Re-branding from R-Ladies to R-Ladies+

[yabellini]

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

• Minority genders could feel more comfortable joining and participating in the community.

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

• April 22 - May 22: R-Ladies rebranding issue is soliciting feedback.
• May 23 - Jun 6: R-Ladies rebranding issue enters final comment period.
• Jun 7 - Jun 17: Extended period to soliciting feedback (one time only).
• Jun 18 - July 22: The R-Ladies Leadership team reviews the discussion and comes to a consensus on the final decision.

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.

[thisisnic]

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.

[kdillmcfarland]

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?

[kaijagahm]

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.

[jromanowska]

Great comments! I agree! I have been thinking - how about re-branding to R-LADIES+? ;)

L = lesbian A = agender D = diversive I = inter-gender E = S =

(you need to help me out with this..)

[laramarieke]

Pros and cons of seeking a name that doesn't include the "ladies" at all? Idk, like, Div-R-city ok I'm terrible at finding fancy names but you get the idea just a thought

[jromanowska]

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. :thinking:

[maltenform]

Following on from jromanowska:

Great comments! I agree! I have been thinking - how about re-branding to R-LADIES+? ;)

L = lesbian A = agender D = diversive I = inter-gender E = S =

(you need to help me out with this..)

E = Everyone

S = So Forth

[maltenform]

Personally, I feel whimsy is automatically inclusive of anyone who is creative and has a sense of humor.

R - Rascals?

R- Rapscallions?

[AmeliaMN]

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.

[sndaba]

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😉).

[hturner]

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)

[jstrappa]

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.

[PythonCoderUnicorn]

R4DG <- R 4 Diverse Genders

[hturner]

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).

[sndaba]

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.

[Meghansaha]

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:

Great comments! I agree! I have been thinking - how about re-branding to R-LADIES+? ;)

L = lesbian A = agender D = diversive I = inter-gender E = S =

(you need to help me out with this..)

The first words that popped into my head though were: L - Learning A - And D - Development I - In E - Equitable S - Spaces

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.

[ghost]

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.

Great comments! I agree! I have been thinking - how about re-branding to R-LADIES+? ;)

L = lesbian A = agender D = diversive I = inter-gender E = S =

(you need to help me out with this..)

I love this idea of acronyms. My ideas are: L - Lovely A - Authentic D - Diverse I - Individuals' E - Exclusive or Exceptional S - Support or Safe space

[maltenform]

How about:

Let's All Develop Intellectually Exciting Statistics

?

[maltenform]

Leveraging Analytical Discourse Inclusive of Every Strata/Spectrum?

[Saryace]

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.

[jromanowska]

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! :raised_hands: That's why this issue has been opened! :+1:

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 :)

[mpaulacaldas]

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?

FYI - Could someone double-check if the Submit discussion content form link works? It doesn't for me.

[SoyAndrea]

Thanks for your warning @mpaulacaldas, the link is already fixed.

[PythonCoderUnicorn]

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 + .

[josschavezf]

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/

[thisisnic]

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.

[gvilardo]

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. Thank you for initiating this debate and for the proposal.

[SoyAndrea]

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:

• The link to the comment submission form has been updated. This is a form that provides an alternative way to participate in this discussion, either anonymously or named. Please refer to the discussion description for details.

• Allies to R-Ladies (i.e., cis men) are welcome to observe the discussion, but are asked to refrain from participating.

• The timeline for this discussion topic is:

  • April 22 - May 22: R-Ladies rebranding issue is soliciting feedback.
  • May 23 - Jun 1: R-Ladies rebranding issue enters final comment period.
  • June 2 - July 2: The R-Ladies Leadership team reviews the discussion and comes to a consensus on the final decision.

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).

[LizHareDogs]

I'm in favor of finding a more inclusive name than one that has "Ladies" in it. I'm a cis woman but have never identified as a "lady" for class reasons and because I'm just not "ladylike," SO when I hear "R-Ladies" I do think of people across the gender spectrum that don't identify with the name. I don't have a suggestion for an alternative but will keep thinking.

[spcanelon]

I am posting as an R-Ladies member here, not as a moderator of this discussion. And I identify as a cis woman.

---

I am in favor of rebranding, and my opinion is the new name should not include "Ladies," or any particular label(s) that may limit us moving forward. If our community is meant to celebrate gender diversity and feel expansive, I think the name should reflect that more than it currently does. I'll add two alternative names to the growing list of proposals:

• weR, as in "we are...," and "we R."
• genR, as in "gender in R."

I can understand that a rebranding will come with challenges that may be larger the greater a departure we take from "R-Ladies." R-Ladies+ seems to be a smaller step than some of the other proposals (including mine). I also understand that we have ~12 years of history as R-Ladies and that a larger rebranding step will feel awkward because we all would need to get used to it, and search engine optimization (SEO) is a thing, etc. Even with these challenges, my thought is it might be worth facing them now, rather than having to revisit this topic again in another decade when, inevitably, R-Ladies+ will continue to feel insufficient (to me, at least).

Lastly, I share others' concerns that an R-Ladies rebranding without a strategy for inclusion will not be enough for our community to become more welcoming to folks holding a marginalized gender identity. And I agree with what's already been said that this strategy would need to be designed alongside members holding these identities, who are most impacted by the current name and/or rebranding.

[PythonCoderUnicorn]

i think changing the name is overall a good idea, but the name is just a small drop in being gender inclusive.

i know this issue thread is only about the name but i want to say that including datasets that are not just gender binary would also help bring action to the rebranding. (this was part of my issue i posted then deleted but i bring up again anyway)

• SEO is a dead horse, everyone has played to hack the algorithm and Google is currently deranking websites (especially AI gen content), plus the now AI generated summaries of websites make the SEO less of an important / utility factor

potential names

• weR
• RLadies+
• dataR
• dataR+
• Rcoders
• Rcoders+
• GlobalR

[EllaKaye]

We're submitting this response on behalf of the rainbowR community. Although we don't presume to speak for each individual community member, we did want to write on behalf of the group to say that we whole-heartedly support a rebrand. We are very much in favour of any actions that make under-represented genders feel welcome and seen within the R-Ladies community. We'll leave it to individual members to comment personally on the specifics of the proposal (we have encouraged them to do so). Thank you for raising this issue and seeking consultation on it. We look forward to seeing what comes of it. Ella and Hanne.

[BetsyCohen]

At RLadies Buenos Aires we met specifically to discuss this issue and after much debate we agreed that the name RLadies+ is representative of the intentions of gender inclusion that our organisation has as its mission. We also believe that this change is not just an aesthetic decision in our logos or naming, but should be the start of developing strategies and actions that strengthen the inclusion of gender minorities by facilitating their participation and inclusion in the R community.

[Fgazzelloni]

It's clear that there are varying opinions on the proposed rebranding of R-Ladies to R-Ladies+ or other alternative names. While I appreciate the intentions behind making the name more inclusive, I believe there are strong reasons to sustain the R-Ladies name.

Firstly, R-Ladies has built a strong brand identity over the years, and changing the name could lead to confusion among existing members and potential newcomers. Maintaining continuity can help preserve the sense of community and familiarity that many members value.

Additionally, the name R-Ladies does not necessarily exclude individuals of other genders. Many chapters already welcome and support a diverse range of gender identities, and the name does not inherently restrict participation based on gender. Instead, it serves as a platform for promoting gender diversity within the R community.

Furthermore, changing the name may not address the underlying issues of inclusion and diversity that we aim to tackle. While a name change can signal our commitment to inclusivity, it's essential to accompany it with concrete actions and strategies for fostering a welcoming environment for all genders.

In conclusion, while I appreciate the discussions around rebranding, I believe that sustaining the R-Ladies name is the best course of action for preserving our community's identity and ensuring continuity while continuing our efforts to promote inclusivity and diversity.

[anacarolinamoreno]

I am in favor of rebranding it to R-Ladies+ and allowing chapters in countries that could pose a legal or safety threat to keep using the name R-Ladies. It seems that it is possible, considering the brand R-Ladies Global won't change.

[spcanelon]

Posting as a moderator of this discussion

---

📢 This is the last week to participate in this discussion! Be sure to contribute your comments by Saturday, June 1st.

If you'd like to participate anonymously, you can use the dedicated discussion form

If you know any current or potential R-Ladies members who might be interested in this discussion, please feel free to share it with them via direct message, email, slack, etc. (but not through social media, please).

[jstrappa]

To all cis women in the discussion: please never say that "doing this will not address all problems". That's a common textbook fallacy. No one ever said that. Also, don't say that just because it was inclusive despite the name (I was among the first to acknowledge that), then that is reason enough to keep the name. To me, that's another reason in favor of changing it.

[edited]

[maltenform]

One option that occurs to me is we consider forking into separate groups each with its own diversity/inclusion standard.

Seems to work for software projects where developers go different ways.

[Meghansaha]

@jstrappa I think your take is valid...

I can't speak for the other cis women in the discussion, but when I see a phrase like "doing this will not address all problems" I actually see it as a nod/reference to intersectionality? I feel a number of us feel conflicted because we personally know R Ladies to be inclusive on multiple fronts...but yet this discussion is only referencing gender inclusivity in relation to naming/branding...which from the OP seems like even though there's a desire to change the name, that because of legal/admin purposes it's not that easy or not possible at this time? (I'm not sure of this, someone from Global Admin could possibly chime in on this) I think this is also affecting the depth/quality of the feedback that can be given at this time.

Also, those of us from multiple marginalized groups could go down a rabbit hole to suggest improvements and conversation that would be inclusive of more than just gender, but a lot of us realized this wasn't the appropriate space for that maybe? Like I think @maltenform latest comment to fork things into separate groups would help to mitigate the "empty arguments" so that richer discussions could happen that are hopefully more meaningful. I feel that Admin purposely provided the "guard rails" for this particular discussion so that it wouldn't get too unwieldy and our responses were just a product of that?

[jstrappa]

But where do you draw the line for that separation? We're talking about gender and it exists on a spectrum. Where should nonbinary feminine people go? Where would nonbinary trans women go? It also sets up a scenario for TERFs if we self-exclude from the "ladies" group. I am not a trans woman, but I keep hearing from them that they don't feel welcome in women-only spaces, even though in theory they're exactly made for women! In practice, "women-only" spaces tend to exclude trans women. At the same time I totally understand that women need their spaces. But gender minorities share a lot with cis women. I don't want to speak for women, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see separation as a good strategy. We're also talking about minorities so it's harder for us (nonbinary people, trans men and other identities who are not women) to organize and fight for ourselves. I prefer union and solidarity. And there can also be women-only events and discussions inside the same organization whenever needed.

[Meghansaha]

But where do you draw the line for that separation?

@jstrappa This is exactly the problem I think. I know as a cis woman, I feel I have no right to speak on what this looks like... but I can speak on other things that aren't up for discussion right now in this thread. I can speak on racial and neurodivergence inclusion in addition to cis gender-related issues... but I can't (and wouldn't want to) give that input for the rest of the spectrum. I feel the best thing I can do as an ally is amplify other gender minorities that have that experience so am always happy to see that feedback. All I'm saying is that (for me) my limited experience with this is affecting the quality of my discussion here as I don't feel it's my place to give feedback related to something I haven't lived myself... along with the fact that OP is saying that a name change isn't possible right now. I agree that separation isn't a good strategy as an end goal, but that in terms of just internal discussions, it may be helpful to separate the discussion out to keep ideas streamlined and to ensure that one group isn't overshadowing/hijacking the discussions of another group before eventually adopting the overall more inclusive change/rebrand.

[maltenform]

Why not let the new groups overlap a bit?

Consider that no one is required to stay with only one group. If we did split R-Ladies into three groups, presumably each person would feel free to sign up for any one, any two, or all three of the groups.

[Meghansaha]

@maltenform, do you mean to split "operationally" or for the purpose of discussion? I feel like splitting for discussions help, but I imagined that the "groups" would eventually meld back together after larger discussions were had. Like, I imagined separate groups for gender minorities that also fit into other marginalized groups (race, ND, abilities, etc.) who could have discussion relevant to the other marginalized groups, before everyone "reconvening" to have a final discussion based on the highlights/decisions from these proposed groups.

Edited to add: All this given that Admin wanted to go into this direction. I made a lot of assumptions about how this process would continue, and it could very well be Admin doesn't feel this is necessary at this time which I'd understand if we're trying to avoid mission/scope-creep.

[maltenform]

Could be either a split for discussion or an operational split.

My thinking was that if we’re not readily converging on one approach everyone likes, it might simplify things to allow people to pick the approaches they were more comfortable with

[yabellini]

I request an extension of the discussion for ten more days starting on June 2, as specified in our process, to give more community members time to express their opinions.

Thank you very much to all who have already participated. These open discussions are essential.

[szimmer]

I agree with a rebranding. I caution a subtle re-branding as this is an international organization. It could be unsafe in some locations for people to be associated with a group that seems LGBT+ associated. I've let folks know very clearly that our chapter is open to all folks especially those that are not cis-male when inviting them but I know it is fairly safe where I am.

[gregorywaynepower]

I appreciate the rebranding. This has been an issue that has come up with PyLadies as well and I think adding the + on the end does some level of work for making sure that queer folks are welcome.

[cnell-usgs]

I no longer participate in R-ladies because I no longer identify as a "lady", which is sad because it's the community that started me as a data scientist.

[SoyAndrea]

📣 Hi everyone! This is a message from moderators Silvia (@spcanelon) and Andrea. Thank you all for your participation in this discussion! We want to bring your attention to a few things:

Discussion summary:

• There is a general agreement that a name change is a good idea and the correct signal to the community.
• There are several options for a new name, without agreement on which is the best option: R-Ladies+, div-R-city, weR, genR, dataR, dataR+, Rcoders, Rcoders+, GlobalR, R- Rapscallions, R - Rascals, convert Ladies in an acronym.
• There is a concern that the name change will be aesthetic and nothing will really change.
• There are several expressions of the need to revise the mission to be more intersectional and less gender-focused.
• There is some concern about choosing a name that may be harder to relate to in languages other than English.

Timeline update:

• April 22 - May 22: R-Ladies rebranding issue is soliciting feedback.
• May 23 - Jun 6: R-Ladies rebranding issue enters final comment period.
• Jun 7 - Jun 17: Extended period for soliciting feedback (one time only).
• Jun 18 - July 22: The R-Ladies Leadership team reviews the discussion and comes to a consensus on the final decision.

Reminders:

• Allies to R-Ladies (i.e., cis men) are welcome to observe the discussion, but are asked to refrain from participating.
• 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).

[AmyMikhail]

I think this is tricky.

On the one hand, adding a + to the end is subtle enough not to cause issues in countries or contexts where it could be unsafe to do so.

On the other hand, the term 'ladies' is challenging for a number of reasons - in addition to not being inclusive of all the gender minorities that R-ladies welcomes, it also has classist origins.

I personally don't identify as a lady both due to the classist origins of the term and due to being agender. The name did make me hesitate a bit when joining the group, but I understood that despite the name the intent was for the group to be inclusive of all gender minorities, as this is stated in the joining information.

I'm a bit torn as I can't think of an alternative name at the moment which would express the intent of the group to support all gender minorities. I think for now R-ladies+ is ok, but I would like to see a full list of alternative name proposals and perhaps have them put to a vote?