# Members profile: Why was info about profession and gender removed?



## Englishmypassion

Hello Everyone,
Earlier we used to be able to see WR members' profession in their profile as well as their gender, except if they chose to not disclose their gender. That gave us a good idea about a person's use of the language (someone in the corporate sector is much more likely to touch base with everyone and keep them all in the loop and leverage it to ensure timely production of deliverables...), but I don't know why that info was removed from profiles.  Any specific reason?

Can that be restored, at least professions?   


Thanks.


----------



## mkellogg

Hey,  gender is still there. On yours it clearly says "male" and when I hover over your username in this thread, it shows the male "bathroom" symbol.

Profession/occupation? I am trying to remember if I didn't include it on purpose or not. I may have done it to reduce spam, but it also may have been an oversight. Maybe one of the moderators will remind me. I think it was just an oversight.


----------



## Englishmypassion

Thank you, Mike.


----------



## DearPrudence

Have the symbols gone again; I can't see them anymore?


----------



## Peterdg

Neither do I.


----------



## mkellogg

DearPrudence said:


> Have the symbols gone again; I can't see them anymore?


Yes, they had gotten deleted in an upgrade.

OK, I put it back along with two alternatives. Which do you prefer?

1. "Bathroom" icon. My eyes are struggling to make out the difference between m & f.
2. Emoji! 👨 👩 I am not too old to use them!
3. Those symbols that I find confusing. ♂️ ♀️


----------



## elroy

Why not keep all three?  That’s what I thought you were going for!


----------



## mkellogg

elroy said:


> Why not keep all three?  That’s what I thought you were going for!


In the hopes that people understand one of the three?


----------



## elroy

I think it’s just crystal clear that way.  Like you, I find #3 confusing.

There’s a saying in German: “Doppelt genäht hält besser” (literally “Twice stitched holds better”).  And in this case, we have a triple stitch!


----------



## DearPrudence

Isn't it overkill?
I'm afraid people will actually be confused, wondering why there are 3 different symbols and what is the difference between them.
They might think it is a combination that means something else than "man" or "female".
But maybe it's just me...


----------



## lauranazario

mkellogg said:


> In the hopes that people understand one of the three?





DearPrudence said:


> Isn't it overkill?
> I'm afraid people will actually be confused, wondering why there are 3 different symbols and what is the difference between them.
> They might think it is a combination that means something else than "man" or "female".
> But maybe it's just me...


I'm with DearPrudence on this one. Having three icons is definitely overkill.
It's confusing, distracting, unappealing. It's just _too much_.

I suggest we go with simple, internationally-recognizable icons (what Mike called the 'bathroom' icons).
My two cents.


----------



## DearPrudence

I think the 'bathroom' icons got a few complaints at the time because they were not very visible and distinguishable, and I would tend to agree.
I think the emojis look clear enough.


----------



## mkellogg

Yes, let's just keep one if them.


DearPrudence said:


> I think the emojis look clear enough.


I can see the emoji much more clearly, though I am concerned that its meaning won't be clear at all for new users. I can show the words "male" or "female" when the user hovers a mouse, which can help some.


----------



## elroy

What about the words “male” and “female”?


----------



## swift

Emojis with no skin color choice? Wow! 😬


----------



## Peterdg

mkellogg said:


> 3. Those symbols that I find confusing. ♂️ ♀️


These are the only ones I prefer. They are, as far as I know, commonly recognized and unambiguous scientific symbols to represent the gender.


elroy said:


> What about the words “male” and “female”?


The problem with this is that they are only understandable for people who understand English.


----------



## mkellogg

swift said:


> Emojis with no skin color choice? Wow! 😬


testing 👨🏽‍🦱. If we do go with the emoji, maybe the default blonds wouldn't be the best choice.


----------



## elroy

Peterdg said:


> The problem with this is that they are only understandable for people who understand English.


How is this different from the rest of the website interface?  There are several interface languages to choose from, and I assume this could be translated so that it appears in the interface language of the user’s choosing.


Peterdg said:


> They are, as far as I know, commonly recognized and unambiguous scientific symbols to represent the gender.


Two of us in this thread have said that they’re confusing to us.  Whenever I see one, I have to look it up to know which gender it is.


----------



## mkellogg

OK, my latest attempt has a "light skin tone" emoji 👨🏻man or 👩🏻woman. If you hover over it, you see ♂ or ♀ and the word Male or Female in the language of your interface. I couldn't get the little "bathroom" icon to show when you hover because it isn't a standard Unicode symbol.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> Whenever I see one, I have to look it up to know which gender it is.


I remember it by thinking of archery, with the male one with arrow from the circle. (The one for female doesn't remind me of anything.)


----------



## elroy

Are most archers male?


----------



## siares

I don't watch sports, I have the association from historic movies where they were.


----------



## elroy

mkellogg said:


> 👨🏻man


I don’t like the mustache.


----------



## siares

You've got amazing eyesight!


----------



## Peterdg

elroy said:


> Whenever I see one, I have to look it up to know which gender it is.





elroy said:


> Are most archers male?


You honestly don't know where these symbols come from?  

In the male one, the arrow refers to a certain part of the male anatomy in excited state. Once you remember that one, there is no way these symbols will confuse you anymore. 

EDIT: Apparently, according to a biology professor of my wife (who is a zoologist herself), this is not a joke. 
EDIT2: I won't tell you where the female symbol supposedly comes from because that is really a "male chauvinst pig" thingy. But then again, it's just a symbol.


----------



## swift

And that old cliche—women are from Venus, men are from Mars.


----------



## siares

Peterdg said:


> EDIT2: I won't tell you where the female symbol supposedly comes from because that is really a "male chauvinst pig" thingy. But then again, it's just a symbol.


Put it in a spoiler. I'll prepare the smelling salts.


----------



## velisarius

elroy said:


> I don’t like the mustache.


I don't think it's a moustache. It looks to me like a big mouth. The corresponding female icon has a bare trace of a mouth. 

Another attempt from the patriarchy to gag women.


----------



## elroy

It’s definitely a mustache on my Apple devices.


----------



## velisarius

Thanks, elroy. I don't have an Apple.


----------



## DearPrudence

Peterdg said:


> In the male one, the arrow refers to a certain part of the male anatomy in excited state. Once you remember that one, there is no way these symbols will confuse you anymore.


Oh, that was my way of remembering it as well but I didn't know it was the real reason.
(as for the female symbol, I remember it because women are oppressed and put down, hence the sympbol pointing down)



velisarius said:


> I don't think it's a moustache. It looks to me like a big mouth.


I thought so as well. On a phone, it is clearer that it is a moustache.
On my computer, I have to zoom as hell to perceive a slight moustache


----------



## mkellogg

I am looking at the various options and even the blond one that we had till yesterday 👨 had a mustache, a blond, imperceptible mustache, but it is there.

Looking a little more, I have found the "boy" emoji 👦🏻. No mustache. Here is the girl 👧🏻. We are mostly adults here, but I kind of like the boy for "male", and maybe stick with the woman symbol 👩🏻 for female.


----------



## Roxxxannne

swift said:


> And that old cliche—women are from Venus, men are from Mars.


I've heard that these come from the astrological signs which themselves come from the idea of original stuff associated with Venus/Aphrodite and Mars/Ares: Venus was the goddess of beauty, and her symbol is a hand mirror (yes, they had those i antiquity) and Ares was a berserk warrior (unlike the tactician Athena), hence shield and spear.
Admittedly, it's easier to think of the male symbol as an erection.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

> Another attempt from the patriarchy to gag women.


Doomed to failure so that's OK.

It's an astonishingly simple approach leaving no option for those who would like to state 'other'.
Thanks for all the hard work, Mike.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

swift said:


> Emojis with no skin color choice? Wow! 😬


Wow is right!  Welcome to the 19th C

I just had a brainstorm.  Rather than inviting people to choose from among male, female, and no selection, have people specify (if they choose to) their pronouns.  This is more and more in vogue.  My husband, who's in academics, says that often people attending a meeting with strangers begin by specifying their pronouns.  This would have to be a write-in field since there's no end to the pronouns people can choose (or will choose in the future).

So instead of the international bathroom symbols and/or white female or male faces, l suggest pronouns.  Let's move with the times!


----------



## swift

Reina de la Aldea said:


> have people specify (if they choose to) their pronouns


👏🏻


----------



## Loob

I'm a bit confused by this thread.  Are we talking about changing the current words ("male"/"female") that appear - unless left blank - in the "About" page of the Profile?


----------



## swift

Yes.


----------



## Loob

Thank you, Don Swifty.  I was confused by all the references to hovering and symbols/emojis.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Loob said:


> I'm a bit confused by this thread.  Are we talking about changing the current words ("male"/"female") that appear - unless left blank - in the "About" page of the Profile?


Yes, specifically in the _account details _of your member profile


----------



## DearPrudence

To be honest, I had forgotten the info was there as well; you have to click once on the name, then a second time, and then click on "About" to read "Male/Female/-".
Conversely, the symbols are immediately visible when you hover a user's name.


----------



## Loob

To be honest, I'd forgotten about seeing symbols when you hover over a name

(I still can't see them, but I'm not sure whether I should or not...)


----------



## DearPrudence

At the moment, you can see them. But don't try with my profile, because I haven't filled that field in


----------



## Loob

Ah right, just found the symbols by hovering over Mike ... and Loob!

Thanks for clarifying, DP


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

DearPrudence said:


> Conversely, the symbols are immediately visible when you hover a user's name.


Yes, they're a nuisance.  I communicated with a very experienced and conscientious moderator to try to find a way of purging that female white face emoji from my profile -- to no avail

Prudence, what do you think of my suggestion to provide our members with the option to specify their pronouns.  That way, they may (optionally) be referred to using them.  Of course this may highlight just how inflexible some languages are with respect to gendered nouns, e.g., suppose you learn that a new member uses the pronoun _ze.  _What are your options for welcoming zir to the forum? -- bienvenid al foro

I don't think it would be a challenging programming task to take out the male/female/- options and replace them with a write-in field.  I would be thrilled and all the more proud to be a member of WR if this were to come to pass.

Mike?

Perhaps best discussed in a dedicated thread, the option to specify a profession seems to me to be highly relevant to the process of translating and/or explaining text.  For instance, I would sooner take the advice of an MD than a salesperson in translating medical terminology.


----------



## elroy

Reina de la Aldea said:


> to take out the male/female/- options and replace them with a write-in field.


I support this, if it’s feasible.


----------



## Loob

Re post 45 and 46: would Mike be able to reflect that choice in "hover over username" mode?


----------



## swift

Reina de la Aldea said:


> I don't think it would be a challenging programming task to take out the male/female/- options and replace them with a write-in field.


I like the spirit of your suggestion, but it would remove the ability of localizing the gender options in other supported languages.

What many linguists on Twitter do is put their pronouns in brackets next to their name, e.g., Jane Doe (she/her). I would think that there is enough real estate below the usernames here to include that information.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

swift said:


> What many linguists on Twitter do is put their pronouns in brackets next to their name, e.g., Jane Doe (she/her). I would think that there is enough real *e*state below the usernames here to include that information.


Brilliant!  All the better!


> would Mike be able to reflect that choice in "hover over username" mode?


That would be no problem provided the write-in field is feasible.  But with swift's suggestion, there would be no need


----------



## Rallino

I was kinda hoping the gender fluidity trend wouldn't be caught on with, on WRF... In any case, I would go with Male/Female/(Blank). I don't think the fact that it's in English to be an issue for even monolinguals using the site


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Rallino said:


> I was kinda hoping the gender fluidity trend wouldn't catch on here be caught on with, on WRF.


Please tell us why, Rallino.  What offense could there be in it?  Any member could still specify he/his/him, she/her/her, or choose not to specify


----------



## Rallino

Sure they could, it's just I really find it difficult to take the "pronoun issue" seriously. But if the majority wants it, so be it. My language is gender free, so, as you said, good luck bienvenid@ing people if that's implemented


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Rallino said:


> as you said, good luck bienvenid@ing people if that's implemented


You said it!  The @ should be (and likely soon will be) permitted at WR.


----------



## DearPrudence

I understand it is common in the US, but I doubt many languages have this flexibility and choosing your pronouns is not something that French people would generally understand.
So if you don't speak English (well), it's a bit baffling to know what you're supposed write in this field if it reads something like "choose your pronoun".
If a member did write "they" and posted in the French only forum, I wouldn't quite know what to write when addressing them.
I did ask earlier but the debate got so heated that the thread had to be closed (and I still don't have my answer, because I don't think there is one at this point):
he/she/they (preferred gendered form of address)

(and if someone wrote free text like "его" or "ëe", "άντρας" or "γυναίκα", that would definitely not help me more)

I don't know. I guess nothing is simple nowadays.


----------



## mkellogg

This is getting to complex. The English pronoun thing that has become popular recently rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I want the site to be welcoming and not scare people off.

I hadn't anticipated that the emoji would seem to be signifying a race or skin color in addition to gender.  I think it is time to go back to the uncontroversial "bathroom" signs.

BTW, you can use tú/tu with me in Spanish


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

DearPrudence said:


> he/she/they (preferred gendered form of address)


I'm glad I had French in high school, so I could get the gist of that post.



DearPrudence said:


> I don't know. I guess nothing is simple nowadays.


No.  The world is evermore complicated, and the world of words follows suit (leads(?)) in that.  We are groping in the dark a bit these days when it comes to gender references, but I have faith that we will find a way forward.  And it will be called _progress _(among progressives, at least)


DearPrudence said:


> So if you don't speak English (well), it's a bit baffling to know what you're supposed write in this field if it reads something like "choose your pronoun"


I would suggest _Pronouns (optional) _for the field name



mkellogg said:


> I think it is time to go back to the uncontroversial "bathroom" signs.


Okay, that would be a kind of progress -- MWRGA (Make WR Great Again).  I would prefer that our profiles be purged of any gender symbols, as I've already mentioned (over and over), but I want the option to specify M/F/- to stay (provided a write-in field is not in the cards).


mkellogg said:


> I want the site to be welcoming and not scare people off.


It had never occurred to me that people could potentially be scared off   How unfortunate that would be!  That is to be avoided at all costs, I fully agree.  I'm content with going back to bathroom symbols, although it's a bit touchy (scary (?)) when you stop to think of all the controversy -- and litigation -- over bathroom use these days on the part of trans people and others whose gender identity does not tidily fit into the binary categories 🚹🚺



mkellogg said:


> I hadn't anticipated that the emoji would seem to be signifying a race or skin color in addition to gender.


Mike, I am shocked to learn this, although I should have inferred it.  You are in the company of many others.  I was offended by the emoji as soon as I noticed it -- so white bread, and young.  Thank you for "coming out" as in the dark


----------



## lauranazario

Reina de la Aldea said:


> It had never occurred to me that people could potentially be scared off   How unfortunate that would be!  That is to be avoided at all costs, I fully agree.  I'm content with going back to bathroom symbols, although it's a big touchy (scary (?)) when you stop to think of all the controversy -- and litigation -- over bathroom use these days on the part of trans people and others whose gender identity does not tidily fit into the binary categories 🚹🚺


This is a perfect example of hot-button issues that are present within certain societies (like those of the USA and certain countries) —and totally absent in other societies around the world.

So I understand Mike wanting to be as neutral as possible... allowing WR users to choose to display one of the two universally-recognizable 'bathroom symbols' on their profile —or no symbol at all. 
In other words, if a person doesn't feel any of the two symbols represent them, they can opt out of the symbol system. After all, revealing your gender is not mandatory.


----------



## Loob

Just checking: is this what is meant by "bathroom symbols"?


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> Just checking: is this what is meant by "bathroom symbols"?
> View attachment 64199


Yes.


----------



## Loob

Looking at the way Mike's got things now, I see that if you hover over the 'bathroom symbol', you see* 
♂* Male
or
♀ Female

That looks like a clever solution


----------



## swift

Loob said:


> That looks like a clever solution


Which won’t work on mobile devices. 🙃


----------



## Paulfromitaly

swift said:


> What many linguists on Twitter do is put their pronouns in brackets next to their name, e.g., Jane Doe (she/her).


New member Attxx0001 (whose biological sex is unknown to us) is offered 3 options upon registration:
MALE
FEMALE
NO SELECTION

What tangible difference would it make if the options were

HE
SHE
NO SELECTION
?

Please enlighten me as I can't see any.


----------



## siares

Those two pronouns don't differ in all languages.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

swift said:


> Which won’t work on mobile devices. 🙃


Nor do they even appear on my iPhone, nor those pesky emojis, nor, alas, does it specify _female_



lauranazario said:


> After all, revealing your gender is not mandatory.


No, not mandatory, but potentially helpful in interpreting translations and explanations of text, as would be profession, or age.  Where do you draw the line?  Well, while the fact that I have blue eyes and brown hair may influence my translation and/or interpretation of _blonds have more fun_, or influence the way others' respond to it, it really shouldn't affect it much.  I have a grown son, an only child, and a dog named _Woof.  _Oh, and did I mention that I live in a Cali modern house in the middle of a vast inland empire with an abundance of dust, heat and sun_, _but a dearth of culture?  TMI?  Already?

You get the picture.  I just don't want to be confused with (or by) a sweet, young, cherubic, female image or a ⚤ in a skirt when I've worked hard to become a jaded, jeans-wearing, wrinkled, wonky woman, who won't shy from a good debate 💪, whence our fantastically lively, immensely pleasurable (for me) discussion


----------



## Roxxxannne

Sadly limited to only one thumbs-up.


----------



## Nanon

Paulfromitaly said:


> HE
> SHE
> NO SELECTION
> ?


He / she / no selection may be trickier (too English-centered, maybe?) to translate into Chinese or Turkish, just to mention the two languages without gender pronouns that are available from our language chooser.


----------



## swift

Roxxxannne said:


> Sadly limited to only one thumbs-up.


----------



## swift

DearPrudence said:


> I did ask earlier but the debate got so heated that the thread had to be closed (and I still don't have my answer, because I don't think there is one at this point):





> *iel, iels* pronom personnel RARE Pronom personnel sujet de la troisième personne du singulier et du pluriel employé pour évoquer une personne quel que soit son genre. L’usage du pronom _iel_ dans la communication inclusive. (Le Robert)


Je te conseille de lire les travaux de Kris Knisely, dont voici une liste ! 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1451317307075018774


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Touché!


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Nanon said:


> He / she / no selection may be trickier (too English-centered, maybe?) to translate into Chinese or Turkish, just to mention the two languages without gender pronouns that are available from our language chooser.
> View attachment 64207


I didn't know that and it's yet one more reason to keep it the way it is.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Paulfromitaly said:


> I didn't know that and it's yet one more reason to keep it the way it is.


The "way it is" is a form of pigeonholing:  door #1 (male), door #2 (female), door #3 (no selection)


----------



## swift

The truth of the matter is that WRF is not the place to have academic discussions about gender from a linguistic perspective, let alone from an intersectional standpoint. The earlier you realize it and accept there are safer places where this type of conversations are not shut down with blatant bigotry and sexism, the less pain it will cause you. A lot of people get away with outright transphobia because they’re ‘polite.’ 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## siares

Reina de la Aldea said:


> The "way it is" is a form of pigeonholing: door #1 (male), door #2 (female), door #3 (no selection)


I don't think of the first two as pigeonholes but as useful categories, whether for coroners or herbologists. Other categories may be added without those two being changed for one specific species.


----------



## lauranazario

Reina de la Aldea said:


> No, not mandatory, but potentially helpful in interpreting translations and explanations of text,


Wait... what!!!???
You would interpret translations _differently_ depending on whether said translations (or thread replies) come from a male or a female? 
To me, that sounds dangerously close to selective discrimination... 



Reina de la Aldea said:


> as would be profession, or age.



Not all members who populate our community are linguists or translators. Even educators don't have a corner market on the correct way to say things!
What I mean to say is that I believe everyone —regardless of age and/or occupation— can contribute something of value.

In my mind, sharing knowledge freely and willingly is key, without the need to flaunt occupations or indirectly promote ageist notions ("_Susan knows shit because she's only 22, but Ethel is 55 so she must know what she's talking about_").

Anyway, it's just my two cents on the matter.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

lauranazario said:


> Wait... what!!!???
> You would interpret translations _differently_ depending on whether said translations (or thread replies) come from a male or a female?
> To me, that sounds dangerously close to selective discrimination...


I _did _use the word _potentially.  _But it is good that you call me out on potential discrimination (it's the world we live in).  I'm going to sleep on my point of view and see if I find it defensible tomorrow.  Thank you as always for shaking me up, LN


lauranazario said:


> Not all members who populate our community are linguists or translators. Even educators don't have a corner market on the correct way to say things!
> What I mean to say is that I believe everyone —regardless of age and/or occupation— can contribute something of value.


Well said.  I couldn't agree more


----------



## Nanon

DearPrudence said:


> I understand it is common in the US, but I doubt many languages have this flexibility and choosing your pronouns is not something that French people would generally understand.
> So if you don't speak English (well), it's a bit baffling to know what you're supposed write in this field if it reads something like "choose your pronoun".


The other day, LinkedIn prompted me to "choose my pronouns". The prompt was in French ("précisez vos pronoms"). Therefore, I assume that some (but of course, not all) French speakers are supposed to understand what this is all about. There is an explicative post on LinkedIn explaining why LI users should make their pronoun choice visible in their profile, here: Pourquoi préciser ses pronoms sur les réseaux sociaux et autres signatures de mail ?
To be honest, I felt that the prompt was mildly intrusive, and I feel that I relate when Mike says that



> This is getting too complex. The English pronoun thing that has become popular recently rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I want the site to be welcoming and not scare people off.


I also felt that the prompt was not really _inclusive_, culturally speaking, as if I was requested to align with an English-speaking (or was it US?) behaviour (the article makes constant reference to why it is important to state your pronouns _in English_). And, ahem... I haven't updated my LI profile for the moment (not sure I will) . in any case, I am not absolutely convinced that stating that you can say _elle _when talking about me in third person makes me LGBTQI+ friendlier... 



swift said:


> *iel, iels* pronom personnel RARE Pronom personnel sujet de la troisième personne du singulier et du pluriel employé pour évoquer une personne quel que soit son genre. L’usage du pronom _iel_ dans la communication inclusive. (Le Robert)
> 
> 
> 
> Je te conseille de lire les travaux de Kris Knisely, dont voici une liste !
Click to expand...

There may be other options although the neologism _iel _seems to be the "trendiest" (and possibly the most "politically neutral") one. For instance, Monique Wittig uses _on _as a gender-neutral pronoun in some of her works.


----------



## velisarius

Well said, Nanon. This forum is supposed to be friendly to people from many different cultures.


----------



## swift

I’m not sure that there will be a message prompting currently registered users to choose their pronouns. The new options would be available as a choice for new members and for those current users who feel that the previous options did not represent them accurately. Those who are happy with their current choice won’t need to change anything.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

swift said:


> I’m not sure that there will be a message prompting currently registered users to choose their pronouns. The new options would be available as a choice for new members and for those current users who feel that the previous options did not represent them accurately. Those who are happy with their current choice won’t need to change anything.


Swift, do you have insider information?  Is this really going to happen?!


----------



## swift

I’m imagining what is possible.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

swift said:


> I’m imagining what is possible.


Ah, very diplomatic of you 
Some practical advice:


> avoid saying "preferred" pronouns. Despite the popularity of the term, it's incorrect, since "preferred" implies someone's gender is a preference.
> 
> Ultimately, using gender-neutral pronouns doesn't require too much effort on your part, but it could make a huge difference in creating a warmer, more *inclusive* workplace environment for everyone.  --Marketing, "Gender-Neutral Pronouns: What They Are & How to Use Them


I take this to mean that the proposed field should ideally not be headed by "preferred pronouns" but rather simply by "pronouns".  The write-in field will, of course, be optional


> I also felt that the prompt was not really _inclusive_, culturally speaking, as if I was requested to align with an English-speaking (or was it US?) behaviour (the article makes constant reference to why it is important to state your pronouns _in English_). And, ahem... I haven't updated my LI profile for the moment (not sure I will) . in any case, I am not absolutely convinced that stating that you can say _elle _when talking about me in third person makes me LGBTQI+ friendlier...


I get why you felt bullied by LinkedIn, Nanon.  That is intrusive of LI to urge you to the point of practically coercing you into stating your pronouns.  I hope you will agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with giving LI users the opportunity/option to state their pronouns.  Not only not wrong, but up-to-date, generous and _inclusive._


> This forum is supposed to be friendly to people from many different cultures. --velisarius #77


Indeed it is, @velisarius.  Would you find a write-in field in "Account Details" that gives you the option to state your pronouns unfriendly.  If so, why?


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

siares said:


> I don't think of the first two as pigeonholes but as useful categories, whether for coroners or herbologists.  Other categories may be added without those two being changed for one specific species.


Yes, we're hoping for something more flexible than that -- a write-in field where you can opt to state your pronouns.  Naturally he/his/him and she/her/her are out there as options.  But limiting the number of categories to choose from would not be inclusive enough.  Lists of non-gender-binary pronouns are growing longer every day.  Imagine being able to _choose_ your pronouns!  It's so fundamental -- critical, really -- to one's identity.
Here are some examples of (not necessarily) English-language pronouns


> *HE/SHE**HIM/HER**HIS/HER**HIS/HERS**HIMSELF/HERSELF*ziezimzirziszieselfsiesiehirhirshirselfeyemeireirseirselfvevervisversverselfteytertemtersterselfeemeireirsemself


 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Plus (LGBTQ+) Resource Center, UW Milwaukee


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Finally (sorry for hogging the stage, here), I wish to reply to @lauranazario's post #77 calling me out on my discriminatory (snobbish?) attitude about how data in a member's profile (gender, age, profession, etc.) might influence my receptivity and/or evaluation of their posts in the forums.  That's a sad thing to contemplate.  It's impossible to avoid, however.  Information influences our points of view and our opinions.  This is why, in interviewing a job candidate, it is illegal to ask for data such as gender, age, or marital status.  What I had in mind when I wrote my post #64 was a scenario such as this:  A member needs a translation of a term having to do with hen's eggs ("huevo huero de gallina").  I read the post and, intrigued by the challenge, set about doing some research into the term, also known as "embarazo anembrionado".  A few minutes later and several iterations of translations of Wikipedia pages, I come up with "blighted egg".  The member thanks me profusely, says it's exactly what they were looking for, etc.  I feel rewarded, and I move on.  Then comes the notification that another user has replied to the same thread.  "Blighted egg" is not the correct term, it reads; it's "addled egg".  At this point I check out the member's profile, only to discover that he (already specified) is a retired farmer.  Feeling then entirely convinced of his translation, I give him a thumbs up.

I'm not necessarily advocating for more fields for personal data such as occupation (better occupation_*s,*_ as I have a long history of switching gears and switching careers. [Never a dull mment.]), I'm only pushing for the option to state one's pronoun because we do address one another in the course of communicating both publicly in the forums and privately in letters and conversations.  Good friends from around the globe with which you have much in common are to be found in WR   It's an important social medium for many of us.  But I digress....

I'll be silent for a little while now and give others a chance to comment.  Hope to hear from you!

Paula
♕♛


----------



## Roxxxannne

The problem with adding your occupation as testimony to your expertise is that people here (and everywhere) have knowledge that has nothing to do with their occupation.  In addition, it might unfairly privilege linguists and translators.  It seems to me that at least half of the regular commenters on the English Only site are not linguists or translators.  Yet those of us who are native AmE or BrE speakers rarely make an outright mistake. Our discrepancies come from our regional dialects more than from our lack of knowledge of grammar.  If someone wants to know what 'lobster pot' means in a novel, they'll be confused if they accept the linguist's answer "it's a piece of kitchen equipment used for cooking lobsters" and then go back to reading without scrolling down to see the New Englander's comment that it's the same as 'lobster trap.'  If a linguist from Kansas says "I've never heard that," it doesn't make it wrong; it makes it something that someone from Kansas would not be likely to know.

Indeed, choosing your pronoun would strike someone as odd if their native language has nongendered pronouns. A few years ago a couple of members of my family started using 'she' and 'they' instead of the 'he' that they would have been stuck with if they were born in the 1950s.  I still find it slightly ridiculous for *me* to have to pick -- I've been checking F for millennia, it seems, without bothering to think about what it means that I like power tools and never wear the stupid dresses in my closet -- but if those folks whom I love need to be able to choose their pronouns, they should be able to. And there are a lot of ridiculous things in the world today; this is pretty low on my list.

I have often wondered how people would view my posts if I left out my gender, picked a screen name like Travis or Ryan, and posted a photo of a Ford F-150 as my avatar.


----------



## Rallino

I don't see why the gender even matters. I don't know the gender of probably 90% of the people I 'know' on the forum, and it was never a problem when I asked a question and got an answer.


----------



## elroy

The point is that people who
a) would like to disclose their gender
and
b) do not identify as either "male" or "female"
should have the option to do so.

They should not be forced to choose "Do not wish to disclose" if they do in fact wish to disclose. 

This reminds me of most forms in the US that ask you for your race/ethnicity.  They almost _never_ include "Middle Eastern," so I don't have the option of actually disclosing my race/ethnicity if I'd like to (unless there's a fill-in option).  "Other" forces me to be unspecific, and "Do not wish to disclose" doesn't apply if I actually do wish to disclose. 

It really matters naught what those who identify as "male" or "female" think about this.  This doesn't concern them.  Disallowing this option because it makes some of them "uncomfortable" (or "upset" or whatever) would be like disallowing any other demographic identifier (native language, age, etc.) because other people don't like it.  Being "welcoming" or "friendly" to people who have a problem with non-traditional gender identities by restricting the latter's options is simultaneously being _un_welcoming and _un_friendly to the latter.  Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance.


----------



## swift

@elroy, thanks for your thoughtful and powerful summary of the actual opportunity WRF has to be welcoming to all.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Roxxxannne said:


> I have often wondered how people would view my posts if I left out my gender, picked a screen name like Travis or Ryan, and posted a photo of a Ford F-150 as my avatar.


 Well if it helps you to know, I was afraid that if I ticked off the Female box, I wouldn't be taken as seriously. But lo and behold, it has not turned out to be the case -- witness this thread, for example 


Roxxxannne said:


> if those folks whom I love need to be able to choose their pronouns, they should be able to.


I'm glad you recognize that.  A person's pronouns are (or can be), as I mentioned before, an important, even critical, part of their identity


Roxxxannne said:


> The problem with adding your occupation as testimony to your expertise is that people here (and everywhere) have knowledge that has nothing to do with their occupation. In addition, it might unfairly privilege linguists and translators.


You are absolutely right in this.  I'm not going to argue in favor of a profession field (although I take an (prurient?) interest in people's backgrounds, and something like a profession can be a very important aspect of a person's identity.  It's "Nice to meet you, Roxxxannne.  What do you do?" not "Nice to meet you.  What do you think about...?  Tell me more about you").  Of course if such a field were to be reintroduced, it would, as it was before, be entirely optional


Rallino said:


> I don't see why the gender even matters. I don't know the gender of probably 90% of the people I 'know' on the forum, and it was never a problem when I asked a question and got an answer.


I'm glad it's never been a problem for you, Rallino.  But it has occasionally turned out to be an issue for me.  Speaking generally, gender matters.  Speaking exclusively about WR members, well, let each individually decide whether it matters to them by giving them the option to specify, or not, their pronouns


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

elroy said:


> elroy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being "welcoming" or "friendly" to people who have a problem with non-traditional gender identities by restricting the latter's options is simultaneously being _un_welcoming and _un_friendly to the latter.
Click to expand...

Here, here!  It's cold and dismissive.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Reina de la Aldea said:


> Well if it helps you to know, I was afraid that if I ticked off the Female box, I wouldn't be taken as seriously. But lo and behold, it has not turned out to be the case -- witness this thread, for example


I think having a female name has caused me to be treated less seriously, on a few occasions, than I would be if I had a male name.  

It doesn't surprise me that there's resistance these days to pronoun choice.  The first time I ever noticed someone listing their pronoun choice was on the psych counseling pages of a university website less than ten years ago.  When we're in the middle of it, it seems like attitudes about gender and sexuality take forever to change and that the people who are dead set against change will always be that way.  But when we look back it seems crazy that things were any other way.  Don't get me started. I'll just say that birth control pills for unmarried women were illegal in the state where I went to college until after I had graduated.

I don't mean we should all just sit back and wait for things to happen. Dare to struggle, dare to win.


----------



## lauranazario

Nanon said:


> The other day, LinkedIn prompted me to "choose my pronouns". The prompt was in French ("précisez vos pronoms"). Therefore, I assume that some (but of course, not all) French speakers are supposed to understand what this is all about. There is an explicative post on LinkedIn explaining why LI users should make their pronoun choice visible in their profile, [...]
> To be honest, I felt that the prompt was mildly intrusive, and I feel that I relate when Mike says that
> 
> 
> I also felt that the prompt was not really _inclusive_, culturally speaking, as if I was requested to align with an English-speaking (or was it US?) behaviour (the article makes constant reference to why it is important to state your pronouns _in English_).


Thank you *so much* for this anecdote!
I will use it to express something that's been on my mind for a while now. A personal opinion.

The whole pronoun thing has become almost a craze in the US. Companies left and right are jumping on the trend (like LI, as per Nanon's experience). Online platforms asking (demanding? passively forcing?) members to choose their pronouns — whether or not you reside in the all-too-woke US.

What if your culture or country has different standards? 
What if this kind of topic (or nearly-forcible choice) seems inappropriate to you?
What if this type of situation (suddenly bringing your gender and everyone's gender to the forefront) is taboo in your society or culture?
What if your language doesn't accommodate any of this?

I feel that these companies are foisting/imposing an _American concern_ on a worldwide audience... and I find this extremely objectionable. 

I certainly hope that our beloved WR remains impervious to this pronoun-storm (because ours is an international community)... and continues being a place where all contributions coming from all corners of the world and from people of all genders are welcomed and appreciated.

A girl can dream, right?


----------



## elroy

No one is talking about forcing anyone to reveal their gender.


----------



## siares

I think the resistance to pronouns comes not only from damaged communication (where you don't name what you see), but also from a dictat which is predicated on faith. Non-believers ('atheists', who don't believe in the existence of gender identity) are required to do the same as the faithful.


----------



## lauranazario

elroy said:


> No one is talking about forcing anyone to reveal their gender.


I was definitely talking about pronouns.


----------



## elroy

No one is talking about forcing anyone to reveal their pronouns.


----------



## swift

Reducing the issue to a caricature and belittling a legitimate request with words like _craze_ exemplifies precisely why I was saying the other day that WRF is not a safe space to have academic discussions about this particular topic. It’s no wonder the forums have such a bad reputation in academic circles, especially with specialists on gender issues.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

lauranazario said:


> I certainly hope that our beloved WR remains impervious to this pronoun-storm (because ours is an international community)... and continues being a place where all contributions coming from all corners of the world and from people of all genders are welcomed and appreciated.


I'm not sure what you mean by _impervious to this pronoun storm".  _Of course WR is part of the bigger culture of language and it's usage.  Pronouns of all kinds are (sorry) here to stay.  Once someone has decided they're a _ze_, there'll be no going back to _he _or _she _for ze.  It's a done deal.

Let us once and for all be convinced that the proposal to specify one's pronouns in WR is not destined to be required.  People will not be coerced into revealing their gender(s), and there will be no subtle pressure to "conform" and tell all.  Far from it:  this would be an *optional, write-in field* where a person can specify or not their pronouns.  If you consider it exclusive, offensive, or confusing, move on to the next field (profession)


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

siares said:


> Atheists, who don't believe in the existence of gender identity, are required to do the same as the faithful.


Huh??  Since when has this been true.  I'm an atheist.  No one told me gender doesn't exist.  siares, I right now have chill of horror thinking of what misinformation people may be exposed to.  Have you a reference for such an assertion?


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

swift said:


> Reducing the issue to a caricature and belittling a legitimate request with words like _craze_ exemplifies precisely why I was saying the other day that WRF is not a safe space to have academic discussions about this particular topic. It’s no wonder the forums have such a bad reputation in academic circles, especially with specialists on gender issues.


That's sad to hear.  So far, I haven't taken offense at any comment in this thread.  It's okay for me if someone wants to comment on the "pronoun craze" in the "all-too-woke US".  I have confidence in those who are making the important decision of whether or not to include a pronouns field to be woke to the many factors that may influence that decision


----------



## siares

Reina de la Aldea said:


> Have you a reference for such an assertion?


I edited my post to hopefully be more clear.


----------



## lauranazario

Reina de la Aldea said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by _impervious to this pronoun storm".  _Of course WR is part of the bigger culture of language and it's usage.


Ok, then let me express it in a different way:

I hope WR will not utilize the same tactics used by other American companies (like LI, the example brought by Nanon) and continues to evade the pronoun-centered issues currently taking the US by storm.
Why? Because this site caters to an international community that should not be forced to adhere to American idiosyncrasies.



Reina de la Aldea said:


> Pronouns of all kinds are (sorry) here to stay.  Once someone has decided they're a _ze_, there'll be no going back to _he _or _she _for ze.  It's a done deal.


In the US, that is.
Good luck trying to convince someone to use that pronoun or address them as 'ze' in a country/culture/society what this sort of thing is taboo.



Reina de la Aldea said:


> Let us once and for all be convinced that the proposal to specify one's pronouns in WR is not destined to be required.  People will not be coerced into revealing their gender(s), and there will be no subtle pressure to "conform" and tell all.  Far from it:  this would be an *optional, write-in field* where a person can specify or not their pronouns. If you consider it exclusive, offensive, or confusing, move on to the next field (profession)


Let us once and for all be convinced that no matter how much we may discuss things, the ultimate decision as to what happens in WR resides/rests on the owner's shoulders.
He'll read all we write... but the ultimate choice is solely his.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> the resistance to pronouns


No one has the right to be "resistant" to non-traditional pronouns.  It is a fact that many people -- all over the world, not just in the US -- do not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth.  "Resisting" their authentic forms of self-expression is only denying reality and inflicting psychological pain on these people.  What if I "resisted" your right to identify as a native speaker of Slovak?  What if I told you that wasn't an option, and you had to identify as a native speaker of Czech because in my view anyone from former Czechoslovakia is a speaker of Czech and I don't believe in the existence of a Slovak language?  What if this website offered a drop-down menu of languages to choose from, and "Slovak" was deliberately not an option?


siares said:


> damaged communication (where you don't name what you see)


Gender is not about what you see.  "Communication" that forces people to be referred to using pronouns they don't identify with is damag_ing_, toxic, and abusive.


siares said:


> a dictat which is predicated on faith


Like @Reina de la Aldea, I am thoroughly puzzled by this assertion.  This has absolutely nothing to do with faith or religion. As a matter of fact, in my personal experience most people who are trans or non-binary are not religious at all.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Because I have to do the laundry, I will get off here for now.  But before I go, let me just ask in re swift's #96:
A) do you think this thread was at some point an 'academic discussion' about pronoun choice?
B) is it still (aside from this comment)?
C) If your answer to A) is yes and B) is no, where do you think it changed?

(all answers are, of course, optional)


----------



## elroy

My answers:
A) No.
B) N/A
C) N/A


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> Gender is not about what you see.


Not gender, pronouns are about what we see. 


elroy said:


> What if I "resisted" your right to identify as a native speaker of Slovak?


I am not sure what it means, I don't identify as a native speaker of Slovak or anything else.


elroy said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with faith or religion.


I meant is as an example of a non-religious faiths around which people organize.


----------



## swift

Roxxxannne said:


> do you think this thread was at some point an 'academic discussion' about pronoun choice?


It never was. There’s not enough oxygen in the room for people who would like to have that type of conversation. That’s why DearPrudence’s thread was closed. That’s why multiple threads in the Sólo Español forum end up being closed and people’s legitimate questions are met with full-frontal mocking, attacks and moderators that minimize their concerns. That’s why moderators turn a blind eye on transphobic comments in the “non-language” forums. That’s why professionals (linguists, translators, and others) prefer to have those discussions in actually welcoming, academic, collaborative, respectful and cordial spaces, and consider WRF a hostile environment.


----------



## Roxxxannne

elroy said:


> My answers:
> A) No.
> B) N/A
> C) N/A


<3 <3 <3
Why are there no hearts in the reaction emojis!??  I feel like I have just typed Hittite.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> pronouns are about what we see.


They are not. 


siares said:


> I don't identify as a native speaker of Slovak


You have "Slovak" listed as your native language in your profile.  Anyway, if you don't identify as a native speaker of Slovak, pick something you _do_ identify as and imagine you weren't allowed to on this site.  I think my point was clear. 


siares said:


> I meant is as an example of a non-religious faiths around which people organize.


It's not about any kind of faith.  It's about people's personal experiences and realities.  There are, thankfully, activist groups fighting for these people's rights to be seen, validated, and respected for who they truly and authentically are.  But many trans and non-binary people are not part of these groups.


----------



## Roxxxannne

swift said:


> It never was. There’s not enough oxygen in the room for people who would like to have that type of conversation. That’s why DearPrudence’s thread was closed. That why multiple threads in the Sólo Español forum end up being closed and people’s legitimate questions are met with full-frontal attacks and moderators that minimize their concerns. That’s why professionals (linguists, translators, and others) have those discussions in actually welcoming, academic, collaborative, respectful and cordial spaces.


Right.  People who are sad that WRF is not collaborative and welcoming expect it to be something that it obviously isn't and can't be.  On the plus side, at least there *are* welcoming, academic, collaborative, respectful and cordial spaces for discussions.
How do I join? I get to talk about gender issues only with regular ordinary people as they address them in everyday life, not with professionals.


----------



## elroy

Roxxxannne said:


> People who are sad that WRF is not collaborative and welcoming expect it to be something that it obviously isn't and can't be.


I love the language discussions, whose quality and dynamism are probably unmatched.  And that's why I stay.  The levels of transphobia on WRF are truly shocking.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> They are not.


In my language direct use of pronouns is infrequent, but in English I use pronouns according to what I see, since English lessons where we learned them by referring to drawings. If they weren't supposed to be used referring to what one sees, I would have run into misunderstandings by now.


elroy said:


> pick something you _do_ identify as


I don't think I identify as anything.


elroy said:


> It's about people's personal experiences and realities.


Sure, but they must all agree that there is such a thing as gender identity. I saw discussions on reddit where people actively search for it, trying to pick one.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> I use pronouns according to what I see, since English lessons where we learned them by referring to drawings. If they weren't supposed to be used referring to what one sees, I would have run into misunderstandings by now.


I'm not sure what you're referring to.  Traditionally, people assume others' genders based on certain physical characteristics. If they assume the person is male, they will use the pronouns "he/him/his," and if they assume the person is female, they will use the pronouns "she/her/hers."  The point is that many people's true gender doesn't align with those assumptions and the  pronouns used to refer to them don't ring true for them.  While this is uncomfortable for people who are only familiar/comfortable with the male-female binary, it doesn't make the experiences and realities of trans and non-binary people any less valid and legitimate.  Again, "resisting" their realities is like "resisting" the existence of the Slovak language.


siares said:


> I don't think I identify as anything.


If someone asks you "What is your native language?" and you say "Slovak," then you identify as a native speaker of Slovak.  It doesn't mean you actively go around and trumpet this fact and make it an important part of what you do.  It means that is the native language you use to label/identify yourself when necessary.  In any event, however you feel vis-à-vis the Slovak language, how would you feel if the website offered a drop-down menu for native language and Slovak were deliberately not included?  And how would you feel if you complained about this to the owner and he said, "We don't recognize Slovak as a language and insist that everyone from former Czechoslovakia list Czech as their native language"?  


siares said:


> they must all agree that there is such a thing as gender identity.


Everyone has a gender identify.  Cis-gender people who have never had to think about these things have identified with their gender their whole lives without consciously being aware of it. 


siares said:


> I saw discussions on reddit where people actively search for it, trying to pick one.


I'm not sure I understand.  Some people may have trouble designating their gender identify, but that doesn't mean they don't have one.  For some people, it's complex, which is why some people identify as (for example) "gender-fluid" or "genderqueer."


----------



## siares

Those were dolls and stick figures we had in the textbook.


elroy said:


> Everyone has a gender identify.


That is your belief, but not mine. We can't discuss in CS.


----------



## Roxxxannne

elroy said:


> I love the language discussions, whose quality and dynamism are probably unmatched.  And that's why I stay.  The levels of transphobia on WRF are truly shocking.


Not just transphobia, all sorts of hostility about all sorts of things.


----------



## Nanon

lauranazario said:


> Ok, then let me express it in a different way:
> 
> I hope WR will not utilize the same tactics used by other American companies (like LI, the example brought by Nanon) and continues to evade the pronoun-centered issues currently taking the US by storm.
> Why? Because this site caters to an international community that should not be forced to adhere to American idiosyncrasies.
> 
> 
> In the US, that is.
> Good luck trying to convince someone to use that pronoun or address them as 'ze' in a country/culture/society what this sort of thing is taboo.


OK... let me explain. Gender studies, choosing pronouns, using non-binary language and not being heteronormative are _not _taboo where I live. About the story I shared, luckily, LI invited me but didn't force me to state pronouns in my profile. And while I understand the purpose of this pronoun campaign - who knows, maybe some day it will help if someone blows the whistle for being discriminated because of having used a non-binary pronoun (whatever the language) in their profile - I find that pushing for pronoun choice _based on the standards of a different country and culture_ is not cross-cultural. Caveat: again, I do not say that country or society A is better than B.



elroy said:


> This reminds me of most forms in the US that ask you for your race/ethnicity.  They almost _never_ include "Middle Eastern," so I don't have the option of actually disclosing my race/ethnicity if I'd like to (unless there's a fill-in option).  "Other" forces me to be unspecific, and "Do not wish to disclose" doesn't apply if I actually do wish to disclose.


Which reminds me of Brazilians who hate being forced into choosing "Hispanic". Back on topic: I think that the best choice to define one's identity (not for statistics, of course) is indeed free text.

I will share another story: I added the "female" symbol to my profile because my WR pseudonym does not look feminine, except maybe to some (not all) French speakers, so I was systematically being addressed or referred to using masculine. Nothing against men, but would my posts be read differently if my pseudonym was, erm, _Lolita_? (Caveat #2: I did _not _choose my user name with the purpose of sounding or looking masculine).



Reina de la Aldea said:


> Finally (sorry for hogging the stage, here), I wish to reply to @lauranazario's post #77 calling me out on my discriminatory (snobbish?) attitude about how data in a member's profile (gender, age, profession, etc.) might influence my receptivity and/or evaluation of their posts in the forums.  That's a sad thing to contemplate.  It's impossible to avoid, however.  Information influences our points of view and our opinions.  This is why, in interviewing a job candidate, it is illegal to ask for data such as gender, age, or marital status.  What I had in mind when I wrote my post #64 was a scenario such as this:  A member needs a translation of a term having to do with hen's eggs ("huevo huero de gallina").  I read the post and, intrigued by the challenge, set about doing some research into the term, also known as "embarazo anembrionado".  A few minutes later and several iterations of translations of Wikipedia pages, I come up with "blighted egg".  The member thanks me profusely, says it's exactly what they were looking for, etc.  I feel rewarded, and I move on.  Then comes the notification that another user has replied to the same thread.  "Blighted egg" is not the correct term, it reads; it's "addled egg".  At this point I check out the member's profile, only to discover that he (already specified) is a retired farmer.  Feeling then entirely convinced of his translation, I give him a thumbs up.


I am sceptical about professions. While the retired farmer example is good, another member with irrelevant or no information about their occupation(s) could have provided a correct response too (not to mention incorrect information... even ministers and prominent politicians have fake PhD degrees ).


----------



## swift

Zapotecs were—and continue to be—so much more enlightened than modern occidental societies:

Muxe - Wikipedia

If only imperialists and the catholic church had stepped back at some point and said... wait, let’s respect the local idiosyncrasies instead of imposing our standards.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Nanon said:


> I am sceptical about professions. While the retired farmer example is good, another member with irrelevant or no information about their occupation(s) could have provided a correct response too (not to mention incorrect information... even ministers and prominent politicians have fake PhD degrees ).


Specifying one's profession, as far as I'm concerned, needn't be part of one's WR profile.  For now.   I happen to think it would be a nice option, but that's me, and I'm not going to fight that battle.  Right now.  It's in a different league from the issue of pronouns

I wish to quote some of the article cited by swift, as it's not always convenient to _hacer clic_


swift said:


> Zapotecs were—and continue to be—so much more enlightened than modern occidental societies:
> 
> Muxe - Wikipedia


From the article:


> In Zapotec cultures of Oaxaca (southern Mexico), a *muxe* (also spelled *muxhe*; [muʃeʔ]) is a person assigned male at birth who dresses and behaves in ways otherwise associated with women; they may be seen as a third gender.[1][2]





> Anthropologist Beverly Chiñas explained in 1995 that in the Zapotec culture, "the idea of choosing gender or of sexual orientation is as ludicrous as suggesting that one can choose one's skin color."[9] Most people traditionally view their gender as something God has given them (whether man, woman, or muxe), and few muxe desire genital surgery. They generally do not suffer from gender dysphoria. There is not as much pressure to "pass" as in Western societies.[_citation needed_]


This "pressure to 'pass'' " as either male or female is what I meant by pigeonholing (#71)


Nanon said:


> I find that pushing for pronoun choice _based on the standards of a different country and culture _is not cross-cultural.


Not meaning to mock you, Nanon, only to echo your sentiment from another point of view:  I find pushing someone to tick off one of three boxes for gender identity _based on the standards of a conservative group of members of WR_ to be highly non-inclusive


Nanon said:


> I was systematically being addressed or referred to using masculine. Nothing against men, but would my posts be read differently if my pseudonym was, erm, Lolita?


This supports my point that we need a way to address people properly, according to their wishes, and in accordance with the pronouns they voluntarily provide in their profile


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Reina de la Aldea said:


> I find pushing someone to tick off one of three boxes for gender identity _based on the standards of a conservative group of members of WR_ to be highly non-inclusive


We don't "push" anyone to do anything, that's exactly what the option "NO SELECTION" is there for.
The only piece of information that is required on WR is the native language. Everything else is optional.
It goes without saying that if some members choose of their own accord to put in some extra personal information, we expect it to be accurate.



> *Rule 18 - Represent yourself honestly.*
> You may register with one user name only.
> *Do not pretend to be someone you are not: this includes gender, nationality and  native language*.
> You must provide your native language, including your country or the variety you speak (eg: "English - Ireland" or "Mexican Spanish") for languages with multiple regions. Who you are and where you are from is   very important to understanding any translations or other language information  that you provide


----------



## siares

Reina de la Aldea said:


> I find pushing someone to tick off one of three boxes for gender identity _based on the standards of a conservative group of members of WR_ to be highly non-inclusive


Gender identity and pronouns are two different things; as long as there is an 'atheist' button for the first, I am happy.

I saw on Tik Tok that some people choose three pronouns, e.g. She, they, her. They need to be used in correct proportions, otherwise it counts as misgendering.
_She put her gloves on, they was cold._
I don't remember what gender identity that TikTok user was.

Where is profession info found, in the 'about'?


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Paulfromitaly said:


> We don't "push" anyone to do anything, that's exactly what the option "NO SELECTION" is there for.


Maybe "push" is too strong a word.  I was echoing Nanon's prior comment, which guided my choice of words.  I mentioned that there are three choices: M, F, and No Selection.  But as Elias has pointed out (#86)


elroy said:


> The point is that people who
> a) would like to disclose their gender
> and
> b) do not identify as either "male" or "female"
> should have the option to do so.
> 
> They should not be forced to choose "Do not wish to disclose"*[*or *No Selection]* if they do in fact wish to disclose.


I ignored the gender field originally, effectively choosing "No Selection", as I was afraid my posts would not be taken as seriously if I identified myself as female.  With time, and as I grew comfortable speaking my mind in the forums, I opted to tick off the Female box.  Guess what?  It wasn't the way the other members reacted to my posts that changed.  It was my posts themselves -- what I chose to write -- that was affected. I felt more myself, more genuine, less of an imposter you might say, and that was subtly reflected in my writing.  I was no longer in hiding, and I could breathe freer.  Revealing my age gave me the same boost.  It allowed me to be more me

With a write-in field, no one has to select a thing or disclose a thing.  One can sail on past without filling in the blank, and there will be members who do so for various reasons, even, unfortunately, out of fear


----------



## velisarius

It's very simple to refer (in English) to other members you don't know as "they" or by their chosen username. I certainly wouldn't go to the trouble of checking on everyone's preferred pronoun for fear of mis-gendering them, so what would be the practical advantage to supplying one's "pronouns"?


----------



## siares

I think ABOUT option could be more accessible, when we hover over the popup rectangle. Next to Start Conversation somewhere.
If the OCCUPATION field is filled out, is the occupation visible somewhere?


----------



## Loob

siares said:


> If the OCCUPATION field is filled out, is the occupation visible somewhere?


Siares, do you want to put something into your Occupation field, and I'll tell you if I can see it?


----------



## siares

THank you, Loob! I'll do that!

edit: done


----------



## Loob

I can't see any Occupation info on your profile as yet - I'll give it another 5 minutes then try again...


----------



## Loob

No, still nothing.  Hmmm....


----------



## elroy

velisarius said:


> I certainly wouldn't go to the trouble of checking on everyone's preferred pronoun for fear of mis-gendering them, so what would be the practical advantage to supplying one's "pronouns"?


It's not about what you or anyone else would or wouldn't do with the information.  It's about giving everyone the same opportunity to reveal the information if they choose to.  Providing only "male," "female," and "no selection" as options is the same as providing a dropdown menu of native languages and only including some languages and "no selection" as options.


----------



## Bevj

elroy said:


> Providing only "male," "female," and "no selection" as options is the same as providing a dropdown menu of native languages and only including some languages and "no selection" as options.


Then the solution is easy. Remove all gender options,  bathroom symbols, cute faces, pinks and blues altogether. Use the 'About You' box to add this information -  if you wish.


----------



## elroy

That would not be linked with the "mini-bio" popup that you get when you click on someone's user name, and I think many people would like that information to be readily accessible without having to go dig around in someone's profile.

It should be eminently simple to just add a fourth option to the three currently available ones of "Male," "Female" and "No selection": a write-in option where the user can specify their gender and/or pronouns.  It's really not that complicated.


----------



## siares

I think 'gender' option should be renamed to 'sex' - each language distinguishes between sexes, but the distinction sex-gender does not exist everywhere.

Then another option could be added - 'gender identity'.


----------



## Nanon

Reina de la Aldea said:


> This supports my point that we need a way to address people properly, according to their wishes, and in accordance with the pronouns they voluntarily provide in their profile


But this also supports my point: the pronoun approach is too restrictive for the purpose of completing a profile in WR unless you use English only. I am familiar - not quite comfortable, but familiar - with the approach of introducing myself as _"Hello, my name is Nanon and my pronouns are she and her"_. But what sense does it make in a language with no gender-marked pronouns (Hungarian, for example)? This becomes tricky as well with languages in which second (and sometimes first!) person pronouns are gendered. 
The challenge is that instead of crystallising on the norm of "stating pronouns", we need to find a wording or a category that would work universally, in all languages if possible.
And again, we are focusing on gender identity which, of course, _is _important, but including non-binary gender definitions does not suffice to tackle prejudice and intolerance in WR: not only homophobia or transphobia but also sexism, racism, classism and discrimination of all sorts.

Speaking about pronouns, another information that some members may wish to add in free text in their profiles is what @mkellogg indicated here:


mkellogg said:


> BTW, you can use tú/tu with me in Spanish


Yet I am not sure how to handle this in a profile either, because T/V habits may differ from one language/culture to another: the same person may use _tu _in language A and stick to the _vous _form in language B. Or maybe they don't even have that choice because they use a language without T/V distinction.


----------



## swift

If you are monolingual and only participate in English Only, add your English pronouns if you wish to do so. If you participate in English-XX forums, and if you feel like it, add your English pronouns and, if you wish, the pronouns in the target language you use most often (e.g., he/his/él). If you participate in multiple forums in multiple languages, add the pronouns that make sense to you and if you're using the Spanish forum, for instance, whatever English pronouns you entered will be completely irrelevant. You are Chinese and only participate in Chinese? Add nothing. The pronoun information is a flex field and it’s optional.

It's not that complicated.


----------



## elroy

The field will of course have to have a character limit.  I reckon that in at least 90% of cases, users will find the space sufficient for their needs.  In the few cases where that's not the case, they can add supplementary information in their profiles.  For example, I have "US English, Palestinian Arabic bilingual" under "Native Language."  This doesn't tell the whole story, but it's the best I could do with the space I had.  This is why my profile says "I grew up speaking both US English and Palestinian Arabic. If you'd like more details, send me a private message. ".


----------



## Loob

Just to say, further to posts 123 et seq, that I still can't see any "Occupation" information in the _About_ section of siares' profile.

It seems that, as far as profession/occupation goes, we're in the same position as in Mike's post 2:


mkellogg said:


> [...]
> 
> Profession/occupation? I am trying to remember if I didn't include it on purpose or not. I may have done it to reduce spam, but it also may have been an oversight. Maybe one of the moderators will remind me. I think it was just an oversight.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Yes, it doesn't appear in my _About _either.  I would be keenly interested in people's occupations, but it's not a battle I'm going to fight.  Now.


----------



## Rocko!

People should always say what they want to be given, regardless of whether others agree or not, and then the dilemma will only be a problem for those who have the power to give or take away the apparent solution. This thread in this forum only proves the veracity of this reality. If the apparent solution does not inconvenience or annoy the vast majority, then one must ask why it is not given. If it bothers an economically important sector, it should not be given. We are a sea of people, not an ocean of differences. What we are is a community driven by interests or economic motivations.


----------



## Rocko!




----------



## rotan

elroy said:


> If someone asks you "What is your native language?" and you say "Slovak," then you identify as a native speaker of Slovak.


He doesn't *identify *as a native speaker of Slovak - he *is *a native speaker of Slovak
How can you even "identify" as a particular language speaker?
There's no such thing, you either speak a language or you don't
People who he was raised around spoke that language so he absorbed it naturally, it's not a matter of "identifying" with anything




elroy said:


> Providing only "male," "female," and "no selection" as options is the same as providing a dropdown menu of native languages and only including some languages and "no selection" as options.


The reason why you let people choose from virtually every language in the world is because that's the goddamn point of a lingual forum; to provide solutions for as many languages as possible
It's not beacuse there's "freedom of choice"

Also, all those languages are historically and scientifically grounded, you can't deny the existence of e.g Slovak language
But this doesn't work the same with genders; the only "scientifically grounded" genders are male and female - the rest is just a figment of imagination

"Let me change my mother tongue to Spanish and fool everyone around that I can speak it. Oh let me also pick "non-binary" though I'm clearly a male, because hey, there's freedom of choice"
No, that's not how it works
Freedom of choice doesn't mean you can go for things which are not documented, just like freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything without taking responsibility for it


----------



## elroy

rotan said:


> How can you even "identify" as a particular language speaker?


You can absolutely identify as a *native* speaker of a specific language.  Not everyone's linguistic background is straightforward.  Many people grow up with significant exposure to more than one language, and they may or may not identify as a native speaker of all of them.


rotan said:


> There's no such thing, you either speak a language or you don't


I was only talking about identifying as a _native_ speaker of a language, but you are wrong regardless.  Just as it's not always straightforward  to determine whether or not you are a _native_ speaker of a certain language, it's also very often (probably much more often) tricky to draw the line between being a "learner" and a "speaker" of a language. 


rotan said:


> The reason why you let people choose from virtually every language in the world is because that's the goddamn point of a lingual forum; to provide solutions for as many languages as possible
> It's not beacuse there's "freedom of choice"


Congratulations on missing the point entirely.


rotan said:


> all those languages are historically and scientifically grounded


What are "all those languages"?  There are many -- let's call them linguistic systems -- for which there is not universal agreement, even among linguists and scientists, as to whether they are or aren't languages.  Case in point: Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian.  One language or three?  This is just one of very many examples of how it's not as straightforward as you're making it out to be.


rotan said:


> you can't deny the existence of e.g Slovak language


You can. Czech and Slovak are so similar to each other that many people suggest that they should perhaps be considered dialects of the same language.  There are threads about this in the forum; you can search for them.  Maltese is a dialect of Arabic that is now universally recognized as its own language, although it's not substantially further from Standard Arabic than some other dialects.  Same with Luxembourgish: it's a dialect of German that is now universally recognized as its own language, although it's not substantially further from Standard German than some other dialects.  There have been movements to declare Lebanese Arabic as its own language, and so on and so forth.  None of this is as straightforward as you're making it out to be.  Google "difference between dialect and language." 


rotan said:


> the only "scientifically grounded" genders are male and female - the rest is just a figment of imagination


There are two predominant _biological sexes_, although they do not apply to every single person. Gender is _not_ a figment of anyone's imagination; what gives you the right to presume to know whether or not _somebody else's experience_ is valid or not?  Gender is not about biology, so you can't make any claims about someone else's gender based on what you physically see. 


rotan said:


> Oh let me also pick "non-binary" though I'm clearly a male


Someone who is non-binary is not male, although they may have been assigned male sex at birth.  They are not just randomly picking something for no reason.  


rotan said:


> No, that's not how it works


It is a fact that many people's gender and gender identity do not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.  The way it _should_ work is that everyone should have the right to assert their true gender and have it validated.


rotan said:


> Freedom of choice doesn't mean you can go for things which are not documented


There are many things that weren't documented for years because people didn't know about them, so that's neither here nor there.  Your gender identity is also not a matter of choice.  The only choice you have is whether to declare/assert it and seek for it to be validated. 


rotan said:


> just like freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything without taking responsibility for it


Total red herring.


----------



## rotan

Perhaps we should skip that "identifying as a language speaker" thing as it still doesn't make any sense to me

That's actually my point; some of the ones you mentioned are recognized as own languages, so you can only speculate whether it's necessary, but you can't negative it is the country's own
It's kinda like citizenship in a foreign country; when you get one you are oficially a national but for most people you are still a foreigner
However all they can do is keep talking, they won't take it back from you

And I can sort of bring that comparison to sex/gender as well - to me, sex is like citizenship, a thing that "oficially" describes me, an undeniable thing
And gender is just those people talking - unnecesary, some even annoying

This might be superficial, but if I'm being honest, that's how it always should be


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> There are two predominant _biological sexes_, although they do not apply to every single person.


Biological sex simply can't apply to one species only.
Sex in nature is always binary, according to gamete production: small and mobile; large and immobile. Nothing in between.

You said yourself:


elroy said:


> Gender is not about biology,...




(but I think this would be better in CC..)


----------



## elroy

@rotan, thank you for explaining.  If I've understood you correctly, you're saying that "male" and "female" should be the only options because those are the only two that are traditionally used on official documents and every one of us is assigned one of the two at birth.  You are right that these are the only two designations that have been used historically.  What's happening is that we are evolving and recognizing that (1) there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity, and (2) the latter is not restricted to two categories.  What some of us are arguing for in this thread is to allow people to express their gender identity as opposed to the biological sex they were assigned at birth.  The latter is based purely on physical features, while the former is based on a person's lived emotional and social reality.  


rotan said:


> gender is just those people talking - unnecesary, some even annoying


It's not unnecessary.  Being misgendered has caused many people untold psychological damage, so validating their gender identity is necessary for the improvement of their wellbeing and that of others.  Whether it's "annoying" is of course a subjective reaction; in any event, not all that is annoying is bad or unnecessary. 


siares said:


> Biological sex simply can't apply to one species only.


Of course not.  I never said or implied it did. 


siares said:


> Sex in nature is always binary [...] Nothing in between.


I don't agree, but whether or not this is true is actually not relevant to what I and others are saying, because, as I said above, our whole point is that it should _not_ be about biology.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> Of course not. I never said or implied it did.


Then could we keep the option male/female as 'sex' rather than more confusing 'gender'?
Could you copy here how those options are termed in other language choices on this site?

(Even though biological sex is supposedly kept out of the equation, non-binary people seek Eunuch procedures.
Non-Binary Surgery - Crane Center for Transgender Surgery

If sex is not binary, and neither are gender identities, 'non-binary' is an illogical category.
Believing both in lack of binary sex and non-binary identity is a belief in contradicting categories - a spiritual/religious belief.
Another quasi religious belief: 'as long as  a licensed surgeon does it, and it happens in a hospital, paid by insurance, it is magically not abuse'.)


----------



## rotan

Yea it's just funny it's only been a case for the past few years
I honestly don't get why people are constantly coming up with more and more unnecessary, controversial, and triggering stuff
I'm not against anything unless someone tries to implant it everywhere


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> Then could we keep the option male/female as 'sex' rather than more confusing 'gender'?


For the purposes of language discussions, I'm personally not particularly interested in knowing what kind of genitalia people have.


siares said:


> Could you copy here how those options are termed in other language choices on this site?


Sorry, I don't have that information.


siares said:


> Even though biological sex is supposedly kept out of the equation, non-binary people seek Eunuch procedures.


Not all non-binary people seek sex reassignment surgery.  Some do, because it makes them feel more comfortable in their body.  No one said that biological sex is "kept out of the equation."  What we're saying is that, for example, having a penis does not equate to having male gender.  You can have a penis and identify as female, and, as a female, you may or may not seek sex reassignment surgery, depending on the relevance of what your body looks like to your psycho-socio-emotional well-being.  So biological sex _is_ relevant; it just doesn't neatly align with gender.


siares said:


> If sex is not binary, and neither are gender identities, 'non-binary' is an illogical category.


I'm sorry; I don't follow.  _Because_ it's not binary, "non-binary" is a category.  People who identify as non-binary do not identify as either "male" or "female" but something else, which is possible _because_ gender is non-binary.  They're two ways of saying the same thing.


siares said:


> Believing both in lack of binary sex and non-binary identity is a belief in contradicting categories


I don't understand this either.


siares said:


> 'as long as a licensed surgeon does it, and it happens in a hospital, paid by insurance, it is magically not abuse'.


It's not abuse as long as you are an adult capable of giving informed consent, and you do give that consent, having been sufficiently informed about the process and the risks involved.


rotan said:


> it's only been a case for the past few years


Well, society is always evolving and developing.


rotan said:


> I honestly don't get why people are constantly coming up with more and more unnecessary, controversial, and triggering stuff


People aren't just stirring up controversy for the heck of it.  Even if a few people are doing that (for whatever reason), there are definitely plenty of people for whom this is legitimate, and that's who we should focus on.


rotan said:


> I'm not against anything unless someone tries to implant it everywhere


I'm not sure what you mean.  No one is forcing anyone to do anything.


----------



## rotan

That's my general opinion on it, I don't mean anything particular
But yea, to me it's more like* d*evolving


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> For the purposes of language discussions, I'm personally not particularly interested in knowing what kind of genitalia people have.


I cannot teach learners to use pronouns according to mental state of a human in a picture in front of them. Language describese speaker's perception of reality, and pronouns are taught to be used as referring to the perceived sex. That includes genitals, which most of the time align with perceived sex. Genitals are vitally important. No language fails to distinguish between biological sexes. I hope teachers here will not get advice which will make their students fail exams.


elroy said:


> _Because_ it's not binary, "non-binary" is a category. People who identify as non-binary do not identify as either "male" or "female" but something else, which is possible _because_ gender is non-binary. They're two ways of saying the same thing.


Do you mean_ 'Because_ sex is non-binary' or because gender is non-binary'?
In any case, in such a system all identities are non-binary, including male and female.


elroy said:


> It's not abuse as long as you are an adult capable of giving informed consent, and you do give that consent, having been sufficiently informed about the process and the risks involved.


Mentally unbalanced or mentally ill people cannot give consent. This is less important if the choice is between having a surgery and dying of cancer, but it is crucially important in case of a cosmetic surgery which has never been compared to conservative treatment. Shame on all plastic surgeons who sell dangerous surgeries to women with body image issues to make them look like Angelina Jolie or Barbie doll or whoever. But for a castration shame is not enough; not even jail would be.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> I cannot teach learners to use pronouns according to mental state of a human in a picture in front of them.


It's not about their "mental state"; it's about their authentic reality.  And yes, you absolutely can teach learners to use pronouns this way.


siares said:


> Language describes speaker's perception of reality


If your perception of me does not match my reality and you use language according to your perception and not my reality, then you are misrepresenting my reality.  This is not an acceptable use of language.  If I perceive you as Czech when you are Slovak, then me saying "siares is Czech" is a problematic use of language.


siares said:


> pronouns are taught to be used as referring to the perceived sex.


Traditionally, yes.  This doesn't mean it's right.  Things are changing and evolving.


siares said:


> That includes genitals, which most of the time align with perceived sex.


Whether or not people can guess what genitals you have is irrelevant.


siares said:


> Genitals are vitally important.


For some things they are, for other things they're not.


siares said:


> No language fails to distinguish between biological sexes.


I don't know if that's true or not, but even if it is, it's not relevant to what we're discussing here.


siares said:


> I hope teachers here will not give advice which will make their students fail exams.


That's not the point.  The point is whether or not the answers students are expected to give on those exams are problematic.  We should first make sure exams are testing the right things before checking whether teachers are appropriately preparing students for them.


siares said:


> Do you mean_ 'Because_ sex is non-binary' or because gender is non-binary'?


Both are non-binary.


siares said:


> In any case, in such a system all identities are non-binary, including male and female.


Ah, I see.  You're conflating two different meanings/uses of the term "non-binary."

When we say "Sex and gender are non-binary," we mean there are more than two categories.
When we say "So-and-so identifies as non-binary," we mean that their gender identity is not one of the two that are available under a strictly binary system.


siares said:


> Mentally unbalanced or mentally ill people cannot give consent.


This is true.  What is not true is that all people with a non-traditional gender identity are mentally unbalanced or ill.


siares said:


> it is crucially important in case of a cosmetic surgery which has never been compared to conservative treatment. Shame on all plastic surgeons who sell dangerous surgeries to women with body image issues to make them look like Angelina Jolie or Barbie doll or whoever. But for a castration shame is not enough; not even jail would be.


The ethics of plastic surgery and other procedures, as well as your problematic descriptions of sex reassignment surgery as "castration" and "eunuch procedures," are very, very far beyond the confines of the topic of this thread, which is only about providing inclusive gender options that allow everybody to select or provide the gender they identify with.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

On the topic of consent for a surgical procedure, know that a very rigorous psychosocial evaluation is required of anyone seeking sex reassignment surgery/gender affirmation surgery.
Guidelines for Psychosocial Assessments for Sexual Reassignment Surgery or Gender Affirmation Surgery


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> If I perceive you as Czech when you are Slovak, then me saying "siares is Czech" is a problematic use of language.


I don't understand the use of 'problematic' here. If police is after me and they ask you what nationality I am and you think I am Czech, then the sentence is utterly normal.


elroy said:


> When we say "So-and-so identifies as non-binary," we mean that their gender identity is not one of the two that are available under a strictly binary system.


Thanks. I wouldn't have guessed that it refers to binary system which is supposed not to exist.


elroy said:


> This is true. What is not true is that all people with a non-traditional gender identity are mentally unbalanced or ill.


Gender dysphoria is still classified as mental illness.
Do you think treatments for it other than surgery (any surgery is known to have profound placebo effect) are sufficiently studied for it? Do you think there are enough studies on detransitioners?


elroy said:


> The ethics of plastic surgery and other procedures, as well as your problematic descriptions of sex reassignment surgery as "castration" and "eunuch procedures,"


Castration wasn't on the offer, but it is the surgeons who sell the surgery under the term 'eunuch procedure'.


elroy said:


> We should first make sure exams are testing the right things before checking whether teachers are appropriately preparing students for them.


Definitely disagree. Teachers are hired to advance their students in their chosen course. (Here there was a test to get into a medical school with a typo in it. Hired tutors pointed out and advised students to memorize the incorrect answer, for a test so tough that one answer could make all the difference.)


Reina de la Aldea said:


> know that a very rigorous psychosocial evaluation is required of anyone seeking sex reassignment surgery/gender affirmation surgery.


Sadly, no. There are videos of therapists who evaluate people in one to few sessions, often online; and videos of transitioners speaking of how fast they went through the process. You could try to read detransitioner's reddit.
Moreover, children put on Lupron at 8 are set on course they can hardly get off. Their genitals, bones and other organs most likely including brains never develop right.
(I met a trans-man who was a therapist himself as an adult after normal development and had 6 years of therapy before he transitioned. That was in a diluvial era 7 years ago. Incidentally, I happen to know quite a few therapists. They are not regulated in every state - I could put a note on the house and start working as one - and even those highly qualified are a very uneven bunch. They like money just like plastic surgeons do.)


elroy said:


> The ethics of plastic surgery and other procedures, as well as your problematic descriptions of sex reassignment surgery as "castration" and "eunuch procedures," are very, very far beyond the confines of the topic of this thread, which is only about providing inclusive gender options that allow everybody to select or provide the gender they identify with.


I think people should be aware that providing inclusive gender options is entangled with a belief system which enables those surgeries.


----------



## elroy

I’m not going to comment here about surgery or teaching/exams, as both are off-topic. 


siares said:


> If police is after me and they ask you what nationality I am and you think I am Czech, then the sentence is utterly normal.


That is not the scenario I was thinking of.  If you tell me you’re Slovak yet I insist on referring to you as Czech because that’s how I “perceive” you, then that’s problematic because it’s at best disrespectful to you and at worst psychologically damaging. 


siares said:


> I wouldn't have guessed that it refers to binary system which is supposed not to exist.


It’s only a _reference_ to a binary system that many people have historically believed exists and many people today believe exists.  It doesn’t mean you believe that that binary system exists. 


siares said:


> Gender dysphoria is still classified as mental illness.


Not all people with a non-traditional gender identity have gender dysphoria. 


siares said:


> I think people should be aware that providing inclusive gender options is entangled with a belief system which enables those surgeries.


That’s an all-or-nothing fallacy.  Even if you disagree with the surgery you can still support people’s right to disclose their true gender identity.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> That is not the scenario I was thinking of. If you tell me you’re Slovak yet I insist on referring to you as Czech because that’s how I “perceive” you, then that’s problematic because it’s at best disrespectful to you and at worst psychologically damaging.


If I only speak native-level Czech, I would expect you describe me as Czech-sounding person who claims is Slovak or presumed a bilingual speaker.



elroy said:


> Not all people with a non-traditional gender identity have gender dysphoria.


Sure, but we mentioned mental illness in the context of giving consent to surgeries.
I am aware that people fight for the right to have surgeries even when they don't have dysphoria. In the absence of illness, the surgeries would cease to be a 'treatment'.


elroy said:


> That’s an all-or-nothing fallacy. Even if you disagree with the surgery you can still support people’s right to disclose their true gender identity.


Sure, demand for surgeries is just one of the  contradictions (gender identity is unconnected to bodies; change to bodies is needed).

Do you support the right of members to disclose their lack of gender identity, along with biological sex?


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> If I only speak native-level Czech, I would expect you describe me as Czech-sounding person who claims is Slovak or presumed a bilingual speaker.


This is not relevant to the point I made.


siares said:


> In the absence of illness, the surgeries would cease to be a 'treatment'.


The surgery is not meant to be a "treatment," at least not in all cases.


siares said:


> one of the contradictions (gender identity is unconnected to bodies; change to bodies is needed)


I already addressed this:


elroy said:


> Not all non-binary people seek sex reassignment surgery. Some do, because it makes them feel more comfortable in their body. No one said that biological sex is "kept out of the equation." What we're saying is that, for example, having a penis does not equate to having male gender. You can have a penis and identify as female, and, as a female, you may or may not seek sex reassignment surgery, depending on the relevance of what your body looks like to your psycho-socio-emotional well-being. So biological sex _is_ relevant; it just doesn't neatly align with gender.


Sex reassignment surgery is not _needed_, at least not in every case.  It's an _option_ that some people choose to avail themselves of. 



siares said:


> Do you support the right of members to disclose their lack of gender identity, along with biological sex?


Are you referring to someone who identifies with the gender traditionally associated with their biological sex, in other words, a cis-male or a cis-female?  If so, then I support their right to check "male" or "female," since that would be the gender they identify with.

To clarify, when I say "identifies with the gender traditionally associated with their biological sex," I mean that if asked "What gender are you?" as an open-ended question, they would say "male" or "female."  If their response is anything else, then they have a different gender identity (not "male" or "female") that would need a different label/description.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> Sex reassignment surgery is not _needed_, at least not in every case. It's an _option_ that some people choose to avail themselves of.


Thanks. It would be great if insurance companies thought so and didn't pay for it; for the sake of patients, not money.


elroy said:


> Are you referring to someone who identifies with the gender traditionally associated with their biological sex, in other words, a cis-male or a cis-female? If so, then I support their right to check "male" or "female," since that would be the gender they identify with.


No, I am talking about someone who doesn't have a gender identity, but knows their sex and has gendered language where people are referred to and addressed not just in pronouns but elsewhere too based on their perceived sex.


elroy said:


> To clarify, when I say "identifies with the gender traditionally associated with their biological sex," I mean that if asked "What gender are you?" as an open-ended question, they would say "male" or "female."


Can all languages, of members reading this thread at least, pose such a question?


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> No, I am talking about someone who doesn't have a gender identity, but knows their sex and *has gendered language where people are referred to and addressed not just in pronouns but elsewhere too based on their perceived sex*.


Are you referring to the language this person uses, or the language people use to refer to this person (and that this person is comfortable with)? 


siares said:


> Can all languages, of members reading this thread at least, pose such a question?


Probably not (yet).


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> Are you referring to the language this person uses, or the language people use to refer to this person (and that this person is comfortable with)?


Both. In practice on the forum if somebody says they are a female native speaker, a learner of that language will expect them to refer to themselves in a correctly gendered forms, and the would try to talk to that speaker in correctly gendered form too, to practice verbs.
In real life comfort would come into it if the person talked about is known, but that is not that often the case in lessons which here at least use exercises in textbooks.


----------



## elroy

It is not relevant what pronouns User A uses _to refer to other people_.  That's a whole other kettle of fish that is unrelated to the topic of this thread.

Second, as far as User A's own situation, there are two aspects:
(1) what their gender is
(2) what their pronouns are

They may choose to reveal (A) only their gender, (B) only their pronouns, or (C) both.  This would look like this, for example:

(A) Gender: Female
(B) Pronouns: she/her/hers
(C) Gender: Female; Pronouns: she/her/hers

(C) is the most informative and instructive.  This way, users know what gender to use in reference to User A, and what pronouns to use to refer to her.

(A) and (B) are a bit trickier.  Under (B), we know what pronouns to use but we don't know what her gender is (it may be non-binary).  Under (A), we know what their gender is but we don't know what their preferred pronouns are (they may be "they/them/theirs," for example). 

We can only be held responsible for what we know.  If we don't _know_ what a person's gender is or what their pronouns are, then of course we can't be expected to know how to refer to them.  We can play it safe by using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun [EDIT: I just realized I unconsciously did this above when writing points (1) and (2)!] and by avoiding an explicit reference to gender.

As I said in an earlier post, at its core this is not about what other users may choose to do with the information given.  *It's about every user's right to be able to give that information in the same way, should they choose to do so.*


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> It is not relevant what pronouns User A uses _to refer to other people_.


But user A could be talking to and about other members, or about celebrities.


elroy said:


> (C) Gender: Female; Pronouns: she/her/hers


I really think we should have separate 'sex' category too, for the reasons I've given. If there is every user's right to give information about oneself.


elroy said:


> (2) what their pronouns are


Verb forms would be needed too, especially for nonbinary genders - maybe they are neuter, or contain @, or some newly invented ones.

If there are any non-traditional combinations, there would have to be some kind of warning so that learners don't copy those forms that will make them lose exams if learned.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> But user A could be talking to and about other members, or about celebrities.


How is this relevant to what options should be available to User A? 


siares said:


> I really think we should have separate 'sex' category too, for the reasons I've given.


What reasons? 


siares said:


> Verb forms would be needed too, especially for nonbinary genders - maybe they are neuter, or contain @, or some newly invented ones.


Yes, the situation is more complicated than just pronouns, depending on the language.  But we can't fix the world in one day.   Allowing users to provide pronouns in the "Gender" field is a great start.  They can perhaps provide supplementary information about verbs in the "About" section. 


siares said:


> If there are any non-traditional combinations, there would have to be some kind of warning so that learners don't copy those forms that will make them lose exams if learned.


I don't agree.  We're not responsible for anyone's exam outcomes.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> How is this relevant to what options should be available to User A?


They are available to user B too, whom user A could be talking about.  But this is more relevant with verbs I think. Using feminine pronoun and plural verb form, for example.


elroy said:


> What reasons?


That some languages don't have gender and some people don't have gender identity.


elroy said:


> I don't agree. We're not responsible for anyone's exam outcomes.


But I think standard language, no chatspeak etc. is required so that learners are not misled.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> They are available to user B too, whom user A could be talking about. But this is more relevant with verbs I think. Using feminine pronoun and plural verb form, for example.


Sorry, I still don't understand what you're getting at.


siares said:


> That some languages people don't have gender


No one is _required_ to share anything.  If the languages they use and the languages people use with them don't have gender or if this is not an issue, then they don't have to post anything.  We already addressed this (many posts ago).


siares said:


> some people don't have gender identity


Everyone has a gender identity, even if it's "I don't identify with a specific gender" ("agender").  I think you might be referring to cis-gender people, i.e. people who don't identify as anything other than "male" or "female" based on the sex they were assigned at birth.  If so, then they can check "male" or "female," or neither if they so choose.  I don't see a problem.

As I said, biological sex is only a physical feature so I don't think it deserves to get a field of its own.  And it has nothing to do with what options should be available for the "gender" category.


siares said:


> But I think standard language, no chatspeak etc. is required so that learners are not misled.


The scenarios you're presenting are totally unrealistic.  If an exam describes a male character, then the expectation is that the student should use male pronouns.  If a WR user identifies as female even though they were assigned male sex at birth, that's a different situation and it would be totally absurd to assume that that means you should use female pronouns with _anyone_ who was assigned male at birth.  That just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> Everyone has a gender identity


Let me quote something back at you


elroy said:


> what gives you the right to presume to know whether or not _somebody else's experience_ is valid or not?


I absolutely do not have a gender identity, and I don't need to be proselytized to that I definitely do have it, just don't notice it.
I don't wish to be included in someone else's beliefs that there exists gender identity (or immortal soul, personality based on reincarnation or bloodtype etc.) If any of these options are provided when signing up, I want an option to tick: none.


elroy said:


> If a WR user identifies as female even though they were assigned male sex at birth, that's a different situation and it would be totally absurd to assume that that means you should use female pronouns with _anyone_ who was assigned male at birth. That just doesn't make any sense.


This goes with the thing I didn't explain well, with person A talking about person B.
Person B, called Daisy, uses she, they pronouns and verbs about herself and person A goes along with that.
A says about B: I agree with Daisy. I'll just add that where *she* *used* 'X', in my neck of the woods we would say Y, and where *they* *used....*

In gendered languages with verb agreement those two coloured words match based on the sex (pronoun), and plural pronoun requires plural verb.

If somebody signs u with a gender of genderfae and talks to somebody of genderfaunet or genderfloren, their conversation could look ungrammatical like that, with unmatching parts.


----------



## elroy

siares said:


> I absolutely do not have a gender identity, and I don't need to be proselytized to that I definitely do have it, just don't notice it.
> I don't wish to be included in someone else's beliefs that there exists gender identity (or immortal soul, personality based on reincarnation or bloodtype etc.) If any of these options are provided when signing up, I want an option to tick: none.


I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not you have a gender identity.  If you believe that you don't have one, you can write "No Gender Identity" in the write-in field.


siares said:


> In gendered languages with verb agreement those two coloured words match based on the sex (pronoun), and plural pronoun requires plural verb.


I'm still not sure I understand the example.


----------



## siares

elroy said:


> I'm still not sure I understand the example.


Ohh... I feel sleepy now. Might try to think of something to add later... Or other people reading the thread!


----------



## elroy

I think at this point it’s a dialogue between the two of us.  

Dobrú noc!
(Not “Dobrou noc” because I don’t think you’re Czech. )


----------



## siares

Thank you.


----------



## pollohispanizado

Reina de la Aldea said:


> bienvenid al foro


Bienvenide


----------



## merquiades

On the subject of native language, if your parents, siblings, friends, school, work and society in general where you live speak one common language, there is, of course, no problem declaring which is your language.
But imagine there is more than one language used in a given area. One of them could be your mother tongue, another one could be the language you habitually use, and another could be the language you identify with.

I have read that depending on how a language survey question is worded you get very different answers in a place like the Ukraine.
 Also immigrants to another country could reject or treasure their parents' language regardless of their ability to speak it.
This could be the case in an area that has a heritage language. You identify with Irish, are proud of it and you learned it but in reality you never use it.


Anyway I'm sure some people in WR answer the language question thinking of identification rather than mother tongue or actual daily use or ability. Maybe the other way around too....

 Perhaps we ought to find a way to focus on language skills.  Which language(s) do you know best?


----------



## pollohispanizado

merquiades said:


> Perhaps we ought to find a way to focus on language skills. Which language(s) do you know best?


This is a sticky question too for the same reason as the native language. Since language is as much a tool as part of one's culture and identity, one could be able to speak at length about a certain topic in a given language but not in another, even though in other situations they have a native level. Languages are weird and unique for this.


----------

