"Biological sex" (I'm not 100% comfortable w phrase) is very complicated though and intersex people exist, as I'm sure you know. So birth certificate for example is not the same as say karyotype or genitals or so many other things included under the vague term "biological sex".
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @katestorrs and
So if you want to know what is on their birth certificate, I assume you have a scientific reason to ask this, that is all you will know what the doctor types up. But some people will [IMHO rightly] take offense at being asked this — terms CMAB and CFAB exist for a reason.
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @katestorrs and
You would also need to demonstrate the justification in the application to a research ethics committee if you intend to publish results based on the data collected. Referring to precedent & demonstrating engagement with members of the trans research community would be beneficial.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdwardianGent @katestorrs and
I doubt ethics committees in many cases know/care about gender and trans issues sadly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest @katestorrs and
It is sth that is becoming increasingly recognised & as you have to justify every piece of personal data being collected & how it will be used, i think this is something RECs will need to address. That the OP is already conscious of the delicate situation makes it a good showcase
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @AdwardianGent and
Also I just noticed above: "N/A" and "Other" ARE really offensive. Please don't use them. Nobody clicks on them anyway pretty much so you can't claim to be collecting any data. No agender, genderqueer, non-binary, etc., person sees themselves as being "Other" or "Not applicable"!
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @katestorrs and
"I'd rather not say" is generally the option we go for rather than "N/A", but of course that doesnt quite capture the "Otherness" (as it were). Having a "Self-defined" option with an accompanying free text field may get around this as it allows ppl to express their specific situ.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdwardianGent @katestorrs and
Not sure "I'd rather not say" is something somebody would choose TBQF. Who do you imagine clicks on "I'd rather not say" an "intersex person? A trans woman? A trans woman will click on what a cis woman would click on. An intersex person might want to say they are intersex.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @katestorrs and
No it is not intended to be for any "category", rather to allow individuals the freedom to actively indicate that they do not want to reveal their sex, no matter what their rationale. Unless that is an exclusion criterion, of course.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Ah, I see. OK, that's not about inclusivity/diversity then but about anonymity/privacy.
-
-
Replying to @o_guest @katestorrs and
Yes, altho in a way it seeks not exclude ppl whod rather retain privacy about their sex. Weve generally assumed its better to include the option to de-emphasise the perceived importance of sex categorisation but thats in no way empirical & cd create bias instead of reducing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @AdwardianGent @katestorrs and
Fair. You can just make it optional too instead of explicitly having to say "I don't want to say".
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.