Added Gender field options.

FremenDar007 wrote 8 days ago:

Should be Male, Female, and Other for actors/directors/etc. The latter for "Non-Binary" and other further dispositions.


Gadfly wrote 8 days ago:

Aren't they all "Non-Binary"? Is it a matter of how the person chooses to be listed? Or does what they appear on the screen trump what they said in maybe one article or interview?

Why list gender at all? And if the answer is some variant of "Because it's traditional", well... Non-Binary isn't traditional.



Delenn wrote 8 days ago:

Gadfly wrote:
Aren't they all "Non-Binary"? Is it a matter of how the person chooses to be listed? Or does what they appear on the screen trump what they said in maybe one article or interview?

Why list gender at all? And if the answer is some variant of "Because it's traditional", well... Non-Binary isn't traditional.

Binary means two, non-binary means not of, or relating to, two. In this context, non-binary is used to indicate a gender other than female/male. Also, there's quite a substantial amount of historical evidence for genders beyond the male/female binary, from more than once culture. Limiting it to two is quite a recent social construct... at least from a historical perspective. So technically, the male/female binary is the thing that's non-traditional.

Not listing gender at all seems a bit overkill, gender does exist (I mean, it's a social construct, but it exists in that context) and there's no reason we can't acknowledge that. It just needs to address that the male/female binary is inaccurate.


JuanArango wrote 8 days ago:

Delenn wrote:
Binary means two, non-binary means not of, or relating to, two. In this context, non-binary is used to indicate a gender other than female/male. Also, there's quite a substantial amount of historical evidence for genders beyond the male/female binary, from more than once culture. Limiting it to two is quite a recent social construct... at least from a historical perspective. So technically, the male/female binary is the thing that's non-traditional.

Not listing gender at all seems a bit overkill, gender does exist (I mean, it's a social construct, but it exists in that context) and there's no reason we can't acknowledge that. It just needs to address that the male/female binary is inaccurate.

I agree :)


gazza911 wrote 8 days ago:

Can't see a reason why not, I'd suggest just Non-binary (and/or) Other as otherwise there would just be a lot of terms that people just don't understand.

FremenDar007 wrote 8 days ago:

gazza911 wrote:
Can't see a reason why not, I'd suggest just Non-binary (and/or) Other as otherwise there would just be a lot of terms that people just don't understand.

Should just be Other (Non-Binary, etc.) so there won't be far too unnecessary additions to the drop-down field. Mainly so editors on this site don't have a hissy fit if someone inaccurately "mis-genders" an individual.

To me, there'll always be proper Binary and it's this. 01001110 01101111 00100000 01101101 01100001 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100111 01101111 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00101110 00100000 00101101 00100000 01000010 01110101 01100011 01101011 01100001 01110010 01101111 01101111 00100000 01000010 01100001 01101110 01111010 01100001 01101001


Gadfly wrote 8 days ago:

Delenn wrote:
Binary means two, non-binary means not of, or relating to, two. In this context, non-binary is used to indicate a gender other than female/male. Also, there's quite a substantial amount of historical evidence for genders beyond the male/female binary, from more than once culture. Limiting it to two is quite a recent social construct... at least from a historical perspective. So technically, the male/female binary is the thing that's non-traditional.

Not listing gender at all seems a bit overkill, gender does exist (I mean, it's a social construct, but it exists in that context) and there's no reason we can't acknowledge that. It just needs to address that the male/female binary is inaccurate.

None of which I disputed.

As should be clear from my preceding post, I was talking about "traditional" in "that context" as in "what Internet TV database websites similar to TVMaze do" (i.e., "Why list gender at all?" when discussing what TVMaze, a TV database website should do). And... I still don't know how such a listing would be determined. Acknowledging that the male/female binary is inaccurate (in the context we're talking about: i.e., TVMaze, a TV database website) would presumably to be done under Data Policy or something similar.

Having a third option on the pull-down wouldn't "acknowledge" that as far as I can tell. What would having "Other" as an option on the pulldown acknowledge to the vast majority of non-contributing viewers that it's inaccurate?

Plus, why would TVMaze want inaccurate data? I'd rather see an objective criteria for determining what someone should be labeled, gender-wise, so that we can eliminate the inaccuracy. Rather than perpetuating while acknowledging it.


Gadfly wrote 8 days ago:

FremenDar007 wrote:
Should just be Other (Non-Binary, etc.) so there won't be far too unnecessary additions to the drop-down field. Mainly so editors on this site don't have a hissy fit if someone inaccurately "mis-genders" an individual.

I'm not sure who you mean by editors, since technically everyone is (or at least can be) an editor. i.e., someone who edits data. More likely, someone would simply revert it if they disagree with it, or didn't think there was any basis for it that they knew of. Much like they do when anything is inaccurately labeled.

My question remains: how would a contributor determine that Acting Person A is "Other"? Is it a matter of self-determination on Acting Person A's part, or is there some objective criteria? If the latter, what is it?

FremenDar007 wrote 8 days ago:

As I mentioned, I'd rather the Sex or Gender for the individual in question be listed in their bio be Male, Female, or Other. This is a database which I use. IDGAF which is considered "non-tradional" whatsoever, just what would benefit the site so certain editors don't be having an anyeurism over something so trivial regarding humans.


Gadfly wrote 8 days ago:

FremenDar007 wrote:
As I mentioned, I'd rather the Sex or Gender for the individual in question be listed in their bio be Male, Female, or Other. This is a database which I use. IDGAF which is considered "non-tradional" whatsoever, just what would benefit the site so certain editors don't be having an anyeurism over something so trivial regarding humans.

Who is the individual in question?

But assuming there isn't one, could you give a few examples of who you think should be listed as Other? And what objective criteria are you applying to make that determination? Thanks!

If I wasn't clear earlier, I'm not disputing that such a category should be added. Just what the practical application would be for TVMaze. So I'd think there would have to be some consideration given to what "Other" means, if the site is going to use it to list gender.


pentar wrote 8 days ago:

Just what we need, another topic to argue over.


TonyMayhew wrote 7 days ago:

Pointless suggestion, in my opinion & yes, I probably will get stick for it.

There is already an option for Male, Female or, if left blank, Unknown.

Those 3 options should be the only options. If we start adding 'Other', then someone else will pipe up wanting Genderfluid, Gender neutral, Polygender, and so on.

Yes, I totally get that some people want to define their own genders in which ever way they deem fits, and that is fine, but c'mon... This is a database about television shows. Please, let's not go down the path of having to be politically correct on the off chance that one or two people might get offended. It will open up a huge can of worms that won't just affect genders, but possibly belief's, religions and so on.


gazza911 wrote 7 days ago:

More and more countries are now legally allowing you to change your gender to non-binary, i.e. to 'X' in Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Malta, New Zealand and Pakistan.

If a person is legally defined as that, it seems inaccurate to display them as any of the current options.


momijigari wrote 7 days ago:

gazza911 wrote:
More and more countries are now legally allowing you to change your gender to non-binary, i.e. to 'X' in Canada, Australia, Denmark, Germany, Malta, New Zealand and Pakistan.

If a person is legally defined as that, it seems inaccurate to display them as any of the current options.

Well said.


tnt wrote 7 days ago:

TonyMayhew wrote:
Pointless suggestion, in my opinion & yes, I probably will get stick for it.

There is already an option for Male, Female or, if left blank, Unknown.

Those 3 options should be the only options. If we start adding 'Other', then someone else will pipe up wanting Genderfluid, Gender neutral, Polygender, and so on.

Renaming "Unknown" to "Other" could be a solution.

For the time being, Unknown is not really correct in some situations. Apart from non-binary individuals there's musical bands or other collective entities, whose gender is well known, but cannot be set due to system limitations or other factors.

On the other hand, "Other" is more universal, because it literally means "everything else besides male/female".



Delenn wrote 7 days ago:

Gadfly wrote:
None of which I disputed.

As should be clear from my preceding post, I was talking about "traditional" in "that context" as in "what Internet TV database websites similar to TVMaze do" (i.e., "Why list gender at all?" when discussing what TVMaze, a TV database website should do). And... I still don't know how such a listing would be determined. Acknowledging that the male/female binary is inaccurate (in the context we're talking about: i.e., TVMaze, a TV database website) would presumably to be done under Data Policy or something similar.

Gadfly - I think we've got our wires crossed here. Obviously, from my perspective, it wasn't clear from your previous post, thus my response. Also, you asked why do we list gender at all... so I responded to that. I think we're both arguing the same point, we've just misunderstood each other's posts.

Also, you asked for examples: https://www.tvmaze.com/people/222069/dani-martineck, https://www.tvmaze.com/people/218744/lachlan-watson and https://www.tvmaze.com/people/138984/asia-kate-dillon are all non-binary actors. The objective criteria required to support NB actors is exactly the same as the objective criteria required to support female/male actors, information from sources (ie: Dani Martineck's official website clearly indicates they are non-binary). How do we determine if a female actor is female? Well, we look at sources online and reflect the information that is available to us. That's exactly how you determine if a NB actor is NB.

To be clear: I'm in favour having a third drop-down box marked "Non-binary" as an option for gender. The reason it shouldn't be 'other' or 'unknown' is because a) 'other' is often a derogatory/insulting term for NB people (and lumping NB individuals in with bands as if they are they same is just wrong) and b) 'unknown' is inaccurate, it is known. Another key factor here is that "Non-binary" as term literally means not male/female, it's the best umbrella option available to avoid having to list multiple gender definitions. There's literally no reason it would need to be defined beyond that, "Non-binary" is the definition. As has been pointed out, X is now recognized as a legal gender, and we should reflect that when possible.

@Tony - it's not about political correctness, or offending people, it's about accurately representing facts. Yes, this is a TV site, but we list information for actors too, why should that information be listed less accurately than show information? We're not talking about religion or belief, we don't list those and for the purposes of this discussion, they're irrelevant. We're taking about having an option to more accurately list factual information on gender. We should strive for accurate information across all parts of the site, should we not?

@pentar - I like to think of it as passionate discussion. :D Sometimes things need to be discussed.