FundSvcs Community

We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

An emotional issue for some, and whatever you decide will have some negative repercussions (unavoidable.) Given your coding scheme, it seems unclear to me how you would record someone whose gender was simply unknown. I presume it is either "U" or "X", but I would make it specific. Were it me, I'd change "Not Reported" to "Unknown" and eliminate "Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec" (keeping "Another Gender Identity"). If you think "Not Reported" and "Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec" have use, I'd add another code for "Unknown". I'd feel free to change "Unknown" to a specific gender should that become apparent. How you handle "Not Reported" and "Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec", would depend on why you think they are useful. As I don't think they are, I have a hard time advising. God bless! Mark Mark W. Bolme University of Oregon Foundation This information, and any attachment, is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL property of the University of Oregon Foundation. Any unauthorized reproduction, dissemination or disclosure is prohibited.
Original Message----- From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG] On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 11:25 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: * It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. * Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://www.si.edu/> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Mr. Hejnal (using a courtesy title even though it’s fraught) makes great points (of course). The question of whether to use courtesy titles when the gender is known is a difficult one, I would tend toward using them, but perhaps that’s because I’m from an older generation. I agree that it would be useful to have a gender code to record when the constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender or does not wish the institution to track it. I also agree that this pro-active opposition isn’t the same thing as “not reporting” a gender code. I commonly don’t report my gender, but am fine if someone tracks it and addresses me as “Mr.” Our database is also still set up with legacy M/F/U codes. Mark Mark W. Bolme University of Oregon Foundation This information, and any attachment, is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL property of the University of Oregon Foundation. Any unauthorized reproduction, dissemination or disclosure is prohibited. From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG] On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 10:40 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: · It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. · Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://www.si.edu/> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

I’ll just add to this that in addition to preference for prefix, there should also be a preference for pronoun. He/She/They – for example. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:40 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: * It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. * Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cterry.callaghan%40RUF.RUTGERS.EDU%7Cb9e4d7a5a8bf4b1b17ee08d70adddef9%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636989820370618535&sdata=Hq9npcjtOZBNGVqXlK7VGqH8W7kgp8IkVBSSC8BnXl8%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any of its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and it may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown above and delete all copies of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that you are not authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.

Thank you for all your input, some interesting things to think about. Tracy

Hi Tracy, There are probably a couple of email threads in the archives on this topic, so you may want to check those out. I wholeheartedly agree with Alan, as far as determining what you want to do with the information. As a higher ed, we get the gender from the registrar/admissions office, as well as HR, but we were primarily concerned with how to respectfully address folks. We decided that if we didn’t receive gender on a record or in a data feed, we would not infer gender by first name. This means that we have records with and without title for a variety of reasons. Here’s a few other things we decided: * Mx is used ONLY if specifically requested by the constituent * BBCRM allows for F/M/Unknown/Other. It was simplest for us to keep with Unknown, rather than use Other, but we will keep our options open if it makes more sense to use Other at some point. * We customized an area for Special Information that is used for a variety of things, including recording if the person requested the removal of an F or M gender, if they identify as non-binary, if they prefer no title (regardless of identity), and their pronouns. (I also hear repeatedly from the trans* community that they are not “preferred” pronouns, but simply pronouns.) * We customized our name formats extensively, especially with couples and situations where we have titles on one spouse and not on the other. (I can provide more specifics if folks are interested.) What this boils down to is we have a very large database with a tradition of gendering the records in the past and new data without gender or title. It goes a bit against our desire for consistent data, but accurate data is more important, and offending folks by misgendering is something we definitely want to avoid. I consulted with our non-binary LGBTQ Center director, who recommended that we use a field name of “Self Reported” as opposed to Unknown or Other. We did not go with this, as it required more extensive customization and developer time for a relatively few constituents. However, this might be an option for an organization that may have a greater number of non-binary constituents, or it may become more common in the future, in general. This is an evolving situation that I believe requires flexibility in database design. Regards, Kelli Kelli Crispin Business Analyst/Quality Assurance Specialist she/her/hers The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Office of University Development 208 W. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 P 919.962.2815 E kelli.crispin@unc.edu<mailto:kelli.crispin@unc.edu> [cid:image001.png@01D383E6.0AC22A10] CAMPAIGN.UNC.EDU<http://campaign.unc.edu/> From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Terry Callaghan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 5:36 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations I’ll just add to this that in addition to preference for prefix, there should also be a preference for pronoun. He/She/They – for example. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:40 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: * It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. * Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cterry.callaghan%40RUF.RUTGERS.EDU%7Cb9e4d7a5a8bf4b1b17ee08d70adddef9%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636989820370618535&sdata=Hq9npcjtOZBNGVqXlK7VGqH8W7kgp8IkVBSSC8BnXl8%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any of its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and it may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown above and delete all copies of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that you are not authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.

Kelli, I would be interested in how you set your system up and what your customization in the name formats are. We are currently struggling with this issue and have not been able to come up with anything that will make everyone happy. If you would not mind sharing that would be great. Thanks Cindy Hornbeck Gift Processing Specialist University Advancement 940-898-3894 CHornbeck1@twu.edu<mailto:CHornbeck1@twu.edu> [cid:image004.png@01D53D48.4D26DD70] [cid:image005.png@01D53D48.4D26DD70] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Crispin, Kelli Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 8:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations Hi Tracy, There are probably a couple of email threads in the archives on this topic, so you may want to check those out. I wholeheartedly agree with Alan, as far as determining what you want to do with the information. As a higher ed, we get the gender from the registrar/admissions office, as well as HR, but we were primarily concerned with how to respectfully address folks. We decided that if we didn’t receive gender on a record or in a data feed, we would not infer gender by first name. This means that we have records with and without title for a variety of reasons. Here’s a few other things we decided: * Mx is used ONLY if specifically requested by the constituent * BBCRM allows for F/M/Unknown/Other. It was simplest for us to keep with Unknown, rather than use Other, but we will keep our options open if it makes more sense to use Other at some point. * We customized an area for Special Information that is used for a variety of things, including recording if the person requested the removal of an F or M gender, if they identify as non-binary, if they prefer no title (regardless of identity), and their pronouns. (I also hear repeatedly from the trans* community that they are not “preferred” pronouns, but simply pronouns.) * We customized our name formats extensively, especially with couples and situations where we have titles on one spouse and not on the other. (I can provide more specifics if folks are interested.) What this boils down to is we have a very large database with a tradition of gendering the records in the past and new data without gender or title. It goes a bit against our desire for consistent data, but accurate data is more important, and offending folks by misgendering is something we definitely want to avoid. I consulted with our non-binary LGBTQ Center director, who recommended that we use a field name of “Self Reported” as opposed to Unknown or Other. We did not go with this, as it required more extensive customization and developer time for a relatively few constituents. However, this might be an option for an organization that may have a greater number of non-binary constituents, or it may become more common in the future, in general. This is an evolving situation that I believe requires flexibility in database design. Regards, Kelli Kelli Crispin Business Analyst/Quality Assurance Specialist she/her/hers The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Office of University Development 208 W. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 P 919.962.2815 E kelli.crispin@unc.edu<mailto:kelli.crispin@unc.edu> [cid:image001.png@01D383E6.0AC22A10] CAMPAIGN.UNC.EDU<http://campaign.unc.edu/> From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Terry Callaghan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 5:36 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations I’ll just add to this that in addition to preference for prefix, there should also be a preference for pronoun. He/She/They – for example. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:40 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: · It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. · Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cterry.callaghan%40RUF.RUTGERS.EDU%7Cb9e4d7a5a8bf4b1b17ee08d70adddef9%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636989820370618535&sdata=Hq9npcjtOZBNGVqXlK7VGqH8W7kgp8IkVBSSC8BnXl8%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any of its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and it may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown above and delete all copies of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that you are not authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.

Here are the simple name formats that didn’t really get impacted, because it doesn’t matter if there are missing titles, and gender is not a factor: Format Example Joint Informal Addressee* Jane Ann Smith and Mary Lynn Smith Joint Informal Salutation Jane and Mary Joint Formal Addressee* Ms. Jane Ann Smith and Dr. Mary Lynn Smith Joint Formal Addressee with Prof Suffix Jane Ann Smith and Mary Lynn Smith MD Joint Formal Stacked Addressee* Ms. Jane Ann Smith Dr. Mary Lynn Smith *These formats also include a Suffix, such as Jr./Sr./III, if applicable In ALL of these formats, the primary household member is listed first The titles in the Addressee formats above pull from the Title2 field Here are the ones that needed different formats, depending on the scenario: Format Scenario Example Notes Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Male/female couple with the same last name, both have Title2, one spouse is a Ms. or Mrs., the other spouse is anything but Mx. Mr. and Mrs. John A. Smith Jr. OR Dr. and Mrs. John A. Smith Male is listed first, Ms. gets changed to Mrs. Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Male/female couple with different last names Mr. John A. Smith Jr. and Ms. Mary L. Jones Male is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title One spouse with Title2 other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Dr. Mary L. Smith and Mr. John A. Smith Jr. Other Title2 is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Both spouses with differing Title2 other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs. Captain Taylor W. Jones and The Honorable Ryan P. Smith Sr. Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Same-sex couples Mr. John A. Smith Jr. and Mr. Thomas X. Jones Primary household member is listed first, unless one has an "other" Title 2 Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title One or both spouses with Mx. Mx. Taylor W. Jones and The Honorable Ryan P. Smith Sr. Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title One or both spouses missing Title2 Taylor W. Jones and The Honorable Ryan P. Smith Sr. Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Salutation* Male/female couple with the same last name Mrs. and Mr. Smith OR Dr. and Captain Smith Joint Formal Salutation* Couple with the same Title2 and last name Drs. Smith Drs., Reverends, Professors, Judges, Justices ONLY Joint Formal Salutation* One or both missing title, same last name Ryan and Mr. James Smith Joint Formal Salutation* One or both missing title, different last names Mx. Ryan Jones and James Smith Joint Formal Salutation* Couple with different last names, regardless of gender Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Male/female couple with the same last name, both have Title, one spouse is a Ms. or Mrs., the other spouse is anything but Mx. Mr. and Mrs. Smith OR Dr. and Mrs. Smith Male is listed first, Ms. gets changed to Mrs. Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with the same Title and last name Drs. Smith Drs., Reverends, Professors, Judges, Justices ONLY Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title One or both missing title, same last name Ryan and Mr. James Smith Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title One or both missing title, different last names Mx. Ryan Jones and James Smith Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with different last names, both spouse have one of Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with different last names, one spouse with Title other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Dr. Jones and Mx. Smith Other Title2 is listed first Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with different last names, both spouses with differing Title other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Captain Jones and Senator Smith Primary household member is listed first * Primary household member is always listed first on Joint Formal Salutation From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> On Behalf Of Hornbeck, Cynthia Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:08 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations Kelli, I would be interested in how you set your system up and what your customization in the name formats are. We are currently struggling with this issue and have not been able to come up with anything that will make everyone happy. If you would not mind sharing that would be great. Thanks Cindy Hornbeck Gift Processing Specialist University Advancement 940-898-3894 CHornbeck1@twu.edu<mailto:CHornbeck1@twu.edu> [cid:image004.png@01D53D62.3F9FE330] [cid:image005.png@01D53D62.3F9FE330] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Crispin, Kelli Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 8:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations Hi Tracy, There are probably a couple of email threads in the archives on this topic, so you may want to check those out. I wholeheartedly agree with Alan, as far as determining what you want to do with the information. As a higher ed, we get the gender from the registrar/admissions office, as well as HR, but we were primarily concerned with how to respectfully address folks. We decided that if we didn’t receive gender on a record or in a data feed, we would not infer gender by first name. This means that we have records with and without title for a variety of reasons. Here’s a few other things we decided: * Mx is used ONLY if specifically requested by the constituent * BBCRM allows for F/M/Unknown/Other. It was simplest for us to keep with Unknown, rather than use Other, but we will keep our options open if it makes more sense to use Other at some point. * We customized an area for Special Information that is used for a variety of things, including recording if the person requested the removal of an F or M gender, if they identify as non-binary, if they prefer no title (regardless of identity), and their pronouns. (I also hear repeatedly from the trans* community that they are not “preferred” pronouns, but simply pronouns.) * We customized our name formats extensively, especially with couples and situations where we have titles on one spouse and not on the other. (I can provide more specifics if folks are interested.) What this boils down to is we have a very large database with a tradition of gendering the records in the past and new data without gender or title. It goes a bit against our desire for consistent data, but accurate data is more important, and offending folks by misgendering is something we definitely want to avoid. I consulted with our non-binary LGBTQ Center director, who recommended that we use a field name of “Self Reported” as opposed to Unknown or Other. We did not go with this, as it required more extensive customization and developer time for a relatively few constituents. However, this might be an option for an organization that may have a greater number of non-binary constituents, or it may become more common in the future, in general. This is an evolving situation that I believe requires flexibility in database design. Regards, Kelli Kelli Crispin Business Analyst/Quality Assurance Specialist she/her/hers The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Office of University Development 208 W. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 P 919.962.2815 E kelli.crispin@unc.edu<mailto:kelli.crispin@unc.edu> [cid:image001.png@01D383E6.0AC22A10] CAMPAIGN.UNC.EDU<http://campaign.unc.edu/> From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Terry Callaghan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 5:36 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations I’ll just add to this that in addition to preference for prefix, there should also be a preference for pronoun. He/She/They – for example. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:40 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: * It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. * Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cterry.callaghan%40RUF.RUTGERS.EDU%7Cb9e4d7a5a8bf4b1b17ee08d70adddef9%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636989820370618535&sdata=Hq9npcjtOZBNGVqXlK7VGqH8W7kgp8IkVBSSC8BnXl8%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any of its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and it may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown above and delete all copies of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that you are not authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.

Very nice – I like your choices, too. Mark Mark W. Bolme University of Oregon Foundation This information, and any attachment, is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL property of the University of Oregon Foundation. Any unauthorized reproduction, dissemination or disclosure is prohibited. From: Advancement Services Discussion List [mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG] On Behalf Of Crispin, Kelli Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 9:14 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations Here are the simple name formats that didn’t really get impacted, because it doesn’t matter if there are missing titles, and gender is not a factor: Format Example Joint Informal Addressee* Jane Ann Smith and Mary Lynn Smith Joint Informal Salutation Jane and Mary Joint Formal Addressee* Ms. Jane Ann Smith and Dr. Mary Lynn Smith Joint Formal Addressee with Prof Suffix Jane Ann Smith and Mary Lynn Smith MD Joint Formal Stacked Addressee* Ms. Jane Ann Smith Dr. Mary Lynn Smith *These formats also include a Suffix, such as Jr./Sr./III, if applicable In ALL of these formats, the primary household member is listed first The titles in the Addressee formats above pull from the Title2 field Here are the ones that needed different formats, depending on the scenario: Format Scenario Example Notes Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Male/female couple with the same last name, both have Title2, one spouse is a Ms. or Mrs., the other spouse is anything but Mx. Mr. and Mrs. John A. Smith Jr. OR Dr. and Mrs. John A. Smith Male is listed first, Ms. gets changed to Mrs. Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Male/female couple with different last names Mr. John A. Smith Jr. and Ms. Mary L. Jones Male is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title One spouse with Title2 other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Dr. Mary L. Smith and Mr. John A. Smith Jr. Other Title2 is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Both spouses with differing Title2 other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs. Captain Taylor W. Jones and The Honorable Ryan P. Smith Sr. Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title Same-sex couples Mr. John A. Smith Jr. and Mr. Thomas X. Jones Primary household member is listed first, unless one has an "other" Title 2 Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title One or both spouses with Mx. Mx. Taylor W. Jones and The Honorable Ryan P. Smith Sr. Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Addressee by Gender and Title One or both spouses missing Title2 Taylor W. Jones and The Honorable Ryan P. Smith Sr. Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Salutation* Male/female couple with the same last name Mrs. and Mr. Smith OR Dr. and Captain Smith Joint Formal Salutation* Couple with the same Title2 and last name Drs. Smith Drs., Reverends, Professors, Judges, Justices ONLY Joint Formal Salutation* One or both missing title, same last name Ryan and Mr. James Smith Joint Formal Salutation* One or both missing title, different last names Mx. Ryan Jones and James Smith Joint Formal Salutation* Couple with different last names, regardless of gender Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Male/female couple with the same last name, both have Title, one spouse is a Ms. or Mrs., the other spouse is anything but Mx. Mr. and Mrs. Smith OR Dr. and Mrs. Smith Male is listed first, Ms. gets changed to Mrs. Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with the same Title and last name Drs. Smith Drs., Reverends, Professors, Judges, Justices ONLY Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title One or both missing title, same last name Ryan and Mr. James Smith Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title One or both missing title, different last names Mx. Ryan Jones and James Smith Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with different last names, both spouse have one of Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Mrs. Smith and Mr. Jones Primary household member is listed first Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with different last names, one spouse with Title other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Dr. Jones and Mx. Smith Other Title2 is listed first Joint Formal Salutation by Gender and Title Couple with different last names, both spouses with differing Title other than Mx., Mr., Ms. or Mrs., regardless of gender Captain Jones and Senator Smith Primary household member is listed first * Primary household member is always listed first on Joint Formal Salutation From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hornbeck, Cynthia Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 10:08 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations Kelli, I would be interested in how you set your system up and what your customization in the name formats are. We are currently struggling with this issue and have not been able to come up with anything that will make everyone happy. If you would not mind sharing that would be great. Thanks Cindy Hornbeck Gift Processing Specialist University Advancement 940-898-3894 CHornbeck1@twu.edu<mailto:CHornbeck1@twu.edu> [cid:image001.png@01D53D4D.118DCEE0] [cid:image002.png@01D53D4D.118DCEE0] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Crispin, Kelli Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 8:58 AM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations Hi Tracy, There are probably a couple of email threads in the archives on this topic, so you may want to check those out. I wholeheartedly agree with Alan, as far as determining what you want to do with the information. As a higher ed, we get the gender from the registrar/admissions office, as well as HR, but we were primarily concerned with how to respectfully address folks. We decided that if we didn’t receive gender on a record or in a data feed, we would not infer gender by first name. This means that we have records with and without title for a variety of reasons. Here’s a few other things we decided: * Mx is used ONLY if specifically requested by the constituent * BBCRM allows for F/M/Unknown/Other. It was simplest for us to keep with Unknown, rather than use Other, but we will keep our options open if it makes more sense to use Other at some point. * We customized an area for Special Information that is used for a variety of things, including recording if the person requested the removal of an F or M gender, if they identify as non-binary, if they prefer no title (regardless of identity), and their pronouns. (I also hear repeatedly from the trans* community that they are not “preferred” pronouns, but simply pronouns.) * We customized our name formats extensively, especially with couples and situations where we have titles on one spouse and not on the other. (I can provide more specifics if folks are interested.) What this boils down to is we have a very large database with a tradition of gendering the records in the past and new data without gender or title. It goes a bit against our desire for consistent data, but accurate data is more important, and offending folks by misgendering is something we definitely want to avoid. I consulted with our non-binary LGBTQ Center director, who recommended that we use a field name of “Self Reported” as opposed to Unknown or Other. We did not go with this, as it required more extensive customization and developer time for a relatively few constituents. However, this might be an option for an organization that may have a greater number of non-binary constituents, or it may become more common in the future, in general. This is an evolving situation that I believe requires flexibility in database design. Regards, Kelli Kelli Crispin Business Analyst/Quality Assurance Specialist she/her/hers The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Office of University Development 208 W. Franklin Street Chapel Hill, NC 27516 P 919.962.2815 E kelli.crispin@unc.edu<mailto:kelli.crispin@unc.edu> [cid:image001.png@01D383E6.0AC22A10] CAMPAIGN.UNC.EDU<http://campaign.unc.edu/> From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Terry Callaghan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 5:36 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations I’ll just add to this that in addition to preference for prefix, there should also be a preference for pronoun. He/She/They – for example. From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Hejnal, Alan Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:40 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: Re: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations It’s an interesting and timely question, and I don’t have anything worked-out to recommend, but I do have a few thoughts. It seems to me that the root of the matter is to understand why we maintain this data and what we think that we’re going to do with it. By way of reference, the gender coding in our database is still set up with the legacy choices of M/F/U (using U/Unknown even for entities that are couples, which is not really the same thing!). The discussions that we’ve had to date have generally tended in the direction of just not recording this data, letting all records default to “Unknown,” and only using prefix/courtesy titles where those have been requested by the constituent. It’s true that our context, and our relationship with our constituents, is different from the relationship between and educational institution and its alumni, so perhaps educational institutions might have a need for this data (which, of course, is not quite the same thing as having the data readily available!). But I think that the fundamental points are still to identify why you need the data, to weigh that use/those uses against any issues that might arise from maintaining that data, and then structure your coding and processes to accomplish that purpose. Historically, having gender coded has been useful for inferring prefix/courtesy titles that were customarily applied as part of data standards. It has also been useful in assessing ambiguous data, such as inferring whether two constituents might be married in the absence of specific information, as a data point in evaluating whether two records might be the same person, etc. But all of those uses are increasingly fraught. Two additional thoughts: · It seems to me that there might be value in having a gender code for recording when a constituent pro-actively does not identify as having a gender and/or does not wish the institution to track it, which is a different thing than the gender being unknown or even not reported. · Thinking about how gender-related data may be used practically, it may be that rather than recording gender per se there would be more value in recording a constituent’s preference for a specific prefix/courtesy title (or no prefix/courtesy title!), and also In recording the constituent’s preferred pronouns. Those are data points that you might actually use and want to use sensitively. My US$0.02 worth; the usual disclaimers apply. Good luck! Alan Alan S. Hejnal Data Quality Manager Smithsonian Institution - Office of Advancement 600 Maryland Avenue SW, Suite 600E P.O. Box 37012, MRC 527 Washington, DC 20013-7012 •: 202-633-8754 | •: HejnalA@si.edu<mailto:HejnalA@si.edu> [SNAGHTML5cbfa34]<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.si.edu%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cterry.callaghan%40RUF.RUTGERS.EDU%7Cb9e4d7a5a8bf4b1b17ee08d70adddef9%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636989820370618535&sdata=Hq9npcjtOZBNGVqXlK7VGqH8W7kgp8IkVBSSC8BnXl8%3D&reserved=0> [AASP_FundSvcs_LOGO-01(040pct)(mark)] From: Advancement Services Discussion List <FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG>> On Behalf Of Tracy Glidden Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 2:25 PM To: FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG<mailto:FUNDSVCS@LISTSERV.FUNDSVCS.ORG> Subject: [FUNDSVCS] Gender Options & Titles/Salutations We now have five gender options students can select when registering. A= Another Gender Identity U= Not Reported X=Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspec F= Female M= Male We remove the title of Mr., Ms. Miss when A or X are selected, but not sure what to do when someone selects not reported. Especially this year, students didn't have these options when they registered four years ago (so their student records have gender and title). Now some students have updated their registrar's record to Not Reported. Thoughts, suggestions, or maybe others have rules around these scenarios already. My first thought is to remove the title as well since they changed their gender to not reported since they registered. Thanks Tracy Glidden University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario, Canada CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any of its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and it may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail at the address shown above and delete all copies of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please be aware that you are not authorized to open, read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. Thank you for your compliance.