[ScandalAndy]

Originally Posted by tapu

I have to laugh because I am often considered a little too much "git 'er done, in your face."

I think your analysis of the best dynamic for effecting social change is right on. It's not really like Picard and the underlings; it's more those out in front cutting a path and those behind them widening and further shaping it.

That said, I think the frontrunners need not only to know what they're talking about, but be able to articulate the vision. Saying "gender-neutral" is saying nothing unless you define your terms.

People on the thread are contrasting terms such as "gender-neutral," "gender-equality," "gender-diversity." I would wager that at this point, no one has the same definition for any of these. The "gender-neutral" of the OP wasn't even defined.

Until some move toward defining the goal is made, in concrete terms, even the frontrunners are running in circles. Women didn't get the vote without someone defining what it meant to treat the sexes equally in that respect: let both vote. Thus was born a movement.

point taken. Let me get back to you on my current working definitions of the terminology. In the meantime, I think it would be excellent if everyone supplied the definition they're working with.