Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal

Hi Rachael,

I echo the comment regarding the sensitive exploration of this topic.
Sadly, at this time I prefer Option 4 - remove this reference.

I offer this perspective with the following items to consider:

   1. As I noted on Tuesday's call, we are authoring to an international
   audience: multiple languages, multiple societal perspectives, multiple
   cultures. It is laudable that there is a desire to demonstrate a sense of
   openness and acceptance within the W3C, but is that really our remit?
   Here we are (supposed to be) focused on the needs of persons with
   disabilities, and specifically users with cognitive disabilities. As an
   open question, is Tal's preference to be referred to as they/them/theirs
   part of their disability? (And sadly, that could be an assumption of some
   readers, especially as authored now.) Is the TF sensitive to the fact that
   they may be perpetuating a stereotype that non-binary gender recognition is
   considered a "mental defect" in some cultures? Is that really the message
   we want to be sending?

   2. I note that with regard to 'label preferences', Tal's is the only
   persona that mentions a preference. Why is this? If the goal is to
   neutralize or normalize non-binary 'labels', then why are we only labeling
   one persona with this information? Is the assumption that all the other
   personas prefer to use more traditional 'labels', or that Tal is the only
   non-binary persona? If we must continue to include this information, then
   it should be extended to all of the personas.

   3. While we are at it, what about race/ethnicity? While the name "Gopal"
   suggests a heritage from south-asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, etc.), and
   "Kwame" suggests a name-origin from the African continent
   (assumptions/presumptions), we make no direct reference to race or
   ethnicity in our personas - why then highlight sexuality/gender?  (We are
   all hearing lately of a significant uptick in racism directed to those of
   Asian decent, so oppression comes in many forms)

   4. If we *are* going to invoke one or more non-bianry personas as part
   of our collection (which I do not agree with, but...), and related to
   cognitive disabilities, why isn't the one persona who doesn't adhere to
   traditional labels like this have, as one of the case studies, struggling
   with a form that doesn't offer additional options beyond Male or Female?
   (we've all seen these forms before). I mean, if we're going to highlight
   user-struggles, that would seem to me to clearly be one for any user who
   does not use male or Female (and the 'trouble' may be amplified for some
   users with some forms of cognitive disability).

This isn't a hill to die on, but I worry that we're headed toward a
slippery slope. The W3C is a technical standards organization, and I
personally feel that we should not stray too far from that remit: we can be
supportive of societal change (heck, we're all trying to make the world
change, to improve things for users with disabilities), however there is
such a thing as trying to boil the ocean.

Here, I see little true value: I see a potential for some pushback
internationally, I see a squandered opportunity (the forms issue), and I
see what appears to me to be tokenism. I respect the desire to be as
inclusive as possible, but perhaps we should focus on one task at a time?

With respect.

JF

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 5:02 PM Rachael Bradley Montgomery <
rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Thank you for the thoughtful discussion at today's meeting about the
> plural pronoun used in Tal. A resource you can read if this is a new area
> for you is https://www.mypronouns.org/
>
> We discussed the following options:
>
>    1. no change
>    2. add it in 1 or 2 places in the main persona
>    3. Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs
>    4. change the persona to remove gender diversity
>    5. use the pronouns as frequently as would be used naturally
>
> COGA had voted against 5 because of readability and translatability
> challenges and compromised with using the minimal pronouns in option 1.  I
> have created a google document with all of the options at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FabK-X1AgOMPqG2YydOrcyl1d89rHxbcfqso2du1vo/edit#
>
> Please take a look and weigh in with your thoughts on how to proceed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rachael
> --
> Rachael Montgomery, PhD
> Director, Accessible Community
> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org
>
> "I will paint this day with laughter;
> I will frame this night in song."
>  - Og Mandino
>
>