Previous discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_10#Adding_template:gender_to_the_editing_toolbar_or_something%3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_18#The_personal_pronoun_problem
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/Navigation_popups/Archive_10#Proposal_to_integrate_gender_preferences_into_Navpopups

Open to suggestions on what should be shown instead, if anything. By default, will follow whatever the Reply Tool decides on.

In T284783#7150445, @APerson wrote:

Previous discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_10#Adding_template:gender_to_the_editing_toolbar_or_something%3F
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_18#The_personal_pronoun_problem
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/Navigation_popups/Archive_10#Proposal_to_integrate_gender_preferences_into_Navpopups

Open to suggestions on what should be shown instead, if anything. By default, will follow whatever the Reply Tool decides on.

I'd just remove them, honestly. They give no real value and have the potential damage of misgendering based on the wrong question in the preference :|

If people chose a gender term in their preferences, that should be observed. Showing a symbol in popups is the most concise way of doing that.

In T284783#7150655, @mb wrote:

If people chose a gender term in their preferences, that should be observed. Showing a symbol in popups is the most concise way of doing that.

They're not choosing a gender, though. The question "How do you prefer to be described?" is about language, not gender.

You lost me. Users chose the term (language) how they want to be addressed. Popups reflects that choice by displaying a symbol, a sign. If users chose neither female nor male, no sign is displayed. Are you unhappy with the sign? Which one do you prefer? What purpose would be advanced by displaying no sign?

I agree with @mb that this bit of information should be kept. I don’t care in what form it’s presented (this is why I was happy to open this ticket), the only thing is that I should be able to determine whether I address the person in question as he, she or they in English; whether I can use er (“he”) or sie (“she”) in German, or I have to find another solution as there’s no such established neutral form as the English singular they, and so on. It gives real value, and people provide it (if they provide it) for a reason. If you don’t want other users to know your preferred pronoun, don’t provide it. (This is not the only way regular users may get to know others’ preferred pronouns: for example, in Spanish, on my user page, there’s a link labelled Contribuciones del usuario; on your user page, it says Contribuciones de la usuaria. The preferences page makes it clear that this information is public.)

In T284783#7151156, @mb wrote:

You lost me. Users chose the term (language) how they want to be addressed. Popups reflects that choice by displaying a symbol, a sign. If users chose neither female nor male, no sign is displayed. Are you unhappy with the sign? Which one do you prefer? What purpose would be advanced by displaying no sign?

The way you want to be addressed -- in gendered languages especially -- does not always correlate to your given gender, and definitely does not correlate to binary sex, the way those symbols are displayed.

Look. This excludes non-binary people, people who may not conform with the binary language choices, and others. The internet in general is getting adjusted to this understanding.

How I choose to be referred to ("ma'am", "sir" or whatever else) has nothing to do with my actual gender or my sex. We should respect that.

If you insist to present what the user actually chose, then be accurate: "This user prefers the 'he/her' pronouns", which is what the user *actually chose* in the preferences. The user did not choose a gender, and for many user, these two are not directly related.

I think we can find a way to respect users' choices while still retaining information on how to address someone.

Pronouns sounds fine (that is, display either "he/him", "she/her", or "they/them"; no setting results in no displayed text). Any objections?

They'll have to be localized. That won't cause difficulties for any languages, right?

Just how those icons that are currently displayed are objectionable has not been explained. Users make an active choice in their preferences which are by default set to gender-neutral which results in no display. That's how it should stay.

In T284783#7152862, @APerson wrote:

that is, display either "he/him", "she/her", or "they/them"; no setting results in no displayed text

As far as I know, there’s no technical difference between setting it to “they/them” and not setting it, so we can’t determine whether the user intentionally set “they/them” or just didn’t bother/didn’t want to change this preference. Let’s just continue not displaying anything for “they/them”. Otherwise looks good to me, although I’m not the one with the strongest opinion here.

That won't cause difficulties for any languages, right?

Except for languages like Hungarian that don’t have grammatical genders, gender-specific pronouns or anything like this. I have no idea how to translate it into Hungarian, but it doesn’t really matter either in Hungarian, so I think we can just leave it untranslated. Let’s focus on languages that need it.

In T284783#7152864, @mb wrote:

Just how those icons that are currently displayed are objectionable has not been explained.

I think it has been:

In T279483#7147469, @Mooeypoo wrote:

[…] because someone's gender does not equal how they want to be referred to […]

In T284783#7151806, @Mooeypoo wrote:

How I choose to be referred to ("ma'am", "sir" or whatever else) has nothing to do with my actual gender or my sex. We should respect that.

[…] because someone's gender does not equal how they want to be referred to […]

The choice of how people want to be referred to in messages is limited to three: 1) neutral ("they/their" – the default); 2) feminine ("she/her"); 3) masculine ("he/his"). The person's actual sex or current gender is of no concern. Based on the user's choice, or the default, Popups displays nothing or a symbol. What other options should there be in "Preferences"? (which is off-topic here)

In T284783#7153596, @mb wrote:

[…] because someone's gender does not equal how they want to be referred to […]

The choice of how people want to be referred to in messages is limited to three: 1) neutral ("they/their" – the default); 2) feminine ("she/her"); 3) masculine ("he/his"). The person's actual sex or current gender is of no concern. Based on the user's choice, or the default, Popups displays nothing or a symbol. What other options should there be in "Preferences"? (which is off-topic here)

"How do you want to be referred to" does not ask about 'masculine' and 'feminine' options, it literally asks about pronouns: "He/him" / "She/her" / "They/them". That's it.
It does not say anything about gender. This means that a man can choose to be referred to with "she/her" pronouns, and a woman with "he/him" and a non-binary person with however combination they please.

That's because the concepts of gender, sex, and pronouns are distinct from one another. That's entirely the reason why the preference in question was changed from asking about gender (male/female/none) to language pronouns.

If we are to be inclusive, these distinctions matter. We are not the only ones having this discussion, either. For the past 5-10 years, most software and online entities have switched away from sex and gender questions and into pronoun questions purely for how to be referred to. That's not just a random idea i am proposing -- it's the common modern behavior online today.

So, the problem is that the icons -- "female" and "male" symbols -- represent sex, in a binary way, they do not represent pronouns or language choice. It infers this correlation; it is making a statement about whether it should be correlated, and while we can argue whether that belief/opinion is correct or not (science strongly opposes that, but that's an aside) the point is that what we ask our users isn't about their sex or gender -- it's about pronouns.

Asking a user "what are your pronouns" and then go around and display them as if it's the user's gender or sex is misleading for the viewer and non inclusive for the user, who did not choose a gender choice, they chose a language choice.

Removing the icons and swapping them with pronoun choices sounds good to me -- that correlates 100% to the preference question that the user answered.

All languages should have some representation of this by the preference question itself, so we can look at the translations of that string. The language key (yourgender / gender-notknown / gender-female / gender-female) is still named 'gender', unfortunately, because historical usage (the database column is also named gender) but the choice to swap the language question from "what is your gender" to "How do you prefer to be described?" was intentional, meant to move away from this historical view of binary gender conformation and sex.

We should follow that intentional move everywhere else as much as we can.

So, the problem is that the icons -- "female" and "male" symbols -- represent sex, in a binary way, they do not represent pronouns or language choice.

That's your opinion. I submit that those icons in Wikipedia do represent exactly what choice the user made in "Preferences": "How do you prefer to be described?" – "they/their", :she/her", "he/his".

BTW, I suggest phabricator is the wrong venue for this discussion. Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-popups.js and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tools/Navigation_popups are better suited to give a wider audience the chance to participate.

In T284783#7153630, @mb wrote:

So, the problem is that the icons -- "female" and "male" symbols -- represent sex, in a binary way, they do not represent pronouns or language choice.

That's your opinion. I submit that those icons in Wikipedia do represent exactly what choice the user made in "Preferences": "How do you prefer to be described?" – "they/their", :she/her", "he/his".

That's literally the definition of those icons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_symbol

They represent binary gender, not language pronouns.

There are quite a number of resources online that make the distinction about gender and pronouns, and why they're crucial for inclusion of non binary, trans people, women, and generally people who do not associate language with their gender.

In any case, my original point (the one quoted in the first post) stands: whether this is changed or not in this specific gadget, it definitely isn't something future (and current) products should follow, emulate, or repeat.

@Mooeypoo: "The icons represent sex." and then points to the Wikipedia "Gender symbol". Clearly, "Preferences" asks for gender pronouns, and the symbols represent gender. Are you suggesting there are people who identify as male-gendered but prefer female pronouns, and vice versa?

Gender, sex, and language pronouns are three distinct notions. The article discusses some application of this, but the first sentence can't be clearer:

A gender symbol is a pictogram or glyph used to represent biological sex and gender in biology or medicine"

The icons represent gender and sex.
The preference text we are discussing in this ticket represents language pronouns.

In T284783#7154101, @mb wrote:

Clearly, "Preferences" asks for gender pronouns, and the symbols represent gender. Are you suggesting there are people who identify as male-gendered but prefer female pronouns, and vice versa?

I'm not suggesting, I'm saying they exist, I'm saying people who are non-binary gender exist, I'm saying gender is more complex than a binary representation that is used to also represent sex, even if you don't know them.
That's what "inclusion" is about, including people you don't identify with, but want to be respectful of, and in this specific case, honestly, the "damage" to your own benefit and comfort is miniscule, so I really am starting to wonder what, exactly, you are resisting.

If you don't care about the symbols, but there are people who take offense to what they're symbolizing when used on their own username, then what is the harm in respecting that, and choosing a different method here?

I believe the points are all pretty much raised and explained, and whatever missing pieces can be found with extreme ease with just a google search on the concepts of gender identity and inclusion that the Internet has been discussing for at least 5-10 years, ad exhaustium. Not sure there's anything else to add other than my hopes that whoever maintains this gadget will consider fixing it to comply with modern inclusion ideals.

(I'm one of the maintainers, although that status is highly unofficial.) I'll just go with what Tacsipacsi said; "he/him", "she/her", or nothing. Done in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js&diff=prev&oldid=1028542485.

By the way, the widely-used script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js and the whole set of related scripts (I don't know how many off the top of my head) use the same symbols in the same way. Worth taking a look at those too.

In T284783#7155748, @APerson wrote:

(I'm one of the maintainers, although that status is highly unofficial.) I'll just go with what Tacsipacsi said; "he/him", "she/her", or nothing. Done in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js&direction=prev&oldid=1028542485.

That's great, thank you!

By the way, the widely-used script https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js and the whole set of related scripts (I don't know how many, off the top of my head) use the same symbols in the same way. Worth taking a look at those too.

Yes, there's a bunch of historic things that should/could be fixed with our more modern sensibilities. I don't quite have the time, energy or ability to follow up on all of them, but I am hopeful that with time and as cultural norms change, these things will be spotted and changed too. In two (private) wikis that i'm on that use the "userinfo" script, the sex/gender symbols were removed -- so it seems some places are taking note of that more and more. There are also a bit more of a bigger scope question here about information requested for private experience (preferences) that's then being shared publicly that is one I think we as a movement should look into, but, again, it's way beyond the scope of this ticket...

That said, Wikipedia's been around for 20 years -- it's not surprising that as we go on, we adjust ourselves to changes in cultural norms and expectations, and I suspect this will continue happening as we stay online, and stay relevant for years and years (and decades!) to come for and with so many cultures :)

Next complaint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#They/Them

Probably safer to simply remove the option altogether. Like Mooeypoo, I too was worried already that this wasn't going to be the end of the discussion.

I still don’t think hiding this piece of information is a solution. If there’s really a demand for four options (she/her, he/him, they/them, prefer not to say or don’t care), then the most appropriate solution is give people four options. (Four options in the preferences and API result, but still just three {{GENDER:}} forms.) Even though deliberately choosing they/them is somewhat Anglocentric, as other languages may not have one established third form—for example, in German there are several attempts, none of them as widespread as the English they/them. Letting Germans have exactly one non-binary pronoun is just as annoying as not being able to differentiate between deliberately choosing they/them in English and not choosing anything.

In T284783#7200660, @Tacsipacsi wrote:

I still don’t think hiding this piece of information is a solution. If there’s really a demand for four options (she/her, he/him, they/them, prefer not to say or don’t care), then the most appropriate solution is give people four options. (Four options in the preferences and API result, but still just three {{GENDER:}} forms.) Even though deliberately choosing they/them is somewhat Anglocentric, as other languages may not have one established third form—for example, in German there are several attempts, none of them as widespread as the English they/them. Letting Germans have exactly one non-binary pronoun is just as annoying as not being able to differentiate between deliberately choosing they/them in English and not choosing anything.

We're not really hiding this information, it's available elsewhere and very easily reachable to those who want it exposed - we are just saying that having it FEATURED in a popup with misleading information is more damaging.

So, the question I'm trying to think about here is - what is the actual need in featuring the information at all in popups? Before we try to solution an alternative to make it more accurate and less damaging to those who will be misrepresented, is there a real use case of why it's so important to show at all?

I'm not asking this to make a point about the answer - I'm asking seriously, trying to flush out whether it's worth coming up with a technical solution.

The popups in general don't expose all available information about any given user as it is, so they're already making choices about what is important to immediately expose - is gender language preference one of those at all? Does that piece of information give enough of a benefit to be worth a potentially non trivial technical solution, considering it's usually available if you go to the user profile, especially in languages that are gendered already?

This stuff is all just too sensitive and to me that means; use it only where absolutely needed and avoid at all costs in other places.

If anything, for GDPR reasons, I’m wondering why we even have this as public information at all. It just doesn’t make sense any longer if u ask me.

In T284783#7200734, @Mooeypoo wrote:

We're not really hiding this information, it's available elsewhere and very easily reachable to those who want it exposed - we are just saying that having it FEATURED in a popup with misleading information is more damaging.

Yes, we’re hiding it. We don’t make it totally inaccessible, but less accessible. Actually virtually inaccessible for non-techy users—at least I cannot think of any other way to get this information using English interface other than querying it from the API with handcrafted API requests or by playing around with the {{GENDER:}} magic word in wikitext (or accidentally finding a message that mentions the user using a personal pronoun; but I can’t think of a reliable way to find one).

So, the question I'm trying to think about here is - what is the actual need in featuring the information at all in popups? Before we try to solution an alternative to make it more accurate and less damaging to those who will be misrepresented, is there a real use case of why it's so important to show at all?

Yes, I use it every now and then when I want to address someone in third person (someone who has formerly commented in a discussion, someone who edited a page etc.).

In T284783#7200812, @TheDJ wrote:

If anything, for GDPR reasons, I’m wondering why we even have this as public information at all. It just doesn’t make sense any longer if u ask me.

Of course it’s compliant with GDPR ((EU) 2016/679 regulation), we handle this data with the data subject’s consent (Art. 6, point 1 (a)). Providing it is entirely voluntary, and the preferences form warns the user that it will be public.

In T284783#7200734, @Mooeypoo wrote:

So, the question I'm trying to think about here is - what is the actual need in featuring the information at all in popups? Before we try to solution an alternative to make it more accurate and less damaging to those who will be misrepresented, is there a real use case of why it's so important to show at all?

I'm not asking this to make a point about the answer - I'm asking seriously, trying to flush out whether it's worth coming up with a technical solution.

Personally I like having them in popups so it's easier for me to make sure I use people's preferred pronouns. Just like how people specify it in their email signatures or on their userpages, having it in popups is nice so I have it trivially on hand when I'm addressing someone or discussing something related to them. I think the switch from symbols to pronouns as this task was originally about was a good one. I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, but, I also get the sense from reading this ticket, the conversation on Jimbo's talk page and T284943: User genders publicly disclosed in wiki-replicas global_preferences and user_properties tables, that maybe some rethinking should be done around [[GENDER}}, it's associated preference and how it's exposed in the UI.