XKCD's Randall Munroe on Google+ requiring your gender to be public

Post by scythe » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 2:09 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #166

scythe wrote: post #164

>Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them Daaaaaamn are people ever good at misinterpreting this line. It doesn't matter whether women are at actual risk; it's about the perception of risk. They're your customers , not your s…

It doesn't matter whether women are at actual risk; it's about the perception of risk. And what proportion of 'em perceive this risk when filling out a little box on the internet? You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' to feel the way they do. Hang on, let me rephrase that for you: You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whe…

Post by saulrh » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 2:17 PM UTC

Duff wrote: post #155

saulrh wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, my educated guess is that far more women die from car accidents than from crazy murderers. That's true. However, if I'm doing my math right, the statistics for rape and sexual assault are an entirely different story. The US isn't on both of these lists[0][1], so we'll take a proxy and compare: Germany has 6.5/100k deaths/year in accidents and 8.9/100k rapes/year. Note that that's per 100k people, not per 100…

Great statistics. What is the point? Are you suggesting that knowing the gender of people is a risk factor for rape? It seems like a few people are making this odd connection between assault, stalking and rape with knowing somebody's gender. You do realize that most humans can sit on any street corner and identify the gender of passers-by with a high degree of certainty, right?

Post by jaredmck » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 2:19 PM UTC

T-R wrote: post #90

jaredmck wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fend themselves off from what attack? Oh yeah, a straw (wo)man attack. How is your argument not part of "the culture that breeds feeling of ownership by men of women"? Simply spectacular invocation of rape culture arguments, not that I've ever seen this topic discussed rationally. No one needs to be trained to a military standard to fend off any type of vicious attack that might occur, because except in ultra-rare oc…

> except in ultra-rare occasions they do not happen in first world countries ...That sounds a lot like you're implying that rape and assault don't happen very often in first-world countries... which would be a statement quite divorced from reality. Care to clarify?

Post by burgerbrain » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 2:27 PM UTC

Qz wrote: post #154

FeministHacker wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The range of answers you get when you give a free text entry field is wonderful, and proves why this is the best route. On matters like forced revealing of gender, my gender is rage. I'm in the process of trying to convince an genderfork academic I'm friends with to actually put a 20 marks question on an exam "what is your gender?".

Anyone care to explain why they're downvoting this?

Post by ignifero » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

dgabriel wrote: post #172

ignifero wrote: post #141

I support the ability to hide sex as an option, clearly on the grounds that more options are better. But the logic presented here to support it is really wrong. It's the same logic by which women hid themselves in burqas, long dresses, and the shadows of their men for centuries. If anything, having sex open might encourage everyone to be more aware of the issues that arise and fix them.

No it's not. It's the same logic that by which women choose gender-neutral or masculine nicknames when interacting with strangers on the internet. I do this.