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@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@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 <rkaldari@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 <kleinm@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