Sex for Infants that are dead and no sex listed.
It is so frustrating when an infant dies and there is no sex listed, you must add a sex Unknown is not acceptable. Then people put a female and a male when that is not the case. Your adding a child that is not there. So for Infants that were born and no sex was listed Unknown would be nice.
Comments
-
Timothy
Welcome to the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.
I am just another 'lowly' User/Patron ...
Just in passing ...
I am somewhat, confused, with your suggested enhancement ...
Please be, aware; and, advised, that ...
We can ALREADY "Add", an individual/person, into the "Family Tree" Part, of 'FamilySearch'; where, the 'Gender' is "Unknown" ...
Pictorially ...
So ...
As such ...
So, that we may understand ...
Question: Exactly WHAT is the problem/issue?
Please explain/advise.
'Thank You', in advance.
Brett
0 -
The problem, as reported here many times, is that putting Unknown for the child results in a permanent, non-dismissable data error. If the sex of the child can never be known, the record will have that permanent red blot that will someday lead someone to make something up just to get rid of it.
The data error should be able to be dismissed.
3 -
I agree; when the sex is not known it should absolutely be ACCEPTABLE to list the sex as "unknown" or "to be determined" or something like that. The way there is a "data error" resulting isn't satisfactory from the point of view of research. In fact, to say "unknown" is NOT an "error", it is a FACT that states "we don't know this yet."
It is ridiculous from a research point of view to call it an error.
Also, it results in some people going around and adding extra children into families in order to "cover" both sexes... I have been very frustrated with one of these individuals who has repeatedly created a female child with no data in a family I am close to and working on, for some religious reason apparently, just because I put that another child was a male when the record transcription did not show this (in fact, the original record shows it, but it wasn't part of the transcription)... if I can't prove the child was a boy, she adds a girl (with no supporting data) and vice versa. It is beyond ridiculous. Who knows how many bogus people she has created in this way?
"Unknown as yet" or "to be determined" or "requires further documentation" is a necessity.
1 -
This is the problem in posting to "Suggest an Idea". Implementing this suggestion should be straightforward and so obviously needs to be done. However, six months from the original post nothing has changed and we don't have any idea if a single Family Tree developer has even got round to reading this.
We shouldn't live in vain hope that matters like this will be addressed some day, but someone should have the courtesy to at least confirm this problem has been noted.
2 -
What is frustrating for member of the church is, that you can't seal a child to parents unless a sex is identified. When I worked for the Temple Department many years ago, we were instructed to create a male and female child so the sealing could be accomplished. Yes, it does create one false identity, but it does allow the sealing to take place with the correct gender proxy. (And one "extra" sealing, but there are lots of duplicate ordinances, so what is one more!)
0 -
@Maureen S. Bryson said
"... there are lots of duplicate ordinances, so what is one more..."
I totally agree with the idea that "Unknown" should be acceptable and share the frustration of anyone trying to progress things who is faced with the (genuinely) "Unknown" scenario.
However, I have to say that, as a non-Church member genealogist, creating a "false identity" is seriously not a good way to go. From my viewpoint, it's not a duplicate ordinance - it's a reference to a non-existent person. For a non-Church member, the scenario with the "one of each" profiles, actually looks like there were twins in the real world. Which isn't true.
There is a secondary lesson, which Maureen has inadvertently highlighted - if unhelpful rules are introduced, then people will get around them by creating dummy entries, omitting crucial data values, etc. And yes, I've done a few of those myself but hopefully, I've had good reason and I've made it clear by creating a profile named "Dummy Smith" - or whatever.
So please Management - identify and get rid of Counter-Productive Rules...
2 -
I agree with most of the people here ! I created a stillborn child with UNKNOWN sex, then a user saw the warning and felt compelled to change the sex.
According to the source attached to the sex, the sex was UNKNOWN. So, the user choosed male ?!?!?
Fortunately, the user explained his decision :
sex is unknown; listing as male until further information becomes available ?!?!
Information will never becomes available, it's a stillborn of the twentieth century !!!!!
But the user is very very very SATISFIED with his choice and explanation, because now, the WARNING HAS DISAPPEARED :)))))))))))
1
