My guess is that they didn’t think it was necessary to include in the vocab because there are only 3 concepts total, and most people are probably just hard-coding it as part of their ETL. We certainly are. But I can’t imagine it would be that difficult (famous last words) to add it as a non-standard vocab and put CONCEPT_RELATIONSHIP entries mapping F to 8532 and M to 8507. @Dymshyts, @aostropolets, thoughts?
W/r/t the UN code, which doesn’t map to a standard concept in the Gender domain: as per @ericaVoss’s comment, generally the idea is to put sex assigned at birth in gender_concept_id for PERSON (and, as @hripcsa pointed out there too, gender_concept_id should probably be called sex_concept_id, except for all the code we’d have to rewrite). Shouldn’t most of these people have a sex assigned at birth? From what I remember of the literature, even folks with ambiguous genitalia tend to get assigned something at birth - although I welcome being corrected if I’m wrong here. And for anyone who only has an HL7AdministrativeGender of UN, with no documentation of what they were assigned at birth, why not just put 0 as the gender_concept_id? Can’t imagine there would be that many. You could then load something into OBSERVATION along the lines of 4062097.