Print

Print


RDA defines the element as "a gender with which a person /identifies/" 
(italics added). As Tina wrote, that is something impossible to 
determine from a photograph.

Nancy


On 8/13/2018 4:52 PM, Gross, Tina M. wrote:
>
> No, it wouldn't be fine to say that, nor to make that assumption based 
> on a photo. This is why the Report of the PCC Ad Hoc Task Group on 
> Gender in Name Authority Records explicitly says : "Do not assume 
> gender identity based on pictures or names."
>
> Ted's questions ("Would I say he has short hair and a moustache? If he 
> doesn’t have a moustache, is the short hair not enough?") point to why 
> it is highly problematic to assume someone's gender based on your 
> perception of their physical appearance. (One can have both a mustache 
> and short hair and be a woman, or nonbinary.) I realize that making 
> this assumption seems like common sense to you, but such an 
> understanding of/approach to gender is simply no longer considered 
> valid or acceptable, but actively harmful to people whose gender might 
> not be "obvious."
>
> If you're not convinced, in addition to reading the Report of the PCC 
> Ad Hoc Task Group on Gender in Name Authority Records, please also 
> check out the following:
>
> Amber Billey, Emily Drabinksi, and K. R. Roberto. "What's Gender Got 
> to Do With It? A Critique of RDA Rule 9.7." /Cataloging & 
> Classification Quarterly /52, no. 4 (2014): 412-421.
>
> Kelly J. Thompson. "More Than a Name: A Content Analysis of Name 
> Authority Records for Authors Who Self-Identify as Trans." /Library 
> Resources & Technical Services/ 60, no. 3 (2016): 140-155.
>