I do not want to replace the series on orientation, particularly not the identification part of it, with that. Oh no no.
I'm not sure if I'd want those exact questions in the survey I'm designing at all, given that there as so much more precise questions. But those questions do cover the original form of the question, and in such a way that they point out that we really need to be asking about so much more than just that in order to get a reliable and useful answer.
Slash/not slash is deceptive in the same way, because it doesn't separate gen from het or the same-sex narratives that emphatically aren't het or gen, but don't fit into slash either. So's woman/not woman, because of the male vs. off-the-gender-binary thing.
Foo/not-foo is better survey design than Foo/Bar, when Foo and Bar aren't on a binary continuum, but it in no way captures the diversity inherent in non-foo.
no subject
I'm not sure if I'd want those exact questions in the survey I'm designing at all, given that there as so much more precise questions. But those questions do cover the original form of the question, and in such a way that they point out that we really need to be asking about so much more than just that in order to get a reliable and useful answer.
Slash/not slash is deceptive in the same way, because it doesn't separate gen from het or the same-sex narratives that emphatically aren't het or gen, but don't fit into slash either. So's woman/not woman, because of the male vs. off-the-gender-binary thing.
Foo/not-foo is better survey design than Foo/Bar, when Foo and Bar aren't on a binary continuum, but it in no way captures the diversity inherent in non-foo.