Your opinion counts as much as anybody else's, Luna.



Speaking purely as a writer/editor, using "they" to refer to a single person is a pet peeve. Outside of that context, however, I do find it to be a much better answer than defaulting to "he" when the desired pronoun is unknown. My hunch is that English is going to evolve quickly on this, and either "they" will become more accepted as a singular, or a new word will enter the language.



Adding new options to an existing field is ridiculously simple. I go to the admin panel, go to the "custom profile field" tab, click the field, and add the choices to the list. Adding a new field itself is only slightly more complex than that - I need to click the "New" button. that said, I'm also exactly the wrong person to define what the entries in the list will be - which is why I'm finding the thread great. It's a fantastic opportunity to expand my horizons even further, and learn more about what I can do to make people comfortable in this environment.

So, once we have a general consensus on what the majority of the list should be, I agree that it should be updated, and then new changes can trickle in.



I disagree with the last sentence. It added your voice to the chorus, which will help with decision making.



This, in my opinion, is exactly the wrong sort of information to put into the field. Being able to leave it blank is fine; having a version of "I prefer not to say" is fine. Making a joke of it is not fine. And note that I'm not saying you're being a jerk for suggesting it; I'm saying we would be jerks if we implemented it. Just to nip that in the bud before it sprouts.



It is possible, and I'm totally willing to consider it. My instinct, however, says doing so brings more harm than good. See above about people entering Robot, AI, or Otter into the field.

Other thoughts here from those outside the cis majority? (I dislike when "cis" is referred to as "normal" when what's really meant is "majority.") Would a free-form text field be better, or would that invite potential hard feelings?



I'd prefer to avoid the "pink and blue" dichotomy, but otherwise I agree. Just having it on the profile doesn't do any good. The info has to appear in the little box on the left - and if I understand Welder's comment correctly, doing so isn't hard.



Something like that.



Good question. My hunch is that's possible - it already does that, for example, with things like email address at the bottom of the user post, which also comes from the user profile. Welder?



Write in is possible, but it's one or the other - either the field can be entered by the user or it can have a list. My hunch is that the list is better, but I'm open to discussion.



Would it be good for the list to have something like "asexual" or "pan sexual" along with those entries? (The field would be non-required, so it could be left blank; and there would be a "none yo business" type choice as well.)



That runs the problem of requiring a fair hunk of space. On the flip side, I'll admit that I have no idea how to use terms like "ze" and others. That is, if you tell me your preferred pronoun is (for example) "she" then I know I have to use her, herself, etc where needed. If you tell me your choice is zie or ze (another one I've seen not in your list on the first page) or fae, then I have no idea how to express that in various forms of possessive, etc.

And, really, this is why I like this sort of conversation - it's a chance to learn.



Good point about the Location field - great example!

What Razor has here is what I see: a list of values, one of which is a "I prefer not to say" answer and one of which is blanks. If you select (or leave) blanks as the option, nothing will print. (I believe I can make the text to describe the field say exactly that, too.)



I've seen "joke" values in the location field. Except identifying your location isn't a potentially charged, sensitive issue like identifying gender is. Maybe I'm wrong, and free form is OK. I'd like to hear from people who are in the minority. Would you find it offensive if somebody entered "Robot" or "Chair" into the same field where you entered "Trans Female" or "Asexual" or where I entered "Male" and whatever other choices we've talked about?


And with that, I think I've addressed everything. I'd like to see the conversation continue; I'd like to see everybody's opinion respected (note that doesn't mean you have to agree with it); and I'd like to see if we can come to a reasonable consensus. Here are the questions I see as needing resolved?

A: Do we keep the Gender field?
A2: If so, what do the valid choices need to be?
A3: Or, does there even need to be a list of choices?

B: Do we add a "Preferred Pronoun" field?
B2: If so, what do the valid choices need to be?
B3: Or, does there even need to be a list of choices?

I believe A and B are independent of one another. I also believe I may have missed important questions, so please add information about whatever I didn't ask.

A few broken tags there Fire.

< See my location.

I neither see my location as particularly relevant to most of my conversations nor as something I would feel upset over if someone didn't know. Instead I took it as an opportunity to say three things about myself at once with a few simple words. I can understand how an open-ended gender field would lead to much more hostile circumstances. I'm not much one to talk about it, but i thought I'd lend my own example.

Most of your other points I've already touched on, and wont clutter by simply quoting myself. But I'll respond to these two:



Off topic for the thread in general, but as you are an RPG writer/editor if you have the time check out Eclipse Phase. The game deals heavily with transhumanism and takes place in a setting where players may be inhabiting bodies that are neither their birth gender or species or might not even have a gender at all. Thus not only do the books push the use of the 'singular they' it's actually a large part of the roleplaying in general.

Heres a blurb from the core rulebook:



Agreed. A and B should be independent of each other. If a user chooses to leave both blank, so be it, but if they want to declare one or the other while leaving the second out of the picture they should be able to do so. For example if I wanted to keep gender as blank but set my pronoun to 'they'.

A: Keep it, but leave an option that it can be blank. As well as an option more along the lines of 'prefer not to say' which actively notes that the topic is off limits.
A2: Male, Female, Transgender, Genderqueer, Prefer Not To Say, 'Blank' are the obvious ones, more forthcoming as conversation unfolds.
A3: Its a hard decision. Open field leaves room for people to abuse it with jokes, but a set list runs the chance of not having the label that someone chooses to identify. Theres about 60 or some 'common' terms... and I certainly dont think a 60 term list would be practical.

B: I think having it under the avatar if the person wants it there would be a big step forward.
B2: He, She, They, "My name", "Blank" would be obvious. There could also be talk of 'One'
B3: Again, an open field here would be an extremely useful tool. For instance I could set mine to "BH". Thus, when someone is talking about me rather than using He/She/They, they should be using 'BH', which is the point of "my name" in my answer to B2. Of course, we repeat the "will people abuse it" conversation.



My thoughts? Use the open field for both, allow for blank options to not show up at all, and have staff start drafting a minor edit to the CoC regarding abuse of this field.

More or less ditto above on questions.

The singular they has existed for over half a millenium, as mentioned in BH's quote from Eclipse Phase. Criticism of it as being grammatically "wrong" has only existed for a little more than a century. English doesn't need to change so much as prescriptivists on this issue need to move on.

One potential solution here, if we draft a fixed list users must choose from, is to add text something like, "If your preferred choice is not here, please leave the field blank and contact a staff member to have your choice added to the list. We'll make an honest effort to accommodate requests."

Thanks for the input.

A completely viable option.

Just a matter of weighing "list + adding as necessary" vs "open field and moderating as necessary".

At that point I think the open field would be more preferable and easier to maintain and less work on the staff most of the time. The time that it would be harder is if someone abused it and reported someone else's input for review. At that point staff would be making the same "is this a legitimate option" decision that they'll be making every time some submits a new choice to add to the list.

- - - - Example - - -

For instance lets say that we have an open field and user Snuffy sets his gender to 'Girlyman'. Maybe that's Snuffy's way of labeling themselves and the only time that staff has to weigh on whether 'Girlyman' is acceptable is if someone else submits it for review.

But now lets flip it and say that Snuffy signs up and sees that Girlyman is not on the list of choices. Now staff has to decide if 'Girlyman' is a legitimate term worthy of being on the list. And what happens if the person is being sincere but the moderator or admin who fields that report takes it to be a joke. Now we run into 'Does Snuffy just leave since they feel oppressed?' , 'Does Snuffy oppose the verdict and raise it to the next level of staff?'

- - - - End Example - - -

Now I dont think either one is the wrong choice. I just think that the former would be easier on both users and the staff. Obviously the staff hierarchy is in place to deal with situations like that of the second example, but I think the former would chug along smoothly and only require a single line about taking the gender and pronoun fields serious. It could fit in the CoC right along side all the other rules about accounts, signatures, etc.

Random chime in: when trans is an option it kinda tends to bother me because it feels like I'm obligated to select it, but it makes me feel singled out. "Hey select trans, you aren't a real girl muhahah" I get that it's just an option for people who want to advertise it, that's just how I feel though. So what where we talking about again

No offense, but I'm not sure if I like that someone gets to decide which identities are appropriate and which are not. I mean, I trust the staff pretty far not to screw it up, but the general idea doesn't sit well with me. I know a person who would probably feel rather comfortable being addressed as an octopus. What about them?

Far-fetched suggestion: How about a freeform "identity" box?

Would "octopus" be that friend's gender or preferred pronoun? Because that's what we're talking about, and I really can't see how "octopus" answers either of those.

I think it was mostly a hyperbolic example of my argument about user 'Snuffy'.

If Snuffy wants to be called 'Girlyman' a open field option lets Snuffy type that in without needing a decision from staff. If theres a list and you have to appeal to have something added to the list not only is it a longer process but now someone has to deem whether that request is legitimate or not.

I think at this point it's better to wait to hear whether those who would legitimately use an open field -- like ParadOxymoron (I hope I capitalized that correctly) and Keeper -- would feel off-put or insulted by users who would not use it legitimately. I feel those users have a bit more right to speak on the subject -- not that I think the decision should solely be theirs.

Yxoque raises a fair point though. It's a similar problem to the one I have on the "none yo business" option for gender: sure, it may functionally serve my purposes, but it is far from aesthetically pleasing. I'd like to hear others thoughts on the subject, though, despite my frequent posting in this topic.

Like Fire, I like the conversation and thought this topic is bringing, so I am keeping up with it and adding my opinion when it seems appropriate.

Oh, Yx. Mean to ask this as well:



Ellaborate, please? Is this in addition to the others? In place of one or both?

well, as I proposed earlier, if the pronoun set is a drop-down instead of open-ended, we can put a single pronoun in the sidebar and make it a link to a page that lists all the appropriate conjugations. like, if a user prefers "him", it can just say him, and then if you're curious you can click through and see "him, he, his, himself" and whatever other forms, maybe also with the proper names of the forms which I don't know 'cause I'm not a grammar dork.

that's why I'm in favor of adding "cis male" and "cis female" to the list, so that the generic "male" and "female" aren't assumed to be cisgendered. I mean, most cis individuals will still probably use the generic forms, but setting them aside as options sort of separates out the presumption of cisnormativity.

Okay so I'm probably one of the less qualified people to talk about this subject because I find your gender identity highly irrelevant to any conversation and will probably use "he" as it's the most default term, although I could feasibly accept "they" if that turns out as the English standard for gender-neutral pronouns.

I don't see any reason to get rid of it, and would probably make it an input box. If people want to write whatever in it, let them write whatever in it, and apply the CoC as usual. If Barinellos wants to tag himself as Incomprehensible, so what, why should you care?


I don't feel like I can properly comment on this, but if people are going to expect me to address them as creatures of folklore, then I'm going to need the whole list, because I have no idea what all the forms of fae are. In which case, having predetermined options is probably preferable.
Expanding on razorborne's idea, a link sounds unnecessarily convoluted, but you could have it on hover, just like with inline dice: 13.
Of course, the appearance of hyperlinks are a lot more ingrained into people than anything with hover.

the main issue, I think, is that some people, especially people who don't have the luxury of having grown up in a world where their identity was considered "default", care a lot about their gender identity. it's a very important thing to them. some of those people may get really upset if a tool set up to accommodate them is used for jokes, because it seems like those people are mocking the idea of needing that accommodation.

Question A: I'm more interested in others input than mine on this issue. I guess I'll say something if I feel like you are about to do something stupid.

Question B: Yes
B2: I don't have the confidence to make such a list.
B3: A hybrid list (selected options + empty field) feels preferable to me, just so users who haven't put a lot of thought into the subject can quickly identify the purpose of such a prompt and just as quickly provide their answer. It also feels the least likely to be abused to me.

I've looked it up many times and I still can't remember what cisgender or genderqueer mean >__<

Cisgender is, roughly, someone whose assigned gender matches their gender identity. If you do chemistry, cis- as opposed to trans-.

Genderqueer is a specific nonbinary gender identity. It's sometimes sort of used as an umbrella term for nonbinary genders, but I wouldn't place all nonbinary genders under "genderqueer".