Transgendered People

We just posted a discussion paper on the Dewey web site in which we explore improvements to the Dewey provisions for people by gender or sex. The main focus of the paper is on the proposed new development at T1—0867 for transgendered people.

We also pose a question about the ongoing need for existing provisions for “asexuality and asexuals,” “people with no sexual orientation,” and “neutral sexual orientation.”

Please review the paper (which includes the new development), and then advise us on the following two questions:

• Is the development for transgendered people at T1—0867 a satisfactory placement?
• Is there any need for provisions for “asexuality and asexuals,” “people with no sexual orientation,” or “neutral sexual orientation”?

We will accept comments through August 24, 2007.

Comments

[Hillary]

As far as I'm concerned, what's proposed is the appropriate placement for transgender-related literature. Someone who has spent more time on the subject (and someone who can relate to the issue more closely) might have a different take on it than I do.

I wanted to comment mostly because I think there is a need for a provisions for "asexuality and asexuals." I have a vested interest, being an asexual myself. As for the second and third parts of that sentence...I'm not sure what they mean. I'm assuming we all have a sexual orientation, that asexuality is also a sexual orientation. I've never heard of a "neutral sexual orientation." I understand that literature concerning these topics is really scarce, but I think there should be a place for them, because I'm hoping more and more get published in the future. (Near future would be even better...but then I know this is probably beside the point). If there is a requirement that there be existing literature to be cataloged before there is a place, I can understand that. I'm really glad this is being considered.

[DLT]

There is most definitely a need for provisions for asexuality. I am an asexuality researcher, and I'm floored by the fact that -- even at the Kinsey Institute -- it's virtually impossible to launch a reasonably intuitive search on asexuality. There is precious little academic research, but what is there is *incredibly* difficult to find.

"People with no sexual orientation" or "neutral sexual orientation" are not, IMO, appropriate categories. ONe of the issues about asexuality is whether it's an *orientation* at all. It's much more complicated than trying to place it on a continuum or spectrum. If there was a clear location for studies about asexuality, scholars could sort it out amongst themselves. For now, we're forced to try to place asexuality amongst other categories, which is apples and oranges.

[Donna]

Seems satisfactory for the most part.

The classification of 'Intersexed' under transgender is a mistake, and should be separately classified as a unique classification.

[Nick]

It is a mistake to put intersex under the same category as the transgender. They should be classified separately from the transgender.

[Acomplia]

Thanks for sharing!