Re: [Gendispatch] New Version Notification for draft-knodel-nomcom-gender-representation-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 22-Nov-23 17:38, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023, at 15:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Yes, but if (hypothetically) we had four possible responses: Male,
>> Female, Other, Prefer-not-to-say,
>> I really don't know what to do with Prefer-not-to-say.
> 
> I have no strong preference here, but it could be reasonable to treat other and pnts as distinct categories.  Or both together.  Based on my understanding of demographics, it is unlikely that either (or both) would be selected for more than 8 or 9 out of 10, so while we need to write up firm rules, that would be the only reason we'd need that level of precision; it's unlikely to be a problem in practice.
> .

As Mallory's draft is written, "other" would not be a problem, it would simply be the third gender. Of course it conflates everybody that doesn't identify as male or female, but it will serve its purpose of favouring diversity.

I don't think that applies to "prefer not to say". Firstly, I would argue strongly for having that as an option, because why should anybody be *required* to tell the IETF about their gender identity? But if we have that option, and treat it as if it were a gender, it can clearly be used to game the system in a fairly obvious way.

    Brian