No. How can you not get this?!
It is always used as gender identity. Only sometimes people get it wrong - which is okay, because that happens with all data.
Duh!
Yes, so please start a new discussion, because adding a field for biological sex has nothing to do with this discussion here.
You are the one not getting this, if it was strictly added based on ‘Gender-Identity’ most people would be set to unknown because there have not explicitly said their gender-identity. Instead they are being added based on their biological sex either because that is what the field was thought to be, or it was understood what the Gender meant but it was just assumed that their gender-identity was same as their biological sex. It is a very straight-forward point.
Its all interconnected. So with the current options a male who identifed as ‘gender nonconforming’ would be listed as Male, but if all these options listed they may be changed to ‘gender confirming’. It is more useful to know that they are male then gender non-conforming. Should it even be on the list since from https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Gender-Fluid-and-Gender-Non-Conforming it says
Gender non-conforming refers to anyone who does not meet societal expectations of gender expression. That could be a pretty wide range of people from those in the middle to those who are actually pretty binary identified irregardless of sexual orientation.
It seems to be you want to eliminate the importance of biological sex, I would say it is considerably more significant then some of the gender identities listed, and at least as significant as the others.
And that is one of the problems with the issue.
I think if MB is going to do anything about it, it needs to be re-active, not pro-active. What I mean by that is…
In the city of New York, there are 32 identity pronouns. But other places have a different list. And, if you watch any of those “Change My Mind” videos, 32 isn’t enough. I mean, hell, my identity, Supreme Being, isn’t one of the 32. And even among the identity crowd, I get odd looks when I say I am a Supreme Being.
I don’t think MB, at this point, should be doing anything other than “other” for the simple fact that the rest of the world hasn’t settled on what we should be doing.
The minute society says “these are the genders” instead of expecting us to accept a hodge podge of “anything you want to be is a gender and you can change it from one day to the next”, then MB can deal with it. But until that happens, we will be needing to constantly be making changes to our system.
Gender has until recently been a socially assigned identifier.
It was assigned on the basis of appearance and behavior.
Not biological sex.
The vast majority of MB’s Artists who have been gendered have been done so on this basis.
Conclusions have been made about gender based on appearance in photos and videos, usual gender of name used by Artist and gender assigned to the Artist by others.
Never, to my knowledge, has biological sex been cited as the basis for gendering on MB.
That is how I have added them, I think you are rewriting history here to suit your personal agenda.
If you’re trying to guess someone’s “biological” sex separate from their presentation and identity, you are free to do that elsewhere (although you shouldn’t). Putting it on musicbrainz, however, is against official style/policy and you should stop.
I think you are (intentionally) missing my point.
I am not adding people based on their biological sex and actively ignoring their gender identity where it conflicts. But mmirG says until recently been a socially assigned identifier i.e I read this as society has incorrectly been setting based on appearance, well I dont agree, I think society has been setting based on biological sex. The underlying point I think trying to be pushed here is that gender has nothing to do with biological sex, well that is also clearly untrue as the majority of people gender identity matches their biological sex, that is not a coincidence.
Thanks for clarifying.
I am curious as to how you have been determining biological sex.
Please explain.
While you may have thought you were assigning “biological sex”, the fact is that you, almost certainly, most often had access to appearance, behavior and the gender as assigned by otheNJr parties.
The exceptions would be women known to have given birth.
Gender has, very literally, been assigned by appearance at birth.
The claim that this is necessarily “biological sex” is falsified by the people whose actual biology is found to be other than that that their birth appearance indicated.
The gender assigned at birth has very often been the biological sex of the person.
However we now know that it has in many instances not been their biological sex.
We can either continue with the inaccurate understanding of how “biological sex” is determined or accept the fact that gender, especially on birth certificates, has been assigned by appearance which has been shown to be unreliable.
Okay so when you go down to this level of details gender identies can be quite fluid, and therefore can change over time. Meaning data that was correct at one point in time is no longer correct, this is unlike other data in the database and to my mind this is problematic.
Clear definitions are required for what these terms mean,
I previously gave the example
non-binary:range of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine
third gender- set of gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine
and you failed to explain the difference. We shoudn’t be creating a list of terms if even the person suggesting them is unclear on what they mean because this will mean that the wrong option will be chosen or duplicates options with different name will be added to the list.
You say
It’s also not about whether you understand the difference between two specific genders. Inform yourself or ignore it.
but it is about you understanding the difference and if you cannot explain the difference then the difference is not notable enough to include in list.
This list appears too detailed, I would propose the following list would suffice
female
male
non-applicable
none
non-binary
trangender
The discussion here has gone way off-topic and seems to have a number of misconceptions of what Paula actually has proposed/is proposing. As a result and to “start from fresh”, she has started a new topic.
Please be sure that you are 100% on-topic when posting in that topic. If you have even the slightest doubt that something you’re writing might not be on-topic—e.g., if you want to discuss a new field for “biological sex/gender”—please do so in a new topic. Same if you want to discuss possible differences (or lack thereof) of two or more gender identities, etc., etc.
New topic is here: