• Replies 15 replies
  • Subscribers 363 subscribers
  • Views 92 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Associations and Gender

Chuck Reif
$organization

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!

Parents
  • $organization

    I agree with the consensus. While association information is very important to Development we can certainly be more gender neutral especially since it is often confusing to explain how to enter associations especially to gift officers.

     

    Since there is still gender information on the general tab as well as the prefixes to turn to that would clear up any questions with a name that it difficult to determine whether its male or female.

     

    Marta

     

    From: Tessitura Next Generation Forum [mailto:forums-nextgeneration@tessituranetwork.com] On Behalf Of Amalia Hordern
    Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:00 AM
    To: marta@smm.org
    Subject: Re: [Tessitura Next Generation Forum] Associations and Gender

     

    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

    From: Chuck Reif <bounce-chuckreif3941@tessituranetwork.com>
    Sent: 4/27/2010 3:22:18 PM

    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!




    You were sent this message automatically by www.tessituranetwork.com because you subscribed to the Tessitura Next Generation forum email notifications. You may reply to this message or visit the site to reply to the post above. If replying via email, please consider deleting the previous message text before sending to help with readability on the site. Thank you!

Reply
  • $organization

    I agree with the consensus. While association information is very important to Development we can certainly be more gender neutral especially since it is often confusing to explain how to enter associations especially to gift officers.

     

    Since there is still gender information on the general tab as well as the prefixes to turn to that would clear up any questions with a name that it difficult to determine whether its male or female.

     

    Marta

     

    From: Tessitura Next Generation Forum [mailto:forums-nextgeneration@tessituranetwork.com] On Behalf Of Amalia Hordern
    Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:00 AM
    To: marta@smm.org
    Subject: Re: [Tessitura Next Generation Forum] Associations and Gender

     

    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

    From: Chuck Reif <bounce-chuckreif3941@tessituranetwork.com>
    Sent: 4/27/2010 3:22:18 PM

    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!




    You were sent this message automatically by www.tessituranetwork.com because you subscribed to the Tessitura Next Generation forum email notifications. You may reply to this message or visit the site to reply to the post above. If replying via email, please consider deleting the previous message text before sending to help with readability on the site. Thank you!

Children
No Data