[bestbits] [governance] [Ext] Re: [DC] [IGFmaglist] IGF Best Practice Forum on Gender: Access

[Deirdre Williams]

Dear Jac and Everyone,

(Hello Charity – great to hear from you again)

I did some further thinking after the last exchanges, but decided that the
topic had died. And what I have to offer is based on observation rather
than true empirical evidence. However – here goes.

I think that allowing “gender” to become a synonym for “women” is a serious
mistake. If “gender” is used instead of “women” (which it is) then “gender”
becomes a mask covering the identity of “women”.  They are no longer your
mother, sister, daughter, wife. They are no longer real people. “Gender”
facilitates sniggering – “oh, it’s a gender issue!”

I also object to squatting on concepts. Think about .book and .amazon. If
the space labelled “gender” is taken over specifically for women, then the
rest of the gender diversity is excluded and has little chance of being
discussed. I agree with you that gender is a spectrum (in fact I think we
need to begin to frame many of the things we discuss as spectrums, not
dichotomies. It’s interesting that the world of binary code encourages us
to view life and its concerns as a system of spectrums.) However, if one
wishes to discuss one part of a spectrum which part, as a part, needs to be
specified clearly, and if the blanket heading is chosen then there should
be a plan to address systematically all of the parts.

So I continue to believe that if the objective of the Best Practice Forum
is to discuss access for women, then it should say so. Dhanaraj pointed out
that there is evidence that that issue is urgent. It has no need to be
euphemised as “gender”. Perhaps next year the objective may be access for
LGBT people, as Avri pointed out. When it is, then we should say so. And I
will continue to expect that a discussion on gender in the context of the
internet will embrace all parts of the spectrum.

Best wishes

Deirdre



On 2 October 2017 at 05:52, Jac sm Kee <jac at apcwomen.org> wrote:

> Much thanks for all the considered thoughts on this issue. Being a
> committed advocate of this issue, I appreciate the reflection and
> insights on why it is both difficult and important to integrate gender
> into IG and policy conversations, including and esp on access.
>
> I hope this thread of discussion helped to clarify why it doesn't make
> sense to stack the multiple forms of disparity and discrimination that
> the diversity of women face before we take action to address whatever
> that is within our ability, capacity and responsibility to address. Also
> happy to take this conversation further if more doubts or questions
> surface.
>
> In the meantime, we continue to appreciate your support in responding to
> as well as disseminating the survey to your networks who do work in this
> area.
>
> As a reminder, the survey link is:
> https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/783797/lang-en
>
> Best,
> jac
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Jac sm Kee
> Manager, Women's Rights Programme
> Association for Progressive Communications
> www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org
> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe
>
>


-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William
Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20171011/f5fd497e/attachment.htm>