All of this content is addapted from rands slack.

The originating question was: Does anyone have a good reference/explainer for concrete problems around sexualised language? (Specifically clarifying specific problems and impacts of describing something as a “sexy problem”)

What an interesting question. Concrete is the ask. Concrete like set in stone? Like solid, like durable. Hard to move, hard to dismantle, hard to melt. Because the asker expects an argument, and they’re preparing for it. They expect to have to provide examples and references in order to make progress, not to just say “eew, sexy, weird we’re not a dating site y’all ha ha” and have the “sexy” stop. Concrete says to me that someone is preparing to do something that they expect to require some concrete and specific problems and impacts. Concrete says to me that someone is bracing themselves to go down swinging.

Some possible semi-concrete answers:

  1. Calling something “sexy” is a subjective descriptor that inherently feels objectifying - just because something looks good does’t make it good. Women are most often judged on appearance alone so it certainly irks me when I hear something described this way. What are you actually trying to say? The code/problem/solution is attractive? Ok but does it work? Is the logic sound? Is it secure? You’re sexualizing something in a professional setting that does not need to be. If you are thinking that about code, or a problem in this way, what else are you sexualizing? It just creates that frat boy/locker room vibe; it’s an uncomfortable word for the workplace.
  2. Describing a problem or solution etc as “sexy” in a professional setting creates an environment that mixes sexual attraction and work, which is inherently detrimental. Calling something work-related “sexy” is an example of a micro-aggression against people who have less work-related status/power than the people who might be physically attracted to them (usually women, but it can happen to anyone in that position)
  3. When someone says “adding more sexiness” to a software product (to be clear, a non-porn, non-dating software product), they probably actually mean “make it more exciting/zesty/glamorous/attractive”. Instead of saying what they mean, they are bringing the concept of sex into the workplace. By itself, this is only a micro-agression- one tiny snowflake of annoyance. But it is a strong sign of someone who hasn’t thought about (or doesn’t care about) who “sex” in the workplace benefits (the powerful, often men interested in mixing work acquaintences and sex), and who it does not benefit (the targets of aforementioned men- often women, sometimes other men, always people with less power than the aggressor)