On Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:09:45 +0000, qznc wrote:

> The only women I noticed in the D community is Maxime [0]. She built a research Javascript compiler with D for her PhD and now joined Apple. Maybe we should ask her, if there are issues concerning women and the D community?

There was Janice Caron, who was helpful and eager and got a fair bit of code into phobos. From what I recall, she was not well treated by the community.

It didn't help that this was around the time of major controversial changes with the language and before there was a process for contributing to Phobos. However, Andrei wasn't too far off from that story, and I recall a fair bit more vitriol toward Janice.

On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:06:28 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> https://peerj.com/preprints/1733/
>
> "Surprisingly, our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often."
>

It is not peer reviewed and for good reasons.

> In other words, you can be any gender you want! Just don't let people in the community know if you're not a guy.

In other words, you can be fed horseshit, as long as it goes into your confirmation bias, you are happy to eat it.

> Hope that wasn't an important part of your identity, like if your
> parents went as far as dressing you in different clothing because
> your gender from the day you were born or something like that.

Ok let me tell you something about my identity, where I was born and all of this. I was born and grew in France. You may not know, but all the idiocies you are spouting are just rebranding of French post-modernism and structuralism/post-structuralism. Derida, Foucault, Deleuze, Bourdieu, etc ...

The whole damn thing became very popular after Mai 68, and, because of Gramcism, became the norm, notably in schools, in less than 2 decades. Meaning I was fed this nonsense pretty much everyday for like 20 years. There is hardly anything new in what you are presenting me. I get that you are all existed because this is new in the US, but while you guys are discovering glacier are sexists, we, in France, already knew that E=mc^2 is a sexed equation because it "privilegize the speed of light over other speed that are also vitally necessary to us" (Iriguay, 1987).

It is all ex post facto rationalization to fit the narrative. See your "study" ? Women get more PR merged => women are better coders. Women get less PR merged => women are oppressed.

It is all mental gymnastic and zero content.

On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:19:16 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> There was Janice Caron, who was helpful and eager and got a fair bit of code into phobos. From what I recall, she was not well treated by the community.
>

[citation needed]

A quick glance show that you are full of crap:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Feature_request_array_stuff_70431.html
http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.139.1196168459.2338.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/automatic_conversion_to_invariant_string_67951.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Invariant_Question_yes_another_one_61626.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Limited_member_function_templates_61337.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/cast_const_proposal_57947.html
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Casting_away_const_and_invariant_57937.html

Even looking for it I can't find it.

> It didn't help that this was around the time of major controversial changes with the language and before there was a process for contributing to Phobos. However, Andrei wasn't too far off from that story, and I recall a fair bit more vitriol toward Janice.

Well that vitriol must have been mixed with a fair amount of sodium hydroxide.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:33:47 +0000, deadalnix wrote:

> On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:19:16 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> There was Janice Caron, who was helpful and eager and got a fair bit of code into phobos. From what I recall, she was not well treated by the community.
>>
>>
> [citation needed]

It was on IRC in a private channel. I don't keep IRC logs for more than five years.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:25:26 +0000, deadalnix wrote:

> On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:06:28 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> https://peerj.com/preprints/1733/
>>
>> "Surprisingly, our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often."
>>
>>
> It is not peer reviewed and for good reasons.

It's from a source with many peer-reviewed articles, and you're not providing any evidence at all, peer reviewed or otherwise, to counter it.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:03:15 +0000, deadalnix wrote:

> On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:00:09 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> As an adjective, agreed. "Lady" compounds better than "woman", so you can use that too.
>>
>>
> So now, we are up to language policing already. You guys are true wonders of progress. The epitome of the free world.

Not policing. Giving recommendations. Describing usages.

>> Using 'female' as a noun in place of 'woman' is in my experience a hallmark of pick-up artists, men's rights activists, and allied trades. Just don't do it.
> 
> "The word is used by people I don't like,

Used in order to dehumanize a population, specifically.

> no it should be banned".

A recommendation to avoid a certain word is much different from banning people from using it.

> Such progress. Much enlightenment. Wow !

Helping others to be polite is in fact progressive and enlightened. Your response is neither.

On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 20:37:27 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:33:47 +0000, deadalnix wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:19:16 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>>> There was Janice Caron, who was helpful and eager and got a fair bit of code into phobos. From what I recall, she was not well treated by the community.
>>>
>>>
>> [citation needed]
>
> It was on IRC in a private channel. I don't keep IRC logs for more than five years.

You are looking more and more convincing, please continue...

On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 20:38:00 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> It's from a source with many peer-reviewed articles, and you're not providing any evidence at all, peer reviewed or otherwise, to counter it.

Good thing the burden of proof is not on me then.

I mean why would I have to present anything at this point ? Everything that has been presented so far has been a complete trainwreck, as expected.

I mean from the Gnome outreach program, that ended up bankrupting the Gnome fundation, non peer reviewed research and invisible vitriol, you have presented no case that is worth debunking so far.

On 03/22/2016 12:25 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> we, in France, already knew that
> E=mc^2 is a sexed equation because it "privilegize the speed of light
> over other speed that are also vitally necessary to us" (Iriguay, 1987).

I had to learn more about that:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray

Ali

On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 18:06:28 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> https://peerj.com/preprints/1733/
>
> "Surprisingly, our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often."
>
> In other words, you can be any gender you want! Just don't let people in the community know if you're not a guy. Hope that wasn't an important part of your identity, like if your parents went as far as dressing you in different clothing because your gender from the day you were born or something like that.

That study really didn't show what the headlines claimed at all:
    http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/

"1. Among insiders, women get more requests accepted than men.

2. Among insiders, people are biased TOWARDS women, that is, revealing genders gives women an advantage over men above and beyond the case where genders are hidden.

3. Among outsiders, women still get more requests accepted than men.

4. Among outsiders, revealing genders appears to show a bias against women. It’s not clear if this is statistically significant.

5. When all genders are revealed among outsiders, men appear to have their requests accepted at a rate of 64%, and women of 63%. The study does not provide enough information to determine whether this is statistically significant. Eyeballing it it looks like it might be, just barely.

6. The study describes its main finding as being that women have fewer requests approved when their gender is known. It hides on page 16 that men ALSO have fewer requests approved when their gender is known. It describes the effect for women as larger, but does not report the size of the male effects, nor whether the difference is statistically significant. Eyeballing it, it looks about 2/3 the size of the female effect, and maybe?"

The significance and cause of these effects was not proven either; the study had many, many confounding factors - including the fact that they didn't even have an unbiased way of determining the gender of their subjects, to begin with.