I made a bot that suggests some alternative phrasing when you write guys in Slack. It made for some discussion.
Made a “guys bot” for @SlackHQ that subtly whispers that you could use more inclusive language 🏳️🌈, instead of the public Slackbot slap on the wrist. @glitch seemed very much like the right host for it. guys-bot-for-slack.glitch.me22:16 PM - 10 Dec 2018
38
155
I have seen in different Slack communities that people have implemented a Slackbot response that triggers whenever people write ”guys“, suggesting some alternatives that are considered more inclusive. It also links to an article in Vox about npm’s you guys-jar. A similar commentary was also published in The Atlantic that includes comments from a linguist. There's also a handful of threads on forums where people discuss whether the word "guys" is considered gender neutral or not.
Not surprisingly, not everybody was convinced by the bot’s legitimacy. I had a handful of people tell (on behalf of their English speaking part of the world) me that “guys” actually was gender natural (I am aware). Some went further and suggested that this was censoring and undermining the way they talked. It’s tempting to point out how many of them were not… guys. (well, none).
My tweet also gained a lot of likes and retweets, suggesting that some folks appreciated the idea, or at least wanted to be affiliated by what it signals. And this is taking us closer to the matter of hand. Because I'm all but sure that a “Guys bot” is the right approach to the problem we try to solve: How to make welcoming and inclusive communities in tech. I put it out partly as an experiment and to learn more by the reactions to it.
Nobody likes being told they're wrong
I have a lot of training in being wrong. I have spent years at university being told I'm wrong in all sorts of creative ways. Being open to being wrong is an essential part of learning and developing knowledge, especially in science. Still, I very often get defensive and moody when I'm told so. It's a very human response. It's something I have to actively work with.
The reason it’s irritating is that there’s often a moral dimension to it, that doesn’t align with whatever you intended. I bet that most people that greet a group with “Hi, guys!” don’t intend to be exclusive, but the rather opposite. When you’re instantly hit back with a canned response that suggests that this seemingly innocent way of speech may be considered hurtful to some, I have no problem in seeing that some might find that obtuse.
I suspect, though, that people who have a lived experience of not being included in all sorts of ways, in a field still dominated by mostly men, may have a more empathetic response because they get what the bot is trying to solve.
Bots lack nuance
There are good reasons to object to a bot automatically correcting language in a public community. To borrow the analogy from one of my colleagues, one wouldn't like having something that buzzed every time someone said it in the office space. Like in Demolition Man:
Since nor me or the originators of the Slackbot response have spent time tuning the algorithms, it also triggers on a lot of false positives. Which is somewhat counterproductive.
The reason a bot is tempting for community moderatos is that also lessens the chance that you end up in long-winded debates whenever you have to remind people of the Code of Conduct and telling them they’re wrong. Also, you can’t be everywhere at the same time. A bot can.
Why the bot stays (at least for a while)
None of those who have given me critique have been able to convince me to turn off the bot though. That’s mainly because the critique doesn’t come from a place of empathy, but is mostly self-affirming and resisting consideration of what we try to achieve (to be fair, some have also acknowledged what it tries to do, but it usually ends there).
Some are irritated that the bot corrects what they perceive to be a perfectly legitimate way of addressing a group, considered to be inclusive in their lingual context. And thereby telling me that I'm wrong, and perhaps because I'm not a native speaker (not seeing the irony).
For someone that spends most of their they day communicating in a second language (my native being Norwegian), I must admit my sympathy is lacking for someone who feels it though to adjust by one word. It’s also telling that they don’t consider English to be a highly diverse and multi-faceted language. And that we might have to take other considerations in an online multi-cultural community where gender bias is a proven issue than in one’s hometown.
It's not about you guys
I also suspect that some think of this bot as just another example of virtue signaling and political correctness. Recognized as hostile forces to the open and liberal mind by some. Most of those I’ve encountered that have made this their hill to die on aren’t really open to taking in other perspectives or entertain the motivations behind questioning how language can be used to include or exclude people. They do not ask me why I really did this, or what problem I try to solve. So although I find pointing out hypocrisy a lazy argument, it certainly doesn’t help their case.
So if you are a promoter of the open though and the free word, I'll ask you to reconsider the motivation behind efforts like this bot. For example by watching Patricia Aas’ talk Deconstructing Privilege. Or actually listening to the experiences of different underrepresented groups in tech (and elsewhere), and consider how being reminded that you don't really belong might affect your motivation to stay in web development, technology, or whatever you do.
Because you guys, it's not just about you guys.
Latest comments (64)
You seem like the thoughtful, subtle sort.
Have you made any controlled experiments with this?
And if you wanted to make a bibliography, might be worth peeking at some of Durkheim's work rather than Sapir's to understand the motivations and effects of the kinds of systems in that Demolition Man video.
And it would be unreasonable to say, I guess, that there's no market for the bot. And many will be grateful for it.
Really interesting article and discussion. Definitely got me thinking Knut, takk! 😁
I would exit any community that implements something like this, without a backward glance.
Being inclusive leads to inclusiveness. Being nice to people leads to inclusiveness. Being human, empathetic and talking to people leads to inclusiveness. Listening to people leads to inclusiveness. Accepting people leads to inclusiveness.
Language policing does not lead to inclusiveness, it leads to *ex*clusiveness . It leads to people being afraid to speak. It leads to people who are in the know to be comfortable speaking within carefully circumscribed bounds, and those who just don't "get it" to be excluded.
Techno solutions do not lead to inclusiveness. Your bot is part and parcel of tech exclusiveness. If you feel that someone is using exclusive language, talk to them. Be real and human with them. Be empathetic.
Thanks for your feedback, @rendall ! As you know, from having read my post, I’m aware of the backside of calling out how people use language.
But I find it interesting that an automated private reminder to be more emphatic is so outrageous that you would blankly exit the community. Some people actually prefer it to having a moderator contact them and making a whole deal out of it.
But to your higher point, I do agree that we should strive towards human interaction and empathy. But I don’t think we can rule out how technology puts constraints and can augment this. Because after all, even here we’re typing in text fields over the Internet.
Language policing, and in particular automated language policing, indicates deeper problems, as I partly outlined above.
You would be hard-pressed to find my saying such a dramatic thing in all of my online presence, stretching back years, but I am that certain of it.
I note without surprise that you literally had women telling you that they found the bot not helpful for inclusivity and you overrode their opinions with your own. That is not inclusiveness.
Be honest: there is no rational argument that would make you take it away, is there. I mean all of this feedback kindly to you: this behavior from a moderator is precisely what I would expect from a community that implemented this, and why I would see a language-police-bot as a huge red flag.
On top of all of that, when I saw the title, I expected to read an article arguing in favor of the proposition that 'you guys' is exclusionary. I was hoping to be convinced. Instead, this article is a story about a bot that takes it as given and then ignores any feedback to the contrary.
If I can offer any advice at all, do the hard work of exploring the topic with your community, of first discovering if "you guys" is actually a problem, if people are actually feeling uncomfortable there, and if so, what to do about it. Imposing a cop-bot is a cop-out.
Thanks for your input @Turle Biker Girl!
As I hope you can see from my post, I too have my hesitations to the bot and if it's the right approach to whatever we're trying to solve here.
I think I share your disappointment in people being dismissed simply because of their gender — whatever it may be, and I see how my quoted comment could imply that I did dismiss objections because they came from men (But then again, I do engage with the objections in the following paragraphs).
I think you're correct that word-choice and language are very much under scrutiny in tech nowadays, and that it's hard to be in a position where you raise concern upon what's agreed on as ideologically correct (It's not just tech, by the way, you'll find this discourse other places too).
I'm curious to learn what reasons for not wanting this bot / or don't mind the "hi guys" expression there is outside of those I raised in the post. And don't worry about reliving the debating. I'm not here to further justify the bot or make it my mission to convince you to change your opinion. But I do want to learn about your perspective if you care to share it.
Funnily enough, the bot pinged me as I was having a discussion about “guys” and Southerners’ use of “y’all.” I joked that we had to come up with an alternative to “you guys” because it was “too Northern.” I think it’s pretty fair to guess that Southerners didn’t coin it to be more gender-inclusive in their spoken language. In any case, I wasn’t bothered by the bot, and I think it’s a worthwhile exercise.
Friends and associates are becoming more willing to call out “whoa dude, that’s ___ist” when someone intentionally or unintentionally uses fraught or discriminatory speech. Why shouldn’t our machines, especially those built for communication, try and do the same.
What my concern would be with a feature like this, is that people who are mildly positive to neutral are turned off by this language correction.
Or, in other words, it might be that being picky about 'guys' might create resistance and reduce support for bigger problems -- like gender pay gaps, discrimination, difficultly getting respect for work achievements, and more.
I'm for inclusiveness, of course. But if this reduces support for matters that seem more pressing, then I'm not sure if it's worth it. Does that make sense, or am I being too pragmatic here?
Ok, I've managed to lose the thread here, but you sure assume a lot about someone you don't know. You haven't given me much credit for actually agreeing with a lot of what you say, and dong so in the text. I even included a clip from Demolition Man!
Once you toned down the useless rhetoric, you actually touch on different interesting points that proves how challenging and difficult this can be – which is frustrating, because it seems that it doesn't need to be. I haven't claimed to sit on the definitive answers, nor do I think you do, but what I think is worth thinking about is:
– What is the distinction between being offended and feeling excluded?
– How are efforts to influence, dictate or control communication experienced by people of different cultural and historical backgrounds?
– What is reasonable to expect from whom when it comes to inclusion in a tech community?
– Can we discuss how communicative actions can leave someone left out, without having to go down the rather unproductive “SJW”/partisan/whatever route?
I don't expect you to post the answers here – is just what I got from this whole ordeal.
Perhaps, if you've acquaintances who've managed to get their way away from any of the various "regimes" out there, especially any older ladies & gents who've surcame any of the darker than usual times in such places, you might buy one of them a beer or two some time, encourage a spirit of convivial honesty, and might ask them their thoughts on this.
Couldn't hurt to ask, no?
And if you do, perhaps I'll buy you a beer sometime if I'm in Oslo.
Oh, you would be more careful also in a shame-driven culture (like some of the largest ones in Asia or basically whatever was under the aegis of the catholic church), not just in communist or fascist regimens.
I still see what troubles people so much if they are collectively called "guys" just by convention: in my team (which, again, I definitely like and respect), basically everyone makes cultural references I do not get, on top of speaking a language which is not my native one (although I have been just using that for years): should I ask them to avoid mentioning anything too British for my ears or to speak in Esperanto, so that I can feel like I belong in there?
Come on, let's be realistic: harassment or discrimination are serious issues, while this paranoid campaign to make everybody thread on eggshells (I am not referring to you in particular, it is a general though) it is either useless or actually really offensive towards people who have actually experienced some kind of unfair work environment.
I am pretty confident I am still entitled to say that imho that is censorship and can lead to even worse situations, in the same way you are entitled to disagree: I would never dream to censor these kind of ideas :)
If your version of truth is that you think it's reasonable to compare being thoughtful about language to mandatory tearing the wings off of flies, then I think you might need serious help.
This kind of slippery slope argument is exhausting and unproductive. And again, you did in fact agree when you signed up. That's what a Terms of Service agreement is.
You implicitly agree to the Code of Conduct by registering an account and continuing to use this site, as you agree to Terms of Service subject to change for literally anything you sign up for.
Are you implying that women wouldn't be included if you said "hey developers" to a group of people? Because that's just ludicrous. The only people it wouldn't include are people who aren't developers, which is likely situationally appropriate.
I honestly do not see why so many people continue to see "hey, consider wording things inclusively" as censorship and inherently offensive. No one is enforcing your use of guys in your own life, and I'm very sorry you've been inconvenienced by being asked to regard other people's feelings.
Speaking as someone with "lived experience of not being included in all sorts of ways, in a field still dominated by mostly men", I appreciate the desire to help communities do better on inclusivity but I'm really, really not a fan of the approach. I think the comments here make the case in point: the people who need to be reminded to use inclusive language are exactly the people who will dig their heels in at robotic finger-wagging. And I don't blame them, because automated nagging is annoying however high-minded the intent, and I would absolutely do the same if I were in an analogous situation (in fact, I have done the same in analogous situations!). I've posted on bulletin boards which made extensive use of automated text replacement; that has the advantage of being direct and not coming off as condescending, but of course realtime chat platforms would have to have it built in.
Thank you for your comment @dmfay !
Yeah, as you say from the various comments I've gotten both here and on Twitter, I think you're completely right. Not even a wagging-finger from the adorable BMO gets past them. Next time I'll use Clippy 😄
Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.