Are you being sexist on Twitter without realizing it? This tool lets you find out

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 1:19 p.m.

    One simply cannot have an "unconscious bias." One cannot be sexist, racist or any other "ist" without realizing it. Bias/discrimination/bigotry are all based on the intent of the person being biased.

    Isn't that what the controversy about the latest Utah hate crime bill is all about? In the bill, if a person beats someone up because he doesn't like their hairstyle, he gets charged with assault. If he beats someone up because he doesn't like their race, religion or sexual orientation, then they add the "hate crime" charges to it.

    Soooooo.......if someone beats up a woman, and it can be shown that their Twitter history shows their "unconscious bias" against women (according to this published "science"), can they now be charged with a hate crime?

    We're going down the wrong road here, people. We need to back up and take the other fork before we go so far down this road that we can't find our way back.

  • Count Rushmore Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 10:02 a.m.

    Well, I was going to eviscerate this article, but my fellow commenters have beat me to the punch. Thanks for the insightful and reasoned objections!

  • jo1952 Redmond, WA
    Feb. 27, 2019 9:42 a.m.

    Really? Just the title makes me nauseous. Identity politics rears it's phobic head here at Deseret News. That guy is hot! That could be sexist but is it wrong to say? Is the guy offended? Or is it some SJW who claims offense on behalf of men everywhere who are not offended? As a woman, I was never offended if someone said I was hot. But, I'm a feminist from the 70's before feminism became such an ugly and divisive and disgusting thing.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 9:08 a.m.

    So I retweet 20 lame dad jokes from guys I follow and five deeply insightful tweets by women. Am I a pro guy sexist?

    A very flawed concept. Who you follow and who you retweet does not define you. What you retweet does.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    Feb. 27, 2019 8:46 a.m.

    Notice how many people are angry and in denial over overt sexism? Sexism exists and pervades every level of every culture. When anyone, male or female, of any age, says "grow a pair" or "man up," they are being overtly sexist. We define masculinity as strength, and femininity as weakness and submission. Each and every day in the majority of American television programs, whether a sit-com, rom-com, or docu-drama, women are presented as weak and emotional, and men as strong and in control of their emotions: the women scream in terror, the men save the day. That formula for sexism has been baked into the cake of American Culture. Imagine the men screaming and clutching their pearls, running for the exits when the bad guys draw their guns. Imagine the women calmly saving the day, then comforting the sobbing men hiding under the tables? See the problem here? Sexism.

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    Feb. 27, 2019 8:44 a.m.

    Do you know how many "ists" there are that you can be without knowing it because someone else took offense at something you said or did? If we have to go around worring about someone taking offense at whatever we say or do, I might as well pack up and move to the outback.

  • screenname Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 8:12 a.m.

    Scientific American published this? I'd guess they're activity trying to shoot themselves in the foot for the progressive cause, but it might just be subconscious bias...

    Men outnumber women on Twitter by almost 2 to 1. Men are retweeted more than women. There could be a large number of factors that explain the latter fact, including the most obvious one--simple statistics. More men to retweet, more male retweets.

    But this "scientist" assumes it's bias, and the solution to him is to be overtly sexist by ignoring men in favor of women. And this got published in Scientific American. If anyone wonders why so many of your fellow Americans can, in your estimation, deny science, this is a perfect example of why. Because there's a lot of science out there that is completely bunk, but many won't point it out.

  • cmbennett1 Stafford, VA
    Feb. 27, 2019 7:59 a.m.

    I can say that I am not because I don't use Twitter.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Feb. 27, 2019 7:07 a.m.

    Just because you happen to like more tweets from certain individuals instead of from others, and those individuals happen to represent predominantly one gender, does not make you sexist. Our world is growing more and more insane as people feel compelled to find new things to be upset about, because many of the real problems of the past have been or are being solved.

  • Western Rover Herriman, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 6:59 a.m.

    "the gender classifications are predictions based on users' first names as given in their Twitter accounts":
    Seems like an awfully thin, not to mention sexist, foundation on which to build an ambitious conclusion, but hey, it's a lot easier than actually surveying a large sample of Twitter users.

  • OldMain Saratoga Springs, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 7:02 a.m.

    Is there a tool on Twitter that measures how little I care if someone thinks I am a sexist?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 6:59 a.m.

    Does the current definition of sexist include recognizing that men and women have differences beyond the obvious?

  • KSM's Dad Ogden, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 6:19 a.m.

    Good heavens! This is a report of someone interpreting the data to match the hypothesis! The report even provides several reasons why the conclusion may be wrong. Failure to retweet doesn’t equal ignoring or silencing the person who posted. This is just another new and creative way for some to find offense where none is intended.

  • KSM's Dad Ogden, UT
    Feb. 27, 2019 6:13 a.m.

    Good heavens! This is a report of someone interpreting the data to match the hypothesis! The report even provides several reasons why the conclusion may be wrong. Failure to retweet doesn’t equal ignoring or silencing the person who posted. This is just another new and creative way for some to find offense where none is intended.

  • [email protected] Tooele, UT
    Feb. 26, 2019 11:13 p.m.

    Wow. Normally I enjoy the In Depth articles that the DN has started to run. However, this one feels to me like it's trying to chase down a bogeyman that may not even be there.

    I do not see any way that the researcher who came to this conclusion about gender bias can account for content, context and subject matter interest. This is a very tenuous argument.

    Now I realize that I may not be the best judge of such bias. I don't have a Twitter account and I believe social media in general is one of the great cancers in our world at large. But whether it be retweets, likes, thumbs ups, or whatever, I would only show support for a given opinion based on its content and the truth I see in it, not for gender of the OP.

    The argument of the article does not help weed out sexism; it actually helps cement it in place.

  • MGoodwin Murray/USA, UT
    Feb. 26, 2019 10:43 p.m.

    My goodness I didn't think we could get more silly than that meaningless Bechdel test everyone cheers on in fiction like it's the Rosetta Stone, but this person has found a way. Subconscious bias, I don't honestly understand why anyone takes it seriously, but it really is the proverbial cult of flagellation for my generation.

    The only people who are going to care about this are people who already beat themselves up about these issues while people like me who are probably the intended targets are just going to laugh at the silliness of it all. You can lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink, even if you lecture them until you're blue in the face.