[WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist

[Emily Monroe]

> Just because a vanishingly small minority of people can't be  
> classified as male or female, that is a reason to not bother doing  
> such classifications? If that was a valid argument, many of these  
> information forms that people fill in wouldn't ask for your gender.  
> Those forms usually give a third or fourth option for those who  
> don't identify as male or female, so that is what Wikipedia would do  
> as well.

The forms I have filled--and I'm nineteen, so that also includes the  
forms my parents have filled on my behalf and showed me--if they asked  
about gender, gave two options. Male, female. Check the one that  
applies. No "Well, it's complicated" checkbox. I've seen one form that  
didn't, and that was the form my dad fills out for his job as a HIV  
tester and counselor. The form had four options, two of which was  
"transexual", and included which gender the person was transitioning  
into.

I was going to suggest the alternative categories, as well. I was  
tired, though--my bad. Have a "Wikipedian by gender" category, then  
have "male" "female", "intersexual", "transsexual", "this is a gender- 
integrated group biography" etc. as sub-categories.

Emily
On Aug 9, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Carcharoth wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Emily Monroe<bluecaliocean at me.com>  
> wrote:
>>>  Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to
>>> cause problems.
>>
>> Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed
>> or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]),
>> genderfuck (intentionally ignoring gender-specific cultural
>> expectations), cross-dressers, and generally anybody else who doesn't
>> fit neatly into "male" or "female". This isn't a representation of
>> Wikipedia, but society in general.
>
> I've never understood this argument.
>
> Just because a vanishingly small minority of people can't be
> classified as male or female, that is a reason to not bother doing
> such classifications? If that was a valid argument, many of these
> information forms that people fill in wouldn't ask for your gender.
> Those forms usually give a third or fourth option for those who don't
> identify as male or female, so that is what Wikipedia would do as
> well.
>
> If anyone could hazard a guess at how many of the 725,635 biographies
> we have where there might be a dispute over gender, that would be good
> (note that for some reason that figure, from the "WikiProject
> Biography" statistics, includes music groups, and also some other
> "group biographies", rather than "single biographies"). But really, if
> it is only a couple of hundred where the gender is disputed or not
> known, then there should be no objection to classifying the others by
> gender.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l