1 reply to this topic

[Charles640]

The current structure of RM (and Ancestry, ...) identifies Male or Female as an attribute of the Fact "Sex".  It comes to my thought that given all the discussions of sex, and sex identity, that a more public statement of "Gender" might be a better wording.  Even when I was in college (many years ago), when asked the question "Sex?" a common response was "yes, are you available?"  But even more importantly, identifying Gender opens a a list of alternative facts such as "Gender Chosen as", "Gender Altered to", (both of which have valid date fields which Birth Gender does not need.

 

Thoughts to ponder.  I can work with the current Fact descriptions, but was stricken with the need to raise the question.

 

Charles (Gender: Male at birth, still considering that correct)

[Jerry Bryan]

Interesting observations. A contrary view that I grew up with is that sex is a biological attribute and gender is a term from grammar such as "he" and "she" are gender based pronouns. As such, sex would be the proper description for male and female attributes in genealogy. But my contrary view may never have been very accurate. And even if it was, it seems to me that the usage of the words is changing. As an example, what might once have been described as sex roles might now be described gender roles when sociologists are discussing such things.

 

Jerry