I disagree. We've introduced a generic extension for conveying the sex/gender information important to a particular jurisdiction (or more accurately, issuer), we should encourage its use. Suggesting that jurisdictions create realm-specific extensions to convey the same content will lead to a reduction in interoperability.

If there is a subtlety that I have missed here (jurisdictions want a place to record SAAB, regardless of issuer of that document?) please provide clarifying text in the spec.

Existing Wording:

For the purposes of exchanging these concepts, implementers are encouraged to define the specific sex or gender concept that is relevant for their use case, and create a use-case specific property or extension to represent that specific concept. For example, if the sex assigned at birth is an important concept in a specific jurisdiction, that jurisdiction can create an realm-specific extension for that concept. In cases where a specific property or extension is not practical, or there is a need to represent a historical field that is not well defined, there is a standard recordedSexOrGender extension that may be used.

(Comment 11 - imported by: Ron G. Parker)