Hi all: I'm so, so grateful for all the feedback everyone has given so far regarding non-binary gender identities on Datamatch. I'm again posting this as an individual, not the Datamatch team, because the following proposal is something I'd still like to continue the dialogue over, in emails, with campus groups, and in general.
In the meantime, this is something similar to the system I'd like to implement.
- Include three gender options with the exact following text: Male, Fe...male, Non-Binary (if you wish, provide more info in field below)
- Include three interested in options with the exact following text: Male, Female, Non-Binary (if you wish, provide more info in field below)
- Both gender and interested in allow multiple selections, and contain an additional field for more information.
- Gender will no longer be reported on profiles, in any manner, either the multiple select choices, or the extra information fields.
- Matches will be "allowed" (okay, awful word, but please understand I just mean in the context of making matches in the Algorithm, not at all real life) between people whose gender selections and interested ins match. For example, someone whose gender is reported as Male and Non-Binary would be matched only with someone whose interested in is reported as Male and Non-Binary. This might not have enough nuance, since perhaps someone who selected interested in for Non-Binary should just be matched with all possible cases rather than needing to also select interested in Male; but that's part of what I'm hoping to get feedback on.
I want to be clear now, with regret but choosing to be open rather than skirt around the issue, that unfortunately, any system resulting from this proposal will not be ready for this year's Datamatch. I know this is deeply disconcerting, exclusive, and unacceptable relative to having simply properly implemented a system by the start of this year's Datamatch, and for that I'd like to once again apologize for not doing due diligence to a large part of the Harvard community. Many people have expressed to me what it would mean to be a part of this tradition, and what it means to be excluded as such. I'd like to vet/discuss/dialogue this idea considerably before beginning implementation to make sure that all voices are heard, and a hasty solution isn't once again implemented; and then, regrettably, though we have a team, I'm only one person guiding them, and there are considerable changes that would need to be made in the codebase. If is still unacceptable to you, I understand, and I one hundred percent apologize.
Otherwise, please, please provide feedback on the above proposal if you have it, especially if you disagree with any of the points!