[uponcoffee]

I don't get the gender backlash here, personification has been a thing for a long time and there doesn't seem to be any malfeasance (intended or otherwise) here. It's not lewd, doesn't play to stereotypes, etc.

To me, a basic litmus test is whether you could easily swap the gender without reworking anything. If you can't, it's probably offensive, if you can it's practically gender neutral (naming aside). It's not a catch all, obviously, as it's no replacement for awareness of history, culture, stereotypes etc.

It's easy enough to maintain a rebranded mirror synced to upstream. Instead people seem to want to take offense just for the sake of virtue signaling.

[bluntfang]

>Instead people seem to want to take offense just for the sake of virtue signaling.

Are you taking offense to people taking offense for the sake of virtue signaling?

[smegcicle]

> doesn't play to stereotypes

The stereotype that QA is 'women's work' is harming the industry.

[uponcoffee]

Can you point me to any examples of that stereotype? Historical employment figures, long form discussions, etc? I've genuinely never heard of that one, and considering the dominant solution in this space is Postman an alternative, female gendered solution could be argued as inclusive.

[Minor49er]

I've been in web development for over a decade and have never heard of this. All of the QA teams that I've worked with in the past have never showed any preference for one gender over the other.

[treis]

QA and BAs skew slightly female but not really all that much. It's just a stark contrast to devs that skew pretty overwhelmingly male.

[scsilver]

In the end we should all be using the genderless term, "dude" . Im a dude, he's a dude, she's a dude, we are all dudes.

[uponcoffee]

Dude, dude is gendered. Female version is dudette.

[graphpapa]

Idk about that

[lighthazard]

Get with the slang, old dude/dudette.