It’s interesting to see TB refrain himself from asking Dodger of her opinion “as a woman”, while in the same discussion it is argued that we need more diverse developers, so they can deliver different perspectives. If I remember correctly, on the previous podcasts TB explained, that they don’t do it, because Dodger does not represent all women - excuse me if I’m remembering it incorrectly or misrepresenting what he said, though I’m pretty sure that was the argument. I don’t find this interesting in a “snarky” way at all, but from an actual, sociological standpoint. I do not want to accuse anyone of having double standards - even if that might ultimately be the case - but rather have a discussion around that topic. Because this topic is actually not about gender in the slightest. It’s about the “As an X” logic and how to interpret it.

Lets take a couple of different scenarios, where one might use “As an X” phrase and see how we perceive these. First, let’s imagine a podcast centered around hardware with four people - one is a PC player, the second plays on Xbox One, third is a Sony fan and the last, you’ve guessed it, owns a WiiU. In that scenario, would it be reasonable to start a sentence with “as a PC player”? Because the user most definitely does not represent every PC player in existence; yet their invitation to the podcast was based on the fact, that they have a different perspective. So what do they want to signal, by saying that phrase? Is that just a huge self-ad hominem? Because the second, more negative type of this logic comes from arguments like “you cannot talk about this issue, because you’re X”, or “as an X, my opinion is more valuable”. Or just a straight up ad hominem: “you’re X, so your opinion doesn’t matter”. We wouldn’t just find these wrong - these statements are objectively wrong. So… is the whole logic just wrong? But look at the third example - this whole… “recusal” thing, that some people have been doing lately. You might have heard of it. It’s also based of “as an X logic”, example: “as someone that is heavily tied to this product, I do not think my opinion will remain unchanged by that”. And we all like honesty, we probably all like recusal where it’s needed, so…?

One thing I’m sure - most people, when using this logic, do not think that they will now represent everyone that shares the given trait with them. What they want to do, is to signalize where they’re coming from - because where they’re coming from does matter. It’s a quick summary of biases they might have. In fact, in a discussion, it’s almost like giving the other participants a hint, on where to catch you - where to look for your bias, expose it and tackle it. Sometimes it’s a warning - “I’m a professor, so my opinion here will be harder to disprove”; and as far as it’s not “my opinion therefore is unquestionable” instead, I’m fine with it. So I guess I am for asking Dodger questions of “as a woman” type, as long as she’s fine with it (because ultimately it’s nobody’s thing to decide, but between everyone on the Podcast). To not pretend it’s not a part of her and doesn’t matter. But I also accept I might be wrong - and I invite everyone to share their take on it.