Re: [VCARDDAV] sex vs. gender and social complexities

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

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