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.
Emily
On Aug 8, 2009, at 9:06 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
About "Women" on Wikipedia, I think
"famous" is probably
problematic, like
"list of short women", is too much based on a judgement call.
Heck, in a few cases the "Women" classification might prove to be
based
on a judgement call. The panoply of transgender classifications and
how
they change over time and culture is beyond me. Trying to hammer every
peg into one of just two holes is bound to cause problems.
Not saying it wouldn't be nice to categorize those that _aren't_ edge
cases, mind you.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l