Gendered emoji alienates transgenders, genderqueer and stereotypes men and women

Emoji are smileys that originated in Japanese mobile phones in the early 90s. They were adopted by Apple and then by Android. Emoji have found their way into the Unicode character set, which is a set of specifications widely used in applications, the world wide web and operating systems. The purpose of Unicode is to allow people around the world to use computers in their native languages. New characters are put on a road map, and included in timely updates to the Unicode standard. The proliferation of an increasing number of emoji can push back accessibility in regional, dead or obscure languages. This hampers the timely use of these languages with computers by people speaking in local, regional languages as well as researchers and students working with esoteric languages. [caption id=“attachment_327971” align=“aligncenter” width=“640”]  Apple’s Emoji Pack for Women. Image Credits: Apple[/caption] Earlier this month, Apple launched a new emoji pact aimed at promoting gender equality . In June this year, Facebook added emoji packs for Messenger that celebrated diversity by giving people more gender and skin colour options to express themselves in. Google proposed the inclusion of female gender emoji to the Unicode consortium in May this year. The idea was to better represent professional women. The question is, does emoji really need to get more diverse? Here is a standard set of emoji.  They are all gender neutral, and can be used by anyone for self expression. Black, white, male, female, it is just an emoticon in the end. Adding colours and genders actually introduces racial and gender differences in a character set that has none. There is no reason why emoji for professions or activities should not follow the same, neutral format. Moreover, adding gender specific emoji can alienate transgender and genderqueer people, and support gender stereotypes in the specific implementation. Here is a letter to the Unicode consortium on the proposed gender update, from a respondent known only as E.

The proposed gender distinctions follow outdated gender stereotypes, and they render trans and genderqueer people invisible. PREGNANT WOMAN needs more gender options because people with very different genders (and gendered looks) have the ability to get pregnant. Trans and intersex men as well as genderqueer people might all be able to. They are not represented by a pregnant woman emoji. BRIDE WITH VEIL is cliché, anyone getting married could wear a veil. It needs more gender options. MAN IN TUXEDO and MAN IN BUSINESS SUIT LEVITATING also need more gender options, why would only men wear these types of clothes? Women and genderqueer people can and do wear these and are not represented.

[caption id=“attachment_256130” align=“aligncenter” width=“640”]  Facebook’s “more diverse” emoji. Image: AP[/caption] Gendered emoji just introduces more complications, more characters, more stereotypes and at the same time, alienates all of those who are not represented by these “diverse” emoji. A global standard, especially one that is future looking is better off not implementing gendered emoji. Instead of implementing emoji for three or more genders in five or more skin shades to represent diversity, it is better to implement each expression in a neutral gender and colour, as it has historically been represented.