‘Male’ and ‘female’ plugs and connectors – gendered language

[Cyclotron]

Except that that chart, and your description, are completely, categorically, 100% incorrect. There is a well-documented worldwide shift to the right. The mainstream left today is more centrist than it was 30 years ago, never mind 100 years ago.

The only reason the left feels more left to you now is because everything has moved to the right.

This is one of those retorts where I say, "Again, but now with more cowbell."  I don't see a corpus of research or references supporting your assertion.
I could just as wildly assert the 100% opposite, and you'd reject it outright; why do you expect me or anyone to accept yours?  This seems irrational to me.

I feel no more obliged to provide sources than anyone else here apparently is, since nobody in this thread is providing sources. So unless you’re going to start providing sources, too, I’m not gonna bother.

Obviously, you haven't read my posts because I did provide sources and research to support my assertions. I see Huronking didn't read them either.
Not surprised at this point.

[tom66]

Except that that chart, and your description, are completely, categorically, 100% incorrect. There is a well-documented worldwide shift to the right. The mainstream left today is more centrist than it was 30 years ago, never mind 100 years ago.

The only reason the left feels more left to you now is because everything has moved to the right.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "left" and "right".

Traditionally "left" has meant someone who supports more social equity, socialist policies, workers rights, very pro-union, collectivist views, perhaps even borderline communist/anarcho-socialist.  (I would call an actual communist a "far-left" person.)

And "right" typically meant someone like, for instance, Reagan; supports conservative ideology, believes in the power of the free market, strong country, traditional "family values" kind of politician.  (And back then that meant "hate the gays" and god knows what they'd think about trans people; but they can be distinct from that group.)

Then we have the third way politicians.  Tony Blair, maybe Bill Clinton, a little bit of Obama.  Somewhere in between the two.  Free markets are great... but let's regulate them.  Strong social safety net.  Educate the next generation.  Economic alliances are good.  Or in Obama's case, the flagship policy: let's try to fix healthcare but give up and compromise on something nobody really wanted but most people don't hate as much as what came before...

I would say that what has happened is that centre has been lost, and the left has stopped caring as much about economic systems and more about social equality.  We don't have as much compromise between the sides and people are increasingly polarised on their political views.  In particular, for some politicians, supporters behave more like football fans than people with ideology.  Prepared to ignore anything bad their candidate does because "we're winning and you're not".  This is particularly prominent on the right - Trump, Farage, Le-Pen - but the left does it in other ways.  And then in the middle where the sensible shit should actually happen we have weak and spineless politicians rather than people who want to forge an actual compromise.  Gone are the days of commanding politicians like Blair and Obama keen to find some kind of middle ground, and instead we have the dementia patient Biden and Keir Starmer who I'm convinced couldn't arrange a pissup in No10 if the wine cellar was left unlocked.  For people like me, who think that social equity (not equality) is improved by building a strong economy that includes everyone, I'm politically homeless in the UK. 

[Cyclotron]

@tooki

I know you've read none of the links to research that I've posted because you said so.
It's overwhelmingly obvious that the overall public ideology has moved left over the macro scale. Do you feel you are more liberal of conservative to your parents, grandparents and so on?  Do you think that generally speaking people today are more conservative, religious, and so on?  To me, it seems obvious.

Here are more links to research on the ideology of various areas both US and EU.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/political-division-united-states
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/silent-revolution-in-europe-intergenerational-change-in-postindustrial-societies/514B5F435204EA48B325EF1747B3C0A7
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSEVStrend.jsp
https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/surveys/trend-file-1981-2017/
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1007/s13644-021-00479-6


The "Right" didn't grow more "Right."  If anything the "Right" by total numbers has moved left. What ideology views of today would someone consider are "more right"?

The Left has spread from the center to further left at a huge rate causing those left near the center to appear to have moved right.

So you have to ask yourself, is the research wrong?  Did the right move further right?  Did the left move further left?  Which do you see supporting evidence of if you aren't going to read the research?  I was surprised that you have the view that the whole of ideology has moved right. I have these conversations with friends and family and I've never heard that proposed by anyone. I'm now searching for studies that support general political ideology has shifted right over the macro or long term trends.  I assume you have them. Share them.

[tom66]

Whilst the left has certainly moved, it is also the case that the right has moved a lot, too.  Politicians like Trump, Farage and Le Pen are mainstream and are far more right wing than their predecessors who called themselves conservative.

[negativ3]

First establish what is happening. Then establish its extent and causes. Only then argue about whether it is good, bad, acceptable, preventable, or something government should act upon.

Politics properly belongs mainly in the final argument.

It should not be allowed to determine the facts required to reach it but it obviously does and the reluctance of incumbents to do anything about the issues of the day is causing the rise of those willing to say what they see.

Too many massive issues are actively whitewashed and like it or not, populations will have their say when all other avenues are closed and actively criminalized (like speech in the UK).

[asmi]

LMAO. Nothing I said has been “proven” wrong: nobody in this cursed thread has provided evidence for anything! So your supposed facts are no more supported than mine.

That's another example of your absolute statements which can easily be proven wrong: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/male-and-female-plugs-and-connectors-gendered-language/msg6356532/#msg6356532
 
Some people never learn and make the same mistakes again and again.

[Cyclotron]

Whilst the left has certainly moved, it is also the case that the right has moved a lot, too.  Politicians like Trump, Farage and Le Pen are mainstream and are far more right wing than their predecessors who called themselves conservative.

The micro level things are often mostly noise.  Trump while significant in the moment isn't over the longer trend. I believe there are swings left and right, MP, President, other elected but generally things have drifted at the macro level to the left. The pendulum swing from Obama, to Trump, to Biden to Trump only covers 14 years. The policies and the ideology over the past 30 have changed so much in the leftward direction that even things that Obama supported and did during his 8 years are considered far right now. See immigration, separation of immigrant families, etc. for only one set of examples. On the other side, Trump identified as a Democrat for nearly all of his life until the same ideologically transformative years. Robert Kennedy a "right wing" politician?  No one seems to notice that these folks basically have said the same things forever but now they moved to the right on the scale. The scale slide under them.

Conservatives of just a couple decades ago would have heart attacks over Trump's financial decisions. Some in congress today still are struggling.

The largely emblematic left presidents of the past 50-100years such as Kennedy and Roosevelt would not be considered "left" by any modern measure that I'm ware of.  The key differentiator that most people avoid is the difference in the ideology vs the financial of left vs. right.  Kennedy and Roosevelt would be "Conservatives" by today's standards per most of the scholastic view points I've read. Financially they'd remain liberal no question.

The ideology drives the topic of this thread not the financial.

Genders of cables have no need to be supported financially nor does it serve to promote the history values of the liberals such as Kennedy and Roosevelt to make even commentary about their use.

I am trying to remain on topic but this is inherently related to ideology and that is near impossible to be separated from politics.

[Zero999]

Whilst the left has certainly moved, it is also the case that the right has moved a lot, too.  Politicians like Trump, Farage and Le Pen are mainstream and are far more right wing than their predecessors who called themselves conservative.

Not really. They're all either comparable, or even to the left on many social issues than many left-wing parties were 10 to 20 years ago. Trump supported same sex marriage before Obama did and none of the above want to undo it. They also have pretty similar ideas when it comes to immigration, compared to past left-wing governments, when mass-migration from low wage economies was seen as something which benefits big business, at the expense of the working class.

[Cyclotron]

Whilst the left has certainly moved, it is also the case that the right has moved a lot, too.  Politicians like Trump, Farage and Le Pen are mainstream and are far more right wing than their predecessors who called themselves conservative.

Not really. They're all either comparable, or even to the left on many social issues than many left-wing parties were 10 to 20 years ago. Trump supported same sex marriage before Obama did and none of the above want to undo it. They also have pretty similar ideas when it comes to immigration, compared to past left-wing governments, when mass-migration from low wage economies was seen as something which benefits big business, at the expense of the working class.

Agreed.

Trump's Democrat supported activities and stances:
Trade Protectionism (canada paid 70milion to run an ad on US TV (who watches that) having Ronald Reagan call out Trump on Tariffs)
Spending
Tax Exemptions for Workers (Tips and overtime)
Drug Pricing Controls
Full support for Social Security and Medicare; he hasn't supported privatization or cuts.
Infrastructure spending
Criminal Justice Reform (The First Step Act)
His written (Book) views are "pro-choice"
Also, his writing supports universal healthcare. (Though he wants to reform and build on what's been attempted in the US)

The most "right-wing" thing he's done is "America First/Popularism"
And, I'm not sure this should be "right wing," but he's been a strong supporter of enforcement of the law.

Today, most folks who study these things don't place Trump on the scale most people use as a lens.
He and his movement are considered "Populist Disrupter." Many would place Trump closer to the center than Obama, but again, the whole left/right scale has shifted far left and spread the left very widely from the center.  The scale shouldn't be viewed as 50|50 in ideological distribution.  This goes to the image I posted earlier that, I believe, and that the research supports, shows the "left" has raced away from the center.

Again, the ideology is why we have this topic going on an EE Forum.  Who would have thought that a few years ago?

[EEVblog]

I am trying to remain on topic but this is inherently related to ideology and that is near impossible to be separated from politics.

We can just choose to stick to discussing how woke culture infests communities and industries, and how it seems to wreak havoc in everything it touches, and how electronics hasn't been spared its wrath. But much less impacted of course than the likes of the Atheism/skeptic community or the open source linux community as of late for example.

[woody]

We can just choose to stick to discussing how woke culture infests communities and industries, and how it seems to wreak havoc in everything it touches, and how electronics hasn't been spared its wrath.

For the life of me I cannot see where electronics has felt the 'wrath' of woke culture. Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that things change over time? I mean, hell, calling an I2C slave a client from now on, how bloody awful is that. Worth to fight over? I think not. People change. People start to understand that language matters, so language changes. Big deal.

[tszaboo]

We can just choose to stick to discussing how woke culture infests communities and industries, and how it seems to wreak havoc in everything it touches, and how electronics hasn't been spared its wrath.

For the life of me I cannot see where electronics has felt the 'wrath' of woke culture. Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that things change over time? I mean, hell, calling an I2C slave a client from now on, how bloody awful is that. Worth to fight over? I think not. People change. People start to understand that language matters, so language changes. Big deal.

It's not that. It's the HR lady, who doesn't realize  that this is 2026.
It's tiptoeing around with words.
It's mandatory DEI trainings for engineers.
Hiring managers that are told that they need to hire ladies, to fulfill arbitrary goals setup by Blackrock, otherwise your company doesn't get a loan to continue to function. Where the university alumni was 95% guys.
On the damn workplace which wasn't political a decade ago. My coworkers didn't even know where I voted, it's none of their business. Now people want us to pledge allegiance to their woke idols otherwise we might get fired. No.

[NE666]

We can just choose to stick to discussing how woke culture infests communities and industries, and how it seems to wreak havoc in everything it touches, and how electronics hasn't been spared its wrath.

For the life of me I cannot see where electronics has felt the 'wrath' of woke culture. Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that things change over time? I mean, hell, calling an I2C slave a client from now on, how bloody awful is that. Worth to fight over? I think not. People change. People start to understand that language matters, so language changes. Big deal.

Since you asked, yes, I think it is worth resisting pointless (or should that be, point-scoring?) human-led change.

If you're going to disrupt long established conventions and lexicons, then you should have a good reason for doing so and the replacement should offer a clear, tangible benefit over it predecessor.

In the case of the example you gave, I don't think those criteria were met. Ditto 'master' vs 'main' branch in software development. The argument for replacement just isn't good enough. I don't accept that any ethnic group was ever dissuaded from higher education, nor pursing a STEM career purely because they found some  of its nomenclature too offensive. It never happened.

[John B]

If only a single slavic person feels more included by using the term slave, that is a sacrifice I am willing to make forevermore.

[woody]

It's not that. It's the HR lady, who doesn't realize  that this is 2026.
It's tiptoeing around with words.
It's mandatory DEI trainings for engineers.
Hiring managers that are told that they need to hire ladies, to fulfill arbitrary goals setup by Blackrock, otherwise your company doesn't get a loan to continue to function. Where the university alumni was 95% guys.
On the damn workplace which wasn't political a decade ago. My coworkers didn't even know where I voted, it's none of their business. Now people want us to pledge allegiance to their woke idols otherwise we might get fired. No.

As I said, things change. Some in directions we like, some in other directions. Fact of life.

Nothing wrong with choosing your words more careful. Words you and I might not think about twice might hurt others in ways we do not understand. Not using them is no skin off our nose. It is not tiptoeing, it is evolving with language.

DEI training might give us an insight in how other people perceive the world we all live in. Cannot do any harm and in a company setting it might make us work better together with others and therefore more productive. Hence the corporate interest.

Although I do not have the impression that 'ladies' are less competent in anything than other genders, hiring incompetent people will end up badly for any company. If a company is forced to hire incompetent people to get a loan I would suggest their management look elsewhere for that money.

And the workplace was always political. Only 30 years ago we got away with venting our views without expecting too much pushback, where nowadays people do talk back and demand their space. Having been part of such workplaces in the past, I think this is a good thing. Nobody asks us to pledge to any woke ideals, we only need to realize that there are other people, with ideas that might differ greatly from our own, and allow them their own space. And yes, this might lead to female connectors being called something else in the future. Boohoohoo.

And now I have to get back to work on an I2C Client device I'm trying to wrestle into submission

[nctnico]

We can just choose to stick to discussing how woke culture infests communities and industries, and how it seems to wreak havoc in everything it touches, and how electronics hasn't been spared its wrath.

For the life of me I cannot see where electronics has felt the 'wrath' of woke culture. Is it really so difficult to acknowledge that things change over time? I mean, hell, calling an I2C slave a client from now on, how bloody awful is that. Worth to fight over? I think not. People change. People start to understand that language matters, so language changes. Big deal.

The problem is that whole woke thing wants to cancel words which mean many things just because it also means a single bad thing. And if you zoom out a bit, the woke movement wants to carve out a box where everybody can sit in. Alone. Just look at the LGBTQ flag. More colors (boxes) seem to be added every year. It is not about being inclusive and having respect but about being singulary special exclusively while expecting to be 'respected' unconditionally. If something or someone gets in the way (be it a word or a person) it gets cancelled instead of starting a dialog. In the end respect is earned and that depends solely on personality and actions, not on how somebody looks.

[tszaboo]

It's not that. It's the HR lady, who doesn't realize  that this is 2026.
It's tiptoeing around with words.
It's mandatory DEI trainings for engineers.
Hiring managers that are told that they need to hire ladies, to fulfill arbitrary goals setup by Blackrock, otherwise your company doesn't get a loan to continue to function. Where the university alumni was 95% guys.
On the damn workplace which wasn't political a decade ago. My coworkers didn't even know where I voted, it's none of their business. Now people want us to pledge allegiance to their woke idols otherwise we might get fired. No.

As I said, things change. Some in directions we like, some in other directions. Fact of life.

Nothing wrong with choosing your words more careful. Words you and I might not think about twice might hurt others in ways we do not understand. Not using them is no skin off our nose. It is not tiptoeing, it is evolving with language.

DEI training might give us an insight in how other people perceive the world we all live in. Cannot do any harm and in a company setting it might make us work better together with others and therefore more productive. Hence the corporate interest.

Although I do not have the impression that 'ladies' are less competent in anything than other genders, hiring incompetent people will end up badly for any company. If a company is forced to hire incompetent people to get a loan I would suggest their management look elsewhere for that money.

And the workplace was always political. Only 30 years ago we got away with venting our views without expecting too much pushback, where nowadays people do talk back and demand their space. Having been part of such workplaces in the past, I think this is a good thing. Nobody asks us to pledge to any woke ideals, we only need to realize that there are other people, with ideas that might differ greatly from our own, and allow them their own space. And yes, this might lead to female connectors being called something else in the future. Boohoohoo.

And now I have to get back to work on an I2C Client device I'm trying to wrestle into submission

DEI meeting is a struggle session, with lies being told to you.
Equal hiring is all fine and dandy, up to the point where you want to hire 11% of the graduates. So the other 90% of engineers are supposed to what? Be unemployed because they have a willy, or the wrong skin color?

[NE666]

So the other 90% of engineers are supposed to what? Be unemployed because they have a willy, or the wrong skin color?

That's reminds me. I really must take "Colour of Willy Skin" off my CV.

[tszaboo]

So the other 90% of engineers are supposed to what? Be unemployed because they have a willy, or the wrong skin color?

That's reminds me. I really must take "Colour of Willy Skin" off my CV.

Yeah, well, you are laughing. But there are documented cases were HR told the manager that they are not allowed to hire men, or white people. Even in the RAF.

[NE666]

So the other 90% of engineers are supposed to what? Be unemployed because they have a willy, or the wrong skin color?

That's reminds me. I really must take "Colour of Willy Skin" off my CV.

Yeah, well, you are laughing. But there are documented cases were HR told the manager that they are not allowed to hire men, or white people. Even in the RAF.

For the avoidance of doubt, I agree with your actual point and have experienced it in practice. I simply found your choice of language gave me a chuckle.

[Cyclotron]

I am trying to remain on topic but this is inherently related to ideology and that is near impossible to be separated from politics.

We can just choose to stick to discussing how woke culture infests communities and industries, and how it seems to wreak havoc in everything it touches, and how electronics hasn't been spared its wrath. But much less impacted of course than the likes of the Atheism/skeptic community or the open source linux community as of late for example.

Agreed. And the impact of "Woke 1.0" has cost untold amounts of resources. Consider the loss of productivity due to "training" and loss of fidelity due to mush mouth communications for fear of launge police. 

I have several friends that are retired and didn't live the Woke 1.0 at corporate America. They do not believe me until I show them the required training, the transcripts of meetings.

What's sad is that all of those resources could have actually done some good in the world.

I've seen the refrain, "Why is it such a big deal, language changes."  which  can easily enough be challenged with "If its not big deal, language doesn't need to change" but the reason its a big deal is that, in this case, it was weaponization of language. People love to get into hunting parties and go after others. This gave many a sharp instrument to attack with and they did.  It cost untold resources and has done far more harm than good.

[asmi]

As I said, things change. Some in directions we like, some in other directions. Fact of life.

There is a difference between forced change, and a natural one.

Nothing wrong with choosing your words more careful. Words you and I might not think about twice might hurt others in ways we do not understand. Not using them is no skin off our nose. It is not tiptoeing, it is evolving with language.

Everything is wrong with it. Offence is taken and not given. If somebody doesn't like my words, it's their problem not mine.

DEI training might give us an insight in how other people perceive the world we all live in. Cannot do any harm and in a company setting it might make us work better together with others and therefore more productive. Hence the corporate interest.

I don't give a crap about their world view. Again - their problem, not mine.

Although I do not have the impression that 'ladies' are less competent in anything than other genders, hiring incompetent people will end up badly for any company. If a company is forced to hire incompetent people to get a loan I would suggest their management look elsewhere for that money.

You must be living in your dreams. I see that crap all over the place. In some places it's more insane, in others less so, usually that depends on whether manager has a spine and enough reputation to tell SJWs from HR to go to hell with their political BS.

And now I have to get back to work on an I2C Client device I'm trying to wrestle into submission

It will never work because there is no such thing.

[tom66]

I had to do some of these courses recently, on DEI, harassment, bullying etc.  Just new HR policy, nothing particular triggered it.  They are really not that bad.  Basically, it is just making sure employees know what the law is (in the UK, this kind of thing goes back to the Equality Act 2010) and employers can be legally held liable for employee's actions, so it is on the employer to get this right.

There is nothing particularly controversial.  They don't even talk about preferred pronouns.  It is just a case of treating other people with respect.  The one thing I learned from the course which I did not know before was that the difference between harassment and bullying was that harassment involves a characteristic (gender, ethnicity, etc.) and bullying doesn't.  Other than that it is just common sense.  Did the courses in about 30 mins during a quiet time of the day, it's all online.

Anyone getting upset over this really needs to have some perspective and realise not everyone is a straight white male and having a little bit of understanding and appreciation for other people is only a good thing.

By the way UK law does not allow positive discrimination.  If a candidate is scored objectively higher, even if they are in that "boring" category of "straight white male" you must select them over another candidate even if they are from an underrepresented background.  There is some small exception for internships but that is all.

[asmi]

Anyone getting upset over this really needs to have some perspective and realise not everyone is a straight white male and having a little bit of understanding and appreciation for other people is only a good thing.

Why? They certainly don't care about my perspective, so why should I care about theirs?

By the way UK law does not allow positive discrimination.  If a candidate is scored objectively higher, even if they are in that "boring" category of "straight white male" you must select them over another candidate even if they are from an underrepresented background.  There is some small exception for internships but that is all.

That's what we have here on paper too, but several managers admitted to me over beers that they were instructed to give preference to some groups of people over others whenever possible (read - as long as it's not too obvious as to have a significant risk of a discrimination lawsuit).

[tom66]

Anyone getting upset over this really needs to have some perspective and realise not everyone is a straight white male and having a little bit of understanding and appreciation for other people is only a good thing.

Why? They certainly don't care about my perspective, so why should I care about theirs?

Well perhaps the world would all be a little better if we did care about other people a bit more.

By the way UK law does not allow positive discrimination.  If a candidate is scored objectively higher, even if they are in that "boring" category of "straight white male" you must select them over another candidate even if they are from an underrepresented background.  There is some small exception for internships but that is all.

That's what we have here on paper too, but several managers admitted to me over beers that they were instructed to give preference to some groups of people over others whenever possible (read - as long as it's not too obvious as to have a significant risk of a discrimination lawsuit).

Unfortunately cases like that will exist anywhere and unless it is in writing you cannot really prove discrimination, but I can tell you it is against the law and the few times cases like this have come to court, decisions have favoured the law.