Just kidding about the lesbians part
Lesbians but not THOSE lesbians.
The conference was more than a year ago but still…this is interesting. The group or organization is called Lesbians Who Tech & Allies, and (of course) the people doing all the talking are not the lesbians but the “allies” aka appropriators.
About Lesbians Who Tech & Allies:
LESBIANS WHO TECH & ALLIES IS A COMMUNITY OF LGBTQ WOMEN, NON-BINARY AND TRANS INDIVIDUALS IN AND AROUND TECH (AND THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEM).
What are “LGBTQ women”? They can’t be G surely, nor can they be T. Why call them “LGBTQ women” at all, why not just stick with lesbians? Why start with “lesbians” and then immediately translate that to LGBTQ women?
And then, if it’s Lesbians who tech, why add non-binary and trans people? Why can’t lesbians have something for lesbians?
To Get More Women, POC, and Queer and Trans People in Technology
Right now, women are some of the most gifted folks in technology. Yet there are far fewer of than there should be: Women account for 1 in 5 people in STEM fields. (That stat is even lower for queer women.) Because there aren’t enough women, trans, and GNC people in tech, they are rarely quoted as experts by the mainstream media and blogs, serve on panels, and serve in high positions at top tech companies.
That’s interesting. There are far fewer women in tech than there should be, they say, and then immediately go on to dilute the “women” part by adding lots of kinds of people who aren’t women.
Whatever. Don’t worry. We call it “Lesbians and” but it’s really not for lesbians. That would be silly.
Do I Have to Be a Lesbian to Join?
No — One of the best things about our community is its diversity. Our 100,000 members are LGBTQ women, non-binary, trans, and gender nonconforming. We also have many other intersecting identities when it comes to race, ethnicity, ability, age, and more. We work together to promote the visibility and inclusion of women, queer people, and others from other backgrounds underrepresented in technology. If you work to move this mission forward, we want you on our team. We welcome allies.
See? It’s really not about lesbians or women at all. They’re just window-dressing.
Cats. Cats are underrepresented in technology, in spite of the fact that they LOVE computers. Could they join this group? My cats are certainly smug enough…
Whenever you see ‘folk’ in place of ‘people’ you just know that what follows will be about the TQETC.
Also, although it’s quite common these days to add the ‘s’, ‘folks’ always looks wrong to me. Folk is a perfectly good plural. Does the ‘s’ make it more inclooosive,?
That might be a US – UK difference. I don’t think we use plural “folk” much.
Um… the 1/5 stat is problematic because it’s not representative of the population as a whole. Women make up roughly half the population (ignoring any potential caveats about aptitude or desires), so women are under-represented.
But… having fewer than 1/5 people be queer women, as presented, is NOT a problem, as they represent a small minority to begin with. “LGBTQ” stats suggest they represent 5-10% (estimates vary) of the population, so lesbians would be less than 5% of the population as a whole. Unless there are fewer than 1/20 lesbians on staff, they’re not under-represented at all; unless there are fewer than 1/100 lesbians on staff they’re not underrepresented any more than non-lesbian women are. Where are the actual numbers?
It gets worse, because data collection on people who describe themselves as bi- and trans- and “otherwise queer but not lesbian” is inconsistent, but decent estimates put them at proportions so small as to not make sense to talk about in employee groups smaller than hundreds-to-thousands. If there’s a single trans-identified person in a group of 100 they’re over-represented. Why not just focus on the most substantially under-represented group, i.e., wom… nevermind, we all know why. Sigh.
AGPs are never, EVER underrepresented in tech.
The AGPs are always trying to take over the lesbiansraum
ibbica, there you go with your numbers and logic, and rational thought again. Get with the post-modernism will you!
Jim, I laughed. Now I also feel guilty.