how people of different gender identities might engage with this question? Transgender people might be confused if they identify as both male (or female) and trans. Perhaps we can find a way to make this question a little less ambiguous for this class of people?"
Sure, the proposed solution is not directly in that sentence-- but that's kind of the point. You have to get on the same page before you start throwing out answers at people. Maybe the data scientist already knows this but just didn't communicate effectively-- otherwise you end up dangerously close to "well actually"ing someone who already knows the thing you're telling them.
In fact, to me, the weirdest part of the article is how ironic it is to see Coraline be so obtusely unaware of how unempathetic this kind of phrasing is, since she is so vocal about it on Twitter. It definitely strikes me as slightly hypocritical to see people arguing that we should be allowed to get straight to the point of a technical argument without any fluff or nicety. I believe this was the exact opposite argument being made from the same camp when Code of Conduct discussions were being had.
> empathy is important to communicating effectively.
Yes, but that applies just as well to the data scientist--who, when she saw this comment, didn't do what any reasonable person would do and call up/message/whatever the coworker who made the comment and straighten out any confusion/misunderstanding, but instead went right to her boss and complained. That should not be the first resort--it should be the last resort. A little empathy on the data scientist's part would have led to: "Hm, that seemed abrasive at first glance, but she does have a valid point..."
> Because empathy is important to communicating effectively.
I learned the hard way that displaying empathy and applying sugarcoating are two very different things, back when I was conflating the former with the latter and ended up dismissing both in name of the latter (which made me sound like a pretentious prick), then trying to correct course and applying the latter in lieu of making use of the former (which made me sound political and manipulative).
> Try this exercise: read the sentence out loud to yourself.
To me it sounded like someone who is alarmed at a subject that matters to them and haphazardly made an assertive statement.
People generally can't stand assertive discourse as they perceive it as being judgemental, unless you take a chance at discovering them as well as give them a chance do discover you. Sugarcoating doesn't help with that, it's just trying to state the same thing in a roundabout, artificially lightened way, which most of the time ends up feeling heavy, gooey, pretenseful and manipulative, when what matters is the build-up, the foreplay if you will, leading to a common level of understanding. Ultimately this is all about people and openness, not facts and opinions. Being openly and genuinely kind, querying for people's thoughts and listening to them helps a lot in getting a point across, but it leaves you vulnerable to abusive personalities, also sometimes you really have to stand your ground. It's really tough to strike a balance.
I honestly don't know where truth lies in this exact matter but what I'm sure of is that when you have to second-guess your every words then the place is mentally exhausting and toxic in a terribly pernicious way as it makes you feel in constant danger and gradually destroys your self-esteem.
- I think issues of diplomacy get magnified online because intent is so easy to misjudge. Whatever I write seems to come off twice as rude as I intended.
- I was taught etiquette, to a large extent, in an online fiction workshop called Critters. There, critiques are all peer reviews, and diplomatic critiques are essential. I try to keep some of that friendly peer spirit in every review and issue I make.
We're missing context as to the existing work relationship. If this was one of the first interactions, maybe it was a little too harsh.
Beyond that, even though I'm generally an asshole, I try to be nice in PR comments. Like it or not, most devs have some amount of ego tied up in their code. So removing the sting with some sugar coating makes for a better chance of them listening.
None of this applies once I have a longer work relationship with the author.
> Why so much sugarcoating? Feedback was straightforward. I didn't see any aggressive words.
I disagree; mostly because of this last part.
> you need to explicitly ask that question.
This last part feels like a demand and is too forceful. Suggestion is more persuasive then demands. I agree with you the comment you replied too is a little too sugarcoated for my taste, but the basic structure seems good, suggesting an authoritative source to back up your concern is a good idea. Especially when you are commenting on something (the data scientist may not have known about her LGBT work) outside your field to someone who is in the field (making a survey).
With that said, I get like this too when I am deep in coding. This may not be an issue for technical topics where it can be proved that x would cause a crash. But, I would handle this differently for non-tech issues that are subjective.
But... the data scientist should have been used to this at a company full of programmers. Maybe she was the first to actually comment on the content of the work.
Still, the data scientist overreacted and should have handled it better. Assuming this is more or less the details we need to know.
> I find is that in some companies people are just scared of each other that they fail to communicate.
Keep in mind OP said she got hundreds of comments on her earlier work from all over the company. Maybe instead the female data scientist was very defensive because she got similar treatment in the past.
It didn't seem like an overreaction from the data scientist. The subtext of the comment was that the scientist is considered an enemy of the trans political block. This is a serious problem that you will get burned by if you don't recruit allies to help you with it.
Like, the statement wasn't an opening for dialogue about or investigation into the best way to fulfill the work project. It went straight into making a power play. You can't discuss your way out of someone who's trying to control and gain power over you.
This tone is so bloody fake and would make me lose all respect for the person sending it.
There's treating someone respectfully and there's talking to them like they're a child. The fact that Silicon Valley is promoting this method of communication is just ridiculous.
How about we concentrate more on getting things done and less on so much sugar-coating that we all get diabetes.
In school, we once read a brief essay by German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer on politeness.
Back then, I found Schopenhauer's tone incredibly pompous and condescending, but over the years I have come to appreciate it as one of the best explanations of what function politeness plays in social interaction:
"It is a wise thing to be polite; consequently, it is a stupid thing to be rude. To make enemies by unnecessary and willful incivility, is just as insane a proceeding as to set your house on fire. For politeness is like a counter--an avowedly false coin, with which it is foolish to be stingy."
What Schopenhauer says is that all politeness carries with it at least a kernel of insincerity, but that this is not a bad thing, quite the opposite - once we get past the idea that politeness is "phony", we can throw it around generously, and discover how much easier we get along with people we may not like very much. Consider politeness a kind of WD-40 for social interactions.
Why thank you for that clarification! I'm quite busy but can definitely submit a PR within the next few days. Feel free to do it first and I'll take a look, though. :)
Idk. Every time I've wanted something done, this sort of language usually resulted in better outcomes as opposed to being direct, especially when communicating with someone I don't know very well, or a superior.
Its the terseness -- I think its ok to be terse with people you know, but in a context where you're interacting with someone who doesnt know you well, manners can be pretty important for relaying that you're on the same team. Directness can come across as aggressive when you cant see a persons expression or hear their tone. Especially if its a sensitive subject.
I just got reported to HR because I told somebody that a component they developed for us was badly designed. Turns out everybody agreed and it was changed but I still have to deal with HR.
Being ultra sensitive keeps people around you on their toes and makes them think twice about everything they say.
I think running to a manager and complaining about being offended is the new way of bullying people.
"'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."
For contrast, this reminds me of Gene Wilder's feedback about his Willy Wonka costume:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/181340-this-letter-gene-wild...
I now try to emulate this style, in every situation.
As for the triggered data scientist... Well. Whaddya gonna do? I guess my skin's thicker than most.