My understanding of the SFCU is that it importantly separates sex from gender; and in this way, I believe, it is an important step. My sense is that there will be an important role for SFCU in supporting computable care guidelines (CCG) and other important digital health innovations that will rely on unambiguously knowing the biological sex of the subject of care. I fear that we are basing our proposed response related to SFCU on a concern that it is "political" to frame the value set as it has been proposed. This should not be political. I think we may want, instead, to frame our response in the context of this being a patient safety and quality of care issue. An accepted definition for cisnormativity is the sometime offensive "assumption that all human beings are cisgender, i.e. have a gender identity which matches their biological sex". But we're not talking about gender, here. As a practical matter, one's biological sex does match their biological sex – and we want the SFCU to reflect this apolitical data element as simply as possible. I believe the proposed value set is mercifully simple – and for this reason I would advocate for us voting AFFIRMATIVE.

Existing Wording:

This value set contains 4 concepts ...
Code -------Display
female -----Female sex for clinical use
male -------Male sex for clinical use
specified --Specified sex for clinical use
unknown --Unknown

(Comment 32 - imported by: Ron G. Parker)