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.wp(a)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 <rkaldari(a)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_.27se…
But so far virtually no one has commented on it.
Ryan Kaldari
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;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 <kleinm(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap