Re-branding from R-Ladies to R-Ladies+ #10
Comments
yabellini
added
the
soliciting feedback
|
RLadies is a fantastic organisation, and the hard work that current and former members of meetups and the global organisation have put in has had a huge impact on a lot of people and is a massive asset to the wider R community. I have personally benefitted from it in multiple ways. As someone who identifies as non-binary and is uncomfortable when the term "lady" is applied to me, I appreciate this discussion being raised, and recognise that there is a real drive to make the organisation more inclusive. I have never had any interactions with members of the organisation that suggests anything otherwise, but appreciate that our branding is a key part of how we communicate our values, what we are about, and who we are aiming to represent. I am personally aware of other folks who are not cis men who would be excellent contributors to RLadies meetups and the organisation in general, but have felt like they would be "taking up space" that wasn't theirs by getting involved, which is unfortunate. I have also seen instances of RLadies meetups where the "and gender minorities" bit was missed from the event description, and there was only mention of "for women", which is problematic, even if entirely accidental. At present, I am only in favour of this change if it feels to other community members and potential community members (especially those who are not cis women) that it would make a positive difference to their participation. I am strongly in favour of us being more inclusive (potentially by changing the name, but also exploring other ways of achieving this). I'm on the fence about the specific new name, but not opposed to it while there is no better alternative. While in an ideal world, a new name wouldn't have the term "Ladies" in it at all, I am unsure whether this "ideal world" is feasible without taking up time, energy, and resources that would disrupt the operations of the organisation and ability to continue bringing the benefits it brings to its members, and IMO that would be a net loss. |
|
I am highly in favor of altering the R-Ladies name to R-Ladies+ (or other alternative). As a local organizer, I have been repeatedly asked by non-cis women and gender minorities if they are welcome at our events. Overwhelmingly our presenters have been cis women, and I have to wonder if that is because other gender minorities don't feel they can fill that space in R-Ladies given our name. Regarding requiring chapters to change their name. I appreciate the considerations already raised regarding safety for gender minorities worldwide. I am in favor of not requiring chapters to change their names for this reason. This allows chapters in areas where the + would cause issues to continue as R-Ladies. Regarding the new name. I like the + as it has minimal disruption on search results, logos, etc and allows for a flexibility in meaning needed in this space. I agree with the prior comment that in a perfect world, our name would not include "ladies" but appreciate the complexity of this issue and potential for mass disruption of the community (and possible disintegration) if the new name has no link to the current name. I also have no alternative name to offer as an option and am excited to see if this discussion yields other ideas. For this, I'd defer to our non-cis gender membership. Do they feel the + is inclusive? Can we do more by providing more inclusion and explicit language on websites and in event information? |
|
I agree with both of the comments above and don't have anything substantive to add. To reiterate, I'm in favor of making the name more inclusive, would ideally like to see it be something without "Ladies" in it, but recognize the difficulties posed by a total rebrand. As a cis woman, I would also want to defer to gender minorities on this one. I favor making whatever change would best promote inclusion without being a net detriment to the integrity of the organization. Anecdotally, I have also had awkward moments when talking about R-Ladies, having to stumble over the name and say "But, you don't have to be a 'lady' to participate..." The name has never felt particularly welcoming, even for me. |
|
Great comments! I agree! L = lesbian (you need to help me out with this..) |
|
Pros and cons of seeking a name that doesn't include the "ladies" at all? |
|
Oh, I think "div-R-city" is fantastic! But then, people might get a bit confused whether it's the same as R-Ladies. And this might be difficult if, as Yanina mentioned, R-Ladies Global will still be the legal name. 🤔 |
|
Following on from jromanowska:
E = Everyone S = So Forth |
|
Personally, I feel whimsy is automatically inclusive of anyone who is creative and has a sense of humor. R - Rascals? R- Rapscallions? |
|
I really like div-R-city! Then it could be like "div-R-city Twin Cities (R-ladies+)" or something as the name of the meetup group. |
|
I am in favour of the name change 🥳. I believe the name change will make people who identify in a gender minority feel more welcomed and included in the organisation. The most important aspect is that people who identify in a gender minority feel that they can participate in R-Ladies+ events ( I am already using the new name😉). |
|
I support the change of name to R-Ladies+, as proposed. However, I am not sure if it will be enough for everyone to recognise that R-Ladies is for them. It could be helpful to change the logo to R-Ladies ⚧ so it is R-Ladies plus in words but has the transgender symbol after Ladies in the logo. This may give a clearer signal when used in Meetup promotion etc. It would be optional for local meet-ups to adopt, the same way that the plus is optional for sensitivity to local laws/contexts. An alternative option would be to add transgender colours to the logo, but I think the symbol is more inclusive of different genders (see e.g. https://www.sexualdiversity.org/edu/symbols/1062.php which describes it as both the transgender symbol and the gender inclusivity symbol) |
|
I joined R-ladies soon after I started identifying as trans non-binary. They actually changed the descriptions of who was welcome to join when I asked if other genders were welcome. That felt really validating. The community has clearly welcomed all underrepresented genders in the R community for a long time, so this is only a change to reflect that in the name. By the way, let us stop using the word "minorities" for this. Together, we are greater in number than cis men, yet we face a clear exclusion from tech spaces. While the ideal rebranding would not have "ladies", and while the "+" may reinforce the idea that trans and nonbinary people come only as an afterthought (something that is pervasive and toxic in feminist spaces), I can go along with it. I understand it's difficult to change it completely overnight. Still, I appreciate that everyone is eager to make the community as inclusive as possible even if it takes a lot of work. As for the letters, I can't believe no one suggested E=enby and maybe S=sapphic? Regarding the idea of not using the "+" in some countries, I want to ask the cis, straight women in the community: would you avoid using the "Ladies" part in some countries if some of the basic freedoms and rights of cis women were illegal there? What would you do as a cis woman if your country, state or province didn't allow gatherings of cis women? Apply the same logic here. We definitely need to do this rebranding, not only to make everyone feel included, but also to make a statement to supporters of anti-LGBT ideologies, who sometimes may try to hijack our spaces. |
|
R4DG <- R 4 Diverse Genders |
|
Another idea to throw into the mix: "R-Gender=" (could be said as R Gender Equal or R Gender Equals). This is an inclusive name that I think could be used everywhere. It has the advantage of being a similar pattern to R-Ladies+, so you could easily swap one for the other in the logo etc. It could even be adopted by other languages (Py-Gender=, Rust Gender=, etc). |
|
I encourage the name change to R-Ladies+ because not only does it include all genders but it also covers intersectionality. If someone identifies with belonging to a certain gender, what about the other aspect of their race or whether they have a disability? Unless R-Ladies is focused on gender, then the names that have been suggested are appropriate for the re-branding. |
|
On first skim, I absolutely love what's being talked about here and can acknowledge and respect the difficulties that come with rebranding. While I agree that using the word "Ladies" isn't inherently inclusive, I thought @jromanowska's idea of an acronym was great:
The first words that popped into my head though were: And I also like the idea of adding the "+". Whatever is decided on should be followed up/strengthened with more inclusive and fleshed out language in our mission statement as well. I feel that any updates to the mission statement will be just as important, if not more so, than naming or logo rebranding as that will be the first stop for newcomers trying to decide if they "belong" or have a space in the community. As it reads currently, there is obviously a strong theme of diversity, but only in terms of gender. As much as I "hate" the word, I feel that there isn't enough of an emphasis on general "underrepresentation" with the current mission statement, unless we really are just focusing on gender-related diversity. This prompted me to think of alternatives that were more encompassing of other "underrepresented" groups outside of gender like - "R Humans" - but I could see that being challenged as it meaning "everyone" (including overrepresented groups). I think this ties back to @sndaba's comment though of what is the mission going to be. Just gender diversity, or a larger scope like race and disabilities. |
|
I think RLadies+ is a great idea. It is inclusive, but doesn’t stretch the idea too far so the group wouldn’t lose its original purpose. I especially support it as the legal name stays the same.
I love this idea of acronyms. My ideas are: |
|
How about: Let's ? |
|
Leveraging |
|
To give my opinion on this matter, as a cis-woman, I took my personal experience when universities and groups I have participated in have proposed new ideas to include women. I am aware that maybe it is not the same for what we are talking about, but it is my only personal experience. I think it is not enough to state that RLadies can be more inclusive for all minority genders by rebranding. I fear it may be an empty gesture if it is not planned together with actions to address this problem with the involved communities. R-Ladies should have a plan to cultivate relationships with the cis/trans women, trans men, non-binary, genderqueer and agender community first, and then gathering their needs and opinions about rebranding. I don't think it's happening now, but it's not the idea that we are a group of cis women who are taking the voice for the rest of the minorities, in the same way that cis men do it all the time with women inclusion. Also, focusing on acronyms bias the conversation to EN language. I don't have the answer, but I think we should open this up to the communities before we talk about rebranding. |
It's exactly what this is about! I agree! 🙌 That's why this issue has been opened! 👍 And RLadies was never about "only cis-women" - there are many other "gender minorities", including the leadership, so I really think we're kind of doing a great job of inviting everyone already. One can always be better so this is one of the steps :) |
|
From a personal point of view - I would be completely in favour of an R-Ladies+ name rebranding and think the inclusiveness of gender minorities could perhaps also be highlighted more with a slight re-design in the logo (e.g. perhaps adding more colours to the purple R). However, I do find it deeply concerning to know that the rebranding could pose a threat to the existing community in some countries. I can't speak on their behalf since I don't have enough context or the same lived experience, but I hope the voice of these organisers and community members can be captured in this thread or in the private form. If we were to proceed with a global rebranding to R-Ladies+, allowing for local chapters to keep the R-Ladies brand if needed, would that be enough to ensure the safety of their community members?
|
|
Thanks for your warning @mpaulacaldas, the link is already fixed. |
|
i think rebranding is one small piece of the overall issues but since i was told rebranding is the only issue being looked at we are all talking about either a +, = or LADIES as an acronym (which i think is worse). the cost of rebranding when there is limited funds for any RLadies activities/org, the cheapest and to the point is adding '+' to the name. those in hostile countries still have cover in the + . |
|
It was my understanding that the MiR community was focused on covering a more diverse community, even considering race, gender, and disability minorities. I have a proposal, what if we keep the R-Ladies branding but establish a strong partnership with the existing MiR community? https://mircommunity.com/about/ |
|
I've been thinking more since my original reply above and have realised I am actually very much in favour of this regardless of whether there is concrete evidence this will increase participation, as I think we have the problem that we might end up with more existing members than potential members seeing this discussion, and even just the rebrand and signalling intent there is good enough to do a lot of good. |
|
I'm from southern Argentina. I agree with the name change to R-Ladies+ as I also believe it has minimal disruption to the logo and at the same time, I feel it's more inclusive. Personally, it makes me feel more comfortable. But I think it would be good to hear the opinion of other gender minority communities to see if they also feel included with the +. Additionally, concerning countries where this change could be dangerous, perhaps some flexibility with the name wouldn't be a bad idea. |
|
Hello! This is a message from moderators Silvia (@spcanelon) and Andrea. Thank you all for your thoughtful and kind participation in this discussion! We want to bring your attention to a few things: The description of this discussion topic has been updated recently for clarity. Here are the updates:
As a reminder, R-Ladies community discussions like this one, are meant to focus on a single discussion topic at a time. The current topic relates to rebranding from R-Ladies to R-Ladies+, or to other proposed alternatives names. If participants are interested in discussing other topics (e.g., the R-Ladies mission), R-Ladies may create opportunities in the future to do so. We continue to invite more (current and potential) R-Ladies members to contribute to this discussion so that the final decision reflects all possible voices in our community. This is a fluid discussion, please feel free to revisit and add to the conversation anytime. Please share this discussion in your networks via direct messages, email, slack, etc. (but not through social media, please). |
|
to the points made above, the proposed name weR is ambiguous and inclusive. There is no gender or class attachment to attack or sensor unlike Ladies . Same reason why I was hesitant to join or participate in PyLadies. This meets the criteria of removing any social gender roles, expectations, exclusions and government censorship. Safety is baked in the name. This also allows weR (if selected) to point to RainbowR for further support. |
|
I am part of the leadership team and am posting this comment as part of the community to share my personal view. I identify as a white Latin American cis woman. I use DeepL and Grammarly to write this message.
I think the same principles apply here. words are important and powerful. How we name something or not has a great influence on how we see and understand it. So, the name of our community is an important issue: if the way we name ourselves is keeping the people we want to serve from participating, then we need to take steps to correct it R-Ladies gave me opportunities and growth that no other space gave me. It changed my career, and I would like to make that opportunity available to as many people as possible. This is why I am in favor of a complete name change for all the reasons stated above. As a non-native English speaker I can accept English as the lingua franca and accept a name that makes sense in that language, with the caveat of making the corresponding efforts to explain the new name or also consider accepting the different translations of our brand and allow the use in the native language of each country. I also believe that we need to maintain our focus on gender and the intersectionalities that apply and expand our efforts to work together with other communities that serve other needs in the community. In that respect, I would like those of us who are white cis women to take on the role of the most privileged members of our group and be the allies that people of other genders in our community need. Let's use the power that comes with our privilege. I completely agree with Jan that our strength comes from working together. The effort must come from us making people feel a belonging, not from dividing the community because we can't compromise. And the one who must concede, if needed, is the one who has more privilege. Also, we will never ask our members to risk their safety; we are actually working on building a safer and better place for everyone. Having said all this, I like weR as a proposal even though it loses focus on the genre. Being from Latin America, where I live, it has been called a “Developing Country,” “Third World Country,” and “Global South.” All these definitions have a lot of problems, and some of them are ways of trying to say “everybody except the Anglophone North America, Europe, and Australia.” A new definition has emerged: “The Global Majority” or "The Majority World". The term highlights the fact that we are indeed the majority of humankind. It also defines the community in terms of what it has, rather than what it lacks. Following this logic and being that our genres represent the majority (Jan already mentioned it in one of they comments), I propose as a new name: mainR: as in "The Majority in R" or "The R Majority" and making the pun with the meaning of main: important or principal and the name that usually has a start function in several programming languages (Python, for example). I am very grateful to all those who have already participated in the discussion and shared their points of view. I truly hope this is a path to strengthen our community. |
yabellini
added
final comment period
|
📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of Rox M. (submitted using our form) I apologize because I don't speak very well in English. Thank you for having this discussion. I don't identify as a "Lady", but I feel part of the R-Ladies community. Some of the new names proposed are very difficult to understand to me because of my level of English. Maybe they are good for people that speak English well. That is not all the R community. Where I live not everyone has the opportunity to learn it. When I learned about R-Ladies some years ago, the name was clear to me. It is easy to understand outside countries that speaks English. It means a space about R and not about men. People like me don't always feel safe in spaces for men. In R-Ladies spaces I feel welcome. I like the proposal of "R-Ladies+". I prefer to see myself in the "+" than having a name that only works for people that speak English. The "+" can be understood by people even if they don't understand English well. Also, the pride flags are universal. The logo can use them more. Thank you for reading what I have to say! P.S. I used Google Translate to review some parts of what I wrote. I hope there are not many mistakes. |
|
I've been continuing to think about potential names during the consultation period. I still like R-Gender= which I suggested in an earlier comment, because I think people both in and outside the community will be able to quickly understand what the community is about and appreciate the need for the community regardless of their concept of gender. The only other idea I came up with (that I like enough to share!) is Elevate R, since the community aims to elevate women and gender diverse people in the R community. I think either name has the advantage of being heard correctly, which is important when talking about the community, especially where transcription is being used. I think they could also translate well, but that's hard for me to judge as an English speaker. |
|
I asked chatgpt for some name suggestions, and similar to ElevateR it came up with EmpoweR. Another one was R Together. |
|
📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form) Before moving to data science I used to work in marketing. I don't have a new proposal about the name. Just my two cents about things to keep in mind.
Please feel totally free to ignore everything I just said. I just want to make sure your good intentions and enthusiasm don’t overshadow considering all the risks and what this whole process entails. |
|
📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form) I think that instead of R ladies changing its name to “R-Ladies+” or something else, we should consider creating a separate space for minority genders. Every minority group faces specific challenges and it is unfair to group it all into one. Although I consider myself a minority for specific reasons, I don't think attending a JSM section for minorities like African Americans would be fair to me or to them. |
|
📣 As a moderator of this discussion, I'm sharing this comment on behalf of an anonymous contributor (submitted using our form - Period closed June 17th) I am all for the rebranding to be changed to “R-Ladies+”. It sounds a lot more inclusive to all genders. However, I do not agree with changing the name without using the word “Ladies” in it. This organization was created for a space for people who identify as a Women and changing it to something like “weR” ceases the direction of the mission. The complete name change to this will create more confusion to who the organization is targeting and will attract general participation from different demographics. In addition, as much as the organization welcomes people in the gender spectrum, very few are accepted as belonging to the organization. Exactly how does the R-Ladies organization empower its members? It seems it only provides platforms to assist its chapters for meetups, answers questions and provides assistance to certain members. Does its systematic inclusion want active chapters in order for the organization to receive funding and show how progressive it is? I have not seen any mentorship the organization claims to provide. In other R communities, there is massive support and encouragement to its new members and do not show their biases towards people who they think do not belong in the organization. One of the comments referred to the organization as “our community” which sounds quite exclusive and thoroughly expresses an elitism concerning certain people who are not given as much attention as others are, especially in the organization’s social media. This kind of support benefits a few in the organization. This appears as the organization is not united and needs to find a way to make all members proud to belong to this organization. It seems the organization wants to promote Women who are doing as well as men are but do not want to network as well as men do. Unfortunately, I do not hear talk of a Sisterhood which should be palpable among its members. Does this not apply because we all come from different backgrounds, what are we protecting ourselves from? The interaction among members seems to be based on a fear of association or an unwillingness to associate with people who are not like them. There is a serious lack of networking unlike in other communities where I'm a part of where they are more friendly, open to learn about all people and do not dismiss people because they are not like them in any way. [a sentence was removed due to not following our CoC] I feel more safer in other groups where I can grow in my programming abilities than I can in this organization. Why is this organization so afraid of welcoming and embracing all its members? Not only does the rebranding need to change but our interaction with one another. This comment may highly not be taken into consideration because it does not come from a collective but I feel this is the only time to express some of the concerns I see happening. I only hope the organization can open up to all its members and not only those who they can benefit from.
|
|
To the anonymous comment above: R-Ladies was never a space for women only. The reason for changing the name is to attract people from other genders to join, which seems like a problem to you. Your views are borderline transphobic (and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt). Sorry for commenting after the deadline but some of the above statements are misinformation. |
|
As a trans person I think this conversation is going to start devolving very quickly if we post to criticize other posts and call them transphobic. |
|
📣 Hi everyone! This is a message from moderators Andrea (@SoyAndrea) and Silvia. Thank you all for your participation in this discussion! We want to bring your attention to a couple of things: Timeline update:
|
yabellini
added
leadership agenda
|
Amazing, invalidating and censoring a trans person. I am going to insist that the previous comment was borderline transphobic, and I'm going to call out your internalized transphobia. You are not allowed to invalidate other trans folks just because you're trans. I'm sorry you feel the need to do that. You can keep saying that I'm not allowed to say whatever you think is inappropriate, I'm going to reinforce my claims. I believe this goes against the CoC. You are disrupting the discussion and favoring oppressive views. My comment was adding to the discussion. |
|
Hi everyone, as a moderator of this discussion. We are closing this issue now because the discussion is over. If someone has to report an issue to the CoC, you can do it by sending an email to: [email protected] |
|
This is an update on the action the Leadership Team is taking after discussing the R-Ladies name change: We held a meeting with the moderators and the Code of Conduct Committee to debrief the discussion process. Overall, the process was adequate, and we plan to use it in the future. During the meeting, we established a list of tasks to document the process and make necessary improvements. This includes creating guides for participants, moderators, and outlining the role of the Code of Conduct Committee in community discussions. Additionally, we plan to develop a process for the community to suggest discussion topics to the leadership team. The Leadership Team has outlined a list of tasks to move forward with the analysis of the discussion. These tasks include:
|
|
[Update] The Leadership Team continues working on this discussion. This update is part of analyzing all the comments in this issue and creating a complete list of new name options. Key point expressed in the commentsThe discussion on rebranding R-Ladies centers around making the organization more explicit in being inclusive of underrepresented gender minorities beyond cis-woman while preserving its established identity.
Summary: the discussion reflects a strong consensus that action is necessary for greater inclusivity. However, opinions vary on how to best address the issue through some combination of visual identity, communication strategy, and rebranding in order to best represent the community’s values. Names suggestionsHere are all the names suggested in the discussion on R-Ladies rebranding from the comments on this issue:
Suggestions include converting R-Ladies in acronyms with differents meanings: Acronym 1:L = Lesbian Acronym 2:L = Learning Acronym 3:L = Lovely Acronym 4:L = Learning Acronym 5:L = Let’s Acronym 6:L = Leveraging Actions taken thus farWe held a debriefing discussion with the moderators of the rebranding discussion, and found the need to train the global team in code of conduct (CoC) management and to broaden the diversity of knowledge of the CoC team. As a first step to address this, the Code of Conduct team has organized a book club to read How to Respond to Code of Conduct Reports by Valerie Aurora and Mary Gardiner. The invitation to join the book club has been extended to the R-Ladies Global Team, R-Ladies Chapter Organizers, R Forwards, and rainbowR. We want to thank you for your ongoing support and contributions to this topic. Please keep in mind that R-Ladies is a volunteer-driven organization, and many of us are working on this project alongside our other commitments. Your patience during this process is greatly appreciated! |
|
Heya :) I was encouraged over the week at Shiny in Production (a conference for Shiny devs in Newcastle, UK) to add another option into the mix - "R for Femmes and Thems". It captures both trans and cis women, femme non-binary folks and gender neutral non-binary folks. It's also demure and cutesy, and a little brat :P Apologies if this suggestion is a little late to the game |
But not trans men which are a gender minority, as mentioned in the 2nd sentence of this proposal. Also, being called a 'them' is kinda fun within a group of non-binary friends, but a bit weird (dehumanizing?) in general speech. |
umm, Dudes already have an R group, it's called every group by default. The point was to be inclusive to non-binary people who do in fact use 'they/them' pronouns and also, some trans people use other pronouns not even mentioned. It's amusing when cisgender people think using 'they/them' is dehumanizing when that is English language and the real dehumanization is the lack of job opportunities, politicians attacking trans people and not bothering to solve crimes against us but yea, let's all argue over what the group name is. i get the original point of RLadies was for cisgender women to feel safe from all the men in tech, then it grew to be more inclusive. that is the focus here, inclusive name that works for all in the world. |
|
Sorry if it wasn't clear but the emphasis was supposed to go on how women would feel if being called 'Shes'. Edit:
I'm glad we agree on that. That's what I was trying to convey, that 'Femme and thems' is not inclusive for the reason I mentioned. Edit 2: (sorry was writting the other thing when the comment appear so I hadn't read it through)
Who are those cigender people you are referencing? Hope you didn't mean me 😳 |
|
I understand it's closed, but for people reading this later, I think it's important to understand that one of the con mentionned in the proposition is already a con applicable to the name RLadies and should in fact be a pro to an alternative name change.
Trans women, trans men and non-binary people that are perceived as men in society are possibly outing themselves by going to a meeting called R-Ladies. A name with 'Ladies' is really just safe for cis women and, maybe, some trans people generaly passing as women (passing is very subjective and depends on the person perceiving you at a specific time). And even then, if it doesn't match the gender on their legal papers it could be a problem. Also, last time the Trump was president of the US, hate crimes increased in Canada and it probably did in other countries as well. The fear of persecution is definitively worst when a minority gender is deemed illegal, but it's also definitively not null when deemed legal either. |
sorry, no. i was too lazy to reply to quote reply the other person. // 2 trans people in Canada |
|
Oh okay, because in the quote I do say I find it dehumanizing (when used as a noun, not a pronoun), so that confused me. |
|
Hi @salix-d and @PythonCoderUnicorn, thanks for your feedback! My assumption was that R Ladies was remaining an inclusive space for femininity in the R world. I realise after your comments that this is an incorrect assumption - that the intention is to expand to include a diversity of presentations and internal experiences, not solely femininity and non-binary expression. Points taken and in this case perhaps it is best to throw our weight behind a more catch-all term like some of the options - I like R4DG the most. Re the dehumanising comment - not my intention and apologies for any harm caused. As a non-binary human myself, I didn't personally consider the noun / adjective paradigm but understand where you're coming from. |
|
Thanks for the comments, we appreciate everyone's input. The Leadership team is deliberating the issue. We are now closing this issue to new comments. |
and others
Proposal
The mission of R-Ladies Global is to promote gender diversity in the R community. The intent is to support all minority genders, including but not limited to cis/trans women, trans men, non-binary, genderqueer, and agender.
The Global Team has received feedback that not all minority genders identify with the name "R-Ladies". In an effort to be inclusive of all minority genders, we propose for discussion re-branding from "R-Ladies" to "R-Ladies+". The plus here is meant to encompass minority genders that do not relate to the term "R-Ladies".
Points of view
From a chapter organizer: "We had a couple of people who were non-binary/gender diverse and did not feel comfortable being a presenter due to our name R-Ladies."
From a social media comment: "I'm still trying to make up my mind on whether to get in touch with the #RLadies community. If someone called me a lady I would laugh, but it seems to be inclusive?"
Pros
Cons
In some countries being a minority gender is deemed illegal - a global overview of this is available at https://database.ilga.org/en. In those countries, hosting an event branded as R-Ladies+ could pose a risk to the event organizers and attendees for persecution.
R-Ladies as a brand is widely known and recognized; changing the brand could cause confusion or limit searchability. Discrepancies between handles and branding across multiple platforms could cause confusion.
Other Considerations
R-Ladies is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization named "R-Ladies Global." If we rebrand, our non-profit name will remain "R-Ladies Global," but it will be rebranded in all other places.
However, labeling text could be updated to reflect "R-Ladies+ Global". New social media accounts would have to consider whether the handle should include the
+or not in the handle, if it is an allowable character.There could also be a discrepancy between the global labeling and chapter labeling. Would chapter social media accounts be re-labeled to R-Ladies+ CITYNAME? Would this be enforced or optional?
This list of pros, cons, and considerations is not exhaustive. Additional considerations are welcome, encouraged, and valued.
Possible Alternatives
Alternative suggestions for branding are welcome and encouraged.
Contributing to the Discussion
We value the community's feedback on this discussion. Specifically, we would like to know if you are in favor of, against, or not sure about this proposal.
We would also like to hear the reasons behind your stance.
To ensure a valuable and participatory discussion, we ask that you read the complete discussion procedure at the Readme on this community repository.
Please do not invite contributors to this discussion on social media. The intent is for this discussion to be open to only current or potential members of the R-Ladies community. You are welcome to invite contributors via direct messages, email, slack, etc.
You may also participate by submitting a comment via the Submit discussion content form, either anonymously or named. This option is available for those who do not have a GitHub account or for those who wish to comment anonymously. More details on the Readme on this community repository.
Timeline
Moderators
The moderators for the discussion are Silvia Canelón (@spcanelon) and Andrea Gomez Vargas (@SoyAndrea).
Allies participation
Allies to R-Ladies are welcome to observe the discussion, but are asked to refrain from participating.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: