It all started with one word: talent. And by “it,” I mean a lively debate. And by “lively debate,” I mean an hour long conversation about one. single. word.
Allow me to provide some context. In November 2020, Sarah Fuller became the first woman to play football in a regular season in one of college football’s Power 5 conferences. As I was reading the article alongside a friend, it occurred to me that Fuller’s position as kicker was likely the only position a female counterpart could hold her own against men in this sport because relative success was more skill than size based. In other field positions, the sheer size and power of the men who play college and professional football (those linebackers aren’t small humans) just isn’t possible for women to match on a natural hormonal level. The world of sport has long been categorized by sex because of these discrepancies (the debate on sex and gender among athletics is another complex topic for another time).
So, I verbalized such: though I loved the optics of a woman breaking into a predominantly male game, the kicker seemed to be the only field position that physical limitations determined by sex wouldn’t preemptively disqualify a female from competing on a level playing field with other men.
My friend agreed. Still, when they added that women would never be able to play the other positions because of a “talent” gap, it didn’t feel quite right. Though we agreed on the same outcome (the limitations of viable field positions based on sex), I just couldn’t get on board with the “talent” gap description.
It irked me. I couldn’t let it go.
Does it even matter?
In the words of revered American designer David Carson, “Just because something’s legible doesn’t mean it communicates. More importantly, it doesn’t mean it communicates the right thing.”
Essentially, this verbiage didn’t feel fully representative of the scenario from my point of view.
Still, I knew what my friend was getting at…and even agreed with the sentiment. So, why was I so hung up on this one word?
We each began to argue why our points were correct. Spoiler: I wasn’t totally wrong…but I wasn’t necessarily right either. And, to my surprise, my friend wasn’t wrong either, despite my less-than-favorable gut reaction.
Here’s how we broke this word down.
Hello bias, my old friend
When it comes to unpacking perspectives (especially our own), it’s so easy to have tunnel vision with our own biases and assumptions. Reckoning with a differing perspective is uncomfortable and takes a bit of vulnerability.
However, confronting this bias is key to actually understanding the world outside of our narrow view. So my friend and I began our debate by laying out each of our perspectives on the matter at hand.
My perspective: a male and a female athlete can be capable of the same level of talent in their respective sex classifications. From a purely physical perspective male counterparts will always be dominant, but only because of the hormonal factors determining sheer size, power, and strength. The differentiating factor is purely physical based off of sex, but inherent talent can still be equal. It’s worth mentioning that I am also a competitive female athlete myself, which potentially influences my bias further.
Their perspective: a male and female athlete can never be at the same talent level for a sport like football because of the important physical makeup that factors into perceived talent for this particular sport. When considering talent for a football player, physical traits like weight, strength, and height play a vital role in their ability to be a contributing factor in a position like a defensive tackle. Thus, because of hormonal differences, male counterparts will always have the capacity to be bigger and stronger than female counterparts.
Using a UX lens to unpack bias
As we dug deeper into this conversation, it struck me that this is the very reason UX writing is so dang important. If one word among friends is enough to cause friction, it’s easy to see how critical wording is within all the micro-aspects of our lives. After establishing that I was engaged in the debate from a friendly perspective (“No really, this is fascinating to me!”), we began to dig a little deeper into why each of us were so hung up on our perspectives.
It was time for an impromptu interview, or a little “user research,” if you will. I wanted to get to the bottom of questions like:
- What is the definition of “talent?”
- Is it something that you’re born with?
- Can it be acquired?
- Does an individual have the ability to change their talent over time?
We were able to come to a couple conclusions based off of our small sample size of two. We established that talent is something you are born with, yet skill can be acquired over time. We also agreed that genetic make-up predetermines a large portion of athletic talent or natural ability.
But here’s where things got really interesting. We also agreed that talent is a multi-faceted term encompassing numerous qualities that can include physical make-up, but also other aspects like mental acumen and instinct. This makes the very definition of talent highly subjective to the undertaking it is applied to.
Other endeavors don’t have limiters defined by sex. In a game like chess (any other Queen’s Gambit fans out there?) physical strength, speed, and power aren’t important factors in talent. Instead, mental acumen, instinct for mathematics, and a capacity for complex problem-solving all factor into what talent means for a chess player. Thus, there isn’t a caveat based off of sex in the definition of talent in this arena.
Once I put down my own feminist (and female athlete) shield and bias, I was able to understand that my friend’s perspective on “talent” between men and women in football was factually correct. If a woman is stepping into a game with both sexes, the “talent” she brings to that game is subject to the same standards as the other players on the field…thus making the hormonal differences a limiting factor in the talent for this endeavor.
However, I also felt that because talent as we defined it was so subjective, it still didn’t feel truly representative to say that a female is less talented than a male football player. Instead of even involving the word talent at all, I’d rather get more granular and speak to the factors of talent that differentiate the two.
Using UX for better relationships
Truth be told, I loved this debate. And, once I treated it as a UX exercise, it allowed me to create a safe space for us both to present differing perspectives. It forced me to get outside of my narrow view to better understand my friend’s perspective. It also forced me to define talent more specifically than I had before.
Though this was a friendly conversation over one word, the core tenant of this scenario is a poignant example of why empathy in UX matters. It helps us understand how our biases affect the way that we interact with our friends, family, and the world. It helps us get out of our own way and consider the perspective that other people bring to the same experience. And of course, it helps us understand humans different from us, so we can learn to empathetically interact and connect with one another on a more meaningful level.
