[Tagging] Better term for unisex

[Greg Troxel]

Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> writes:

> The proposal currently states:
>
>> Meaning of the unisex <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unisex>=yes
>> is currently unclear:
>>
>>    - gender neutral facility (as the "unisex" term in English); or
>>    - facility that accessible for men and women, either segregated or not.
>>
>> I do not understand what is unclear.  The term unisex is well understood
> among English speakers to mean "gender neutral".  Unisex never refers to a
> gender segregated facility.  A tag gender=unisex meaning "gender neutral"
> would be perfectly clear.  gender=mixed would probably be understood, but
> "mixed gender" is not a commonly used phrase so it would probably have more
> potential for mis-interpretation.  gender=neutral would probably be more
> widely understood, but again, I don't see the issue with gender=unisex.

I find the wiki page confusing, becuase it describes a dispute but
doesn't really describe a set of rules.

Even the description at right "Access to all persons regardless of sex
or gender" is unclear between "people are not treated differently" vs
"people are split based on some characteristic, but all people are
accomodated".

I'll also note that sex and gender, while historically essentially the
same thing, are now talked about as separate, and that it seems
difficult to be accurate in describing the world, both because it is
part of a cultural battle and because if you asked people what bathroom
labels mean it is probably a long complicated conversation with
different answers from different people.  So therefore I think OSM
should stick to recording labels, and perhaps eventually splitting to
record either sex or gender depending on the legal situation of which
one matters in a particular jurisdiction.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20221007/aa9d32e1/attachment.sig>