Instantiating sub-class from super

[duncan smith]

On 15/10/2019 21:36, DL Neil wrote:
> On 16/10/19 12:38 AM, Rhodri James wrote:
>> On 14/10/2019 21:55, DL Neil via Python-list wrote:
> ...
> 
>>> It seemed better (at the design-level) to have Man( Person ) and
>>> Woman( Person ) sub-classes to contain the pertinent attributes,
>>> source more detailed and specific questions, and collect such data;
>>> by gender.
>>
>> Knowing a lot of Trans people as I do, may I gently suggest that this
>> solution will find many and varied ways of coming back to bite you?
> 
> 
> [with more respect than the previous humor]
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct. The use-case was (over-)simplified, per
> list-advice.
> 
> That said, if a "trans" person has ovaries or testes (for example) then
> a non-traditional sexual identification is irrelevant - for medical
> purposes. Diseases in those areas (and now I'm a long way from a
> research questionnaire and from Python - but this is roughly how it was
> explained to me) still apply, and sadly, may in-fact be considerably
> complicated by any medical processes that may have contributed to a
> transition.
> 
> So, yes, the "label" is unimportant - except to politicians and
> statisticians, who want precise answers from vague collections of
> data... (sigh!)
> 

[snip]

No not (real) statisticians. People often want us to provide precise
answers, but they don't often get them.

"It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you
know for sure that just ain’t so." (Mark Twain - perhaps)

Duncan