Re: Content Usable pronouns and Tal

Hi Lisa

That is part of the problem: only providing this once smacks of tokenism,
and is the least preferable of the 4 options: none, all, some, or one.

I have previously noted that the above list was also my preference listed
in that order: either we commit to taking "the teachable moment" and apply
this pronoun information to multiple personas, or we don't do it, period.

I (and others on the call) do NOT think we have found the right balance and
find the current situation unacceptable - there is apparently no consensus
for the single instance. Sorry.

JF

(Sent from my mobile, apologies for any spelling mistakes)

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, 3:43 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Wilco
>
> Yes I think you understood  The task force felt that the way it is written
> was a good compromise between comprehension and inclusion.
> Personally (facilitator hat off) I think if we feel as a group that we
> have the right balance, and are doing the right thing, we should not worry
> too much about an objection.
>
> lisa
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 2:23 PM 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
>>
>>
>>