Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2023-08-29
<wendyreid> w3c/
Revised Definition of Diversity
Wendy: split into two parts
<wendyreid> Diversity is the consideration of a wide range of varying identities, lived experiences, and perspectives.
Wendy: Elika suggested a rewording
<wendyreid> Diversity, for a group of people, is variation across a wide range of identities, lived experiences, abilities, and perspectives.
Wendy: David propsed dropping "for a group of people"
<JenStrickland> +1 re group of people
Wendy: David also suggested dropping "indigeneity"
… not all nation-states recognize indigenous populations but the notion is important to those peoples
Jen: I think we consider diversity of application but in the CoC we're talking about people
David: I embrace including the concept of indigeneity but I'd prefer to find a different word as that word is a new one
Jen: it's in Oxford; it's common
… diversity is important; in history we've had in power cultures that dominate
… a big part of diversity is to remember that we're part of one big diverse world
<Jem> I hear that Davd is agreeing with including the concept of Indigeneity but he is suggesting to use easy word to understand.
Jen: and indigeneity is a part of that
David: Oxford may have been the one dictionary in which I found it
… I am suggesting we keep the concept but not use that word that is not in many dictionaries
Sheila: I understand wanting to make sure the words in the definition are familiar
… but unfortunately in this case the concept is new and the term was mainstreamed recently
… it hasn't been recognized as a component of diversity until recently
… using the term is a way to make it better known
… and since there is at least one dictionary that defines "indigeneity", I propose we keep it
Florian: I'd like to see the text all together
<wendyreid> Proposed Definition: Diversity is variation across a wide range of identities, lived experiences, abilities, and perspectives.
<wendyreid> This can include, but is not limited to: socio-economic status, sexual orientation, religion, race, racial identity, physical appearance, neurotype, nationality, mental health, language, immigration status, gender, gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, disability (both visible and invisible), caste, body, or age.
Florian: last time I asked about the several words we use to talk about race
… whether "racial identity" or "ascribed race" would work
… I don't think we finished that discussion of whether those words were too complex
… one key benefit I see of having "racial identity" and "ascribed race" is that for people to whom racial identity matters, this means listening
<wendyreid> Second part (corrected): This range can include, but is not limited to: socio-economic status, sexual orientation, religion, race, racial identity, physical appearance, neurotype, nationality, mental health, language, indigeneity, immigration status, gender, gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, disability (both visible and invisible), caste, body, or age.
Florian: for people for whom ascribed race impacts them this also matters
… but it's unfortunate to refer to "race" where that is not a relevant criteria
Wendy: on indigeneity, I don't disagree that that is a newer term but there are some definitions in dictionaries
… and some universities have text on how to define it
… I think we could also add a definition of indigeneity
… I have tried to think of other ways to word it but haven't come up with any
… once we agree I'll create a new PR
<dbooth> I think a link to a def of indigeneity would help, if we keep that word.
Wendy: [reads from @@]
Florian: with Elika's suggestion?
Wendy: yes
<wendyreid> This can include, but is not limited to: socio-economic status, sexual orientation, religion, race, racial identity, physical appearance, neurotype, nationality, mental health, language, indigeneity, immigration status, gender, gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, disability (both visible and invisible), caste, body, or age.
Wendy: I don't have an answer to your comments on 'race'
<Zakim> sheila, you wanted to ask a clarifying question about what Florian is suggesting (since I missed the last question)
Wendy: there's something that makes me uncomfortable about 'ascribed race'
Sheila: what is the proposed language?
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask the current topic to Florian
Florian: there are two points that refer to race: "race" and "racial identity"
… I'm suggesting replacing "race" with "ascribed race"
Sheila: that's a tough one; it goes into very dense and difficult conversations about race as sociology and biology
<Jem> +1 to Florian's suggestion adding the definiton of each, ascribed race and racial identity
Sheila: my fear about the change is that adding modifiers implies that how you are perceived is not significant
… I have mixed feelings even about "racial identity" and would not want an additional modifier on racial diversity
Florian: yes, it's sensitive
<JenStrickland> +1
<JenStrickland> -1
Florian: "race" isn't mentioned at all in the current CEPC
… so the question is how to introduce it
… how race is perceived in different cultures varies a lot
… in some contexts being wishy-washy about people's lived experiences is offensive
… in other cultures it's offensive to refer to "race" at all
… when the society in which people live imposes the notion it's important to recognize it
… I prefer to avoid suggesting that even in contexts where the notion is not recognized it still exists
… and try not to invite problems
Jemma: we talk about "race" all the time
… but "ascribed race" and "racial identity" gives me a more clear idea of what we're talking about
… I don't see that it does harm to add those two
Sheila: I didn't mean to suggest that discussion of race is sensitive; I meant specifically the discussion of race as sociology or as biology is sensitive
… I'm in favor of talking about race openly
Jen: I'm glad we're having this discussion
… I wish my relatives were here visually
… I can imagine what some of the experiences others here might have
… we all have prejudice
[Rachel joins]
… people make assumptions based on appearances
… I want to make sure that others can come here and know that it's safe
… be open and welcoming to people who don't look like us
… in CoC we can acknowledge what some others feel
… for those who live these things day in and day out this is critical
… I need to know that my own voice will be heard
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I don't see any harm in adding "ascribed race" in addition to "race". People might be confused by reading only "race". I suggest adding "ascribed race" while keeping "race".
David: I suggest adding "ascribed race" and not eliminate the word "race"
… eliminating the word "race" would add confusion
Annette: whatever we choose should not legitimate the concept of race as a biological thing
… I think adding "ascribed race" is an elegant way to do that
Sheila: I'm fine as long as we keep the word "race"; I'd be pretty uncomfortable removing the single word
<cwilso> +1 I would be uncomfortable removing the word "race"
Sheila: it does have meaning for a lot of people
<Jem> I think we do not discuss about removing the word, race...unless I am mistaken
Sheila: there's a real risk that despite the good intentions it would be interpreted as us trying to minimize the significance of race
… as long as "race" appears on its own, adding "racial identity" and "ascribed race" is OK
Jemma: we didn't talk about removing "race", just adding more
<JenStrickland> [10:15] Point of Discussion: This can include, but is not limited to: socio-economic status, sexual orientation, religion, race, racial identity, physical appearance, neurotype, nationality, mental health, language, indigeneity, immigration status, gender, gender identity and gender expression, ethnicity, disability (both visible and invisible), caste, body, or age.
Florian: either having "ascribed race, racial identity"
<dbooth> I prefer the 3-term variant
Florian: or "ascribed race, racial identity, and race"
… I prefer the two-term variant, Sheila prefers the three-term variant
<sheila> to clarify, I prefer keeping it as is (without "ascribed race") but am open to the three-term variant
Florian: with the three qualifiers we're placing emphasis on sociology
… we've talked about "gender" vs "sex"; that is similar; sex is biological, gender is social
… we don't have two terms for "race", though "ethnicity" is related
… the adjectives help; they only work in the social sense
<Annette_g> There is no biological race
Wendy: I'm with Sheila on this
… everyone has different feelings about their personal identity
… not everything in this list will apply to everyone
… there are things I might feel strongly about and others that I don't feel strongly about; that will be true of everyone
… some will have lived experiences, some won't
<Jem> +1 to Florian's argument and thanks for the comparision between Race and Gender
Wendy: the challenge is that we need to be inclusive of everyone's experience and accept that some will not like the content of this list
… for example, some will object to us using "gender identity"
<Jem> I think we can go with three term option.. compromise.
Wendy: race is a social construct; there is no biological side
<dbooth> Historically, the distinction between the terms "sex" vs "gender" arose because of the desire to distinguish between biology and social concept.
Wendy: some people feel very strongly about their racial identity
… and even those who don't may be in a world that does feel strongly
… you can't hide your visual appearance; how you're treated may be different
… we're going to keep talking in circles trying to find modifiers to soften something that can't be softened
… I feel adding "ascribed" adds too many complications
… recognizing that the list is not comfortable, and should not be comfortable, but addresses a number of perspectives
Jen: 100% agree
… this isn't a situation where we should take a vote; it's a situation where those impacted should be considered
… let's listen to those with experience
… I've watched what happened to my relatives as they were growing up
… and make sure we include words that are uncomfortable
<Jem> three term option is a good compromise, not necessarily are related to "comfort" of the memeber here.
Jen: race and gender are social constructs; we need to acknowledge both
<dbooth> Option 1: race, racial identity
<dbooth> Option 2: race, racial identity, ascribed race
<dbooth> Option 3: racial identity, ascribed race
Wendy: straw poll ^^
<JenStrickland> 1
<sheila> 1
1
<Jem> 2
<florian> 3
<Ralph> 1
<Annette_g> 3
<dbooth> 2
<cwilso> 1
<wendyreid> 1
<Rachel> 1
<Rachel> 2
Jemma: can we change the order of the words?
Wendy: yes
<sheila> can I take a quick second to make a broader point about how we use language in these types of docs?
Wendy: it seems there were more preferences for option 1
<Annette_g> I can live with 1
Jemma: can we choose between just two options?
… what problems would option 2 cause?
… we're talking about the direction of the document, trying to understand the situation as best we can
<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to react to JenStrickland
Jemma: if the issue is that "ascribed" is too complex, we can define it
Wendy: "ascribed" is a term I've never seen in documents like this
… we'd be setting a precedent
… "ascribed" has many dictionary definitions
<dbooth> Would "perceived race" work better than "ascribed race"?
Wendy: we'd have to explain
… some might have different mental definitions
… my concern is that "ascribed" makes this more complex, especially for those for whom English is not a primary language
Sheila: Florian said that a lot of people use "race" overly biological; I understand that
… this is related to our conversation about "indigeneity"
… in these kinds of documents we should use the terms in the ways we want
… "ascribed race" makes it sound as though we mean something different from "race", making it biological
<cwilso> +1
Sheila: the risk is that adding "ascribed race" makes the other definition of race as not ascribed
<JenStrickland> +1 - yes, that's what I was thinking!
Sheila: we should lead with which version of the terms we want people to be using
… with language we should always try to mainstream the definition in which we believe
… we don't define "race" as biological
… if we use "ascribed race" we are implying that "race" alone is biological
… I'm a big believer in 'claiming words'
… we use 'race' to be sociological all the time
… I feel pretty strongly about this
<Rachel> Ascribed race is the racial identity that is assigned to individuals, often based on physical characteristics or assumptions related to geographic or ethnic backgrounds, regardless of that individual's personal identification. It's not something one chooses, but rather, it's imposed by society. This concept highlights how societal perceptions and stereotypes can impact racial categorization. It differs from self-identified race, where individuals id[CUT]
Jemma: I understand the point
<Rachel> I did some digging...
Jemma: looking at the sentence again now ...
<Rachel> For my own edification.
Jemma: I understand that there's a deliberate message Sheila is proposing
Annette: if we list all three then "race" alone does appear to be biological; people would ask "what is race if it's not the other two"
… I don't want to make the mistake of suggesting there might be a biological basis for 'race'
… I don't see 'racial identity' as suggesting biological
… there are people who embrace racial identity
… our level of comfort with terminology should push us toward a more inclusive view
… I can live with "race and racial identity"
<dbooth> Option 4: perceived race, racial identity
Wendy: I don't want to go to an option 4
… the majority prefers "race, racial identity"
<dbooth> I can live with optoin 1
<Rachel> yes
Wendy: can the others who preferred some other option live with option 1?
Jemma: I'd like more time to think about it
Wendy: I'll create a PR with the change, adding a link for indigeneity
<Annette_g> I’m okay with option 1
Wendy: that will give you time to think about this
… with TPAC we won't be meeting in two weeks
Jemma: I appreciate Annette's point about the two concepts
Florian: thank you, Sheila, for the discussion about how we use language
… I'm not sure it helps me, however, in an English-speaking context that may work but in other cultures the word is only used by people who do mean biology
<Zakim> Jem, you wanted to ask why having three terms would be a problem
Florian: so it's about discomfort of those who experience this when people only mean biology
… please keep the wording around the list as we've reached it now
… there is sufficient wording to make it clear that some of the terms may not apply to everyone
Wendy: I'll create the PR; see some of you at TPAC and we'll meet again in about a month
[adjourned]
<Jem> Annette's concept on external aspect of "ascribed race" and internal aspect of "racial identity"
<dbooth> I think we SHOULD consider "perceived race" as a term.
<dbooth> thanks all!
<Jem> +1 to also "perceived race" to be comparable to "ascribed"