How to decide gender when sources equally conflict?
Case in point K63R-H8R, a sibling (likely younger sibling) of my wife's direct ancestor.
Christening record says the child's name was "Ynocenta Crecencia", "hija" (daughter) of such-and-such parents from such-and-such small town.
Burial record says that the child's was "Ynocente Tomas", "parvulo" (male child) of those same parents from the same town. Burial record says he [?] was two months old; it was actually two days less than a month since christening but definitely in the second calendar-month since birth.
After changing "Sex" to "Unknown", there's a Research Help warning "Male or Female is Required". If this were a closer relative or person who had lived longer, I might hope to find some other source to break the tie (like a civil record, a medical record, or a recorded oral tradition), but in this case there are exactly two extant sources, they are almost certainly for the same person, but they differ regarding the subject's gender.
Is there any rule I should follow, all else being equal: use the later source? Use the source from which the profile was extracted? Some other rule?
Answers
-
I would do what you have done. Change the sex to "Unknown" and add a note explaining why.
That Research Help Warning is annoying but what else are you going to do?
2 -
I believe Church members need a sex to be able to carry out ordinance work, but there will always be cases where that factor just cannot be determined - from original sources, or otherwise. A shame the warning cannot be removed (at least for public accounts) and just applied to Church ones, where it is only really of relevance.
I guess in 99% of cases it is helpful to point out a sex hasn't been assigned, but we should be able to dismiss the warnings with a reason statement, when necessary.
4 -
Do you have dates of either event? They could be two separate children. The "months" and "days" issue could be a tip. Try to determine in the either record a date.
0 -
Do you have dates of either event? They could be two separate children. The "months" and "days" issue could be a tip. Try to determine in the either record a date.
Yes, each record has a date.
The christening record reads,
En veinte y nueve dias del mes de Diciembre de mil settecientos noventa y uno, en esta Parroquia de Quautitlan (V.P.) Yo el B. D. Francisco Gomez de Celis baptise solemnemente, y puse los Santos Oleos a una Ynfanta de un dia de nacida, a quien puse por nombre Ynocenta Cresencia hija legitima de Julian Eulogio y de Celestina Vicenta Yndios del pueblo de San Migul. Fueron Padrinos Pedro Antonio y su muger Luisa Maria Yndios de San Mateo à quienes advertì su obligacion y parentescoy para que conste lo firme.
Translation: "On the 29th day of December of [the year] one thousand seven hundred ninety-one, in this parish of Quautitlan [modern spelling "Cuautitlán"], by permission of the parish priest, I [titles] Francisco Gomez-Celis solemnly baptized and put the holy oils on a [female] infant, one day old [which might actually mean "in the first day", zero days by modern reckoning], legitimate daughter of Julian Eulogio [two given names] and Celestina Vicenta [two given names], indians from the town of San Miguel. Godparents were Pedro Antonio [two given names] and his wife [literally "his woman"] Luisa Maria [two given names], indians from San Mateo, whom I advised of their obligation and parenthood; and so that it might be known, I signed it."
The burial record reads,
En veinte y cinco dias del Mes de Enero de mil setecientos noventa y dos en el Pueblo de San Miguel se enterro ã Ynocente Tomas Parvulo de dos meses hijo lexitimo de Julian Eulogio y de Vicenta Celestina Yndios de dicho, y para que conste lo firme.
Translation: "On the 25th day of January of [the year] one thousand seven hundred ninety-two at the town of San Miguel Ynocente Tomas, [male] child, two months old, legitimate son of Julian Eulogio and Vicenta Celestina, indians from said [place], was buried; and so that it might be known, I signed it."
So the likely birthdate is 28 December 1791; the christening-date is 29 December 1791; and the burial-date is 25 January 1792.
I considered the possibility that the priest misunderstood "two years" ("dos años") as "two months" ("dos meses"), but I don't think that's the case here. I did a Tree search for a child with that name, those parents, that place, born 1789 to 1789, but the first two results were this child and this child's younger brother (Julian Tomas, born December 1792, survived to adulthood, married, had children). I had already come up empty searching for a marriage of this child.
0 -
Excellent research! For 1789-92, anything that can be found is rare. I doubt San Miguel was a bustling city. What a wonderful historical record!
0
