Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal

> John - you had argued for that (Option 3) in an earlier email. Can you
live with it now?


I can, it was, in fact, my preference: I was open to including this pronoun
information as a broader 'data-point' for all of the personas (see Mike
Gower's comments about 'templates') in an effort to compromise, but you are
correct, I am quite opposed to only using it *once*, and would prefer we
not add it at all, for the reasons previously stated. (I'll also note that
a francophone colleague contacted me privately to note this would be
difficult to translate into French as well).

JF


On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:10 PM Rachael Bradley Montgomery <
rachael@accessiblecommunity.org> wrote:

> 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
>
>