In Ye Olden Days, people would say “men & women”. Today we know that's... not accurate.

I like “men & non-men” (or non-male), but I heard some (non-male) people think it's not OK... ?

What do yous think? (pls feel free to boost)

@ebel I'm curious why you like "men & non-men" over "women and non-women"?

@wolfie To me, the purpose is to split people in “benefit (overall) from the patriachy” and “don't benefit (overall) from the patriarchy”.

@wolfie orgs who want to improve their Diversity™ will look at percentage of participants who are men, and decide if they the group has (hidden) sexism issues.

@ebel @wolfie If you explain it like that, it makes sense, but that is not the first impression that phrase left with me. Without context, this reads as an insult to me.

@pocketwitch @wolfie fair point & criticism taken.

If there was a survey with this as a binary option, do you think that would be OK, or?

@pocketwitch @wolfie I saw a tech conference, where the application to give a talk had a few checkboxes, like “I have never given a talk at this con before” and “I am non-male” (or not male/etc). What do you think of that?

@ebel @wolfie
That is quite different from being addressed or listed as male&non-male.
In a survey with those options, the intention would be apparent (=getting more diverse speakers). Though I agree with @naga that it feels a bit weird. But I don't have a better idea right now.

@wolfie @ebel Yeah, I'm curious why the prioritization of or emphasis on men in this? Easier just to say "people" or "folks" or "adults" isn't it?

@ebel Ah for some reason, the threaded responses didn't show for me at first but I see them now.

@ebel i think 'not okay' is a bit much, but i would get tired of it very quickly (because it's obviously centering the sentence around the existence of men, which may or may not be justified)

@ebel I marked "I am a man," but I don't think it's ok--it seems to class third-gender, agender, genderfluid people, etc., as "women-lite."

@naga This came up for an org doing a survey, to see if they have a problem with Diversity™

i.e the purpose is to split people in “benefit (overall) from the patriachy” and “don't benefit (overall) from the patriarchy”.

@ebel Ok. Agree with @pocketwitch that the context is crucial for the question.

I think it's still problematic because it leads down the path to things like "male-passing," but it makes more sense now.

@ebel I don't like it. Maybe the orgs who are looking at gender diversity could split it into "men, women, and other/neither," if it's a self-report thing?

@ebel also i think "people who benefit from the patriarchy" and "people who don't" is not a useful metric, since not all men benefit equally (are they Black? Gay? Trans? Disabled?) and not all non-men are equally disadvantaged (cis white women vs. everyone else)

I assume there are other questions that address these axes?

@alpine_thistle well yeah, of course there should be other questions about those axes too.

But this is *just* for "gender" question...

@alpine_thistle I totally support including a free form box in such a query 🙂

But when a group wants to discuss the results, do you tink it would make sense to talk about “male”/“non-male”?

Ah, I accidentally marked the second option and not the third. (Opinion inside if wanted) (Anyway I don't like how it positions men as default.)

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!