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
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
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... 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.orgwrote:
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
- 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
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... 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.orgwrote:
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
- 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
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... 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.orgwrote:
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
- 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
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 rkaldari@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.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... 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.orgwrote:
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Apart from the discussion on the P21 property's talk page, there is currently a proposal on Wikidata to create a 'gender identity' property. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#Gender_identity
Gobonobo
On 10/25/2013 06:35 PM, Risker wrote:
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 <rkaldari@wikimedia.org mailto:rkaldari@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.wp@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B17074787023> _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
On 10/25/2013 7:35 PM, Risker wrote:
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
It's also controversial because some feminists have questioned various aspects of this promotion of gender over sex and been highly abused for it, from name calling to shutting down speeches and conferences, to creating phony highly bigoted websites and letters and threats pretending to be written by radical feminists, to death threats as some of the articles below describe. I haven't studied enough to have a definitive opinion on it all myself, though I appreciate many radical feminist statements.
Four good counterpunch articles
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/07/the-left-hand-of-darkness/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/11/these-are-not-the-radicals-youre-look...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/21/55123/ The Emperor’s New Penis
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/02/sex-is-not-gender/ Best one of four
Statement by radical feminists http://www.pandagon.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/GENDER-Statement.pdf?f9e4...
Which has been authenticated here as not being a fake document put together by those who harass them: http://gendertrender.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/authenticity-of-the-forbidden-...
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_ident...
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 rkaldari@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.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... 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
- 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
On 10/25/2013 12:56 PM, Klein,Max wrote:
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.
Hi Max, as you know in my study [1] I used given names, gendered honorifics, and the ratios of pronouns in biographies to guess gender [2]. However, beyond the difficulty of gender vs sex, and false binaries is the imperfectness of the techniques. For instance in my data [3], such as "10-anbo-1k" [4] I report:
Of 1000 entries: I guess that 163 are female, 809 are male and 28 are
unknown.
I think it is right to classify the 28 as unknown. Would the be characterized as "intersexed" in this scheme? I think that would be a mistake...
[1]: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777 [2]: http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/technology/guessing-the-gender-of-bibliogra... [3]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/results.html [4]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/10-anbo-1k.html
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Joseph Reagle joseph.2011@reagle.org Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 12:20 PM To: Max Klein Cc: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Seeking advice on how to talk to other lists about sex-issue.
On 10/25/2013 12:56 PM, Klein,Max wrote:
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.
Hi Max, as you know in my study [1] I used given names, gendered honorifics, and the ratios of pronouns in biographies to guess gender [2]. However, beyond the difficulty of gender vs sex, and false binaries is the imperfectness of the techniques. For instance in my data [3], such as "10-anbo-1k" [4] I report:
Of 1000 entries: I guess that 163 are female, 809 are male and 28 are
unknown.
I think it is right to classify the 28 as unknown. Would the be characterized as "intersexed" in this scheme? I think that would be a mistake...
Markus' research was not meant for classifying Wikidata items into sex. However there were proposals on Wikidata to classify items by less sophisticated methods than either you or Markus' have proposed. That is a mistake I think, feeling the need to autoclassify wikidata with any heuristic technique. Although I don't dispute statistical gender classification for other purposes like your own.
Maximilian Klein Wikipedian in Residence, OCLC +17074787023
[1]: http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777 [2]: http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/technology/guessing-the-gender-of-bibliogra... [3]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/results.html [4]: http://reagle.org/joseph/2010/06/gender/10-anbo-1k.html
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap