It's controversial because there are women who assumed a male role,
but were definitely women in their personal life. So your definition
there would be to assign them the male gender but the female sex.
And I disagree....what's being assigned there is sex, not gender.
Risker
On 25 October 2013 16:24, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org
<mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
The attribute that is being assigned by property 21 on Wikidata
(as it is actually being used) is not sex, sexual orientation, or
gender identity. It is simply gender, and should be labeled as
such. For the majority of people, we don't actually know for sure
what their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity is
(especially for historical figures), but we do know their gender,
i.e. the role they assume within society. I really don't see why
this is even controversial.
Ryan Kaldari
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com
<mailto:risker...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I remember seeing something about this on Wikidata and just
not having enough hours in the day to comment at the time.
There are three issues being intermingled here:
*Sex, which is a biological marker determined by primary and
secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts, penises,
uteruses, etc. As such, the "sex" category is mostly correct,
but should add 'unknown'.
*Sexual orientation, which identifies the manner in which the
subject expresses their sexuality. This would include
heterosexual, homosexual/lesbian/gay, transsexual, bisexual,
asexual, pansexual, and a host of other variables.
*Gender identity, which is almost always male or female, but
is not directly related to sex as identified in the first
definition. Thus gender identity includes males who identify
as females, intersex who identify as male or female, females
who identify as male, females who identify as female, males
who identify as male. Elements of sexual orientation may also
play a role, as in bisexuals who identify as both male and
female, or as neither male nor female.
It is important that assumptions not be made, particularly for
sexual orientation or gender identity. Most notable people do
not discuss their orientation or gender identity. I also
would suggest that it be considered perfectly acceptable to
leave those categories blank for the vast majority of subjects
and include the response only where the subject has personally
confirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Frankly, this is pretty much none of our business and is only
notable where the subject says it is.
Risker/Anne
On 25 October 2013 13:30, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org
<mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
By the way, I started a proposal to change 'sex' to
'gender' back in May:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21#Rename_.28en.29_label_.27sex.27-.3E.27gender.27
But so far virtually no one has commented on it.
Ryan Kaldari
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Kaldari
<rkald...@wikimedia.org <mailto:rkald...@wikimedia.org>>
wrote:
Hey Max,
The sex property at Wikidata definitely needs to be
changed. This has nothing to do with the gender gap.
The terminology is simply wrong. Let's continue this
conversation at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P21.
Ryan Kaldari
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Klein,Max
<kle...@oclc.org <mailto:kle...@oclc.org>> wrote:
Hello Gendergappians,
I was recently chatting on Wikidata-l about the
model that exists on Wikidata for classifying sex
[1].
If you didn't know of Wikidata, people are
supposed to be classified as Male, Female, or
Intersex. I once did some research on the
composition Wikidtata given that classification
[2] then Markus Kroetzscher investigated linking
personal names to sex using this data [3].
Well when Markus released his research on-list, I
applauded his innovative methods and techniques. I
also wanted to remind that forcing this binary or
trinary classification onto people is not
something that the software is making us do, but
rather the us inflicting our bias onto the
database. At that point I received a dismissive
answer that if I wanted to talk about the
gendergap that I should this mailing list, and
that my comments were off topic. Then another user
responded saying that my comments were very much
on topic, and that's where the conversation stopped.
I haven't wanted to continue the thread because of
the emotional investment in what seems to be a
fruitless debate. Although recently I was chatting
to a friend of mine about my dissatisfaction who
said something I really liked:
"basically since the categories are male,
female, intersex, that means 1) you are
talking about a person's gonads, not their
gender identity, which means 2) applying that
category to most historical figures should
count as "original research" it's not like
anybody's done a major interdisciplinary study
to confirm the chromosomes of every historical
figure we aren't even sure shakespeare was a
real person. how in the world should we guess
what medical conditions he had in conclusion,
"sex: male female intersex" is utter nonsense"
I would like to send the point to the list, but am
fearful that it will be muddied again in that this
is "gendergap issue not a wikidata one" when I am
really just trying to talk about classification
schemes.
Do you have any advice on whether a) I should
re-engage the debate, and if so b) how to best
deliver my sentiments?
[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21
[2] http://hangingtogether.org/?p=2877
[3]
http://korrekt.org/page/Note:Sex_Distributions_in_Research
Best,
Maximilian Klein
Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC
+17074787023 <tel:%2B17074787023>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
