Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal

Hi Wilco,

You are correct: I have surfaced 'worst case' scenarios which at this time
can neither be proven or disproven. That is still a concern for me.
However, you also wrote:

> using them *once or twice* isn't a problem for comprehension of the
persona.

FWIW, that was my compromise position: that if we are going to use this
type of qualification in our personas, that we do so more than once - that
we make the addition of this type of information more 'common', more
'normal'. Currently, it is used *exactly once*, which now, to me, smacks of
tokenism - of political correctness for the sake of political correctness.
We've ticked another box. I don't mean to come off callus or crass, but it
*COULD* be interpreted that way, and do we really need that kind of
distraction in a document that is focused on cognitive disability
requirements? (You didn't answer the questions: "why are they saying this
about only this persona? Is '*gender identity disorder*' a medical
condition and part of their disability?" - I think those are fair
questions...)

COGA (Lisa) have rejected using this type of additional information on ALL
personas for the reasons they have stated, but as I noted, if it's going to
be confusing to add it *all the time*, why is it less confusing to only add
it once? Could we not then add it "a couple of times" without adding it to
*all* of the personas? I could live with that (and have previously said so).

JF

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 7:22 AM Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:

> Hey John,
>
> If we're going to decide against inclusion (which is in the mission
> statement of the W3C), it seems like we're going to need to have good
> arguments for that. I'm not too sure we have those. Can you expand on your
> reasoning a little further?
>
> *1. Concerns related to internationalization/translation*: The internet's
> full of articles about gender neutral pronouns in various languages. Not
> all languages have gendered pronouns, in which case there's nothing to
> translate. Just omit and move on. But for all of the examples I've heard so
> far, I found articles explaining gender neutral pronouns, including
> Chinese, Japanese, Hungarian, Finish, French and German. It strikes me that
> if you can translate something as complex as a poem how could something as
> straight-forward as a pronoun not be translatable? Even if for some reason
> it isn't possible to translate, the "use their name" option is still
> available to the translator, is it not?
>
> *2. Concerns related to cultural norms and laws*: Obviously, we'll want
> to avoid breaking laws. But the only example of it that was shared was the
> Russian law about distributing materials on sexuality (not gender) to
> children. This document isn't written with minors as its target audience.
> Can you explain why you think this law might apply here? Are there any laws
> that specifically prohibit the use of gender neutral language that we'd
> need to take into consideration?
>
> Then culture; Shouldn't the mission of the W3C; a mission to building an
> open web for everyone take presidence over culture? It seems to me like
> what we're doing at WAI is to try to change cultures to be more inclusive,
> more considerate of the needs of different people. One of the things this
> document is trying to promote is not just to use "middle of the road"
> personas, but to look from broad and diverse perspectives. That's the whole
> point of personas. It feels like a serious omission to include diversity on
> abilities, diversity on ethnicity, but to leave out or hide away diversity
> of gender. At this point, this argument has been completely hypothetical.
> John is arguing on behalf of "other cultures", but do we actually know
> anyone, any organization, any government, whatever, who would not to use
> this document because it has a gender neutral persona in it?
>
> *3. Concerns related to comprehension and purpose*: As Lisa says "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." If I understand that right,
> even if someone doesn't know about gender neutral pronouns, using them once
> or twice isn't a problem for comprehension of the persona. Am I
> misunderstanding the argument here?
>
>
> I don't think we should have this be decided based on "some languages" and
> "some cultures and laws". If we have actual examples of a language, or an
> organization or a region that wouldn't adopt this document because of this
> persona, fair enough. That's an argument. But so far nobody's produced any
> that I couldn't contradict with 5 minutes of research.
>
>  Kind regards,
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 3:01 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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#
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules
>
>
>