Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal

Hello,

With my chair hat on, I want to point out that W3 guidance encourages us to
include gender diversity in our personas and documentation. From that
perspective we should work to include Tal as a gender neutral persona.

With my chair hat off, I personally will object to publishing if we do not
include Tal as a gender neutral persona.

Putting my chair hat back on, I would like to find a compromise solution as
a way to go forward and we seemed to be close.

Assuming we keep the persona, I believe we have 3 options:

Option 1) Include the gender statement only in Tal
Option 2) Include the gender statement in all personas
Option 3) Do not add a pronoun statement to any persona

John and Gundala - I believe you object to option 1 and it sounds like that
stance is non-negotiable.

Lisa has serious concerns about option 2 potentially leading to confusion
when a gender specific persona is read without understanding the persona
set as a whole.

I would like to suggest option 3 (no pronoun statements at all) as a middle
ground. John - you had argued for that in an earlier email. Can you live
with it now?

Other thoughts?

I do want to note that both COGA and AG will need to agree so COGA
participants weighing in here would be helpful.  I appreciate the continued
respectful dialogue to work this out.

Thank you,

Rachael



On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:38 AM Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
wrote:

> I fully agree.
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
> *Sent:* Montag, 29. März 2021 15:00
> *To:* Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>; Laura Carlson <
> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Rachael Bradley Montgomery <
> rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>; Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>; WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <
> public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal
>
>
>
> Hi Lisa,
>
>
>
> You have just argued for why this one instance should be removed from the
> document.
>
>
>
> If, as you say, "...it is not known to many people..." then why are we
> adding it? You cannot have both the "we need to support diversity"
> argument, and the "not everyone understands this" argument at the same
> time. In other words, if stating this for all (or at least more than one)
> persona(s) is confusing, then surely adding it to only ONE persona is
> equally if not MORE confusing... ("why are they saying this about only this
> persona? Is '*gender identity disorder*' a medical condition and part of
> their disability?" - see comments about Iran below.)
>
>
>
> I've had my reservations about our documents trying to be all things for
> all people in the past, and I continue to maintain that this is getting out
> of scope for the goal of this document, which is to focus on the needs of *users
> with cognitive disabilities*.
>
>
>
> If we are insisting on using this as a learning opportunity to address
> other social inequalities, fine (and I was prepared to back down slightly),
> but do so in a way that does not promote tokenism, which I argue today that
> is *EXACTLY* what is happening here. Your latest argument that this can be
> confusing for some users (the *impacted audience*) is the final
> justification against adding this content.
>
> To recap, I am opposed to advancing this for the following reasons:
>
>    - *Concerns related to internationalization/translation:* some
>    languages are gender neutral, and this is going to cause translation
>    problems (I have previously cited Chinese, and note that this past week W3C
>    contact Ivan Herman remarked that Hungarian has no gendered pronouns
>    either: https://www.facebook.com/ivan.herman/posts/10158993478418828 -
>    apparently this is true for Finnish as well.)
>    - *Concerns related to cultural norms and laws:* I have previously
>    cited the 2013 Russian gay propaganda law ("for the Purpose of Protecting
>    Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family
>    Values"), and how adding this editorial content MAY run afoul of that
>    legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law).
>    This legislation "... prohibit(s) the distribution of "*propaganda of
>    non-traditional sexual relationships*" among minors."
>    In Iran, the current policy is that Trans persons are not "thought of
>    as deviants", but as having *a medical illness* (gender identity
>    disorder) with a cure (sex reassignment surgery). This may be a moot point
>    however, as in Iran, the government heavily censors material available on
>    the internet (a 2013 analysis found that nearly half of the 500 most
>    popular sites on the internet are blacklisted in Iran) and Trans people
>    cannot research what it means to be transgender or connect with others in
>    the community.  (source:
>    https://qz.com/889548/everyone-treated-me-like-a-saint-in-iran-theres-only-one-way-to-survive-as-a-transgender-person/)
>    Q: what will this do to our document for Iran/Iranians?
>    - *Concerns related to comprehension and purpose:* According to our
>    own internal COGA Task Force, "... it is not known to many people, and we
>    want to minimize learning new things..." - that adding this pronoun
>    information is adding an additional learning burden to the COGA community
>    (according to the experts) and may detract from the purpose of this
>    document.
>
> Given that any one of these could be significant, and that likely adding
> all three together even more so, I believe we are over-shooting our mark
> here and advocate for the removal of this particular labeling from the Tal
> persona.  I will now formally oppose the publication of this document AS
> IT IS CURRENTLY written for these reasons.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 5:51 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> Coga thought about this, but did not like adding it to every persona as it
> is not known to many people, and we want to minimize learning new things to
> understand this content.
>
> Having a sentence in one persona is compromise that we felt we can do.
> people often come sentence a sense that they are not sure what it is about,
> but if they understand the rest of it, they are ok.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 7:23 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Rain,
>
>
>
> Thanks for this research!! It is quite interesting.
>
> As an additional "option" (consideration?), if we *DO* continue to include
> the statement that Tal prefers to be identified as they/them/their, what if
> we include this for *all* of the personas: make it a standard bit of
> information about all of the personas, not just the one. I think that would
> help a little in reducing my impression of 'tokenism' ("Look, we've got one
> of those too!" - yes, that comes off as insensitive, and I do not mean it
> that way - it's simply an observation that it could be interpreted that
> way).
>
>
>
> I also continue to be concerned about cultural sensitivity - not every
> culture is as accepting of gender diversity as our increasingly secular
> Western society, and I believe we need to be mindful of that as well.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> JF
>
>
>
> (Related: editorial note - the text currently reads "Tal like to be
> referred to (pronouns) as they/them/theirs" - should it not be "Tal like
> *s* to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs" - i.e.the
> addition of the "s" on "like")
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 12:26 PM Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
>
> I'm hoping that my comments below don't further complicate or confuse this
> conversation, but after reading the conversation that followed, I connected
> directly with a researcher who has done a lot of work around the
> intersection of cognitive and gender diversity in order to better
> understand how important it is that we include a non-binary persona.
>
>
>
> This researcher confirmed the following:
>
> ·        Choosing to use one's name instead of a pronoun (as Rachael
> proposed in option 3) is an approach that will be recognized and
> appreciated by the community we are trying to include, as it is both a
> personal preference, and also a self-protective preference that offers more
> subtly.
>
> ·        There is a higher than average prevalence of individuals with
> cognitive difference also identifying as non-binary; these individuals are
> left out in so many ways that it would be a small and positive gesture for
> us to include them in the Tal persona.
>
> ·        A good resource to help think of the importance of this single
> move: Gender Dysphoria and People with Intellectual Disability
> <http://www.intellectualdisability.info/mental-health/articles/gender-dysphoria-and-people-with-intellectual-disability>
>
>
> Additionally, given the link to the emerging style recommendation from
> EOWG that Laura referenced
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Personas_and_use_cases>, and given
> that we do have many personas, including Tal as a non-binary individual who
> prefers to be referred to by name feels like an important thing for us to
> do.
>
>
>
> Rain
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:24 AM Laura Carlson <
> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rachael and all,
>
> I prefer option 1 and 3 combined.
>
> If specifying pronouns in our personas is going to help to promote
> diversity, equality, and inclusiveness, we should be doing it.
>
> It seems like the Education & Outreach Working Group (EOWG) may be
> working on persona pronouns for the WAI Style Guide:
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Personas_and_use_cases
>
> Perhaps Shawn may have some guidance for us?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Kind Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 3/23/21, 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#
> <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
> >
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>

-- 
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