Publish ElmBridge event

[emmacunningham]

Here's the SF ElmBridge event for reference: https://www.bridgetroll.org/events/457

• [x] Review event (created here https://www.bridgetroll.org/events/470)
• [x] Submit!
• [x] Get approval (and publish)
• [ ] Add additional organizers (can only be done after publishing argh)

The main thing that I'd like to discuss is how we answer: What population is this workshop reaching out to? (I think we can always edit the other event details as need be)

The SF ElmBridge event uses this language:

This workshop is intended to reach out to women, non-binary people, and people of color [...]

While I think this is fine, I'm interested in thinking about ways we could improve on some of the language here in identifying the communities that this event is specifically being organized for. (This had come up in another community organizing context recently, so it's just a bit fresh for me.)

Here's a slightly re-worked version that I'd like to get y'all's feedback / edits on:

This workshop is organized specifically for people belonging to marginalized communities in tech. This includes people who are: BIPOC, transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and/or women.

We can discuss more in person if that's easier, but wanted to get the discussion going and document some of my thinking around this.

A few notes on the edits:

• "BIPOC" instead of "people of color": especially within the context of tech, I think it's important to center Black & indigenous folk when we talk about people of color. I do slightly worry that not everyone understands this terminology and perhaps we just need to be more explicit and spell it out fully?
• I hope this wording acknowledges that people may sit at the intersection of more than one of these groups.
• I'm aiming for wording that is inclusive of trans people of all genders (i.e. that it doesn't come across that this is for only trans women).
• I also am deliberately avoiding language like "identify as" because that language can suggest a distinction between identity as a choice and who we just are, and that can be especially harmful language for people who have had a lot of experiences having their lived experiences denied.

Are there other groups that we should be specifically identifying here? How could the wording be improved?

[emmacunningham]

During our sync, Zack brought up a great point that we could have language that makes it more clear that we are inclusive of queer folks. Adding this here so we can continue to think about how to refine this language.