We do need to be able to separately note sex, gender [expression], and gender identity. I agree with Filceolaire's suggestion that these can all be different qualifiers for a single datatype. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#Gender_identity
Perhaps that datatype should be named 'gender', and not 'sex'; but this is getting closer to semantics and bikeshedding than data clarity. Sam. (gb, thanks for the link) On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Ryan Kaldari <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
