Suggestion Show pronouns of a person?

[TensorCalculus]

Okay so a simple one here: would you be able to show the pronouns of a user simply by hovering over their profile picture, instead of having to dig through their profile?

For example, next to their details (so, in this case, where Berkeman is from) - you put something like he/him so that people know what pronouns to use to refer to the user.

I know it's a small change, but it might be useful and hopefully not too difficult to implement: I've had quite a few instances where people have assumed me a boy (though now with my signature and slightly more "girly" profile picture it doesn't happen much anymore - I mean I don't really mind if people accidentally assume I am a boy but other people might) or where I haven't known what pronouns to use when referring to another member (of course, I can just use the default they/them but still...).

 

[dextercioby]

This is truly optional personal information that should be irrelevant to this community.

 

[TensorCalculus]

This is truly optional personal information that should be irrelevant to this community.

I mean... you could make it optional to put on there... like how putting your age/location is optional...

 

[weirdoguy]

that should be irrelevant to this community

I don't even think this community is ready for such things Non-binary them/they were already ridiculed somewhere, so @TensorCalculus I think that you (or I) are way to progressive.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I have zero problem with adding this eventually to the member card. I have friends and work with people who are non-binary, and it's a minimal courtesy to know and address people as they desire.

 

[berkeman]

I helped instruct a Wilderness First Aid class a number of years ago, and at the start of the class the head instructor had the students gather in a big circle and give some basic info about themselves (first name, home town, WFA experience/certs so far, etc, and also what their preferred pronouns were).

The pronouns question surprised me because I'd never heard it before in a class context like that, but it did seem like a nice personal touch to help the students get more comfortable with the group and the setting. About 20% of the students had pronouns that did not match their outward appearance, which was fine and seemed to be respected well by the rest of the class.

The only problem was that there were 30+ students in that class, so I had no hope of remembering which students had preferred pronouns that did not match their appearance. I tried my best, but I'm sure I messed up a few times while mentoring them in the class.

 

[fresh_42]

Reminds me a bit of one of my favorite actors, Peter Ustinov. Upon entering the USA, he was asked several questions, and skin color was one of them (it has been a while since). Anyway, he answered pink, but pink wasn't on the list of categories. He insisted on pink, but I have forgotten how this all ended up.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Yep, it's also helpful for non-binary :)
(And us girls: I've been referred to as "young boy" a handful of times since most of the people here are male... hopefully this would help others with that)

 

[erobz]

This is an internet science forum. We aren't working with each other in person where we have visual ques (maybe...) to what "gender identity" the others might wish to be . Using vague generalities "they/them" surrounding sexual/gender identity (or the profile name i.e. "@TensorCalculus ") when addressing a poster should be pretty sound strategy/ and less hassle?

 

[DaveC426913]

It certainly makes sense as an option on profile pages, but in conversation (unless explicitly stated) I've always liked the idea that gender is wonderfully irrelevant online (the great equalizer).

And I think the obfuscation of gender actually works to encourage the use of the gender-neutral "they" when gender is unknown*. More people using the "they" pronoun is a good thing.

* I go to great lengths to use 'they', rather than the default 'he'.

 

[berkeman]

And I think the obfuscation of gender actually works to encourage the use of the gender-neutral "they" when gender is unknown. More people using the "they" pronoun is a good thing.

I agree, and even try to do this in the private Mentor forums when we discuss users. But I do see posts and replies in the open forums all the time using "he" or "guys" when it may not be applicable. I've often wondered if I were a female in my same position how much that would tick me off. None/little, or a lot?

 

[DaveC426913]

I've often wondered if I were a female in my same position how much that would tick me off. None/little, or a lot?

Yup.

It becomes a matter, then, of whether we put the onus the individual to stand up for themselves on a case-by-case basis ("Excuse me, please address me as a she"), or whether we strive, in some small part, to bring a larger awareness of archaic gender-bias issues to the masses. Do we support TC? Or is she* on her own?

Not sure how we'd do that. I'm not suggesting we impose gender-neutral pronouns, just ... like the idea in principle.

* Now that she has identified her preferred gender, I will go to lengths to respect that. Although I will definitely forget almost immediately. But that's my problem, not hers. (Because I am indeed a dinosaur, and do continue default to male identities by habit.)

 

[erobz]

I'm not rallying for any social justice cause when I say "they" instead of randomly assigning a "gender" to someone in here.

My position is "I don't know and frankly I don't care"...it's irrelevant to the validity of what is being discussed in this place. Hate me if you must...

 

[DaveC426913]

Right. But it is relevant to TC. We should respect that.

 

[TensorCalculus]

This is an internet science forum. We aren't working with each other in person where we have visual ques (maybe...) to what "gender identity" the others might wish to be

...which is exactly why, if what pronouns are used/what gender they are matters to someone (which is usually the case when they're not the default "he/him" and don't want to be constantly referred to as "he/him" just because people online tend to default to that), they should have the option of being able to display that asily on their profile.

Using vague generalities "they/them" surrounding sexual/gender identity (or the profile name i.e. "@TensorCalculus ") when addressing a poster should be pretty sound strategy/ and less hassle?

It certainly makes sense as an option on profile pages, but in conversation (unless explicitly stated) I've always liked the idea that gender is wonderfully irrelevant online (the great equalizer).

And I think the obfuscation of gender actually works to encourage the use of the gender-neutral "they" when gender is unknown*. More people using the "they" pronoun is a good thing.

* I go to great lengths to use 'they', rather than the default 'he'.

Of course, I have no problem whatsoever with people using they/them to address people: that's perfectly fine and I wouldn't be asking for this change if everyone used "they". But lots of people use "he" to address anyone because their first assumption is that they are talking to a male (which is sort of fair enough on PF where the majority are male): and it happens not just on PF but everywhere. And some people like being able to address people using their preferred pronouns: sometimes repeatedly trying to refer to a person using their profile name or "they" can feel a bit awkward. If you make it optional to put pronouns on one's profile banner (easily accessible with a quick hover) then it gives those for whom it does matter freedom to put it on there.

But I do see posts and replies in the open forums all the time using "he" or "guys" when it may not be applicable. I've often wondered if I were a female in my same position how much that would tick me off. None/little, or a lot?

To answer this question, for me and most others:
At first, confusion: "huh, why do they just assume I'm male by default? I thought my name and profile were pretty gender neutral. What happened to using they/them?"
Then, after 10 or so instances, anger: "Hey, we're just as good as boys: how come everyone makes the assumption I'm a boy? Why are they referring to whole groups of people as guys when it's not applicable? That's so annoying!"
Then, after it happens 25+ times (which was the case for me well before I joined PF), you just kind of... get used to it. Like... "oh. oh well."

It becomes a matter, then, of whether we put the onus the individual to stand up for themselves on a case-by-case basis ("Excuse me, please address me as a she"), or whether we strive, in some small part, to bring a larger awareness of archaic gender-bias issues to the masses. Do we support TC? Or is she* on her own?

Not sure how we'd do that. I'm not suggesting we impose gender-neutral pronouns, just ... like the idea in principle.

Of course, we could let us girls (and non-binary, etc etc) stand up for themselves but... it gets a bit awkward and tiring after a while, saying "Excuse me, please address me as a she" every couple of days...

* Now that she has identified her preferred gender, I will go to lengths to respect that. Although I will definitely forget almost immediately. But that's my problem, not hers. (Because I am indeed a dinosaur, and do continue default to male identities by habit.)

appreciated! :)
well, you wouldn't have to remember if there were pronouns on profile banners :)

My position is "I don't know and frankly I don't care"...it's irrelevant to the validity of what is being discussed in this place. Hate me if you must...

Yeah, I totally understand your point: adding pronouns doesn't change the quality or validity of the science, this is a physics forum. But it does help cultivate the community, just a bit. Especially making girls feel less like they're out of place because well... they're a girl, and many on this forum don't use "they" to refer to people, or groups of people: and most of the people on here are men.

Right. But it is relevant to TC. We should respect that.

 

[PeroK]

A question in your mind is lit,
Yet you know there is no answer fit.
Keep it in your mind and don't forget,
That it is not he or she or them or it,
That you belong to!

 

[DaveC426913]

...which is exactly why, if what pronouns are used/what gender they are matters to someone (which is usually the case when they're not the default "he/him" and don't want to be constantly referred to as "he/him" just because people online tend to default to that), they should have the option of being able to display that asily on their profile.


Of course, I have no problem whatsoever with people using they/them to address people: that's perfectly fine and I wouldn't be asking for this change if everyone used "they". But lots of people use "he" to address anyone because their first assumption is that they are talking to a male (which is sort of fair enough on PF where the majority are male): and it happens not just on PF but everywhere. And some people like being able to address people using their preferred pronouns: sometimes repeatedly trying to refer to a person using their profile name or "they" can feel a bit awkward. If you make it optional to put pronouns on one's profile banner (easily accessible with a quick hover) then it gives those for whom it does matter freedom to put it on there.

To answer this question, for me and most others:
At first, confusion: "huh, why do they just assume I'm male by default? I thought my name and profile were pretty gender neutral. What happened to using they/them?"
Then, after 10 or so instances, anger: "Hey, we're just as good as boys: how come everyone makes the assumption I'm a boy? Why are they referring to whole groups of people as guys when it's not applicable? That's so annoying!"
Then, after it happens 25+ times (which was the case for me well before I joined PF), you just kind of... get used to it. Like... "oh. oh well."

Y'know you're right.

As long as we live in a world where people do use gender-specific pronouns presumptuously; individuals should have the ability to declare their preference where people can see it.

I'm throwing my hat into the camp of "let's have optional gender IDs or pronouns along with avatars".


(And now you have the legitimacy of a man's opinion. :D )

Opinions are like nipples.
Everybody has 'em,
Women's are usually more relevant,
But somehow it's only men's that we see.

 

[martinbn]

I am always very confused by these discussions. Why do people think that "he" means male! It can mean that, but it can also mean a person of unknown gender. It is not the only word that can mean more than one thing. Why? I don't know, english is not my first language. (It is my fourth.) In my language all nouns have gender and have to be called he/she/it recpectively. For example tensor is he, and calculus is it, and tnesor caluculus is he. So if had to talk about you i would use he. You have a bit of that in english too. A ship, a car, a wale are all she, arn't they?

 

[DaveC426913]

I am always very confused by these discussions. Why do people think that "he" means male! It can mean that, but it can also mean a person of unknown gender.

And there's the rub. It doesn't, it hasn't, and it never will.

We have real problem in that "person" is, by default, male. It follows then that females are a different kind of person that needs clarifying.

Pretending "he" is neutral promulgates the whole "All Mankind", "Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Being a male is a matter of birth. Being a man is a matter of choice" mythology, where women are relegated to second class, invisible, after-thought citizens.

It is not the only word that can mean more than one thing. Why? I don't know, english is not my first language. (It is my fourth.) In my language all nouns have gender and have to be called he/she/it recpectively. For example tensor is he, and calculus is it, and tnesor caluculus is he. So if had to talk about you i would use he. You have a bit of that in english too. A ship, a car, a wale are all she, arn't they?

But Tensor Calculus is not a 'he'; TC is, in fact, a 'she'.

The meaning of words is their history. We can't just declare by fiat that the gender-neutral pronoun is "he" since forever ago.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Y'know you're right.

As long as we live in a world where people do use gender-specific pronouns presumptuously; individuals should have the ability to declare their preference where people can see it.

I'm throwing my hat into the camp of "let's have optional gender IDs or pronouns along with avatars".


(And now you have the legitimacy of a man's opinion. :D )

Opinions are like nipples.
Everybody has 'em,
Women's are usually more relevant,
But somehow it's only men's that we see.

Thanks! Means a lot!

I am always very confused by these discussions. Why do people think that "he" means male! It can mean that, but it can also mean a person of unknown gender. It is not the only word that can mean more than one thing. Why? I don't know, english is not my first language. (It is my fourth.) In my language all nouns have gender and have to be called he/she/it recpectively. For example tensor is he, and calculus is it, and tnesor caluculus is he. So if had to talk about you i would use he. You have a bit of that in english too. A ship, a car, a wale are all she, arn't they?

English isn't my first language either: it's my second.
But I do live in England... and I would argue that the use of the word "he" as a neutral pronoun is outdated... or maybe I am just not exposed enough to the world yet. Don't know.

 

[PeroK]

But I do live in England... and I would argue that the use of the word "he" as a neutral pronoun is outdated...

Definitely. It was quite standard until the end of the 1970's. The 1980's was the decade where things started to change.

The funny thing is that after eleven years of Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, it took a while to get used to the Prime Minister being referred to as "he".

 

[DaveC426913]

...I would argue that the use of the word "he" as a neutral pronoun is outdated...

I would say it was never a neutral pronoun.

Default, yes. Neutral, no.



If anyone has any question as to the functional difference between neutral and default - and doesn't think there is an unconscious bias - I strongly urge you to read Douglas Hofstadter's article, entitled "A Person Paper on Purity in Language" (1985), where the bias is brought to stark, perhaps even alarming, light.

Here is just a small excerpt - but it's a fascinating read!:

(it's a satire, it's should sound preposterous your ears)

"Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupuwhiteship, straw white, whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word "white," either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute "person" everywhere where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All persons are created equal," or "All whites and blacks are created equal." Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident when "white" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.
...
"Another of Niss Moses' shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns "whe" and "ble." Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really need in English is a single pronoun covering both races. Numerous suggestions have been made, such as "pe," "tey," and others, These are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are advocates of usages such as "whe or ble," "whis or bler," and so forth. This makes for monstrosities such as the sentence "When the next President takes office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Contrast this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing "bl/whe" everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation.
...
"Another suggestion is that the plural pronoun "they" be used in place of the inclusive "whe." This would turn the charming proverb "Whe who laughs last, laughs best" into the bizarre concoction "They who laughs last, laughs best." As if anyone in whis right mind could have thought that the original proverb applied only to the white race! No, we don't need a new pronoun to "liberate" our minds. That's the lazy white's way of solving the pseudoproblem of racism. In any case, it's ungrammatical. The pronoun "they" is a plural pronoun, and it grates on the civilized ear to hear it used to denote only one person. Such a usage, if adopted, would merely promote illiteracy and accelerate the already scandalously rapid nosedive of the average intelligence level in our society."


https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

 

[martinbn]

Well, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary the meaning is:

He
1: that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer
2:used in a generic sense or when the gender of the person is unspecified

 

[TensorCalculus]

Well, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary the meaning is:

He
1: that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer
2:used in a generic sense or when the gender of the person is unspecified

hmm.
I think it is more about the semantic meaning of the word rather than what the dictionary definition is.
However, that's interesting: as said before, I thought it outdated. If MWD is still using that definition though, then that probably means it's not completely outdated.

I would say it was never a neutral pronoun.

Default, yes. Neutral, no.



If anyone has any question as to the functional difference between neutral and default - and doesn't think there is an unconscious bias - I strongly urge you to read Douglas Hofstadter's article, entitled "A Person Paper on Purity in Language" (1985), where the bias is brought to stark, perhaps even alarming, light.

Here is just a small excerpt - but it's a fascinating read!:

(it's a satire, it's should sound preposterous your ears)

"Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite, Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupuwhiteship, straw white, whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word "white," either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute "person" everywhere where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All persons are created equal," or "All whites and blacks are created equal." Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are redundant. In most contexts, it is self-evident when "white" is being used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the darker race just as much as fairskins.
...
"Another of Niss Moses' shrill objections is to the age-old differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns "whe" and "ble." Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really need in English is a single pronoun covering both races. Numerous suggestions have been made, such as "pe," "tey," and others, These are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are advocates of usages such as "whe or ble," "whis or bler," and so forth. This makes for monstrosities such as the sentence "When the next President takes office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Contrast this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing "bl/whe" everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation.
...
"Another suggestion is that the plural pronoun "they" be used in place of the inclusive "whe." This would turn the charming proverb "Whe who laughs last, laughs best" into the bizarre concoction "They who laughs last, laughs best." As if anyone in whis right mind could have thought that the original proverb applied only to the white race! No, we don't need a new pronoun to "liberate" our minds. That's the lazy white's way of solving the pseudoproblem of racism. In any case, it's ungrammatical. The pronoun "they" is a plural pronoun, and it grates on the civilized ear to hear it used to denote only one person. Such a usage, if adopted, would merely promote illiteracy and accelerate the already scandalously rapid nosedive of the average intelligence level in our society."


https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

That was somewhat horrifying to read!

 

[DaveE]

The only problem was that there were 30+ students in that class, so I had no hope of remembering which students had preferred pronouns that did not match their appearance.

And how many of us will go to check the profile of a poster before we type a reply? I think most users won't know it's there. If you convince me it won't be ignored, then I'll be an enthusiastic supporter.

I think it's a good idea for people who want it. Greg should do it if he has the bandwidth for more complexity. But there is a limit to how perfect the PF site can be. Complexity has a cost. Is this a case of mission creep? IDK. I vote for it, it (barely) makes the cut in my mind. It's either good or harmless.

The more we can normalize the prevalence of pronoun selection in the world the less it will be a political strawman or punching bag. If it seeps into everything it won't help bigots get elected anymore, it will just be normal. Sort of like the elimination of separate lunch counters and drinking fountains did.

 

[DaveC426913]

And how many of us will go to check the profile of a poster before we type a reply? I think most users won't know it's there. If you convince me it won't be ignored, then I'll be an enthusiastic supporter.

This is why I'm now in favour of making it optionally part of the avatar, where it's visible. Arguably, one's gender pronouns are more important and useful than a pictographic avatar.

The more we can normalize the prevalence of pronoun selection in the world the less it will be a political strawman or punching bag. If it seeps into everything it won't help bigots get elected anymore, it will just be normal. Sort of like the elimination of separate lunch counters and drinking fountains did.

Agree. Normalize free choice and expression of self-identification.

 

[TensorCalculus]

And how many of us will go to check the profile of a poster before we type a reply? I think most users won't know it's there. If you convince me it won't be ignored, then I'll be an enthusiastic supporter.

...am I the only one who hovers over people's profiles?
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest :)

 

[WWGD]

PF had been working well in this regard that I'm aware of in its 18 years. ( Inteoducing gender)Seems more like a solution in search of a problem and a potential means to introduce politics into PF, something I believe PF had decided not to do.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is a minor courtesy to add in, and we will. Let's refocus our energy on complicated issues.