Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexities
Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Fri, 08 October 2010 18:54 UTC
Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: vcarddav@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vcarddav@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6372E3A68F1 for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.56
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.039, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dmTFazpy+S-y for <vcarddav@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86C043A6923 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [206.123.31.83] (h83.viagenie.ca [206.123.31.83]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60FAD20E36 for <vcarddav@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4CAF6924.1080202@viagenie.ca>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:55:32 -0400
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vcarddav@ietf.org
References: <AANLkTi=ov764Qyix=RSmK9NbVw-nk_aG5YXu8Z0ZHMZD@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=ov764Qyix=RSmK9NbVw-nk_aG5YXu8Z0ZHMZD@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexities
X-BeenThere: vcarddav@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <vcarddav.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav>
List-Post: <mailto:vcarddav@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vcarddav>, <mailto:vcarddav-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:54:28 -0000
Le 2010-10-08 14:36, Sarah Dopp a écrit : > *1) You probably mean Gender, not Sex. > * > For the purpose of address books and social information, people are > interested in presentation and social categorization -- not shapes of > genitals and configuration of hormones at birth. [2] We're talking > about gender here. All the issues with gender that you describe were counted as arguments in favor of sex. Sex is straightforward. > *2) These data options do not accommodate edge cases. > * > For most users, the data points of sex and gender are the same. The > distinction, however, is visible in the edge cases (for which there is a > significant population to account for). > > With Sex as a category, you need to consider people with intersex > conditions [3], as well as those who have undergone Sexual Reassignment > Surgery [4] and Hormone Replacement Therapy [5]. For many of these > people, to choose Male or Female on a form is to lie about half of their > bodies. By using an ISO standard, we're shoveling all these issues into ISO's backyard. We could say "Don't tell that to us, tell it to them." > I don't see Race on the > VCARD specs -- am I missing it? Why wasn't it included? - It was not in vCard 3. - It's not widely available in vCard software. - It's not necessary for building extensions on top of vCard core. > If it was left > off because of data complexity, social complications, or irrelevance, I > challenge you to consider the possibility that Gender should be in the > same boat. > > If you wish to continue including the field, an open text field for > keywords is the most culturally-inclusive solution. I'm not following you here. There is no gender field. There is a sex field. The latter was defined by ISO. > Finite data collection is always socially problematic, but I understand > its importance for aggregation. If this is truly a high priority, I ask > that you add an additional option to account for the cases discussed > above. While I cringe to suggest "Other" as this option [12], it might > be the path of least resistance. (Personally, I'd like to see "It's > Complicated" up there. But that's just me.) Even better: allow the > option to be replaced with an alternate value provided by the user. I think that changing the values for the SEX property should be out of question. Sex is clearly defined by ISO, and I don't think this working group wants to attack this problem again. It would also be way outside of our charter. However, if you want to add a GENDER property (and possibly remove SEX), then I think you would need to send to this list the verbatim changes to the draft's text that you propose. We're fairly late in the process, and this would accelerate the reaching of a consensus. Thanks, Simon
- [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexities Sarah Dopp
- Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexi… Simon Perreault
- Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexi… Sarah Dopp
- Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexi… Kevin Marks
- Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexi… Sarah Dopp