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> 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> 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> 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>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> 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 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
