But it’s only necessary if there is another “Dame Edna” who is MALE already IN the AF.
You keep begging the question; trying to make coding gender more “handy,” when what Kevin (and Shana, and others) are saying is that we should not code gender at all unless it breaks a conflict or is necessary because of the language (as with Chinese).
Breaking her promise to herself to let this lie
No, no. What I was saying would “come in handy” was the UNDERSTANDING or definition of the 375 as being used for “perceived sex,” not a guess at the person’s “real” sex or gender. That makes a decision of how to code a 375 for Dame Edna pretty obvious, I think. Thus, the definition is handy.
So you mean using the field will come in handy for determining whether the use of the field is correct? Sounds sort of circular to me.