Seeing as there is only 2 genders from a medical and scientific standpoint and that people not identifying as those is more of a psychological and social issue I don't think we should list more than 2 genders.
Then the question becomes how do we handle people that is either offended by this or don't want their gender listed.
With the technical limitations currently on the site I suggest we just leave the gender box unchecked and use the Person's Biography to explain what's what.
Delenn wrote:
it's about accurately representing facts.
Such as whether a person has a "Y" chromosome? (Sorry, I couldn't help myself :) )
Aidan wrote:
Seeing as there is only 2 genders from a medical and scientific standpoint and that people not identifying as those is more of a psychological and social issue I don't think we should list more than 2 genders.Then the question becomes how do we handle people that is either offended by this or don't want their gender listed.
With the technical limitations currently on the site I suggest we just leave the gender box unchecked and use the Person's Biography to explain what's what.
You're confusing with gender with biological sex. They are not the same thing. We don't list biological sex, we list gender. Biological sex is dictated by sexual reproductive anatomy (amongst other biological factors), gender is not. (As a side note, from a scientific perspective there are in fact, more than 2 standard definitions of biological sex, such as intersex - however that's not the issue here, but if you want some recent scientific studies on gender and/or biological sex I can scan them from my biology journals).
@pentar - it's not as simple as who has XX/XY chromosomes from a biological perspective. Scientific studies show that multiple X/Y variants exist. But again, that's biological sex, which is not the exclusive component in determining gender. ;-p (It's almost as if this whole forcing people into a binary thing is not remotely accurate at all.)
And I say again, it's not about offense. Nobody has said they're offended at any point. It's about accuracy of information. Leaving it unchecked is certainly AN option, it's what we've been doing, but that doesn't make it the best or the most accurate option.
Realistically speaking, from a coding perspective, how difficult is it to add that third gender option? (I ask not facetiously, I genuinely don't know what kind of behind the scenes undertaking that would require.)
If accuracy is an issue I don't see a point in adding a catch-all option as that wouldn't be any more accurate. I'm also curious about how permanent these gender associations are and how we can accurately keep track of them as they potentially cange. To be perfectly honest I see a potential pitfalls all over the place an I'm questioning if it's worth the work for a minimal amount of actors.
As others have mentioned the best way might be to rename "unknown" to something everyone can live with and use that and then use the bio for more in-depth explanations.
Delenn wrote:
Realistically speaking, from a coding perspective, how difficult is it to add that third gender option? (I ask not facetiously, I genuinely don't know what kind of behind the scenes undertaking that would require.)
Technically feasible.
We're interested in expanding the types of available data in 2019 so this can be discussed.
Consensus and purpose of the data needs also to fulfill the requirement of added value. How many people care about having this type of data added? What are the use cases? How does the distinction/addition help you personally?
I'm not against this type of data as long as it doesn't strain the flow of data input for editors. Meaning things should be kept as simple as possible. Having f.e. a dropdown list or whatever with 34 options isn't user friendly at all if 98.5-99.9%(according to statistics) of the cases are male/female. And if we just add 'other': will people remark that we shouldn't be excluding other gender options?
Anyway, do share your opinions/suggestions and examples of how other systems are approaching this.
Coincidentally: I used to do development for an organization that provides support to transgenders, lgbt,... So if/when we pick this up i'll ask for their input as well.
cheers,
Jan
+1
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 also agree fully!
If 'other' is to be used, isn't it basically the same as 'unknown'?
Yes certain countries do allow genders to be marked by X if a person feels so, however I personally think the 'unknown' could cover that pretty well.
On top of that if a boy were to change from male to female... in my country he is able to change to female as gender on passport after lots of paperwork.
Is it really useful to use other instead of unknown? In my opinion it is not...
Thomas wrote:
If 'other' is to be used, isn't it basically the same as 'unknown'?
As a counter to that though... unknown means that it is is something we do no know. We leave it set as that way because we do not know the gender of the person in question, we have loads of entries where we just don't have that information. With non-binary individuals, we do know. It is not unknown. (But then again, I'm not super thrilled about 'other' being the option to begin with, it's not a great option for this issue).
From a 'useful' point of view. (Not specifically just in response to your comment Thomas, but because Jan said additional data needed to have definable value and I've been thinking about it for a while now.) Not only would it useful because it would be a correct listing of a known individual's gender, but having a 'non-binary' gender field would mean you could search actors by that category. I often search for actors by gender, under the existing system there is currently no way to locate non-binary actors, because they're just lumped in with all the actor entries with missing data. Adding in that extra field would make them searchable.
Delenn wrote:
As a counter to that though... unknown means that it is is something we do no know. We leave it set as that way because we do not know the gender of the person in question, we have loads of entries where we just don't have that information. With non-binary individuals, we do know. It is not unknown. (But then again, I'm not super thrilled about 'other' being the option to begin with, it's not a great option for this issue).From a 'useful' point of view. (Not specifically just in response to your comment Thomas, but because Jan said additional data needed to have definable value and I've been thinking about it for a while now.) Not only would it useful because it would be a correct listing of a known individual's gender, but having a 'non-binary' gender field would mean you could search actors by that category. I often search for actors by gender, under the existing system there is currently no way to locate non-binary actors, because they're just lumped in with all the actor entries with missing data. Adding in that extra field would make them searchable.
To be honest I haven't really followed these stories regarding gender as it was not really an important issue related to me, but isn't non-binary basically unknown from legal point of view. From legal feature you are either a male or female or unknown. I guess you could see it from multiple views.
Let's not dwell on it too much as I'm not against it nor am I for it. Pretty much what Jan describes.
Thomas wrote:
but isn't non-binary basically unknown from legal point of view. From legal feature you are either a male or female or unknown. I guess you could see it from multiple views.
The short answer to that statement, from a legal perspective is: no. The X does not mean unknown. (& from a TVM point of view, which is arguably the thing here, unknown is not a definition, it's a lack of one.) But you're right in that it is a complex issue.
As you say, you are not for/against either way, so you do not need to dwell on it. I am however, am for making this change at some point, and as Jan said, they're looking at expanding the types of available data this year, so I'm going to continue to dwell on it. I don't know at what point in the year they plan to do that, so my dwelling is... on hiatus. ;-D
Delenn wrote:
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.
So non-binary would be the third and only option added to the pulldown?
I would note that a person's website is not an objective source. It is how they identify, yes. I'd say most users determine if a female actor is female (to take your example) by looking at objective criteria such as physical appearance and naming.
That's not me saying that self-identification is unimportant. Only that it's not "objective" as the term is typically used.
The other question I would have is how does Hollywood (i.e., primarily award shows) consider the persons? TVmaze is likely going to follow the "Hollywood model", for lack of a better term.
Gadfly wrote:
So non-binary would be the third and only option added to the pulldown?I would note that a person's website is not an objective source. It is how they identify, yes. I'd say most users determine if a female actor is female (to take your example) by looking at objective criteria such as physical appearance and naming.
That's not me saying that self-identification is unimportant. Only that it's not "objective" as the term is typically used.
The other question I would have is how does Hollywood (i.e., primarily award shows) consider the persons? TVmaze is likely going to follow the "Hollywood model", for lack of a better term.
I, personally, am only making the case for one additional option to the pulldown - people made the case for it getting too complicated beyond that, and I'm inclined to agree. A third option to account for those who are non-binary would, IMO, be sufficient for TVM purposes.
You are correct in that my choice of the word objective was inaccurate, but my point still stands. Why is a user determining the gender for an individual any more "objective" or correct than the individual themselves determining it? And since when would a person's official website not be considered a valid source? We consider official websites valid sources for other types of information, why would they not be for this? Appearance and naming are hardly "objective" criteria either I might point out - many names are unisex, and for more minor actors when you can find info/pictures online, it's not always apparent which gender they are based solely on name. This argument implies that the user gets to determine an actors gender and that's somehow more correct/"objective" than the actor determining it themselves.
I would argue award shows have nothing to do with this, we don't categorize things by award show data, and should not be dictating anybody's gender because an of an award show system. But for the sake of argument, MTV have eliminated gender-specific categories at both the MTV Movie & TV Award Show and the VMAs.
It is a pet-peeve of mine when people use they/their/them or similar non-gendered pronouns. It isn't grammatically correct and it just feels like you are trying to hide something by obfuscating the real gender of the person you are speaking about. I question whether this is really necessary because it often feels to me like a political agenda to eliminate gender altogether rather than a statement of ones true gender identity. To me this is a completely different issue from the transgender issue of people who use pronouns opposite to their biology because they truly identify as that gender.
dpratt wrote:
It is a pet-peeve of mine when people use they/their/them or similar non-gendered pronouns. It isn't grammatically correct and it just feels like you are trying to hide something by obfuscating the real gender of the person you are speaking about. I question whether this is really necessary because it feels to me like a political statement rather than a statement of ones gender identity. For some people it feels like an effort to force their ideas about gender onto others.
This is a factually incorrect assumption, albeit a common one.
They/them is a grammatically correct singular pronoun according to the Oxford English Dictory. It is linguistically correct to use it as a pronoun for non-binary gender identities.
Edit: We use they as a singular pronoun all the time, regardless of gender. Example; I leave my sunglasses in a room, someone comes along and finds my sunglasses, it is then grammatically correct to say “they left their sunglasses”.
They/their/them are plural pronouns. Singular usage is incorrect and that isn't my opinion. That is a rule of the English language. The singular gender neutral term is it/its. That's why when a baby is born you say, "It's a boy" and not "They're a boy." Saying "They're a boy" sounds awkward because it's wrong.
If you say "they left their sunglasses" that implies that more than one person may have been involved in leaving the sunglasses. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about saying it that way. People often use they/their/them incorrectly in the singular but that is a common mistake. Just because mistakes are common doesn't mean they are grammatically allowed. If you are writing a book you can bet that any credentialed editor is going to tell you that you might want to think about fixing it depending on what it's for. Ads and dialog follow different rules.
The only time I hear they/their/them as a singular pronoun is when people are trying to hide the gender of the person they are talking about. It's awkward and it should be avoided.
dpratt wrote:
They/their/them are plural pronouns. Singular usage is incorrect and that isn't my opinion. That is a rule of the English language. The singular gender neutral term is it/its. That's why when a baby is born you say, "It's a boy" and not "They're a boy." Saying "They're a boy" sounds awkward because it's wrong.If you say "they left their sunglasses" that implies that more than one person may have been involved in leaving the sunglasses. There is nothing grammatically incorrect about saying it that way. People often use they/their/them incorrectly in the singular but that is a common mistake. Just because mistakes are common doesn't mean they are grammatically allowed. If you are writing a book you can bet that any credentialed editor is going to tell you that you might want to think about fixing it depending on what it's for. Ads and dialog follow different rules.
The only time I hear they/their/them as a singular pronoun is when people are trying to hide the gender of the person they are talking about. It's awkward and it should be avoided.
I’m sorry, but that’s just not true. They/them is grammatically, linguistically, and historically correct as a singular pronoun. It’s not the only way to say something, and some people think it’s awkward and choose not to, but it is correct to do so. Not liking the way it sounds in a sentence does not make it incorrect. I worked in publishing for a decade, I’ve had this discussion in a professional environment before, and the Oxford English Dictionary supports they/them as singular pronouns. If the dictionary considers it singular, then it is singular.
The Oxford English Dictionary covers colloquial usage for completeness, not because it is correct in a strict sense. "Ain't" isn't a word but that doesn't mean you won't find it in a dictionary that strives for completeness. If you worked in publishing then you know that there is a difference between colloquial English and strict English. But even in colloquial English saying "They are an actor" still sounds really awkward to anyone who speaks English natively.
dpratt wrote:
The Oxford English Dictionary covers colloquial usage for completeness, not because it is correct in a strict sense. "Ain't" isn't a word but that doesn't mean you won't find it in a dictionary that strives for completeness. If you worked in publishing then you know that there is a difference between colloquial English and strict English. But even in colloquial English saying "They are an actor" still sounds really awkward to anyone who speaks English natively.
You’re right, there is of course a difference between strict English and colloquial English, I am not unaware of this fact. But at no point has this site ever claimed to subscribe to strict English requirements, arguably in most cases enforcing strict usage over colloquial usage causes more problems than it solves.
They/them has been in circulation within the English language since the 14th century, it is embedded to such an extent that it’s usage is viewed as grammatically correct by universities and publishers. True, it’s often viewed as sounding clunky or awkward, but that does not make it less correct as a singular pronoun. Language is not static, it bends and flexes to meet the shifting linguistic needs of those who use it, arguing the validity between strict/colloquial in the 21st is like standing on a bed of sand and expecting it not to move.
Delenn wrote:
You’re right, there is of course a difference between strict English and colloquial English, I am not unaware of this fact. But at no point has this site ever claimed to subscribe to strict English requirements, arguably in most cases enforcing strict usage over colloquial usage causes more problems than it solves.They/them has been in circulation within the English language since the 14th century, it is embedded to such an extent that it’s usage is viewed as grammatically correct by universities and publishers. True, it’s often viewed as sounding clunky or awkward, but that does not make it less correct as a singular pronoun. Language is not static, it bends and flexes to meet the shifting linguistic needs of those who use it, arguing the validity between strict/colloquial in the 21st is like standing on a bed of sand and expecting it not to move.
I'm glad you used sand moving under your feet as an analogy because that is exactly the reason why strict English is preferred over colloquial English in technical writing and journalism. It's one thing if you have a specific target audience, or if you are writing spoken dialog between characters. But if you're writing for the largest audience possible then you are always best sticking to strict English standards. And it is factually correct that they/them/their pronouns must only ever be used as plural pronouns in strict English. I guess that could be why it's always been a pet peeve of mine when people try and use it as a singular pronoun.
