On a mailing list I read, someone proposed, out of idle
curiosity, a survey to get a glimpse at the demographic
distribution of the membership. One of the questions was
the expected M-or-F one, which led to some discussion of
phrasing (which I think started completely independent of
my pointing out that the sample form needed at least one
more option for that field).
I felt like sharing one of my posts from the middle of
the discussion here (slightly edited, mostly to change email
formatting to web-style). I could analyze my reasons for
wanting to do so, but that'd be a whole 'nuther post
worth of musing, so I'll just go right to the text...
[The previous poster in the thread] wrote:
I've been told by some of my social scientist
friends that the correct term is "sex", i.e., the answer to
"are you [male] or female?".
It really depends on what you're trying to measure. Quite
often that would be the wrong question, and even when it's
the right question, unless you attach a definition to the
survey, it can be confusing.
("Confusing?" I hear folks ask ... well yeah, if you really
do mean sex -- i.e. biology -- do you mean morphological
sex, hormonal sex, or genetic sex? Each of those can be a
valid or invalid definition depending on just what it is
that you are trying to measure. And you still need at least
three categories (the easy cop-out is to lump lots of things
under "other"), because of various intersex phenomena. That
is, even if you want to limit things to morphological birth-
sex, you've got at least five categories that show up often
enough to count (something like 1% of births is still a lot
of people), and if you mean genetics, there's Kleinfelter
syndrome (somewhere around 0.1% of births). And then you've
got the questions of which sex a post-op transsexual counts
as: if you're trying to figure out which bathroom they'll
use and which sex acts they can perform without props,
morphological sex matters; if you're screening for sex-linked
genetic disease, chromosomal sex matters. If you're trying
to get pregnant, both matter, and hormonal issues enter the
picture. And if you're trying to decide whether someone is
allowed to attend a women's music festival, then politics
gets stirred into the pot, but I digress... )
Note that outside of medical contexts it's almost always
morphological sex that matters when you actually mean sex at
all, and more often than that it's actually gender that's
meant in the first place.
I'm surprised that a social scientist would say to use sex.
After all, aren't social scientists usually more concerned
with whether a subject is a man or woman, rather than whether
they're male or female? And man/woman is a gender thing.
Evidently sex is a pure physical distinction whereas
gender refers to the psychological, behavioral, or cutltural
traits associated with the sexes, so that then latter is a
continuous and not a binary variable.
Well, depending on your model of gender, it can be considered a
continuous one-dimensional variable, a discrete multidimensional
variable, or a continuous multidimensional variable. (Okay, it
can also be modelled as a discrete but non-binary linear variable,
but I don't find that model at all useful.) Note that the BSRI
(Bem Sex Roles Inventory, named for its creator, Sandra Bem)
treats it as a two-dimensional continuous variable, allowing for
(varying degrees of) both "bi-gendered" and "ungendered" in the
'middle' ground between (varying degrees of) masculine and
feminine. (It does not, as I recall, distinguish between
"bi-gendered" and "inter-gendered", nor really allow for "strongly
female-identified butch", so even the BSRI is just a starting
place. But hey, I suspect even Bem would agree that the tool
is outdated now.)
So which do we mean if we want to gather statistical information
about the [list] membership? Are we tallying penes, or asking
how many men and women are on the list? I think we're more
interested in gender than sex here, but hey, if I'm wrong I'm
wrong. Could make for a cool X-rated [recurring list project]
theme though, if it's really pudenda we want to count, eh? But no,
I really think we want to count gender here.
Either way, there need to be at least three choices. If anyone
besides me is interested in a more comprehensive list of options
for statistics-gathering, we can discuss that, but just adding
"other" and/or "no response" as valid options at least makes
the survey possible for folks like me to fill out accurately.
-- Glenn
PS: Why yes, I have thought about this (and read, and listened)
quite a lot and consider it important. I write letters of
complaint when sex/gender is a required field on a computerized
form (including web forms), and have been known to pencil in a
box for "other" on paper forms. The proposed [list] survey, if it
ever does happen, isn't a Big Important Deal, but awareness of
the issues for the next time someone here has input to the design
of a form is something I do care about. It's partly a matter of
personal distaste for bad science ("Oh look, your data are
guaranteed to be incorrect for some subset of your respondents!"),
partly a cultural/institutional invisibility issue ("How can
they know whether we number enough to be taken into account if
they have no way of even counting us or finding out we exist?"),
and partly a matter of privacy ("If all I'm doing is registering
to use a free article archive on the web, why do you even need
to know my sex/gender at all?")
I've filed off the identity of the mailing list 'cause my
posting the message here isn't intended as slam against the
list -- which has a lot of pretty nifty people on it -- and
my posting it there was intended as education more than
argument (though I may have hit a more strident tone than
intended). Some time after I posted it to the list, I started
wondering about the "social scientists say sex instead
of gender" thing. It sounds wrong to me, but for all
I know, maybe that is the convention there...? Most of
discussion since has been about whether people can have
"gender" or only words can.