It would be great to have some feedback on the use of gender in association links between individual constituents. If you're familiar with the way associations work now, you may know that there is fairly elaborate code there to try to figure out the gender of both sides of the association and map the association types appropriately.
Is this necessary, really? Wouldn't Parent/Child or Sibling/Sibling work as well as Mother/Daughter, Father/Daughter, Mother/Son, Mother/Daughter and Sister/Brother, Sister/Sister, Brother/Sister, Brother/Brother? Yes it gets a little tricky when you get into Uncles and Aunts, but maybe you just call that something like AuntUncle/NieceNephew. Interestingly Facebook has worked hard to keep all their relationship modeling gender neutral.
Thoughts are always welcome!
We've gone with the non-gender-specific relationship descriptions - except it seems we have specified for brother- sister- mother- and father-in-laws. To be honest I'm not sure what our rationale would have been in that as I'm sure noone uses them, so it's something for me to check back on!
I think the generic is fine, although it's valuable to have the gender field available in the association. Especially when we have names where it's difficult to determine for sure.
Cheers
Amalia