Gender vs Sex

[Geoffrey Trousselot]

I don't know if this is trivial or not. In translating financial reports, 性別 is often translated as gender and being a translation of a Japanese company, 性別 is considered biological sex by itself and 性的指向 and 性自認 is used when referring to sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Yesterday I was hastily translating the discrimination section of a code of conduct, and I got confused with 性別 because normally in other parts of the document, it would be "gender" but if I translated it as "gender discrimination" I wondered whether it would be considered the appropriate wording. next to it was, if I remember rightly, 性的指向・自認. 

What is my question? Well yesterday, I got this flash of decisiveness and wrote "gender at birth" in order to keep consistency with other parts of the document concerning 性別 and to differentiate between biological sex and identified gender. But throwing such language is probably going to cause a problem. I have today off, so I have probably left a problem for someone else to deal with. 

I could have used "sex" or "assigned sex" or "biological sex", considering it being a translation of Japanese, I personally think "sex". But it would be hard to put it into a sentence. 

Sorry no Japanese example. And sorry for the long-winded post.

BTW, I am dreading having to translate when a transgender external director appears.  Maybe there are individuals that I am unaware of, but I haven't encountered any yet. 

(Feeling like I have a low IQ writing this) Geoffrey Trousselot

[li...@letstalktranslations.com]

> Feeling like I have a low IQ writing this…

 

I think this is closer to EQ territory.

AND… there is no right answer to your question.

 

Michael

Virus-free.www.avast.com

[Dan Lucas]

I too have been thinking about this, and so far I have generally copped out and gone with "gender" rather than "sex", despite my personal (and therefore irrelevant) belief that biological sex is what matters.

Like you, I have serious misgivings about how to handle this going forward. I have no suggestions, other than to be very cautious.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CADJAnY1MHkPD-iZQqWTW4EWLB1ZXkYX8P6Za1UsnNq3W2irBSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Joe Jones]

Recently I have seen extensive use of ジェンダー to describe societal gender as opposed to biological sex. Google it and you'll find examples from the Japanese government and NHK, among other very reputable sources. Japanese Wikipedia also follows this terminology:

ジェンダー（英: Gender）は、生物学的な性（英: sex）とは異なる多義的な概念であり、性別に関する社会的規範と性差を指す^[1]:499。性差とは、個人を性別カテゴリーによって分類し、統計的に集団として見た結果、集団間に認知された差異をいう^{[1]:500[2]:409}。ジェンダーの定義と用法は年代によって変化する^[1][2]。ジェンダーという概念は、性別に関して抑圧的な社会的事実を明らかにするとともに、ジェンダーをめぐる社会的相互作用をその概念自身を用いて分析するものである^[1][2]。

性別（せいべつ、英：sex（セックス））、主に生物学的な性差^[1]。男性と女性の別^[2]。オスとメスの別^[2]。

社会的・心理的性別に関してはジェンダーを参照

Now that more people notice the difference, 性別 should probably be consistently translated as sex, not gender, unless context clearly indicates that gender was the intention.

---

From: hon...@googlegroups.com <hon...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Dan Lucas <dan....@carninglipartners.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 6:49 AM
To: Geoff Trousselot <geoff.tr...@gmail.com>; Honyaku E<>J translation list <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Gender vs Sex

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/b8ca0cbd-2940-4137-9858-9a9761924fcf%40app.fastmail.com.

[Dan Lucas]

Thank you for that Joe.

I haven't seen this wording in my niche yet, but it looks like a useful compromise to reach for.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/MN2PR22MB19039EC7771C68AADC47A986C7E5A%40MN2PR22MB1903.namprd22.prod.outlook.com.

[Matthew Schlecht]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:23 AM Geoffrey Trousselot <geoff.tr...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't know if this is trivial or not. In translating financial reports, 性別 is often translated as gender and being a translation of a Japanese company, 性別 is considered biological sex by itself and 性的指向 and 性自認 is used when referring to sexual orientation and gender identity.

It's certainly only my opinion, but 性別 must be "sex".

Sex is a biological distinction, while gender is a sociological distinction.

To me, the phrase "gender at birth" is meaningless because a newborn arguably has no sociology just yet. Maybe if the parents or guardians dress up a male child in pink things or something along those lines, but then this would be externally imposed sociology.

Again my opinion, but I think the prevalence of a binary "gender" checkbox on a form is simply due to the form's author or editor being uncomfortable with the word "sex".

Where's Freud when we need him?

Matthew Schlecht, PhD
Word Alchemy Translation, Inc.
Newark, DE, USA
wordalchemytranslation.com

[Kevin Johnson]

Very interesting points, but I question the value of using the word "sex" in such a narrow sense in most translations. ジェンダー is still a niche political term in Japanese, while 性別 is standard. In English, "sex" and "gender" are both common terms and often even used interchangeably, despite technical differences in nuance. In most contexts, gender is simply a more inclusive version of the same concept.

In other words, "gender" can be natural and appropriate in places where ジェンダー would still be unnatural, so it's unrealistic to expect Japanese to use ジェンダー to justify the use of "gender".

Moreover, strictly translating 性別 as ”sex" may give off the impression of being unnecessarily discriminatory, which is probably not the intention of a corporation in 2023 in most contexts. In that sense, I think "gender" is generally safer for financial stuff where biological sex is not even important. If 性別 is listed next to 性的指向・自認, you can simply make an exception and say, "sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity." 

If you think that biological sex is crucial to meaning for some reason, you absolutely should use "biological sex" or even "assigned sex," or your meaning will be lost. Most readers are not going to assume deeper significance to a distinction between sex and gender unless they're beaten over the head with it.

Summarizing my take, in almost any corporate or business context, I'd honestly say you take more of a risk translating 性別 as "sex" and avoiding use of the word "gender". Always play it safe. Few clients want to come off as discriminatory, and they're going to blame the translation if anyone complains about how you bent over backwards to use "sex" every time.

Kevin Johnson

[Joe Jones]

I think we will take different approaches to this, but if you really want to be cautious, it's best to ask the client how they want the terminology to be translated, and try to explain the nuances in English, rather than making your own judgment call as to what is least offensive.

性別 is a legal concept in Japan; it is assigned at birth based on biological sex, and you can't change it without undergoing reassignment surgery.

There are also other Japanese terms used for the current English concept of gender; 男女平等 for gender equality, for example. It's not a perfect 1:1 gloss, but in almost all cases where the Japanese term is used, it is probably referring to gender.

A couple of further morsels for the true pedants in the room:

1. A little etymological research shows that "gender," in English, was essentially only a grammatical term until the mid-1950s, when liberal social scientists started using it in contrast to "sex," and around this time it also started seeping into the vernacular as a "politer" alternative to biological "sex." (which, I assume, was a result of people talking more openly about intercourse during this period, making it more necessary to distinguish the two)

2. In the context of discrimination, sex discrimination and gender discrimination are practically the same thing. If you discriminate based on sex you are also discriminating based on gender, pretty much by definition. And if you discriminate based on gender, you are also discriminating based on assumed sex, if not actual sex. Most LGBT(insert letters here) discrimination is also sex/gender discrimination for similar reasons. This is one reason why "sex-based discrimination" is starting to show up from sources like the US EEOC, to clarify that all of this stuff is properly rolled into the legal concept of discrimination based on sex. But I think it isn't a crime to conflate sex and gender discrimination since in reality there is not much difference.
   

---

From: hon...@googlegroups.com <hon...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Kevin Johnson <kpatric...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 8:30 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com <hon...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: Gender vs Sex

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CAMk1scjMjku0%3DCOH3bd0V0K%3DepPEmzk4otTPFwf3mdaa6OquXQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Herman]

On 8/31/23 03:23, Geoffrey Trousselot wrote:

> Yesterday I was hastily translating the discrimination section of a code
> of conduct, and I got confused with 性別 because normally in other parts
> of the document, it would be "gender" but if I translated it as "gender
> discrimination" I wondered whether it would be considered the
> appropriate wording. next to it was, if I remember rightly, 性的指向・自認.
>

It would depend on context. For example, 性別をなくす could potentially be
translated as "eliminate gender discrimination".

Herman Kahn

[John Stroman]

The issue of gender vs sex is a hot-button political topic in the US with an appeal currently pending before the Supreme Court. Conservatives favor "sex" (immutable, with an unmatching gender identity being considered a mental illness) and liberals favor "gender" (falling under the same umbrella as homosexuality, for which there is rather strong evidence of being a biologically based variation of normal human behavior). Most states have laws banning workplace discrimination based on the 14th Amendment to the constitution (Civil Rights), and most, but not all, of those laws use the term gender instead of sex based on previous lower court decisions.

Here is a link to an overview written by legal experts: https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/discrimination/gender-discrimination.html  that includes additional links to specific situations.

If the two terms are in flux in Japan as well, I think the translator's choice will depend entirely on what the customer intends to project as its corporate image. The use of 性別 may simply be an issue inadvertently introduced by the employee who wrote the document, or it may actually be important., or the company may want to avoid using a buzzword such as  ジェンダー. If you are unable to contact the customer, I think the only safe solution would be to add a translator's note and let the customer decide. 

John Stroman

----------------

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/9ccb5f93-5f3d-a632-6575-fba4625e19ee%40lmi.net.

[M. Therrien]

I don’t understand the dread. What exactly would be the problem? 

Marceline Therrien

thinkJapanese business translations

On Aug 31, 2023, at 3:23 AM, Geoffrey Trousselot <geoff.tr...@gmail.com> wrote:

BTW, I am dreading having to translate when a transgender external director appears.  Maybe there are individuals that I am unaware of, but I haven't encountered any yet. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CADJAnY1MHkPD-iZQqWTW4EWLB1ZXkYX8P6Za1UsnNq3W2irBSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Geoffrey Trousselot]

Yes, the issue for me is that the director profiles are presented with "gender" meaning "sex" as a piece of information, similar to age. 

Hypothetically, if a transgender woman were to be appointed, I guess that in respect to their identified gender, you would put female in the table.

Perhaps the way the Japanese document would change would solve all translation issues, I don't know, but I dread the confusion.

Also if the transgender woman was the only woman on the board. Would that number be used in the ratio of women's participation in the Board of Directors. 

For individuals identifying with "they" pronouns. The standard recommendation at the moment from CMOS is to avoid "they" as a singular pronoun for general cases not indicating a specific individual. Therefore in the case where it is difficult to reword, "he or she" is recommended. I think a lot of translators are feeling more comfortable with the "they" but a lot of companies have "he or she" still in their documents and it is the preferred usage in my company's style guide. 

Perhaps ultimately no hard decisions will fall on the translator, but positioned in between conservative Japanese companies outside Western culture, beholden to values espoused by large investment houses with a different approach to D&I, it can get a little nervous. On one hand, I don't want to promote language that sits uncomfortably with the client customer, but then I don't want the customer to be blind to the values of the readers of the reports, i.e. the large investment houses.

Geoffrey Trousselot

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/AF6EFF7E-7056-4608-AA8D-91F4907B9104%40thinkjapanese.com.

[M. Therrien]

It would never occur to me, as a translator, to change the gender identity of the person in a document that I was translating. If the document identifies a person as a female, it is not my business to go rummaging around in her panties or DNA. If the company identifies that person as a female, then she’s female. If it’s unclear from company documents, I might look at other sources (e.g., news stories, LinkedIn). If it’s still unclear, I leave a translator’s note. 

Certainly if someone appeared in the director table under “女性” I wouldn’t take them out of that column because I had knowledge that the person is transgender. I wouldn’t recalculate the ratio of female directors because I was suffering some kind of “confusion.”

For the record, CMOS has taken a lot of heat over its antiquated guidance on “they” but even CMOS specifically says "a person’s stated preference for a specific pronoun should be respected.” https://cmosshoptalk.com/2017/04/03/chicago-style-for-the-singular-they/

Marceline Therrien

thinkJapanese business translations

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CADJAnY2qVh%3DEWK5ftbkTum32_Nizt1R7-KO1BQxe2k365hLbmw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Herman]

On 9/1/23 20:56, M. Therrien wrote:
> It would never occur to me, as a translator, to change the gender
> identity of the person in a document that I was translating. If the
> document identifies a person as a female, it is not my business to go
> rummaging around in her panties or DNA. If the company identifies that
> person as a female, then she’s female. If it’s unclear from company
> documents, I might look at other sources (e.g., news stories, LinkedIn).
> If it’s still unclear, I leave a translator’s note.
> Certainly if someone appeared in the director table under “女性” I
> wouldn’t take them out of that column because I had knowledge that the
> person is transgender. I wouldn’t recalculate the ratio of female
> directors because I was suffering some kind of “confusion.”
>

Obviously if the document literally says 女性, you could reasonably
translate the term as "female" regardless of what else you know, but
isn't the issue that, for example, if a person is identified as female
by the fact of having a name ending in -ko, or by a photo in which the
person looks female, etc., but you have knowledge that the person is
transgender (purporting to be male now), and assuming you had to
identify the person's gender through the use of he vs she, or Mr. vs
Ms., or other such target language specific markers not explicitly
present in the source language, what would you do in that case?

Herman Kahn

[Charlie Milroy]

On 9/1/23 20:56, M. Therrien wrote:

> If the company identifies that person as a female, then she’s female. 

For the sake of accuracy, that person is not female. The whole point of the sex side of the sex vs gender debate is that there is a legitimate medical distinction to be made between males and females. There is a debate about whether a transgender woman is a woman, but there is no debate about whether a transgender woman is male or female.

As translators, we should be very wary of adding our own agendas or prejudices into our translations. I would just follow the preference of the client over my own personal preferences, but I would avoid charged terms like "assigned sex" or "observed sex", or even "gender at birth". If anything I would choose "legal gender" because that is a fact whether you agree or disagree with the idea of changing gender.

Charlie Milroy

[Joe Jones]

This is hardly a new issue since we all know the only way to figure out whether someone is supposed to be "Mr. Suzuki" or "Ms. Suzuki" is through a combination of Google, contextual clues, and asking the client...

On pronouns, keep in mind that some individuals with a seemingly clear gender identity have expressed a desire to use neutral pronouns, Hikaru Utada being a prominent Japanese example. This may be another area where the translator wants to do some quick research on their own, as e.g. most Japanese people would be unaware of Utada's pronoun preference since it is irrelevant when speaking Japanese...

[Herman]

On 9/2/23 16:31, Joe Jones wrote:
> This is hardly a new issue since we all know the only way to figure out
> whether someone is supposed to be "Mr. Suzuki" or "Ms. Suzuki" is
> through a combination of Google, contextual clues, and asking the client...
>

The new issue is that, say the client doesn't know anything, and Suzuki
isn't around, but you happen to know that this particular Ms. Suzuki
(based on contextual clues, a female) at some point became Mr. Suzuki,
then there is a dilemma as to how a given reference to Suzuki should be
treated, assuming you are forced for grammatical reasons to identify the
person as either male or female in the translation.

Herman Kahn

[Geoffrey Trousselot]

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 1:03 AM M. Therrien <m...@thinkjapanese.com> wrote:

It would never occur to me, as a translator, to change the gender identity of the person in a document that I was translating. If the document identifies a person as a female, it is not my business to go rummaging around in her panties or DNA. If the company identifies that person as a female, then she’s female. If it’s unclear from company documents, I might look at other sources (e.g., news stories, LinkedIn). If it’s still unclear, I leave a translator’s note. 

Certainly if someone appeared in the director table under “女性” I wouldn’t take them out of that column because I had knowledge that the person is transgender. I wouldn’t recalculate the ratio of female directors because I was suffering some kind of “confusion.”

For the record, CMOS has taken a lot of heat over its antiquated guidance on “they” but even CMOS specifically says "a person’s stated preference for a specific pronoun should be respected.” https://cmosshoptalk.com/2017/04/03/chicago-style-for-the-singular-they/

Marceline Therrien

thinkJapanese business translations

It is not so much the translation stage. Sometimes a client will ask us for advice on how to handle a certain situation. For example, they may ask which is more appropriate "he or she" or "they" for a singular pronoun. I will pull myself together and change my stance from "dread" to "curiosity" but being someone who is asked to provide advice, I feel I need to consider all issues and be careful with what advice I provide.  Regarding my original situation where i wrote "gender at birth," I think the suggestion of using "sex" for that case only is an option, and also ignoring the thoughts in my mind and to just write "gender" is another option. And with respect to opinions that "biological sex" etc. should be avoided, that is the reason I made the initial post. I was feeling I had over-stepped.

But considering there is quite a polar atmosphere regarding terminology, I can't help but feel nervous at the prospect of providing advice to an unknown question in the future.
Regarding CMOS, I am aware of the guidance to use preferred pronouns. The idea of a "they" existing but using "he or she" for an unknown individual bothers me a little. 

As for the nature of potential advice, a client may seek advice regarding information on communicating how female participation is calculated and aggregated or how female participation is interpreted and communicated by the stakeholders and the public
And maybe there won't be any advice like that. That was the source of my original "dread" quote. 

Geoffrey Trousselot

[David Hanna]

I don’t see a “dilemma.”  If Suzuki is a transgender male and has not specified personal pronouns, you would refer to Suzuki with male indicators like “Mr.” and “he/him.”  You would be acting in accordance with the standard of “the reasonable person” in so doing.  Doing otherwise might open you up to allegations of discrimination.

Herman Kahn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/06a8fb5a-83dd-6e57-ac26-45018b3dcd4a%40lmi.net.

[M. Therrien]

1. Merriam Webster doesn’t agree with the distinction that you are trying to draw. See definition #1b.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

2. In the context of this discussion (what pronouns to use for a company director who is a transgender woman) the distinction you are trying to draw is irrelevant. The distinction may be relevant in a medical context, but not in this context.

Marceline Therrien

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/GV1P193MB2021BF8266C69E80CE676CD1CFEBA%40GV1P193MB2021.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.

[M. Therrien]

If at the point in time that you’re writing about Suzuki you know that Suzuki identifies as a man, use male pronouns, unless there is some reason to believe that they have some other preference (i.e., “they”). Doing otherwise (female pronouns) seems intentionally disrespectful.

Many years ago I was acquainted with the author Jan Morris, who wrote many terrific non-fiction history and travel books. Jan began life as James Morris, who served in the British Army and was the Times correspondent on the first summit of Mt. Everest. By the time I met Morris in the early 1990s she had identified as a woman for decades. It would never occur me use anything but female pronouns when speaking about her.

I just don’t see what the “dilemma” is.

Marceline Therrien

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/06a8fb5a-83dd-6e57-ac26-45018b3dcd4a%40lmi.net.

[Herman]

On 9/2/23 18:29, M. Therrien wrote:
> If at the point in time that you’re writing about Suzuki you know that Suzuki identifies as a man, use male pronouns, unless there is some reason to believe that they have some other preference (i.e., “they”). Doing otherwise (female pronouns) seems intentionally disrespectful.
>
> Many years ago I was acquainted with the author Jan Morris, who wrote many terrific non-fiction history and travel books. Jan began life as James Morris, who served in the British Army and was the Times correspondent on the first summit of Mt. Everest. By the time I met Morris in the early 1990s she had identified as a woman for decades. It would never occur me use anything but female pronouns when speaking about her.
>
> I just don’t see what the “dilemma” is.
>

Let's assume that using male pronouns, etc. is generally appropriate
when referring to this transgender Suzuki, for reasons such as you
mention above. Thus, it would be appropriate to do so also in the
translation.

However, if you do so, there arises the following discrepancy: based on
the Japanese text, a Japanese language reader would assume Suzuki is
female, whereas from your English translation, the reader would assume
Suzuki is male.

Herman Kahn

[David Hanna]

M. Therrien is absolutely correct in what she writes and doesn’t go far enough.  It is never wise to disrespect anyone intentionally or willfully, particularly publicly, and especially in writing.  Legal consequences might ensue.  As far as concern over “confusion” that Japanese readers, or any other readers might experience, that is solely the client’s issue to handle and resolve.  I would not recommend making translators’ notes or doing anything similar that would make for uncalled for, and unnecessary, extraneous attention to the pertinent individual.  Translators who for whatever reason are uncomfortable or incapable of identifying named individuals with appropriate, and above all, respectful identifiers should decline to do any such translation.  You may lose the money in the short term but you might save yourself stress and legal bills in the long term.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/7dd40afa-2ded-5c67-0bc8-dfe76e92b7a2%40lmi.net.

[Dan Lucas]

In some cases is actually a good deal more complicated that that, and will depend on the jurisdiction in question.

In the UK, for example, the Maya Forstater case upheld the individual's right to hold and express gender-critical views. 

Because gender-critical beliefs have in effect been affirmed to be protected under the Grainger criteria, behaviour that could be interpreted as harassment or bullying of a person based on such gender-critical views could themselves invite legal consequences.

In the Forstater case, comments from others about her making them feel "uncomfortable", and alleging her to be "transphobic" eventually resulted, by a tortuous route, in her former employer being forced to compensate her to the tune of £100,000.

Following the example of others in this thread, I will dispense some gratuitous advice: people on both sides of the debate should be respectful of the views of others, however convinced they may be of the righteousness of the cause they themselves have chosen to espouse, and to be very careful about their language.

Which kind of takes us back to the beginning of the thread, in which Geoff outlined his concerns. This is not a black-and-white issue.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Herman]

I would disagree that discrepancies between the source and target texts
are, in general, solely an issue for the client to resolve, inasmuch as
the client hires a translator precisely for the purpose of producing a
target text that does not deviate in meaning to the source text. Are you
saying this does not hold when the meaning in question concerns gender
identity?

Herman Kahn

> <mailto:honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com>.

> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[David Hanna]

What are the discrepancies specifically? Is it merely that, say, Suzuki is a transgender male and the client doesn’t care for that?

Mr. Lucas brings up the Maya Forstater case.  It‘s my understanding that Forstater‘s contract was not renewed because of tweets, etc. that Forstater made about transgender people in general.  It is also my understanding that on appeal the court held that Forstater’s gender—critical views were protected; however, the court then went on to clarify that people with gender—critical views cannot express them in a way that discriminates against transgender people.  Zeroing in on, say, Suzuki in a document and writing long translator notes that arguably hold Suzuki up to public scrutiny might, therefore, raise some questions.

Mr. Lucas also correctly states that jurisdiction is a factor.  For example, if you target Suzuki with translators’ notes in Spain, a country that passed a landmark gender self—determination law in March 2023, you may alienate Spanish entities.

Why should translators be dragged into a client‘s personal pet peeves?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/2a9b5c9a-bca3-1ddd-f721-c46d617a3ac4%40lmi.net.

[Herman]

The discrepancy has nothing to do, per se, with what the client cares
for, but consists in that the source text says one thing, and the
translation something else. So if the source text says that Suzuki came
to the office of XYZ on　10月20日, the translator would typically translate
that as "October 20", even if the translator happens to know, by some
means other than the source text, that Suzuki in fact came to XYZ on
October 18 and not 20.

So if there is a principle that using the wrong gender identification is
inappropriate (discriminatory, etc.), on the one hand, and a principle
that a translation must follow the source text on the other, then these
two principle would be in conflict when the source text uses or suggests
the wrong gender identification (on whatever criterion for "wrong" that
may be applicable).

Now, if the source text explicitly states something that the translator
knows to be false, that is not necessarily a problem for the translator,
inasmuch as the translator is certifying the accuracy of the
translation, not the factual accuracy of the source text.

But in a case where the source text states something implicitly but the
translator is forced to introduce information, such as gender
information, into the translation due to the grammatical constraints of
the target language, that presents a sort of insolvable problem, or
dilemma.

Herman Kahn

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/1825587745.4291136.1693740843376%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>>.

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/2a9b5c9a-bca3-1ddd-f721-c46d617a3ac4%40lmi.net.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/980217169.4385399.1693769442209%40mail.yahoo.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/980217169.4385399.1693769442209%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[David Hanna]

Certainly, Mr. Kahn, I agree with you that factual information in a translation should adhere as precisely as possible to the source text.  I would go so far as to say that it would be a grievous error not to represent the dates in a translation as they are represented in the source text.  In fact, not doing so could do the client a great disservice, especially if the translation is, say, a deposition, a patent or other document in a legal matter.

I personally, however, cannot equate factual information with something as deeply personal and as sensitive as gender identification.  My opinion is that gender identification goes to the very core of an individual’s self—worth and esteem.  That said, I would not be able to use female identifiers with a transgender male, absent express consent to do so by said individual.

When I mentioned that I felt that it was the client’s responsibility to handle the issue, I felt, and still do, that the client’s public relations department is the place to resolve the matter.  I don’t think the burden should be with translators.

I think we can agree to disagree.  I only mention some of the pitfalls to be navigated, such as the evolving laws on gender identification that vary markedly from country to country.  It seems a minefield to me, and I don’t need that at this time in my life.

It’s obvious from your question that you are very professional.  There has never been any doubt about that.  If you weren’t professional, you wouldn’t be wondering (or struggling) with the issue.

All the best,

D

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/913724b8-a310-b590-a925-3fd970348171%40lmi.net.

[M. Therrien]

Reminder: this began with the comment, "I am dreading having to translate when a transgender external director appears.“

If you think that the Forstater case is going to protect you from a client dropping you as a translator when you deliberately misgender a member of the board of directors who happens to be trans, then….. well, good luck to you.

Marceline Therrien

[Charlie Milroy]

On September 4, 2023 19:01 Marceline Therrien wrote:

>If you think that the Forstater case is going to protect you from a client dropping you as a translator when you deliberately misgender a member of the board of directors >who happens to be trans, then….. well, good luck to you.

With respect, you are totally misrepresenting what Geoffrey meant by what he said. For many translators or any professional. The idea that a whole career of careful professional work can be undone by mishandling an awkward situation like the gender debate by misgendering someone, intentionally or otherwise is a very scary prospect. A lot of people would rather not come across any trans people because they have been made transphobic in the sense that they are afraid for their livelihood if someone takes offense either to a mistake or a statement of fact. I don't know why you go straight ahead and accuse Geoffrey of intending to deliberately misgender someone. We should all be very charitable with each other especially when dealing with such a delicate topic. If there is any group of people who should appreciate nuance, you would think that it would be translators.

Charlie Milroy

[Dan Lucas]

Has anybody in this discussion threatened to deliberately misgender a member of a board of directors?

Regards,

Dan Lucas

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/D97AF075-B5A4-4A1D-A5CE-C35B40EBB7B7%40thinkjapanese.com.

[M. Therrien]

I apologize if I misunderstood whatever point you were trying to make when you cited the Forstater case in response to David Hanna’s post.

To summarize, David wrote:  "It is never wise to disrespect anyone intentionally or willfully, particularly publicly, and especially in writing.  Legal consequences might ensue.”

And in response you cited the Forstater case, which "upheld the individual's right to hold and express gender-critical views.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-critical_feminism

If you were not citing Forstater as a defense to intentionally disrespecting a trans person, precisely what point were you attempting to make?

Marceline Therrien

[M. Therrien]

On Sep 4, 2023, at 1:00 PM, Charlie Milroy <milr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On September 4, 2023 19:01 Marceline Therrien wrote:

>If you think that the Forstater case is going to protect you from a client dropping you as a translator when you deliberately misgender a member of the board of directors >who happens to be trans, then….. well, good luck to you.

With respect, you are totally misrepresenting what Geoffrey meant by what he said.

My response was obviously directed to the person who wrote about the Forstater case. That person was Dan Lucas and not Geoffrey.

For many translators or any professional. The idea that a whole career of careful professional work can be undone by mishandling an awkward situation like the gender debate by misgendering someone, intentionally or otherwise is a very scary prospect.

I am having difficulty dredging up any sympathy for a translator who “intentionally” (your word) misgenders someone. I have never heard of a person whose career has been “undone” by unintentionally misgendering someone, but feel free to come up with an example. 

Marceline Therrien

[M. Therrien]

On Sep 3, 2023, at 3:56 PM, 'Herman' via Honyaku E<>J translation list <hon...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The discrepancy has nothing to do, per se, with what the client cares for, but consists in that the source text says one thing, and the translation something else. So if the source text says that Suzuki came to the office of XYZ on　10月20日, the translator would typically translate that as "October 20", even if the translator happens to know, by some means other than the source text, that Suzuki in fact came to XYZ on October 18 and not 20.

Well, if you’re a machine you don’t notice or correct errors in a source text. This is what a client gets when the client decides to rely on MT. 

But the value of a human translator over machines is that we are indeed capable of addressing source text errors in a variety of ways, depending on the nature of the document and the intended use for the translation. In your example I might translate "10月20日" as "October 20" and insert a note saying (“according to document ABC, Suzuki actually came on Oct 18”). Whenever I notice a typo or error in the source text, I do indeed note it for my client, and my clients seem to appreciate it. Depending on the source document, I might catch the error in the source document before it goes to print, saving the client from potential embarrassment.

So if there is a principle that using the wrong gender identification is inappropriate (discriminatory, etc.), on the one hand, and a principle that a translation must follow the source text on the other, then these two principle would be in conflict when the source text uses or suggests the wrong gender identification (on whatever criterion for "wrong" that may be applicable).

Now, if the source text explicitly states something that the translator knows to be false, that is not necessarily a problem for the translator, inasmuch as the translator is certifying the accuracy of the translation, not the factual accuracy of the source text.

But in a case where the source text states something implicitly but the translator is forced to introduce information, such as gender information, into the translation due to the grammatical constraints of the target language, that presents a sort of insolvable problem, or dilemma.

No problem is insolvable. Translators are humans, and as such, we have the ability to think and to communicate with our clients. 

Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier this morning, this discussion began with a comment about “dreading” being asked to translate something about a company's transgender outside director. Why exactly would a company appoint a trans person as an outside director, and then deliberately provoke that outside director by misgendering them in a company document (say a press release or annual report). That seems very farfetched to me. And indeed, as the entire purported conundrum begins with the lack of gendered pronouns in Japanese, how exactly would that company document in Japanese misgender that outside director in the first place? 

Honestly, it seems like some people are just arguing for the sake of arguing. And that’s the most charitable explanation for this silliness.

Marceline Therrien

[Charlie Milroy]

On September 4, 2023 20:43 Marceline Therrien wrote

>I am having difficulty dredging up any sympathy for a translator who “intentionally” (your word) misgenders someone. I have never heard of a person whose career has been “undone” >by unintentionally misgendering someone, but feel free to come up with an example. 

I think we have all experienced the impulse to correct phrasing that just does not sound right to us and grates us. I think we have all also experienced cases where we have "corrected" certain phrasing only to find that it is acceptable usage. When I said "intentionally misgendered" I was probably being unwise, because the type of person I had in mind was someone who would change all instances of "they" to "he" or "she" depending on the gender of the name without even having an understanding of the concept of "misgendering". Most people are not really dialed into the whole transgender debate and all of the potential pitfalls.

Quite frankly, I have a lot of sympathy for people of an older generation who have never come into contact with the transgender ideology and are hearing about people being investigated for hate crimes for not using preferred pronouns (most people don't even know what "preferred pronouns" means), which is compelled speech with the prospect of being prosecuted for wrongspeak. Specific examples are not needed when there are laws on the books like that. It is very understandable how people would fear for their livelihood in the current climate. There has been a very fast pace of change from the WHO in very recent memory still classifying transgenderism as a mental illness to the push for gender self-identification.

Anyway, to my mind a translator is like a referee, you only get noticed if you are doing a bad job. We should just be following the preferences of the client whether we agree with them or not, but there is something wrong when conscientious and well-intentioned professionals are living in fear of retribution. 

Charlie Milroy

[Herman]

On 9/4/23 12:51, M. Therrien wrote:
> On Sep 3, 2023, at 3:56 PM, 'Herman' via Honyaku E<>J translation list
> <hon...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> The discrepancy has nothing to do, per se, with what the client cares
>> for, but consists in that the source text says one thing, and the
>> translation something else. So if the source text says that Suzuki
>> came to the office of XYZ on　10月20日, the translator would typically
>> translate that as "October 20", even if the translator happens to
>> know, by some means other than the source text, that Suzuki in fact
>> came to XYZ on October 18 and not 20.
>
> Well, if you’re a machine you don’t notice or correct errors in a source
> text. This is what a client gets when the client decides to rely on MT.
>
> But the value of a human translator over machines is that we are indeed
> capable of addressing source text errors in a variety of ways, depending
> on the nature of the document and the intended use for the translation.
> In your example I might translate "10月20日" as "October 20" and insert
> a note saying (“according to document ABC, Suzuki actually came on Oct
> 18”). Whenever I notice a typo or error in the source text, I do indeed
> note it for my client, and my clients seem to appreciate it. Depending
> on the source document, I might catch the error in the source document
> before it goes to print, saving the client from potential embarrassment.
>

A machine can certainly notice errors, and some MT systems endeavor to
correct such errors by default.

Anyhow, as a machine, I distinguish two contexts (purposes) of translation:
1) where the client is the author (or equivalent) of the document to be
translated, and wishes to obtain an independent version of that document
in a different language

2) where the client is not the author of the document but wishes to find
out what the document says, or to have an accurate translation that can
be used alongside or in lieu of the source document for certain purposes

In case 1), I would point out errors to the client and consult with the
client regarding various issues pertinent to obtaining a target language
document that would match the needs of the client, who may be at liberty
to alter the document as the client sees fit.

In case 2), consulting with the client (and/or the author of document,
or persons mentioned in a document) is typically not an option, nor is
correcting errors in the source text generally an option, unless the
error is typographic in nature.

The "dilemma" I mentioned pertains to case 2 above. The options of
"outing" vs "misgendering" a transgender person would be one example of
such a dilemma, but more broadly, it pertains to the question of to what
extent can or should one's own knowledge, not derived from the source
document or publicly available sources of information, be used as a
basis for resolving an ambiguity in a source document in a direction not
particularly suggested by the source document itself, when such
disambiguation is required by grammatical constraints of the target
language.

Herman Kahn

[Geoffrey Trousselot]

For the record I want to summarize the intention of my original post.

1. 性別　according to the first entry of Google (wiki) 英：sex（セックス））、主に生物学的な性差 。

2. Gender according to the first entry of Google (wiki) Gender includes the social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man, woman, or other gender identity.^[1][2] 

Clearly these terms are not the same. The reason that in a limited window of time and in a specific frame of mind, I impulsively wrote "gender at birth" is because of the above difference and nothing else. 

My colleague thought that "gender at birth" was adding extra information to the translation and that it was language that could cause heated reaction.

Based on the difference above, I would think that adding extra language to a translation that does not have an equal 1:1 relationship is acceptable, that using a term consistently (性別：gender) in the same document would be a valid consideration. 

This differentiation between sex and gender, I thought, may manifest in the future with how a company measures a female participation rate. i.e. there may be a case where the different meanings of the words matter.

While my colleague thinks a heated reaction is most likely from shining light on perceived differences between 性別 and gender as if that in itself is forcible transition into a new cultural awareness and therefore forced feeding of values down someone's neck (my words and interpretations not his), my original thinking was that using words with imperfect pairing may potentially lead to semantic failure somewhere in the future, now being hypothetical in nature, but later if a company had to deal with both "gender identity" and "a classification called sex" causing a problem with the documents translating gender for 性別.

I noticed a UN ad promoting "stopping gender discrimination" intending, I think, for this to be interpreted differently for different countries. 

For me, I am not fearful of my job, my dread comes from giving advice or standing on a hill of what I perceive to be true only to find that my view is not only in the minority but divisive at that.

I don't see many people getting emotional about the semantic irregularity, but I see many people getting impassioned about attempts to consider the pairing as problematic, so perhaps keeping the semantic irregularity is best at the moment.

Geoffrey Trousselot

[Herman]

Assuming that the concepts of gender and sex are to be distinguished, since the Japanese term for "gender" is 社会的性別, at least at the level of the terminology itself, one can hardly conclude that 性別 alone does not mean "gender". Rather, the term is ambiguous, and is ambiguous more or less in the same way as the English term "gender", which can also include, or be equivalent to, biological sex. Thus, I would say that "gender at birth" is probably inappropriate.

Herman Kahn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/CADJAnY15-mxvZR5zjV8fMitZ2MfFj4%3DMXHw9XtOwvWh0ptPewA%40mail.gmail.com.

[M. Therrien]

Remember, we are talking about a member of a company’s board of directors. 

Specifically what kind of “knowledge” "not derived from the source document or publicly available sources of information” are you proposing to use to confirm the gender identity of that director for the purposes of using pronouns in a translation? 

I really don’t think anyone suggested using non-public information about individuals (I’m not sure how you got there from my suggestion to Google a person and check their LinkedIn profile), but I’m curious to hear what kind of non-public information you would use, and why it using that information creates a “dilemma.”

[Herman]

Yes, I know the original question concerned a member of a company's board of directors, but I made a more general statement about translation not limited to that particular context.

Anyhow, I am not proposing to use such information, I am saying that, if indicating the correct gender information (in accordance with what gender a person identifies as) is a requirement for a correct translation, then such a dilemma arises. An example of such knowledge would be, for example, that you heard the person say "I identify as a man" over dinner, where you were acting as an interpreter.

Herman Kahn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/486C61BF-6126-491B-A96D-2ECC9D1BEB27%40thinkjapanese.com.

[徹スカンス]

Just some practical advice from my perspective - I think I might be one of the younger translators in this email group.

The dilemma here seems to be that there's no determination made in the Japanese text about gender because of the lack of pronouns in that language, but in English we need to make a pronoun decision either way - he/she/they/them.

In the specific case of hearing a person say they identify as male over dinner, I would ask the person what pronouns they prefer. When that isn't feasible, "they/them" as the gender neutral choice seems least likely to offend. Backed up by an article I found, and the relevant section:
https://www.them.us/story/gender-neutral-pronouns-101-they-them-xe-xem
>What if I’m unable to ask someone about their pronouns?
>First and foremost, when we don’t know, we should default to they/them pronouns

>Quite frankly, I have a lot of sympathy for people of an older generation who have never come into contact with the 

transgender ideology and are hearing about people being investigated for hate crimes for not using preferred pronouns (most people don't even know what "preferred pronouns" means), which is compelled speech with the prospect of being prosecuted for wrongspeak.
I really can't agree with the sentiment here. I don't agree that most people don't know what preferred pronouns are, but setting that aside, as translators it's our job as professionals to keep track of the ways in which language and the public's use of it is evolving. There were slurs used in print 30 years ago that would be unacceptable today, and continuing to use them would show an unprofessional lack of curiosity on our part, given how easily we can all now check whether a term is acceptable or not. It's also not compelled speech to be asked to show basic courtesy to transgender individuals by using their pronouns - what should compel us to switch to using acceptable terms like "native American" instead of the more offensive terms used in the past is our empathy and human decency, not the threat of censorship.

I also have no sympathy for people who have chosen to work with language bemoaning the fact that language evolves over time - this clearly comes with the territory.

Ben

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/a2b1eff3-0ffc-4f46-cbe9-63d43ea0d376%40lmi.net.

[Joe Jones]

Anyone hand-wringing over use of personal knowledge should consider how we transliterate kanji names. That information is rarely presented in the text, and is often not public, and is often basically left to the individual's self-reporting, and the same person may read their own kanji name two or more different ways at different times, and they may not personally use Hepburn romanization, but whatever the situation, we would be expected to apply personal knowledge and prevailing style norms to come up with a sensible and inoffensive transliteration (and flag any questions for our client where we are unsure). The same should apply with regard to gender, to the extent it is an unavoidable issue in the translation.

[Dan Lucas]

If you were not citing Forstater as a defense to intentionally disrespecting a trans person, precisely what point were you attempting to make?

Precisely the point I made in my email - that both sides need to treat the other side with respect. I think that is an approach worth emphasising in any discussion.

However,  "respect" does not require supine acceptance of every argument advanced by the other side in a discussion. It implies acceptance of the assumption that two thoughtful people can disagree in good faith, and that one party should not use threats (implied or explicit) or bullying to impose their beliefs on the other.

As a previous poster remarked, Forstater v CGD does not give people holding gender-critical views the right to deliberately upset or harass those supporting transgender beliefs - by deliberately dead-naming them, for example.

Equally, it has clarified that statute does not give people who support transgender beliefs the right to deliberately upset or harass those with gender-critical beliefs - by calling them "transphobic" or "TERF", for example.

That point is worth making. Suppose a translator is working on a document for a UK client and the translator dislikes the views or opinions expressed in it by one or other of the parties. Inserting a comment such as "This language is transphobic and unacceptable - it must be changed" would arguably be a problem.

Conversely, inserting a comment such as "This language may be inappropriate in the context of the Equality Act 2010 and may require further consideration" would arguably not be a problem. The latter only requires a shift from abusive/politically charged language to respectful/neutral language. Surely no reasonable translator would have difficulty with that.

Again, none of this is black and white, and it is evolving - as Forstater v CGD and other cases demonstrate - very rapidly, at least in the UK. Unwarranted certitude is a corrosive force.

Regards,

Dan Lucas

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/C1FC90C2-4519-4BF4-BC94-8554C76E02DA%40thinkjapanese.com.

[Herman]

I think the question isn't one of using versus not using personal
information as such, but of using personal information, the inclusion of
which is not supported by the source text.

Thus, if you transliterate 山本悟 as Yamamoto Satoshi (as opposed to
Satoru or Go) on the basis of having overheard the person in question
saying his name as Satoshi (rather than on the basis of a guess or
public information search), that rendering is any case supported by the
source text 悟, which is ambiguous and can be transliterated as Satoru,
Satoshi or Go.

On the other hand, if you transliterate 悟 as "Maria Guadalupe", because
you overheard the same person saying that he now identifies as a Mexican
woman and wishes to go by that name, that rendering is not supported by
the source text.

Herman Kahn

[Joe Jones]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:22:39 PM UTC+9 Herman wrote:

On the other hand, if you transliterate 悟 as "Maria Guadalupe", because
you overheard the same person saying that he now identifies as a Mexican
woman and wishes to go by that name, that rendering is not supported by
the source text.

Well, now you are moving the target. Your previous question was "the question of to what extent can or should one's own knowledge, not derived from the source document or publicly available sources of information, be used as a basis for resolving an ambiguity in a source document in a direction not particularly suggested by the source document itself, when such disambiguation is required by grammatical constraints of the target language." I just answered that question, and I'll take your lack of a relevant rebuttal as no objection to that answer.

And now for your latest hypothetical: what to do if facts you are aware of contradict the source text, like a document that clearly has an outdated name in it? I'd say: if you like your client, it's best to translate the original text and leave a footnote or comment that the name appears to be out of date, so that they are aware of the issue. If your client is the company publishing the document, they may want to correct it; if your client is an ESG fund, they may want to bash the company for the mistake. Either way they would appreciate knowing about the possible error.

Conversely, would you really insist upon using an out of date name with no callout to the client, despite knowing that the name is arguably wrong and could lead to controversy? Does that serve any purpose, other than perpetuating your own views at the possible expense of your client's reputation or other objectives? I'm certainly not saying you have to quietly use the "politically correct" name in your translation -- in fact I think that would be a mistake in most situations (since the reader likely wants to know what the original document actually says, and the choice of name could be very relevant) -- but there is no harm in pointing out the error. 

This kind of knowledge is what really sets us humans apart from AI engines, and if you insist on not using it because of personal prejudices, you are writing your own pink slip, IMO...

[Herman]

I do not insist on not using it (one's own knowledge, not derived from the source document or publicly available sources of information), and have no objection to your answer, which I understand to say that such information should be used when appropriate. I also think such information should be used when appropriate.

I am merely pointing out that, in some cases, there may not be a clear-cut answer as to whether using such information is appropriate, and an example of such a case where there may be "harm in pointing out the error" is where pointing out the error would constitute "outing" (revealing private information about a person's sexual orientation or gender identity), and the alternative to pointing out the error would be "misgendering". The same would hold in any situation of revealing confidential information about one client (or other party) to another client.

Herman Kahn

[Herman]

> The same would hold in any situation of revealing
> confidential information about one client (or other party) to another
> client.
>
>

As a clarifying example of the above, consider the case where I am
translating, for client A, a technical document about a vehicle, which
contains the term 前後輪, which is ambiguous as to number, but because of
grammatical constraints of the English language, I am forced to specify
the number.

Although not explicitly specifying the number, the document itself,
along with publicly available information (including my general
knowledge of vehicles, etc.) would clearly suggest to me that "front and
rear wheels" would be the appropriate disambiguation, because that is
how a person skilled in the art (or other such relevant reader) would
understand it when reading the source text.

However, on the basis of a document I previously translated from client
B, I know that the vehicle in question only has one "front-rear wheel".

If I translate it as "front-rear wheel", or otherwise raise the issue to
client A, I would be in effect disclosing to A the confidential
information of client B.

If I consult about the issue with B, I would be disclosing to B
confidential information regarding the work I am doing for A.

If I go ahead and translate the term as "front and rear wheels", I would
be, in a certain sense, knowingly mistranslating the document.

Herman Kahn

[M. Therrien]

Hi Dan -

I see, so you tried to take the discussion off piste (once again: the topic was a purported dilemma about writing about a trans company director) and then decided to chide me when I didn’t follow you over the cliff into a debate over whether it's ok to be a transphobe. 

FWIW, there’s no such thing as “transgender beliefs.” Trans people exist. It’s not an ideology or religion. You might as well talk about “round earth beliefs.

There is no way to argue in “good faith” that trans people don’t exist or shouldn’t be allowed to exist. That is by definition disrespectful. 

To borrow from James Baldwin: “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my fellow man’s oppression and denial of their humanity and right to exist.” 

If there are translators who can’t bring themselves to identify this mythical trans outside director by their preferred pronoun, it would probably be best for everyone if they just refused such work.
Hope this clears things up for you.

Marceline Therrien

[M. Therrien]

Herman, I would invite you to take a deep breath and contemplate how far you’ve had to stretch to concoct a problem where none exists (writing about a company director who happens to be trans).

Marceline Therrien

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/ef46eb98-8756-49ab-14b1-31753632829b%40lmi.net.

[Herman]

On 9/5/23 11:39, M. Therrien wrote:
> Herman, I would invite you to take a deep breath and contemplate how
far you’ve had to stretch to concoct a problem where none exists
(writing about a company director who happens to be trans).
>
>

Marceline, forgive me if I upset you, but it is not true that I
concocted this problem - this problem was concocted by Japanese
legislators and courts, who have held that outing is unlawful.

While not an expert in the field, I have translated documents concerning
LGBT rights/issues in Japan written by Japanese experts in this area,
and my understanding based on the content of such documents is that your
notion of "who happens to be trans" is completely at odds with the
field of LGBT-related concerns in Japan, which is not particularly
concerned with "preferred pronouns", but is very much concerned with
outing or otherwise drawing unwanted attention to a person's SOGI status.

Including information in a translation that identifies a person's gender
identity when such information is absent in a source document, or
bringing the issue up with the client, would be potential examples of
outing, unless done with the prior consent of the person concerned.

Is there an exception to the above principle when it comes to company
directors?

Herman Kahn

[cpta...@ozemail.com.au]

'to argue in “good faith” that trans people don’t exist'

'to argue in “good faith” that trans people shouldn’t be allowed to exist'

Seeing these two phrases jumbled up in the one sentence reminds me of the value of a basic study of philosophy..
Chris

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/872fde8c-3a42-d4dc-748d-e7e3096e09fb%40lmi.net.

[徹スカンス]

> Including information in a translation that identifies a person's gender
identity when such information is absent in a source document, or
bringing the issue up with the client, would be potential examples of
outing, unless done with the prior consent of the person concerned.

English has both gendered and gender-neutral pronouns.
If you don't know the gender of the person in the source document, use the gender-neutral ones.

Asking a client which pronouns a person prefers isn't "outing" by any definition of the term I've encountered.
I live in Japan - it's not illegal for me to ask questions like:
"What is your gender?" "What are your pronouns?"
Unless you can clarify a specific, actual law that you are worried about violating here, I'm afraid I think this is a silly claim.

If the information is absent in the document, use gender-neutral pronouns to avoid putting it in the document.
We wouldn't mention the height of someone in our text just because we knew from experience that they were tall.
Why is gender any different, when English is equipped with a way to avoid specifying?

Ben

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/872fde8c-3a42-d4dc-748d-e7e3096e09fb%40lmi.net.

[Joe Jones]

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 6:56:11 AM UTC+9 Herman wrote:

...the field of LGBT-related concerns in Japan, which is not particularly

concerned with "preferred pronouns", but is very much concerned with
outing or otherwise drawing unwanted attention to a person's SOGI status.

I'm gonna stop you right here. A person's stated gender preference and public-facing gender identity are, by definition, public information. If any information is private, it's the person's biological sex and legal gender and private sexual/gender identity (including sexual orientation). That information is what should not be "outed" without the person's consent.

Let's take some examples.

If my client is referring to you as a woman named Hermione, even though you shed that identity to live as a man named Herman -- Herman being your public-facing identity -- it is in everyone's best interest for me to suggest that my client correct the original text, so that they don't get in trouble and so that you can live in peace as a man named Herman. That is not "outing." It is prevention or remediation of outing.

If the reference to Hermione is in a document written by a third party, guess what -- you have already been "outed" by the original document, and I am helping you out by attempting to correct the record. At the end of the day, you would want fewer documents flying around that call you a woman named Hermione.

Now, let's just say, for argument's sake, that you are really thinking the following: if you publicly live as a man named Herman, and I know you go home every night and wear female clothing and call yourself Hermione, sometimes in the presence of a few close understanding friends, but the client doesn't know that and it isn't mentioned in the document, should I proactively call it out? It is your actual gender identity, but of course I shouldn't talk about it, because it's not your public identity, and it's information you might not want aired out for everyone to see.

In the same case, what if I see someone else calling you a woman named Hermione as if it is your public identity? You'd better believe I would suggest a correction, because again, they have either already "outed" or are trying to "out" you, and it's the best thing for everyone to try to reel that in.

Could there theoretically be a situation where I mistake your private identity for your public identity and unnecessarily "out" you as Hermione? Sure. But even in that oddball case, you and I would both want someone to shut it down as soon as possible, so as to save us from embarrassment. And I would be a total asshole if I leaked the information intentionally, or let someone else do so.

The exact same logic would apply if you were born a woman named Hermione, and are still a woman on your legal documents, but live 24/7 as a man named Herman and keep your biological sex and legal gender private. Even if it isn't factually or legally "wrong" to call you Hermione, I still shouldn't do it, and I should try to correct it if I see it, to avoid "outing" you and to preserve your dignity. And if I really need to, for whatever reason, I need to talk to you about it and make sure you are aware.

This stuff happens. An American friend of mine in Japan recently transitioned after living as a man for 40+ years and working for more than a decade at a large Japanese company. I had lunch with this person a few times a year and never had any idea that they had any kind of gender identity questions in their head. In the process, they also adopted a Japanese name, as quite a few "lifers" do. They still work at the same company in a close position to the most senior management, but now they do so as a woman with a Japanese name. Frankly, even as someone from a conservative American background, I cannot even begin to imagine how hard it is to do all of this and still be taken seriously as a professional, and I don't think anyone would want to do this unless it really resolved some deeper issues within their soul. Which is why I find it infuriating when people dismiss or ridicule such situations, or try to poke logical holes in them to make a philosophical or moral point. Imagine it's your best friend going through it -- or your child or sibling -- or yourself -- and your perspective may change.

[Herman]

On 9/5/23 22:25, Joe Jones wrote:
>
> Now, let's just say, for argument's sake, that you are really thinking
> the following: if you publicly live as a man named Herman, and I know
> you go home every night and wear female clothing and call yourself
> Hermione, sometimes in the presence of a few close understanding
> friends, but the client doesn't know that and it isn't mentioned in the
> document, should I proactively call it out? It is your actual gender
> identity, but of course I shouldn't talk about it, because it's not your
> public identity, and it's information you might not want aired out for
> everyone to see.

Yes, that would be an example of the scenario I was talking about. You
have confidential information which may be pertinent to how to
"correctly" translate a text, but you may choose to not use that
information and translate the text "incorrectly" based on other
considerations.

All the other situations you mentioned are not relevant to what I was
trying to say.

Herman Kahn

[Herman]

On 9/5/23 17:51, 徹スカンス wrote:

> Including information in a translation that identifies a person's gender
identity when such information is absent in a source document, or
bringing the issue up with the client, would be potential examples of
outing, unless done with the prior consent of the person concerned.

English has both gendered and gender-neutral pronouns.
If you don't know the gender of the person in the source document, use the gender-neutral ones.

Asking a client which pronouns a person prefers isn't "outing" by any definition of the term I've encountered.
I live in Japan - it's not illegal for me to ask questions like:
"What is your gender?" "What are your pronouns?"
Unless you can clarify a specific, actual law that you are worried about violating here, I'm afraid I think this is a silly claim.

A relevant law would be 労働施策の総合的な推進並びに労働者の雇用の安定及び職業生活の充実等に関する法律.

This law does not prohibit asking "What is your gender" or what pronouns a person prefers.

However, for example, if a person is publicly known as a woman, but you know based on confidential information that said person identifies as a man, and you, without obtaining that person's consent, ask a client about that person's preferred pronouns, etc., depending on the situation, that could suggest to the client that you know something, namely that the person in question is in some sense not a woman, and the client could ask the person in question about this, or pass on that information to others, etc., and if a result of this disclosure the person in question incurs damages (has a nervous breakdown, etc.), you could be liable for such damages. For example, there was a case not long ago where some university in Japan was successfully sued for damages after a student committed suicide subsequent to being outed by some other student.

If the information is absent in the document, use gender-neutral pronouns to avoid putting it in the document.
We wouldn't mention the height of someone in our text just because we knew from experience that they were tall.
Why is gender any different, when English is equipped with a way to avoid specifying?

I have been avoiding the specification of gender for over 30 years and can attest that, in English, it is indeed often possible, but at times problematic.

Herman Kahn

[徹スカンス]

>I have been avoiding the specification of gender for over 30 years and can attest that, in English, it is indeed often possible, but at times problematic.

It is always possible, which is why I fail to understand the issue you are struggling with here.

>This law does not prohibit asking "What is your gender" or what pronouns a person prefers.

Then I don't believe this is a law you should be concerned with violating in this context - that context being, in a professional setting, asking by which pronouns a person should be referred to.

>a case not long ago where some university in Japan was successfully sued for damages after a student committed suicide subsequent to being outed by some other student.

So this looks like a textbook example of an outing, in which someone wrote "this person is gay" in a group chat and revealed concealed information to others about another individual.
In the case by the family against the person who did the outing, it seems the two parties settled out of court, but the case against Hitotsubashi University was dismissed (they were not successfully sued for damages as you claim).

An example of an outing:
"This person is gay" / "This person is transgender"
A professional question that translators can and should absolutely be asking if they aren't sure:
"What pronouns should I use to refer to this person in the text?"

>and if a result of this disclosure the person in question incurs damages (has a nervous breakdown, etc.), you could be liable for such damages.

The reason I find it hard to take this fear seriously, is that you seem intent on creating an imagined Rube Goldberg machine to cause yourself fictional harm.
Once again, asking "what are your/this person's preferred pronouns?" is very unlikely to ever result in a lawsuit for you, nor provoke a nervous breakdown or suicide in whoever you are speaking with, and why you are under the impression that it will is beyond me.

Ben

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/79a31146-3b31-720f-823b-898ef16b8c2f%40lmi.net.

[Anish Krishnamurthy]

>Yes, that would be an example of the scenario I was talking about. You
>have confidential information which may be pertinent to how to
>"correctly" translate a text, but you may choose to not use that
>information and translate the text "incorrectly" based on other
>considerations.

If you know this person so closely as to be privy to this personal information, surely you also know to whom they are and wish to be out? i.e. you would have their implicit or explicit permission to use their closeted presentation because you know they are choosing to maintain it in this context? No one would think you have an obligation to either them or "the truth" to out them based on information they are actively keeping confidential?

-- Anish Krishnamurthy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/honyaku/f52c29b5-fa05-7d2f-cba9-a28e4cb1ae54%40lmi.net.

[M. Therrien]

One does not “out” a person by doing them the courtesy of referring to them using their preferred pronouns, which is what I and others have suggested. 

You have twisted yourself into such knots that you are now arguing that we cannot use any gendered pronouns when translating any document from Japanese to English unless we use those pronouns "with the prior consent of the person concerned" (your words, see red below). 

You are making a preposterous argument. Only you know why you persist this with this.

I just want to say that if there are any trans or trans-adjacent people on this email list, I am truly sorry that you’re being subjected to this ridiculous nonsense.

Marceline Therrien