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)
@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 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."
@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)
@firstname.lastname@example.org (Anyway I don't like how it positions men as default.)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!