Also, I support the idea of gathering community for increased visibility of minoritized scholars. However, we can't laterally reduce every category of minoritization into one. (Cont.)
-
-
Intersectionality is really important, and ignoring complex identity to create a uniform "minority' category only serves to erase and make the categories "default/other." So, it would be good to allow ppl to disclose which groups they belong to if they are comfortable doing so.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Thank you, that's super constructive and helpful, I really appreciate this and we (
@o_guest and I) are always eager to improve this list. I like the idea of optional disclosure, but am a bit worried whether it might create odd dynamics and feel compulsory. But why not try...1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm neurodiverse/atypical myself. Fixed.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
As for disclosure, I'm not sure what the legal status is of storing people's characteristics (some of which are protected legally in the UK at least) is under GDPR and on and on? And we didn't ask for emails again for that reason, so everything on that site is public already.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Would like to learn more though! One thing that is worrying is that some additions to the list were not done so by the people themselves (we have to assume this true as it's open to anybody adding anybody, we don't have accounts or emails attached).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If the only solution is to start again, delete the list in a sense and tweet asking for a do-over asking for characteristics and email addresses, maybe it's worth looking into?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Another option is to return to just being "women in modeling", perhaps? But the binarism of that kind of upsets me. But it would reduce the worry that we are treating all minorities in modeling the same? FWIW I'm in every minority mentioned.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I've looked in/around similar issues myself re: lists of people for a while. If I were to do something like this now, I would (i) consult with a lawyer specifically re GDPR (ii) start over again, and only include people who self-nominate/volunteer to be on it >
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @AidanBudd @o_guest and
This is good advice -- I really think self-vol is crucial for many reasons. One of them being tied to identity-- I've been really uncomfortable when people slap me onto lists of "women in CL/AI/etc." Despite their good intentions
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
That's fair, but in this list we don't say it's "women" only. So at least there's that.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.