Having an authority record for Dame Edna may be what's handy. But I don't see any real purpose that the 375 field would serve in that authority record. So
what if Dame Edna identifies as this gender or that, or is perceived as such, or is legally determined to be such by some entity that deems itself empowered to do so? Why is it really necessary in the authority record?
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ted P Gemberling
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 5:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] More Caitlyn Jenner and 375s
I believe a few days ago someone suggested it might be good to have an authority for Dame Edna because there are actually a couple of works with Dame Edna in
the statement of responsibility with no mention of Barry Humphries. The poster suggested that might make it a real “bibliographic identity,” not just a role Humphries plays. This is a contrast to Divine, who is always called Divine in anything he was in. Divine’s
“perceived gender” (or maybe “portrayed gender”) was usually female but not always.
In her article, Amber and her coauthors point out that a figure named Big Freedia Queen Diva has a 375 Female on his authority though he has stated that he
is a gay male. Apparently his persona is female but he does not identify as female. I agree that 375 is wrong.
I mention the Dame Edna case just to clarify how the issue came up.
"Handy" for what purpose? I'm totally lost here.
Actually I forgot that we don’t actually have an authority record for Dame Edna. I don’t care whether we do or not, really. But if we decide she merits an
authority of her own for having been the ostensible author of books, the “perceived gender” concept might come in handy.