I think the author's intention was to give people a quick way to understand what they were talking about. I agree that it would have been better if they said "The Mom and Dad Test" or "The Parent Test". But I thought their analogy was very salient and I understood it quickly.

Any perceived hostility may come from your very uncharitable read of the the title. The reference isn't any mom, and there isn't any suggestion that moms can't be programmers or are clueless in any way.

The reference is your own mom, who will tell you that your idea is great, even if it's not. You're swinging at shadows.

> A better title would just be "How to talk to customers."

Hard disagree. That title doesn’t capture the reader’s attention and it’s also less descriptive of the main point of the book.

> It's intellectually unfortunate that there's so much kneejerk hostility on HN to basic gender analysis. One's understanding of the world is enriched by thinking about how gender roles work, so the hostility to gender analysis is basically throwing away useful knowledge.

I hope this comment will be seen as constructive rather than hostile: Personally while I was initially sympathizing to the cause of inclusiveness, I have now developed hostile feelings simply because this constant presence has made me tired. There is no place on the internet or IRL (at least where I live) where you won't stumble on these things. I am not interested about any of the gender stuff, I have been sure of what I am and what I am not since I can remember myself, so all this constant presence makes me tired, and it frankly feels like propaganda trying to forcefully change me into something I'm not. So pushing so agressivly an agenda that to the majority of people is irrelevant (and I believe this is true otherwise we wouldn't exist as a species), I am actually surprised of how little hostility is received.

As a point of method: We can and should distinguish "What the author intended" from "what is the unintended side effect of this use of language."

I'm explicitly not commenting on what the author intended to mean by this title choice (yes, a "person who is uncritically affirmative"). (I have absolutely no axe to grind with the author either, just for the record!)

But generally speaking, it's fair to comment on the unintended side effects of someone's use of language, because there are always side effects when we use language. That's how language is -- it exceeds our intentions, because it's a legacy tool with generations of unexplored cultural baggage, to put it in an idiom that software folks might appreciate.

The article is using “mom” as an example of a person who is supportive and uncritical of you, not as an example of someone who doesn’t know what’s going on.