I submitted a paper to ISIT in which I tried something different. It’s about communication models with a jammer, so there are three parties: Alice, Bob, and the jammer. Alice wants to send a message to Bob. The jammer wants to prevent it from being reliably received.
We always use Alice for the encoder/transmitter. Knowing nothing more than the name, I would use the pronouns she/her/hers to refer to Alice.
We always use Bob for the encoder/transmitter. Knowing nothing more than the name, I would use the pronouns he/him/his to refer to Bob.
What about the jammer? In previous papers (and in our research discussions) we called the jammer various names: Calvin (to get the C) or James (for the J). We ended up also using he/him/his for the jammer too.
This time I proposed we use Jamie for the jammer. Knowing nothing more than the name, I suggested they/them/their as the most appropriate. In my mind, Jamie may be gender nonconforming, right?
At this point many readers (if there are any) would say I’m being a bit on the nose. Why make James into Jamie and why deliberately change the pronouns? Won’t it just confuse people?
There are so many responses to this.
First, just on pragmatics. This makes pronouns which are uniquely decodable to the parties in the communication model. What can be clearer?
Second, if pronouns create a problem for a mathematically-minded reader, then they are far too obsessed with (gendered) Alice/Bob metaphor. It’s a mathematical engineering paper, not a kid’s story.
But finally, and most importantly, even though all the authors of this paper may be cis-gendered, writing the stories in our papers in a more inclusive way is the right thing to do. Why Alice and Bob? Why not Aarti and Bhaskar, Anting and Bolei, Avital and Binyamin, or Arash and Babak? I’ve heard arguments that we should be more ecumenical in the national origin of our communicating parties. Can we be more inclusive by gender as well?
We can and should!
3 thoughts on “gender inclusivity in communication models”
In the 1960s lots of linguistic examples (specifically in syntax) were often crudely misogynist, e.g., “John hit Sue”. When I was a student at Stanford in the 1980s there was a movement against this, lead by Ivan Sag if I remember correctly. He pointed out that there are plenty of non violent transitive verbs (e.g., “likes”) and plenty of sexually agnostic names (e.g., Sam, Alex, Sasha, Kim, etc). Perhaps cryptography could adopt Ivan’s approach to names?
Sorry, should have said “gender ambiguous” rather than “sexually agnostic”
You chose Babak over Bobak?!