xvertigo_ t1_isj0g3w wrote on October 16, 2022 at 10:36 AM

Strange choice to group the data by gender for gender neutral names.

byJoanic OP t1_isj2gux wrote on October 16, 2022 at 11:03 AM

That's right. Quite ironic indeed!

I wanted to look for those names that have escaped the dichotomial tradition and have not fallen into one normative gender in practice.

It shows the contigency of it since it proves that gender-neutral names exist and also, perhaps only as a curiosity, which names would be the hardest to assume their gender.

Tha0bserver t1_isjcp1u wrote on October 16, 2022 at 12:56 PM

I really liked it groupes this way. Shows that they are truly used by both genders.

xvertigo_ t1_isjdu94 wrote on October 16, 2022 at 1:07 PM

Yeah but “both” genders is precisely why I don’t think it’s an appropriate grouping. It’s exclusive of gender non conforming people whom, I’d imagine, make up a significant portion of the sample for gender neutral names. While it may not be reported in the source data, a non negligible portion of the sample population may have legally changed their name to a gender neutral name without legally changing their gender.

Its possibly not an accurate representation given that trans men may be reported as women and vice Verda.
It reduces gender to a binary which is not an appropriate framing when gender neutrality is a component of the question (as is the case here)

A better grouping might be name as assigned at birth vs legally adopted name or self reported gender including non binary identities. If binary gender is the only possible grouping in the source data I’d question the usefulness of aggregating by group.

Tha0bserver t1_isjf6f3 wrote on October 16, 2022 at 1:18 PM

Ok I see where you’re coming from and agree 100%. Too bad there aren’t better data on gender. I suspect that the “gender” listed are actually sex.