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

261–270 of 298 posts

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

#261

Post by klipt »

silencio wrote: post #87
waterhouse wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a random suggestion for the WOW raids, might it be possible to use software to distort your voice so that it sounds male (or at least androgynous)? Come to think of it, even males might want to do that so they can have, like, a really deep voice that sounds like the big heavy warrior character they're playing, or maybe an old gravelly voice if they're playing a wizard--or a female voice if their character is femal…

I've considered it! I used to play with someone that liked doing that to poke fun at someone else who had one of the deepest voices I had ever heard, too. I think the problem would lie in that the distortions might make it harder to understand someone. The primary goal of talking is to draw attention to a problem or strategy, not to make it harder to understand someone. Hard enough time doing that with accents and va…

There is free (as in beer) software to change the pitch of voices:

http://www.screamingbee.com/product/MorphVOXJunior.aspx

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

#262

Post by macrael »

jokermatt999 wrote: post #246
crux_ wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are also largely effected by our cognitive and biological biases I agree completely that these biases exist. However, to use a programming term, our biases are implementation concerns . Injustice doesn't somehow become otherwise simply because we are predisposed to it; our innate biases don't provide a valid excuse for inaction in the face of moral imperatives.

Certainly, I missed that part of your post and was focusing on the "we are not animals". I agree that we remain responsible for our actions even we are predisposed to them, but I think we are more influenced by our predispositions than people think.

The important takeaway I see is that regardless of wether advertising accurately taps some innate biologic differences between mean ad women in order to sell things effectively, it doesn't make it ok or right to do so. We should avoid it because it has fostered the negative elements of our society that the OP illustrated. We can shape the culture we live in for the better.

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

#263

Post by silencio »

MostAwesomeDude wrote: post #148
silencio wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with assault over the internet and everything to do with the way others perceive you. I would love to imagine I live in a world where it doesn't matter what chromosomes and sex organs you were born with, and really, I have kind of found that in the Cocoa developer community. That is why I enjoy talking to those people. But just /join an IRC channel with a female nickname. Play online games and ta…

As an experiment, I spent nearly two years in a community of people my age (16-25, mostly 18-20) of all genders, advertising myself as a girl and communicating in a relatively gender-neutral way. I marked my gender as "Other" and only claimed to be a girl when queried directly, with the response "I'm a girl." My experience was that girls seek the camaraderie of other girls online, and tend to be more aggressive about…

I have had that experience in some communities. I have not in others. Like I said, the Cocoa developer community? I have a hard time thinking of the last time I had a problem with someone. Online gaming? It happens half the time I open my mouth to talk. Sometimes it's just honest surprise, like a guy I know that was shocked the person he talked to occasionally over text and had respect for being pretty good at what I played was female the whole time. Most times it's just someone being an idiot. Usually the latter seems to be because there is some kind of anonymity involved (see also: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/). It's one thing to be `YouJustGotOwned` in a game or `foobar` on irc, it's another to be talking from a twitter account that is associated with your name, company and professional reputation, for example.

> Notably, there were just as many sexual or suggestive advances from women as there were from men.

Well, two things:

1. I never claimed women weren't capable of doing that. I have participated in female-majority communities where the men were hit on and treated badly, and I didn't like it. Everyone needs to treat others with respect as much as possible.

2. A big part in whether or not that is acceptable behavior from anybody is if the other person is/people are okay with it. I feel okay flirting and hitting on others when I know the interest is mutual, and I don't feel bad doing it. I can be as sexually suggestive and crude as I want in front of friends and people I know. What is distasteful is doing this to someone that doesn't want any part of it. What is also distasteful is misreading someone's behavior as implicit permission to do things like hit on them.

> otherwise there's very little difference in the way that people act towards people that they suspect to be girls online

I like to subscribe to the theory that the vast majority of people are somewhat reasonable. Most of the time there isn't a difference and that is where I'm perfectly fine being open about who/what I am. It's definitely a small minority (and partially due to selection bias) that can cause headaches though, and they're not always obvious or in public. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

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

#264

Post by amalcon »

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).…

I think the main issue is that it's the only field that's required to be public. That makes it seem out-of-place.

You can tell a lot about someone's ancestry from their name as well, but it would be pretty weird if Randall's profile looked like this:

  Name: Randall Munroe
  Ancestry: Scottish[1]
And that was it. Even though it's kind of obvious, it's encouraging people to think about it, and calling attention to any stereotypes people might have about Scottish people. This is probably not so bad for Scots, but there are a number of ethnicities that carry serious social baggage, and they may prefer not to be called to attention.

Of course, I don't need to know Mr. Munroe's ancestry to refer to him using pronouns in most languages. Getting that information from a name is also much less reliable. It's obviously not quite the same. I think it does highlight the issue pretty well, though.

[1] Which I am inferring from his last name; I have no idea about his actual ancestry.

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

#265

Post by ebiester »

woodall wrote: post #211
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).…

Sometimes, the way in which you form paragraphs and sentences can give away an individuals gender identity. Check this out, and the accompanying paper. Female Score: 8 Male Score: 14 The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male! http://www.bookblog.net/gender/genie.php http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/papers/male-female-text-fina...

I have been coded female, male, and androgynous depending on the writing sample. Oh HN, I would be coded as a man. In my fiction writing, I would be coded as a woman. In academic writing, I am coded as a man. In other non-fiction, I might be coded as a woman.

I am just saying that this is unreliable. Further, writing styles are a function of social construction, which break down in situations where this is a sensitive subject.

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

#266

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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.

"... with limited capacity to adjust our behavior on the basis of reasoned morality."

We also have hard-wired general memory and reasoning faculties.

"We are not animals."

We are not base animals, to be sure. Neither are we angels of pure logic.

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

#267

Post by rick_bc »

brianmatter wrote: post #119
nl wrote: post #37

The linked essay[1] is worth reading. I had no idea that sex testing was so complicated - it explained to me a lot about why sex-testing for (usually) women's sport isn't as simple as I'd assumed. [1] http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html

i agree that it is a complex issue. the problem is that he negates his argument by saying "many women" and trying to say what they feel. "many women" is pretty much a gender enhancing phrase

I actually think that "many women" isn't exaggeration.

Similar issues are discussed frequently in many forums. It's only you don't know what you don't know!

Edit: Ok. I exaggerated. But we really don't know.

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

#268

Post by rufibarbatus »

amalcon wrote: post #264
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).…

I think the main issue is that it's the only field that's required to be public. That makes it seem out-of-place. You can tell a lot about someone's ancestry from their name as well, but it would be pretty weird if Randall's profile looked like this: Name: Randall Munroe Ancestry: Scottish[1] And that was it. Even though it's kind of obvious, it's encouraging people to think about it, and calling attention to any ste…

A good way of avoiding this problem is to get rid of pronouns altogether. Case in point (drumroll): Facebook's interface!

You can count on one hand how many times they use pronouns, and those could be actually be removed as well.

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

#269

Post by crux_ »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #266
crux_ wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"... with limited capacity to adjust our behavior on the basis of reasoned morality." We also have hard-wired general memory and reasoning faculties. "We are not animals." We are not base animals, to be sure. Neither are we angels of pure logic.

I'm not sure you understand me.

To illustrate with an extreme: If we happened to be hard-wired by evolution to be tremendously predisposed towards genocidal behavior, would that make any acts of genocide we commit morally acceptable behavior?

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

#270

Post by william42 »

rufibarbatus wrote: post #268
amalcon wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main issue is that it's the only field that's required to be public. That makes it seem out-of-place. You can tell a lot about someone's ancestry from their name as well, but it would be pretty weird if Randall's profile looked like this: Name: Randall Munroe Ancestry: Scottish[1] And that was it. Even though it's kind of obvious, it's encouraging people to think about it, and calling attention to any ste…

A good way of avoiding this problem is to get rid of pronouns altogether. Case in point (drumroll): Facebook's interface! You can count on one hand how many times they use pronouns, and those could be actually be removed as well.

In English, yes, but in other languages this isn't always possible.
Post reply on HN