During a workshop, one of the participating teams decided to define their main user persona and name it Jane. From my experience - an unusual decision in the Cyber domain. This kept me thinking about the biases and responsibilities we have as researchers and designers (and organizations) in the future recruitment in companies.

We may not currently have a Jane in this position but who are we to decide if there can’t be? May the decision to proceed with a certain user persona named Jack will influence the company’s next recruitment? And what about the possibility for a new segment to apply or pursue relevant studies?

As described in Granberg’s article “’’Is That All There Is?'' Possible Selves, Self-Change, and Weight Loss”, as long as a person does not see the possibilities close by, it is less likely to think of themselves as turning into such.

After reading a great article by Indi Young ״Describing Personas״, I had a few thoughts regarding of expertise domain (e.g. cyber): While it might be irrelevant to some domains, current numbers show that women represent only 20% of the global cybersecurity workforce in 2019. 
From my experience - using genderless, ageless, faceless personas - cause challenges in gaining empathy towards them.

So what should it be?
Gender-based persona on the current stage of existing users in a domain vs. our ability to empower the underdog/ unheard and reduce discrimination.
How do you deal with such challenges?