On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
On 26 April 2013 05:19, Fred Bauder
<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
The thing is that if someone is in a subcategory
they are then taken out
of the category. So, if the subcategories are applied, nearly everyone
should be removed from the higher category such as American novelist.
Obviously this was not thought through well. If there is to be a female
novelist category there must be a male novelist category. This will
become more and more evident as time passes and situation equalizes.
This is normally the case, but there's an explicit exemption for
gender: at least in theory, single-gender categorisation (where we
have just "female" without a corresponding "male" category) should
not
be "exclusive", and people should be categorised in both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_re…
Removal from the main category should (again, an aspirational
"should") only occur when we are completely splitting it into gender
subcategories.
That makes sense. It's not how categories are always handled,
however. And when there is only one gendered category, it is
predominantly female. For instance, looking at the subset of these
where the category name starts with "male" or "female":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sj/Gendered_categories
The rare exceptions are categories whose members are predominantly
female. For instance, you can see the reverse gender bias with beauty
pageants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Male_beauty_pageants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Beauty_pageants
SJ