--- Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > Hi Miry, > .... > > social relevance of it, and that means gender. Any other solution seems > more > > trying to justify that field than anything really useful. > When you specify 'social' relevance, does that mean 'the larger society' > or 'the Debian society'? And relevant to what? Dancing partners at > Debconf? Free software has both social and technical elements. The > techincal bits have no gender, AFIACT. In regards to the social bits, I > see FLOSS as moving towards a sphere where people define who and what > they are, regardless of their XX or XY bits. The distinction is made > when interfacing with the outside world when folks need insurance, > health care, or drivers license and must check a box.YMMV. > feliz ano nuevo! > Kev > ps. that does not mean that peoples attributes should be forgotten, for > the world would be boring otherwise.
I'm sorry I haven't explained myself more clearly. I'll try to make my point a bit more explicit: 1) I don't see any relevance in having a gender field. The only exception I might find is for genderifying the texts in web pages and mails, or maybe for statistics. 2) I see even less relevance in having medical data, such as the genotype (XX, XY or whatever), genital data, etc. Miry __________________________________________________ Correo Yahoo! Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! Regístrate ya - http://correo.yahoo.es -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]