[theepauk]

The only effect of a Code of Conduct I have ever personally witnessed was that people were being bullied for greeting others. The greeting they used was "hey guys", and instead of recognizing that language is fluid and different to different people they tried to impose their linguistic views on others. The people who encouraged this behavior were people on the Code of Conduct committee and at the top of the project's hierarchy, and to this day nobody has apologized for this behavior, but the behavior was silently dropped.

[bragr]

I'm from a part of the US where "guys" is used as a gender neutral collective noun. My mom and grandma would call out "guys, dinner is ready!" to the whole family to call us to the table for example.

So it's definitely whiplash inducing for the same group of people preaching inclusion and tolerance, and how we need to accept regional and racial dialects in the workplace, to then turn around and implement slackbots that nag and shame me for my regional speech patterns.

[tjpnz]

I work in Japan - naturally I've Japanese colleagues, and a significant number from other Asian countries too. The "you guys"/"hey guys"/"that guy" thing is practically universal.

The idea of a native (probably white) English speaker lecturing them on it being sexist or non-inclusive is repugnant to the extreme. At that point they've lost the argument, and can frankly get fucked.

[colpabar]

> The idea of a native (probably white) English speaker lecturing them on it being sexist or non-inclusive is repugnant to the extreme

It really is amazing how those people don't see it that way and instead think they are really helping anyone. English was forced on a lot of the world. Now it's sort of happening again, in a different way and with infinitely less violence, but the justification remains the same: to civilize the savages.

[bananashazama]

To what Japanese phrases are you referring? Most of the various phrases I'd expect to use to refer to a group (minasan, [name]-san-tachi) are gendered at all in typical use, and the ones I can think of that are gender only one member of the group (e.g. kanojo-tachi to refer to a group including one known female).

And it's not like Japanese doesn't have similar sexist norms baked into its own vocabulary either (if anything, to a rather greater extent than English). No, an everyday modern speaker probably doesn't mean anything by the fact that it's danna-sama but oyome-san, or the fact that formal speech (as one would use with a superior) is read as feminine-coded in casual contexts. But that doesn't mean there's not something behind those norms, either.

Whether the lecture is counterproductive is an entirely different question to whether the usage is sexist.

[that_guy_iain]

When non-native English speakers are taught English, they are taught that "Hey guys" is gender neutral. So you'll meet lots of non-native English speakers who will be completely shocked at that it's not.

I have so much fun joking with some of my women friends that they're sexist because they're using "guys" instead of "folks".

To me, it's one of those things where someone is always going to be awkward and say "that doesn't include me". They may jokingly say something but some take it as a personal insult and just assume the other person is being sexist. While I always use "folks" just to avoid the hassle, personally I wouldn't be too bothered if the people who take "Hey guys" as a sexist insult don't talk to me.

[nkuttler]

The fact that it was white people bullying people from all over the planet only made it worse.

[ZeroGravitas]

I've noticed that white people as a group regularly get abuse in anti-woke HN threads. Seems bizarre to me.

I guess it is some kind of "gotcha", intended to undermine "woke" people but it seems a bit self-defeating.

"White people are so racist they're even racist when they're trying to be non-racist" seems more woke than anti-woke to me, but that doesn't seem to be the intention.

[woooooo]

It's specifically the phenomenon of rich 1-percenters trying to cancel each other that's grating.

Is there injustice in the world? Clearly. Are these people insufferable? Also very much yes.

In the tech context specifically, we are very international in a way that doesn't map to US culture wars, which makes the white woke people look even more out of touch with reality.

[mablopoule]

My pet theory is that most 'woke' people are people that feel ashamed at not being at the bottom of the hierarchy, and so try to compensate their 'privileges' by being overly sensitive to any kind of injustice, to the point of seeing moral or symbolic violence where there is none.

And since the negative discourse (e.g. saying "Women face so many issue in the workplace" as a man) is way more socially palatable than a positive one (saying "Women have it OK now in the workplace" as a man), people who try to be sensible about thing not directly concerning them tend to overdo it by amplifying the "everything is bad" angle.

Which is why at the height of the BLM movements, lots of well-meaning (but IMO severely misguided) people felt that 'master' or 'blacklist' were carriers of oppression, while not thinking twice about words such as 'white noise' or 'white-label' (Implying that a lack of creativity or panache is associated with whiteness, the horror!), The former was among white 'wokes' sensibility-by-proxy, while for the latter the same crowd had the experience and tool to know this argument is bonker, and that anyone having issue with the expression 'white noise' has mental issue.

I came to this conclusion after a gay/muslim friend of mine, who likes to do humoristic quizzes on Instagram did one for the Ramadan. He asked "Apart from Ramadan, what are the other 4 pillars of Islam", and accepted the Ru Paul reference "Creativity, Uniqueness, Nerves and Talent" as the answer. The only people taking issue with that were non-muslim white french dudes who felt it was islamophobic, which greatly annoyed my friend, who felt it feed into the stereotypes of "angry muslim".

[klipt]

And of course, complaints about white people are one of the things that wouldn't be punished under these code of conducts despite the "no racism" clause, because they're usually not evenly enforced.

[JohnFen]

> When non-native English speakers are taught English, they are taught that "Hey guys" is gender neutral.

I'm a native English speaker in the US, in my late 50s, and I was taught that "guys" used in that way was gender neutral in grade school.

[Anthony-G]

Another data point: I’m from Ireland and grew up in the 80s. For as long as I remember, the plural form “guys” always referred to groups of any gender. I’d be just as likely to use it to greet a female-only group of colleagues as a mixed or male-only group of colleagues.

[giraffe_lady]

I'll buy this when I hear a straight man talk about the guys he's dated. A thing that I have still never once observed.

[gameman144]

There are lots of languages where the gender-neutral term and one of the gendered terms are the same. Consider the Spanish "ellos", meaning either "the masculine group" or "the masculine and feminine group". The word "ellas" denotes a feminine-only group.

It seems very reasonable that "guys" could function similarly in English. Moreover, I might not say "the guys I've dated" as a straight man, but if all the women I've ever dated were talking together in a room, I wouldn't bat an eye asking "what are you guys all doing?".

Similarly, I wouldn't say "all the folks I've dated", but I might say "good evening, folks" -- the word is a misfit solely because of the idioms and context, not because the word is inherently communicating something else.

[wl]

"Guys" tends to be neuter in the second person and masculine in the third person.

In any case, I think your example works better with a bisexual speaker. A straight guy would probably use more specific gendered language rather than a neuter construction. A bisexual person using "guys" to refer to the men and women (s)he has dated would be an example of a third person neuter usage—which I also think would be quite rare.

[VancouverMan]

A nuance of that usage of "guys" to refer to a group consisting of both men and women is that the group of people being referred to is typically immediately present in some way.

Like in those earlier examples, the people are probably all within the same house/yard at the same time when they're called to dinner, or they're all using the same online discussion forum at about the same time.

When discussing multiple individuals with significant time and/or distance separating them (like the people somebody has dated over the span of years), a more specific term like "men", "women", "men and women", or "people" would likely be used instead.

[nkuttler]

Here's a shocking concept: language has context.

[woodruffw]

The person you’re responding to is providing an example of context-sensitivity.

[dingnuts]

The person he's responding to is choosing to be obtuse in order to police other peoples' language based on rules derived by their political ideology, and does not care about context

I wish you guys could understand that

[woodruffw]

"Context for me but not for thee" is not a principled argument.

The rest of the comment is speculative: you don't know anything about their politics, or have any reason to believe they're being obtuse.

[knjnppp]

Glad it's not up to you to "buy" the words I choose!

My region uses "you guys" for the you plural in English, too, and you petty speech totalitarians didn't show up until I was grown so even though I now live in a region that says y'all and even prefer it, when speaking I form sentences in my native language too quickly to catch myself every time I use my native term for you plural

But you and your language policing petty authoritarians would have me sent to the gulag for your ridiculous overly academic context ignoring willful and politically motivated misinterpretation of my diction

Screw you!

[uv-depression]

Oh my god you are being so dramatic. Someone says something you disagree with about whether a term is gender-neutral and you're suddenly talking about "speech totalitarians" and authoritarians and gulags. Get a grip.

[malwrar]

I haven’t used “guys” in that specific way, but I’ve definitely called my various female partners “dude” before. Language is fluid etc.

[GunnarSturla]

I don't think this example counters the gender neutrality of "guys". Have you ever observed a straight man talk about the people he's dated?

[EricMausler]

If everyone I dated were in a room, then I, a heterosexual male, very much might address that room as guys. As in, "hey guys, what are you doing here?"

I absolutely would not say "hey ladies"

It would feel too formal to say "hey everyone"

"Hey people" would be awkward

"Hey you all" eh

It might be better to leave it at "hey"

It might be best to just say "bye"

[giraffe_lady]

Yes.

[Volundr]

It's an interesting bit of context. I also grew up with guys as a generic plural, but it's not really generic, rather it's a mixed group plural. It would feel just as natural to say "the people I date", as "the women I date", but never "the guys I date.

Even that's a weak rule though. For example if a girls soccer team performed really well you might hear someone say "those guys really gave it their all today" (though I'd say this usage is mostly dead, I don't think I've heard it this way in a long time), but never "THE guys really gave it their all today".

I'm sure some linguists have studied this and have a term for this kind of thing.

[BasedAnon]

Why would they use it to refer to a group of exclusively women? 'guys' refers to a group of men or a group of men and women, not to a group of women. Is that so hard to understand?

[woodruffw]

Can you provide more details?

I’ve been working on open source projects for about a decade now, including years of professional work, and I have never seen or heard someone chastised for using “guys” informally. This includes in communities with established, formal codes of conduct. It strikes me as something that most people wouldn’t even notice, unless the speaker was intentionally using it in a way that implies gender.

[LanceH]

A CoC might be just fine. GCC's looks nice -- basically "act professionally".

But, there are people out there who jump at the opportunity to take offense on someone else's behalf.

The female analog to "guys" seems to be "gals", but nobody uses that anymore, preferring "girls". The word "girls" is a word of automatic offense taking to some, even if everyone involved in the conversation is cool with it.

I've seen the "girls" one play out with someone stating that the women get a pass self-referencing and the guy who actually goes to lunch with them can't say it.

These same people who want to take offense are sometimes drawn to these CoC's -- either to implement or enforce them.

Then add in the desire to drop life changing punishments to such mild things. Say the wrong thing and get fired. See Python and the stupid dongle joke. That didn't need a video, that needed a brief reprimand of, "grow up" and it could have been done. Instead it got an interrogation and people fired -- and more CoC's for everything.

Holy crap, if some of these people had seen the 70's.

[woodruffw]

Again: details would be nice. People do indeed take offense on others' behalves (and probably should do so less often), but that's more of a human nature thing; it's not evidence that CoCs actually make that phenomenon worse.

> Then add in the desire to drop life changing punishments to such mild things. Say the wrong thing and get fired. See Python and the stupid dongle joke. That didn't need a video, that needed a brief reprimand of, "grow up" and it could have been done. Instead it got an interrogation and people fired -- and more CoC's for everything.

To be clear: this had nothing to do with a CoC; I don't think PyCon even had one at the time. Given that both people ended up being fired it's unclear that a CoC could have even possibly produced worse individual outcomes for either, given that the power implied by one is normally limited to an online community or physical conference center.

[LanceH]

It's nuanced. There are good and bad CoC's: be nice here vs. we are the thought police on your entire internet history.

A problem people have with them is they are being weaponized by people attracted to enforcing their concepts of thoughtcrime.

I don't see anything particularly interesting in the GCC one. It's just saying it's not a free for all like some places are ok with.

[jdiff]

There is no CoC in existence that goes full thought police on your full internet history. That's not nuance you're holding, it's straw.

[throwitawayplz]

The dbt slack community has a bot that says

> Hi! Reminder: “guys” is an inherently gendered term. Great alternatives include “everyone”, “folks”, “team”, "friends" or “y’all”. Thank you for helping us build a more inclusive community!

The only thing that really bothers me personally about this is the mistaken idea that language can be "inherently" anything. The meaning of a term varies based on usage, it is not inherent.

[woodruffw]

You're entitled to an opinion about it, but a Slack bot that pings you when you say "guys" is not remotely comparable to bullying (which is the top-level claim in this thread).

[dijit]

He's responding to the parent:

> I have never seen or heard someone chastised for using “guys” informally

A bot that is doing this is tantamount to a person doing it, since a person made the bot and a person installed the bot.

[nkuttler]

> Hi! Reminder: “guys” is an inherently gendered term.

That's not a ping, that's imposing your language on others. A ping would be something like "guys is a gendered term for some people"

[DangitBobby]

I would consider it a form of harassment and such petty language policies would certainly impact my desire to participate in a community. I would feel unwelcome.

[dijit]

I think hangops slack has one of those; https://twitter.com/hangops

[chr86]

On my work's slack, we have a bot that says (I'm paraphrasing) "please use folks, as guys is exclusionary/gendered etc".

[Ekaros]

And I would take offense to being called a folk...

[nkuttler]

I'm not sure what kind of details you're looking for?

[darkwater]

> The only effect of a Code of Conduct I have ever personally witnessed was that people were being bullied for greeting others.

They probably means you should name the opensource project that "bullied (people) for greeting others".

[woodruffw]

You said you personally witnessed something; I'd like to understand more about it.

In particular: did you witness the instigating incident, the bullying, or both? Did the bullying actually weaponize a CoC, or is it your impression that the presence of a CoC empowered the bully? Is "bullying" your characterization or someone else's? And so on.

[nkuttler]

I witnessed everything, the bullies used the CoC to justify their behavior and told me their committee encouraged their enforcement of the CoC in this way. People on the committee have published articles on the matter calling for such enforcement. Bullying is well defined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying, I specifically mean it in the sense of repeated abusive behavior by people with more power.

[Rebelgecko]

What project?

[duped]

Having a CoC is what gives moderators of a community the ability to drop the ban hammer and give a decent reason (in other words, establish some rules and keep out people who routinely break them). Enforcement is rarely public, for the same reason you don't fire someone in front of the entire office.

[Cthulhu_]

I mean CoC violations can also result in people losing their jobs; it's better to handle things in private. That also removes any cool factor from someone who's blatantly being a troll, the "us vs them" mentality that's easy to pick up.

[zeckalpha]

HN? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[RetpolineDrama]

I personally never contribute to an OSS that has a CoC, and if I find my organization is using OSS that has a CoC I actively work to remove it and ban my employees from contributing to it.

CoC's are poison, and if your project has a "Code of Conduct committee" it is dead to me.

I fully admit this hasn't been possible for everything, but I'm making great progress

[beej71]

Does your organization have a code of conduct itself?

[kergonath]

Mine does not, but then around here we have anti-bullying, anti-harassment and anti-discrimination laws so these things are penal matters, not merely contract breaches.

[iudqnolq]

CoC is not a contract. It's a non-binding promise that the project leadership will take actions up to banning someone if harassment happens.

[kergonath]

The whole point of it is that there are consequences if you breach it, otherwise it is almost entirely pointless.

[iudqnolq]

yes but the consequences are decided by normal humans via the organization's normal decision-making procedures. The legal system isn't involved.

[beej71]

Do you believe there are legal things you could do outside of work that would get you fired?

[kergonath]

Maybe, but they’d need to prove that it has an effect on how I do my job. They cannot just fire me because I say something they don’t like.

[beej71]

Most places hire "at will" and can fire anyone for any reason or no reason unless prohibited by law.

[newZWhoDis]

I don’t believe private, for-profit organizations and OSS communities are equivalent.

If OP’s org does have a CoC equivalent, it wouldn’t be the gotcha you seem to think it is

[tom_]

It sounds like you have opinions about how the team members should behave!

[Ekaros]

I wait for the day soon to come when AIs will "actively" participate in. And we have to find a term that encompasses both humans and AIs. And anyone not using the currently correct one will have their lives destroyed. Or if someone finds recording from using previously correct one and does the same.