Anyhow, it would be rejecting the argument of the blog post to link to it there, and the blog post itself is a bit of an increase incoherent mess (the author proudly identifies as female, adopting one label, and seems to equally proudly adopt the tech worker label, yet rejects the woman in tech label with the argument that rejecting all labels is essential to inclusivity. This is both incoherent on a surface level, and deeply problematic in that labels are the interface the human mind uses to deal with the world; rejecting all labels is rejecting all ability to model and interact with the world.
Embracing her identity as a woman gives her a place to build her character from. Being a "Woman in Tech", the way she's using the term, pigeonholes her into acting or looking a certain way, for fear of the dissonance it might create for someone else.
Sure, abstractions are not the underlying reality, the map is not the territory, and the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao. That doesn't mean that it is necessary to “reject all labels” as a fundamental requirement for inclusiveness, or even that rejecting all labels is useful or even possible given the way human minds work. It certainly means we need to understand that all labels obscure as well as explain, and understand where each is useful and where each is counterproductive.
But that's not what the blog post in question is arguing, or if it is intended to be it is not argued well.
I've yet to see a reason to believe that complex thought or communication is practical among humans, other than through manipulation of labels for abstractions over the underlying subject matter, so that doesn't change my objection to the argument one bit. You can recognize the limitations of the models underlying labels and be careful in choosing models (and thereby, relevant labels) that you have reason to believe are useful for the specific purpose and recognize that you're still subject to imperfect results in the best case, but labels are, ultimately, universally essential.
And that certainly doesn't mean you can't reject the utility of particular labels and their underlying model, either in general or for particular uses, but that doesn't get you to “reject all labels” much less that you must do so as a prerequisite for inclusiveness.
That's a valid viewpoint. But I don't see the "echo chamber effect" you're talking about. I think most people seeking out the "Ask a Female Engineer" series are aware of other viewpoints that exist.
The main thing I wish they would do under that heading is link to the category, not just one of the blog posts.
Sure, but it would still be cool if it wasn't.
This is teddyh's comment, he can say what he wishes.
At the same time, I'm skeptical of attempts to increase the number of women in STEM fields, especially those sponsored by major tech companies or venture capitalists. They seem like thinly-veiled attempts to increase the pool of potential workers and decrease wages - the same way that these tech companies lobby to increase the number of H1B visas. I think the best way to work towards ending discrimination towards women in the industry, and also discrimination towards immigrants (without decreasing wages) is organizing tech workers collectively.
Edit: I was just guessing at the ratio of male to female engineers, so maybe I overestimated the imbalance, but I think the point stands.
Maybe tax forms, but I'm not sure the legality of that... but I think it's still the census.