Improve / "fix" the gender field

This is timely! This is actually something the DA has been looking at, specifically @rachel_norfolk and @B_man

One of the first steps we want to take is actually implement the Big 8/Big 10 self-identification options that we've been using for DrupalCon speakers. Those are:

I identify with the underrepresented communities in the following categories: *
Ability - Behavioral, Cognitive, Emotional, Physical
Age
Ethnicity
Gender
Race
Religion
Sexual Orientation
Socio-Economic Status/Class
Learning Differences
Family Composition
None
Prefer-not-to-answer
We have chosen these categories based on the Big 8, which is a list of cultural identifiers

This might replace the gender field on initial sign up entirely, and move the gender field to an optional additional field on profiles (although it is still demographic data we'd like to have about our community to understand how well we're doing from an inclusivity point of view).

For the gender field itself, we looked at these resources:

• https://www.drupal.org/project/gender
• http://www.practicemakesprogress.org/blog/2015/9/18/asking-about-gender-...
• https://uxdesign.cc/designing-forms-for-gender-diversity-and-inclusion-d...
• http://www.transstudent.org/definitions
• http://www.apadivisions.org/division-44/publications/newsletters/divisio...
• http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ids-nonbinary-people/
• https://www.hrc.org/resources/collecting-transgender-inclusive-gender-da...

And based on that research we were considering something like this:

Multi-select:
woman
man
non-binary
transgender
intersex
Two Spirit
gender non-conforming
[free entry]

But this is something that needs extended and careful thought. @Rachel_norfolk has been reaching out to some folks to make sure we talk to the right people.

(although it is still demographic data we'd like to have about our community to understand how well we're doing from an inclusivity point of view).

the tweet that lead here asked pointedly "why?" so making clear how its used and its visibility would likely be useful information to provide.

edit: unassignment was unintentional. I don't have permission to fix it.

the tweet that lead here asked pointedly "why?" so making clear how its used and its visibility would likely be useful information to provide.

I don't think I've seen the tweet in question - but one of the principles outlined in several of the articles above is that if you don't have a good reason to ask for information from someone... don't ask it. Or at least don't make it required.

So that's something we're taking very seriously as well.

Being able to measure the success of our efforts to increase diversity and inclusion in our community is really the primary reason in my mind.

There's a significant difference between asking someone to identify their relationship to a Big8/Big10 category and asking someone to specify their gender. I'd like to see this issue focus - and if we're going to have gender, let's make it not terrible (based on the assumed community value that we respect how everyone identifies and want them to feel safe and respected in their gender identity when in the Drupal community)

If we're going to remove gender, let's define how that choice aligns with our community values and the motivations for that choice.

How about replacing it with a pronoun field?

Yes preferred pronouns is used a lot (organically, since there's no public field) in twitter bios and elsewhere so seems definitely worth considering.

Metafilter went thru this a few years ago, and decided a textfield was the way to go.

And based on that research we were considering something like this:

Multi-select:
woman
man
non-binary
transgender
intersex
Two Spirit
gender non-conforming
[free entry]

This is still borderline transphobic, and also erases people who are agender. I've had this conversation with drnikki on the open demographics github, and here's what we hashed out.

Thank you, @SageSharp - that is a helpful additional resource. I've cross-posted that resource to an issue in the Gender field contrib module, because I think it might be helpfully used there as well.

Thank you also for being willing to help this, in the face of the fact that in order to sign up here and do so we confronted you with something that was inexcusably offensive in its current form.

If you are willing(you are certainly not obligated to) could you help me understand why that proposed change is still borderline transphobic?

I 100% affirm the truth that trans-women are women and trans-men are men (and the corrollaries that agender individuals are agender, and non-conforming individuals are non-conforming), and that we should not be implying that trans* folks should have to identify themselves as *other* than those identities... but at the same time I also know I have colleagues throughout the community who want to affirm their identity as transgender or non-conforming or agender. Hence the notion of making all identifiers part of an optional multi-select. For example: a transgender woman could identify simply as a woman(because they are) or as a woman and as transgender - if they want to positively affirm transgender-visibility(that being their choice, not something we inflict on them).

I think that aligns with the rationale described on the open demographics github* that surfaces intersectionality rather than rigid and singular identity, specifically where it says:

We separate the question of trans* and gender-non-conforming to include people with intersecting identities of "non-conforming" and "any other gender identity." Because it is structured this way, people can identify as "a man" and "gender non conforming."

We ask for people to check all identities on the gender spectrum because many LGBTQ people may identify with multiple labels. We use the terms "woman" and "man" rather than "male" and "female" because the latter terms are more associated with birth assigned gender and not current gender identity.

But from your comment I feel I must be missing something critical.

________

*apart from the fact that we are clearly missing many identifier** in this initial list.
** Although even the open demographics github seems to be missing several identifiers from indigenous cultures - though I'm happy to see that there's an open issue to address that.

Sage's contribution to that gender field was immense - thanks for posting that here. We used that _exact_ breakdown on a survey for another very large OSS community and early results seem to indicate that there was no drop off at the gender field. Important to remember, too, that someone's choice of pronouns does not always correlate directly with their gender identity.

Asking for a user's pronouns is a great thing - folks should never assume - but it is _also_ different than asking someone's gender identity. Can someone from the DA weigh in on exactly what this field is trying to accomplish?

As one member of the DA (and we are still getting aligned on this, so others may chime in) my current understanding of the motivations for this field are as follows:

• As you put it very well above: "[..] we respect how everyone identifies and want them to feel safe and respected in their gender identity when in the Drupal community"... by corollary we don't want to erase visibility of that identity, and nor do we want to force anyone to identify.
• We (at the association, and on behalf of the wider community) want to be able to measure the success of our efforts to improve diversity and inclusion in our community. (For the purposes of this issue focused on gender, but this motivation more broadly includes several other demographic areas as well)

My own beliefs around gender fields in profiles is essentially thus: Don’t ask the question if you don’t need the answer to do something directly of benefit to the person answering.

So, looking at Drupal.org, do we *need* this information to provide you, the community member with a better experience? No.

BUT we probably DO need to ask a DIFFERENT (but related) question: Do you identify yourself as belonging to an under-represented group in the community? (And which of the big10 in a multi-select)

Answers to this different question allow us to run initiatives that help make the Drupal Community a better place for many people who might otherwise be put off. A more diverse and interesting community directly improves quality of the product we are here to enjoy. So, it is in the interest of the person signing up.

The cold hard reality of this type of change is that *we won’t get it perfect first time*. We will need to iterate over this and improve each time. That should not put us off taking those first steps.

"allow us to run initiatives that help make the Drupal Community a better place for many people who might otherwise be put off" - like what? The work that DD&I has been doing externally?

Respectfully, I'm not sure future initiatives by the DA are a good enough reason to ask this - the DA will take action IF folks fill out the form AND the data shows something? This form has existed in this dysfunctional state for a long time and the DA hasn't really done much with the data, last I heard.

I'm not arguing for or against the field, just that I'd perfer to see us not hide behind "future initiatives" that may never come. If we keep the field, let's make it as inclusive as possible.

Thanks to everyone involved so far. The conclusion we're reaching is that we do *not* need to require gender data - and that even if we add it optionally it needs to be much improved from its current form.

Proposed resolution:

• Remove the gender field from initial account registration
• Replace the current terribad field on profiles with an entirely optional one based on the open-demographics initiative (ideally hooked up to drupal.org/project/gender)
• File a followup issue for asking the Big8/Big10

I’m awaiting some feedback that may give us an indication of whether, really, we want to include that gender field at all. It might be that eventually we just drop it. But I don’t want to do that if it is important to some people that it is displayed on their profile.

The second NEW field asking about the Big10 is indeed a follow up. It’s a quite different question, with a different reason for existing.

I think a key question is whether this information is available publicly or if not, who can access this information.

It's one thing to have an anonymous survey asking which underrepresented communities people belong to and then using that to see what progress is being made. It's quite another to have that information tied directly to a person's profile. If that information is public, that could lead to a safety threat. Even if the info is not public, if people have access to that info behind the scenes, that too can be an issue.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, belonging to an underrepresented community can lead to physical attacks and harassment. Not everyone who is trans wants that to be known. That's also true for women trying to avoid harassment as well as people of color, members of the LGBT community, etc.

When information is public or privately accessible, that's almost assuredly going to shape whether or not the data is accurate. Even if there's a good goal behind collecting the data—trying to track progress on diversity and inclusion—concerns about safety could lead to severe undercounts. And if that data is then also used to track whether or not to make accommodations for certain groups, based on how many people are affected, then you have a really serious problem.

I certainly don't know the answer here, except listen to folks like drnikki and sage who are knowledgeable about the subject.

I totally agree, Marc - publicly exposing info given in a Big10 field would NOT be a good idea!!

(Unless we have express permission to do so, of course)

I'd like to make an amendment to the proposed resolution

Proposed resolution:
- Remove the gender field from initial account registration
- Replace the current terribad field on profiles with an entirely optional one based on the open-demographics initiative (ideally hooked up to drupal.org/project/gender) (allow people to display this data optionally)
- Add a field asking people for their preferred pronouns (allow people to display just this data)
- File a followup issue for asking the Big8/Big10

This presentation is well worth watching: https://vimeo.com/166790858

If we have no reason to ask for gender data, then I think we should remove it and replace it with just a pronoun field (which we do currently have a use for - addressing people correctly) until we do have a reason.

That said though, I'm not against adding a new field based on @drnikki's recommendations, however this could also be moved to a follow-up so it is doesn't block the other work.

I agree with Nikki's solution. I think the option to display one's gender/pronoun is really important. As a female dev, i want people to know I'm a woman. That matters to me. I want that visibility.

> That matters to me. I want that visibility.
Great point 👍 👍 👍

Agreed that the top priority is getting rid of the terribad gender field stat. Don't wait for the perfect solution before correcting a serious problem.

A couple things:
- Checkbox form fields tend to have way better usability than multi-select form fields. It isn't always obvious with multi-select that you can choose more than one option, so multi-select may end up just replicating the same awfulness where it looks like trans is one thing you can select and man/woman another.
- Maybe have one set of checkboxes that can be checked for internal demographic data collection, and then another set for what somebody wants to share publicly.

Somebody may be okay with checking "Trans" and "Woman" for internal data, but would prefer to only check "Woman" for public display of data, for example. Or maybe they don't want to display anything publicly. And some people might be glad to check the same options for both, but that would give people a choice.

Being clear about why internal data is collected, how it is used and who has access to it would be important. Security on that data would be important. If somebody provided that information with the understanding that it was private, having that data end up in the public domain could be really harmful.

So, looking at Drupal.org, do we *need* this information to provide you, the community member with a better experience? No.

I disagree. Providing a gender field (or fields) on my profile does give me a better experience on d.o and in the community in general. As a woman in technology, it's important to me to display my gender on my profile because:
* It reduces the amount of misgendering I deal with
* It gives me visibility as a woman in open source
* It allows me to find other people "like me". I’ve looked at other OS projects and turned right around when I didn’t see anybody like me.
* It allows me to see if the number of people "like me" in the community is rising or falling, which serves as a barometer for both comfort and safety.

On the other hand, I also identify as nonbinary/genderfluid, so multi-choice is critical for me in terms of accurate self-representation. I like the work @DrNikki & @SageSharp did on OpenDemographics and would be delighted to see it on d.o., given that there is clear information about what is happening with the data provided.

Re: the questions about pronoun fields, I'm fine with having pronoun fields, but I don’t like pronouns as a stand-in for gender identity (nor as a placeholder until we sort out what we want here). They don’t match for me personally and it gets confusing and frustrating to fill them out.

So, as you can see, we had a really good conversation about this issue in the DD&I weekly meeting.

The take always from that can be summarised as below:

1) permissions for public view of gender (etc) data should be on an individual item basis (being able to display that I’m a woman but not displaying I have a trans history etc etc)
2) checkboxes are fab
3) we do like to be able to see “other people like me”. Some people will want to be able to show items on their profile (see 1)
4) optionally displaying preferred pronouns would be great

I have a couple of ideas I want to chat over with Engineering. I think we can do this...

I'd like folks to weigh in on data conversion before we dive into engineering. How will data be converted? Will folks who checked "other" just have that information erased without being notified? Will we wipe everyone's data and start over, etc.

Coming out of DrupalCon Nashville, it sounds as though we've achieved some consensus:

• We stopped the bleeding with #2940759: Collect Big 8/Big 10 representation information on sign up
• After conversations with @drnikki and @sparklingrobots, it sounds like the Open Demographics team is onboard with trying to make the ODI project an API, by providing the questions and answers in a machine readable format. (And I'm sure they'd appreciate contributions on that front!)
• The DA engineering team will hopefully be able to consume that API to build a module for Open Demographics
• Per the above, we have consensus that granular control is needed over which elements of data are visible on profiles

I think I'm going to postpone this particular issue on that ODI implementation, because we've stopped the bleeding, however, feel free to revert that if folks feel there's another stopgap step needed before we continue with ODI.

Proposal to remove the current field for now.

I'm wondering if there is an update here.
In the CHAOSS D&I working group, our standard for gender-identity can be found here. This is also what we are using at Mozilla.
Curious what direction, and learning you have.

If we are being all inclusive, I think we should allow an 'Other' option where someone can enter a string of their choosing.

If you identify as a 'toaster', who am I to argue?

I personally think the open-demographics list is much too long and confusing and includes items like 'Gender confusion/Gender f*ck' that are more off putting and add to overall confusion.

I prefer the KISS method (keep it simple stupid!) and would suggest using the following simple list:

I prefer not to identify
Man
Woman
Enter your own ____________

We could then automatically review community submissions of the other category and rank them by volume of use.
This would allow us to determine which additional demographics to include based on actual user entries.
We could then automate this to automatically include a value once a high enough percentage of the user base has entered it manually.

If enough of our users identify as a 'toaster' we should include it in the list.

Update @sunnydeveloper Great link! I think this is a solid list:
Man
Woman
Non-binary/ third gender
Prefer to self-describe _________________
Prefer not to say

+1 to the mozilla response: https://github.com/mozilla/diversity/blob/master/data-metrics/surveys/en...

One more update and additional 2 cents:

Just one more thought, what if the 'other' field could automatically populate an additional option if enough of the users enter the same value. For example, if 5% of the drupal user base has entered 'toaster' into the 'enter your own' field, then the option to select 'toaster' will appear on the list. This way we can be all inclusive based on data from our actual community and users.

Seems like this would be fairly simple to program as a function.

May I kindly suggest that if you have zero expertise or understanding of gender issues that you simply refrain from commenting. The above suggestions are not at all helpful, and the sarcasm is deeply hurtful.

.

I was not trying to troll, I was trying to suggest a way for the community to integrate a system that would adapt these options based on the values entered by actual users in the community. The idea that someone would identify as a toaster, as absurd as it sounds, could be a real thing for someone. Because of its absurdity I used the word 'toaster' as an example in this case. Feel free to swap out any other word that (you feel) someone might identify as.

The concept is this: Include an option that, based on the entries from other ACTUAL users, would then automatically populate additional values based on what community members had already entered in that field IF enough of the overall user-base had entered that value.
So, for example, if your site has 100 users, and 10 of them selected 'add an additional value' and entered 'Toaster' then that option would also populate for new users.

This way the values are dynamically changing based on actual user input, the system would adapt based on the community using it.
The community defines the values.

So, in short. With a system like this, if a high enough percentage of your user base has entered 'Toaster' then the option of 'Toaster' would appear in the selection.

I hope this was enough to clarify. I am very sympathetic to this issue and trying to propose a solution that is adaptable and all inclusive in a variety of environments and platforms. Is that not what the Open Source initiative of Drupal is all about???

Edit: In response to 'othering' - this field could be labeled: 'Define your own' 'Enter your own value' 'Tells us your gender' or another phrase that encourages a positive user experience.
I'm not implying that your feeling to identify as something else is 'wrong' I'm trying to give a field of 'expression' (where to express ones own feeling about gender) that is ALL INCLUSIVE of EVERYONE (even people who identify as a 'Toaster')

*note, I have read the entire previous forum on this, I have several close friends that consider themselves a non-traditional gender, I myself prefer the pronoun 'They', and I am not trolling.

Additional note: Clearly this is more about personal attacks as my own entries into the D.o preferred pronoun field are now being used against me in this forum. Perfect example of why this value should be determined by actual community input, not developer bias.

I might also note that it previously said 'Their Royal Highness' but clearly the issue here is not at all related to my personal pronoun or how I prefer to be addressed (They), as its been not only ignored, but used in an attempt to discredit me.

My ideas are now 'hard to take seriously' by @DamienMcKenna because of what I entered as my preferred pronoun.

Has anyone else in the D.o community been told their opinion does not matter or is not being taken seriously because of what they entered in the personal pronoun field?

At risk of feeding the trolls...

@mrgoodfellow: You're not being "discriminated against". You're clearly trolling this issue. You've said that self-identifying your gender is "absurd", and equivalent to identifying as "a toaster". You're not contributing to this discussion in good faith. So, yes, the fact that you're mocking what this issue is trying to solve by alternately changing your "preferred pronouns" to all sorts of things is not a sign that we're discriminating based on your preferred pronouns. We're treating you like the troll you are acting as.

Furthermore, please stop editing your previous replies. If you have something constructive to contribute, please add it. Otherwise, don't try to rewrite the history of what you've already said.

However, if you want to play the victim here, claim you're genuinely trying to "help" by throwing shade, and pretend that you're being oppressed by "developer bias", please don't bother. It's not fooling anyone, it's not adding anything, and you're digging yourself further into a hole that will be harder and harder to climb out of to restore anyone's trust in your intentions or efforts.

If you really must keep discussing this to sort out your own insecurities and fears in the presence of people taking a very small step towards any form of liberation, feel free to contact me directly. I'm willing to try to have a good faith conversation with you, but not here in this thread. This is a place where people are trying to do something positive. Please respect that, and leave them alone if you only have negativity to "contribute".

Peace be with you,
-Derek

@dww++ that was very well said, and I appreciate your offer of compassionate conversation to @mrgoodfellow if it is received in good faith.

To add to that message, I just wanted to step in and offer a few thoughts about the tenor of the conversation in the last few comments in this thread.

Firstly, I want to make it absolutely clear that the foundational principle in addressing any kind of challenge (whether technical, inclusivity, or other) is that we should privilege the voices of those with lived experience of the issue.

Secondly, it is adamantly not the obligation of those people to hold the hands of others and educate others on those points. If they choose to do so than that should be treated as a generous contribution, just like we would treat any other contribution of code or mentorship.

But lastly, I would encourage us(as dww has) to allow space in our minds and hearts for the growth of others, and for others to achieve learning opportunities. For those of us who do not have the lived experience, one role we can take is to amplify the voices of those who do have that experience, and be compassionate in our allyship through the education of others, to expand the field of people who have a compassionate understanding.

Just my two cents here.

@dww I have sent you a personal message asking for clarification on this statement:

"You're not being "discriminated against". You're clearly trolling this issue. You've said that self-identifying your gender is "absurd", and equivalent to identifying as "a toaster". You're not contributing to this discussion in good faith."

@DamienMcKenna in an attempt to disuade my argument made a sarcastic remark implying I had changed my preferred pronoun from 'Him' to 'They' this is simply not true.

My contribution to this discussion is to create an 'all inclusive system' that bases fields on actual user input rather than fields created from a developers 'bias'. I think this concept holds true to the values of the Drupal community and I am voicing my opinion as such.

Rather than address my suggestion directly, the words I used are being manipulated and twisted into this concept that somehow I think self-identifying your gender is 'absurd' and that someones personal gender preference is the equivilent as identifying as a toaster.
This is simply not the case.

My point is, that people identify as many things. I have seen a documentary on someone who identifys as a car. I don't understand it, but I agree that individual should be allowed to express their gender in any way they choose fit.

If you look past the word 'toaster' and at the true spirit of my suggestion, I am stating that ANY concrete list of 'gender terms' is excluding anyone who might have an alternate suggestion, and that a system that is based on input from users from the actual community seems to be a better way to create a more inclusive community.

It seems my suggestion has been overlooked so everyone can focus on the word 'toaster' instead of the concept that people should be able to identify as anything they choose.

@mrgoodfellow: If you were to look at the proposed solution here in any detail, you'll find that the idea is a field which ends with the choice:

[] Self Identify: _________________

The thing you claim to be so passionate about (letting anyone self-identify) is already addressed.

I invite you to re-investigate your motivation and methodology for participating in this thread.

Thanks,
-Derek

p.s. @DamienMcKenna #47: Well said. Thanks for your patient reply.

My proposal is that the options are populated based on the user-editable field. Available selections would be based on entries made by existing users. Any value that is credible could appear on the list as a selection if entered by multiple users. An admin configuration could control how many user-entered selections appear on the list. Values could be ranked on the number of users that entered that value. This would allow the available options to generate dynamically based on actual entries of existing users. A disclaimer could identify the entries as 'user-submitted' and a filter could be applied to automatically exclude any known offensive terms or language.

I apologize, as I appear to have been misunderstood completely in my previous attempts to explain this. I did not mean to offend anyone and I support the idea of inclusion.

I favor using the list from the https://github.com/drnikki/open-demographics/ initiative. Yes, there are a number of options that might not be used by all that many people, and it's a long list. It's also an inclusive list that allows people to see options that they might connect with, and that's really important.

Starting with a shorter list and only expanding it based on whether or not there are enough people who self-identify in the same manner means that there's a far lower chance for somebody to see an option that matches how they identify.

I'd also be really concerned about any sort of automated way for a self-identified option to show up in a list of options that people can select from. I don't really want to get into the intent of suggesting Toaster as an option. However if I went to a site that had a list of gender options to select from and I saw Toaster or Car as options, I would immediately assume that the site does not take the complex realities of gender seriously. Anybody with a marginalized gender identity is probably going to feel both hurt by that and assume that there is some serious trolling that is going on in the community, and that trolling is tolerated by those running the organization.

Now if there is a self-identify option that shows up on somebody's profile, you may still get some trolling with that. But as long as those entries aren't aggregated into the list of options, at least it is not as in your face during the registration process.

Re: #50: I completely agree. That's a lot of what I've been saying to @mrgoodfellow via our (I'm very happy to report, highly productive) private email thread. Thanks for writing it up so clearly here.

I'll add some of my most recent email as part of this thread so everyone can see what I've written:

...
I agree there might be other fields that could benefit from adapting to existing values and adjusting the official options accordingly. Feel free to search for an existing module that already does this (or something similar). If it doesn’t already exist, I definitely invite you to write it and contribute it back to d.o. I’m sure it’d get interest and probably use.

However, I don’t think it would be a good fit for this particular field.

I reiterate that the proposed solution already allows for full self-expression.

It’s a question of which field values we want to directly present to the end-user as an option (and possibly rely on for demographic info, if that’s a goal). In this case, given how potentially sensitive and charged the question might be to different users for different reasons, I think it’s better to have the human d.o admins and volunteers “moderate” the possible options. We should start with a vetted list of (non-offensive) choices, and otherwise let people use those or the fill-in-the-blank option. We would be responsive in the d.o issue queues if there are requests to “promote” specific choices out of “Self-Identify: ____”.

I also don’t think anyone was “completely overlook[ing]” your proposal. We understood it, and the implications of it, and were (I believe, fairly) arguing against it (and the way you had been participating in the discussion up to that point). We weren’t ignoring your actual proposal to "focus on the words that [you] entered”. The words you used (and how) are part of why myself and others were/are concerned with seriously considering your proposal (as useful/cool as it might be for other fields) for use on this particular field.

Plus, unless it already exists, you’re proposing we block implementing an existing solution to build out your idea, first. That’s an unreasonable expectation to put on other people,
...

Cheers,
-Derek