Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 298 posts

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

#231

Post by grecy »

cletus wrote: post #182

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm a guy so obviously don't have the experience (any) women have but I will say this. Three things will essentially give away your gender: 1. Your stated gender; 2. Your name (with a high degree of accuracy in most cultures that I'm aware of); and 3. Your photos. So for (1) to have any impact, (2) and (3) must be hidden. Since all profiles are public, I'm not sure you can hide (2).…

(2) is simple to hide...I have a ton of friends in Facebook who have never entered their full name into their profile, only initials. i.e. 'MS Jones' or 'G Johnston'

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

#232

Post by dfxm12 »

throwaway939393 wrote: post #214
dazzer wrote: post #12

Guys, lets not get carried away by the issue here. The issue is NOT about gender identification. It is Google+ not providing the ability to hide your gender on your profile (I won't say they're FORCING you to post your gender). The issue of Gender Identification is merely an example provided to justify the usage of such a feature. So let's avoid a massive gender debate here, when you can read all about it in the post…

There absolutely should be an option to hide gender on your profile. I was lucky to get a +1 invite early but didn't create an account because of this issue. Here's why: I'm a hacker. I do freelance work for a living. I avoid all references to my gender in anything work-related because it creates too much extra mental overhead. Instead of focusing on getting things done I end up wondering whether a disagreement on a…

Don't you think you are doing other females a disservice by doing quality work and hiding the fact that you are a female? Maybe you'll have to deal with those headaches you describe now, but then maybe you can make it easier for your daughter, or inspire other young female hackers. Isn't that worth it?

I can appreciate it if you aren't up for this fight, but think of it like this: wouldn't it have defeated the purpose if Rosa Parks wore a disguise when she sat at the front of the bus, so that no one would be able to tell what race she was?

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

#233

Post by parfe »

protomyth wrote: post #228
parfe wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what problem are we talking about them? People who care don't reveal that information. Problem solved. Fake photo, fake sex, fake name.

Forcing your users to lie is not a good starting point for a relationship.

Google is forcing people to use their free service now?

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

#234

Post by Duff »

gommm wrote: post #194
saulrh wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was simply being annoyed at an unbacked statement like that, especially given the topic. We always seem to forget that being a woman is, in fact, bloody dangerous. Something like one in five American women experiences a rape. We aren't discussing some abstract edge case; half of the population lives in completely justifiable terror of something that actually happens . I mention gender because that modifies the stat…

I don't see how you arrive at the statistic of "one in five american women experiencing a rape" from 28 rapes per hundred thousand people. Even if we considered that only women were victim of rapes and that half of the incidents weren't reported, it would still amount to something like 112 rapes/100k so around 0.1%. Anecdotically, none of my female friends were ever raped which doesn't match with your assertion that…

Incidence varies by community and definition. Sexual assaults are very common on college campuses.

The stereotypical scary guy with pantyhose pulled over his head is only one manifestation of rape. "Date-rape" and taking advantage of people not capable of giving consent (drunk, drugged, etc) happens all of the time.

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

#236

Post by lhnz »

parfe wrote: post #226
epochwolf wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they#Generic_they It's been around for a very long time.

Are you saying that usage is common or are you showing me the exception that proves the rule? I Don't think I'd ever use a "They" in a way such as being described here. "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic." Or is it "They was caught in traffic." ?

I'm British: I use it quite often. Maybe it's rarer in the US?

"John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic." is perfectly correct usage (however if you'd just called somebody by a gender-specific name there's not much point in then being gender-neutral).

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

#237

Post by roundsquare »

vacri wrote: post #36

I've always found Munroe's position on gender equality weird - despite what he says, he 'others' women in his main work. Female stick figures have long hair, even if the strip has nothing to do with gender. Male stick figures have no such indication. That is: 'male' is 'default'.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think these two are in any way inconsistent. Gender equality starts with breaking down people's assumptions. If people just saw stick figures, I think they'd assume they were male. Thus, to break that assumption, he needs to do something to make it clear that some of them are women. So, if he has scientists talking about something, having half of them be women should, hopefully, ingrain a little more that women can be scientists.

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

#238

Post by parfe »

lhnz wrote: post #236
parfe wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that usage is common or are you showing me the exception that proves the rule? I Don't think I'd ever use a "They" in a way such as being described here. "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic." Or is it "They was caught in traffic." ?

I'm British: I use it quite often. Maybe it's rarer in the US? "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic." is perfectly correct usage (however if you'd just called somebody by a gender-specific name there's not much point in then being gender-neutral).

If you said "They" I would wonder who else was in the car with John.

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

#239

Post by jokermatt999 »

crux_ wrote: post #224
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Constant sexualization and stereotyping in advertising and other media create social expectations that many people aren't comfortable with." Look, men get to use trillions of sperm cells, which means evolution has hard-wired their brains to be magnetically attracted to anything feminine. Advertising uses this not because it is "sexualized", but because men will buy toxic waste by the barrel if you draw nice titties…

Your basic underlying thesis here is that we are all hard-wired lemmings, slaves to our biology, with limited capacity to adjust our behavior on the basis of reasoned morality. I reject that thesis. We are not animals. Our evolutionary history does not dictate right and wrong.

We do have some choice (ok, barring the free wil debate, which is for more than I'd like to go into), but we are also largely effected by our cognitive and biological biases. For some easy to dive into examples, check out http://youarenotsosmart.com/. Don't take that name as an insult; it's a fascinating, well written, and yet easily digestible look at the myriad biases we all have. I think we have a lot less choice than we like to believe.

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

#240

Post by iy56 »

gommm wrote: post #194
saulrh wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was simply being annoyed at an unbacked statement like that, especially given the topic. We always seem to forget that being a woman is, in fact, bloody dangerous. Something like one in five American women experiences a rape. We aren't discussing some abstract edge case; half of the population lives in completely justifiable terror of something that actually happens . I mention gender because that modifies the stat…

I don't see how you arrive at the statistic of "one in five american women experiencing a rape" from 28 rapes per hundred thousand people. Even if we considered that only women were victim of rapes and that half of the incidents weren't reported, it would still amount to something like 112 rapes/100k so around 0.1%. Anecdotically, none of my female friends were ever raped which doesn't match with your assertion that…

The x/100000 is per year. The 1/5 number is over a woman's lifetime. Still seems fishy to me, though.
Post reply on HN