打开性别盒子:美国州政府表格的可读性困境与性别数据收集

Ari Ezra Waldman
{"title":"打开性别盒子:美国州政府表格的可读性困境与性别数据收集","authors":"Ari Ezra Waldman","doi":"10.1017/lsi.2023.44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>US states collect sex and gender data on official government forms to understand, identify, classify, and surveil populations. These forms’ gender boxes—sets of questions about sex, gender, and gender identity paired with a wide variety of answer options—can mean the difference between legibility and erasure or between surveillance and privacy. They also create classic disclosure and legibility dilemmas that disproportionately burden transgender, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, and intersex individuals. And yet, the socio-legal forces determining the design of these gender boxes have been insufficiently studied. Documents obtained through public records requests and interviews with civil servants responsible for form design demonstrate that gender box design stems from the competing yet mostly inertial pressures that define the socio-legal contexts of street-level bureaucracy. In other words, gender boxes are products of the institutional, technological, political, and social contexts in which they are designed. Specifically, gender boxes look the way they do because they are subject to the effects of bureaucratic processes, social networks, expertise, intergovernmental dependence, norms, path dependencies, and technologies, with implications for research and advocacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":501328,"journal":{"name":"Law & Social Inquiry","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Opening the Gender Box: Legibility Dilemmas and Gender Data Collection on U.S. State Government Forms\",\"authors\":\"Ari Ezra Waldman\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/lsi.2023.44\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>US states collect sex and gender data on official government forms to understand, identify, classify, and surveil populations. These forms’ gender boxes—sets of questions about sex, gender, and gender identity paired with a wide variety of answer options—can mean the difference between legibility and erasure or between surveillance and privacy. They also create classic disclosure and legibility dilemmas that disproportionately burden transgender, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, and intersex individuals. And yet, the socio-legal forces determining the design of these gender boxes have been insufficiently studied. Documents obtained through public records requests and interviews with civil servants responsible for form design demonstrate that gender box design stems from the competing yet mostly inertial pressures that define the socio-legal contexts of street-level bureaucracy. In other words, gender boxes are products of the institutional, technological, political, and social contexts in which they are designed. Specifically, gender boxes look the way they do because they are subject to the effects of bureaucratic processes, social networks, expertise, intergovernmental dependence, norms, path dependencies, and technologies, with implications for research and advocacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Social Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Social Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2023.44\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Social Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2023.44","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国各州通过政府官方表格收集性别数据,以了解、识别、分类和监控人口。这些表格中的性别框--一组关于性、性别和性别认同的问题,配以多种多样的答案选项--可能意味着可读性与抹杀之间的区别,或者监视与隐私之间的区别。它们还造成了典型的信息披露和可读性困境,给变性人、非二元性别者、性别不符者和双性人带来了过重的负担。然而,对决定这些性别盒子设计的社会法律力量却研究不足。通过公共记录申请获得的文件以及与负责表格设计的公务员的访谈表明,性别箱的设计源于相互竞争但大多是惯性的压力,这些压力决定了街道官僚机构的社会法律背景。换句话说,性别平等箱是制度、技术、政治和社会背景下的产物。具体地说,性别平等框之所以看起来像这样,是因为它们受到官僚程序、社会网络、专业知识、政府间依赖性、规范、路径依赖和技术的影响,并对研究和宣传产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Opening the Gender Box: Legibility Dilemmas and Gender Data Collection on U.S. State Government Forms

US states collect sex and gender data on official government forms to understand, identify, classify, and surveil populations. These forms’ gender boxes—sets of questions about sex, gender, and gender identity paired with a wide variety of answer options—can mean the difference between legibility and erasure or between surveillance and privacy. They also create classic disclosure and legibility dilemmas that disproportionately burden transgender, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, and intersex individuals. And yet, the socio-legal forces determining the design of these gender boxes have been insufficiently studied. Documents obtained through public records requests and interviews with civil servants responsible for form design demonstrate that gender box design stems from the competing yet mostly inertial pressures that define the socio-legal contexts of street-level bureaucracy. In other words, gender boxes are products of the institutional, technological, political, and social contexts in which they are designed. Specifically, gender boxes look the way they do because they are subject to the effects of bureaucratic processes, social networks, expertise, intergovernmental dependence, norms, path dependencies, and technologies, with implications for research and advocacy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Atrato River as a Bearer and Co-creator of Rights: Unveiling Black People’s Legal Mobilization Processes in Colombia Agency Entrenchment: Sociological Legitimacy in a Politically Contested Occupation The False Marking Gold Rush: A Case Study of the Private Enforcement of Public Laws The Legal Realists on Political Economy The Paradox of Sanctuary: How Punitive Exceptions Converge to Criminalize and Punish Latinos/as
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1