Re: [External] : Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal

Preferred option is #3

Although my personal take on this is a very liberal one I do want to
mention the following:

The gender discussion is not widely supported in the world, even ignored,
turned down, or not acknowledged at all, (even in the western society of
Europe John!)
The sensitivity on a topic like this seems to have a huge impact in the
USA, but  in most other parts of the world this is experienced differently
or not at all.

Don't think the W3C should do the political thing here, but personally
could live with it for sure.

Op ma 29 mrt. 2021 om 18:17 schreef Chuck Adams <charles.adams@oracle.com>:

> I will not object to any of these 3 options, but my preferred is #3.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Rachael Bradley Montgomery <rachael@accessiblecommunity.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 29, 2021 10:11 AM
> *To:* Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
> *Cc:* John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>; Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>;
> Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>; Laura Carlson <
> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>; WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <
> public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject:* [External] : 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
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.facebook.com/ivan.herman/posts/10158993478418828__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkDTct-N2g$>
>    - apparently this is true for Finnish as well.)
>    - *Concerns related to cultural norms and laws:* I have previously
>    cited the 2013 Russian gay propaganda law ("for the Purpose of Protecting
>    Children from Information Advocating for a Denial of Traditional Family
>    Values"), and how adding this editorial content MAY run afoul of that
>    legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkBFgGY6yA$>).
>    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/
>    <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/qz.com/889548/everyone-treated-me-like-a-saint-in-iran-theres-only-one-way-to-survive-as-a-transgender-person/__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkCAkww0wg$>)
>    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
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.intellectualdisability.info/mental-health/articles/gender-dysphoria-and-people-with-intellectual-disability__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkCmqtkETg$>
>
>
> Additionally, given the link to the emerging style recommendation from
> EOWG that Laura referenced
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style*Personas_and_use_cases__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkDhHw0e1w$>,
> and given that we do have many personas, including Tal as a non-binary
> individual who prefers to be referred to by name feels like an important
> thing for us to do.
>
>
>
> Rain
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 11:24 AM Laura Carlson <
> laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rachael and all,
>
> I prefer option 1 and 3 combined.
>
> If specifying pronouns in our personas is going to help to promote
> diversity, equality, and inclusiveness, we should be doing it.
>
> It seems like the Education & Outreach Working Group (EOWG) may be
> working on persona pronouns for the WAI Style Guide:
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style#Personas_and_use_cases
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Style*Personas_and_use_cases__;Iw!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkDhHw0e1w$>
>
> 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/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.mypronouns.org/__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkCOi95LnQ$>
> >
> > We discussed the following options:
> >
> >    1. no change
> >    2. add it in 1 or 2 places in the main persona
> >    3. Tal like to be referred to (pronouns) as Tal/they/them/theirs
> >    4. change the persona to remove gender diversity
> >    5. use the pronouns as frequently as would be used naturally
> >
> > COGA had voted against 5 because of readability and translatability
> > challenges and compromised with using the minimal pronouns in option 1.
> I
> > have created a google document with all of the options at
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/18FabK-X1AgOMPqG2YydOrcyl1d89rHxbcfqso2du1vo/edit#
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/18FabK-X1AgOMPqG2YydOrcyl1d89rHxbcfqso2du1vo/edit__;!!GqivPVa7Brio!IfqxnVdxs092odgeQWaVp_8O-953p8ykjyNPDqjzptqy2RcqS976CRkeNkA6x6Dqvw$>
> >
> > 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
>
>
>