21–30 of 298 posts
I'm not sure why Google is getting a free pass on the public profiles requirement. Every other social network I've used has an option to block search engines from indexing your profile.
Why not simply reword the question to ask whether you prefer to be referred to as a "he" or "she"? In the rare case that it doesn't align with your genetic or anatomic gender, it's not exactly the end of the world.
That sounds like a great option for use within your account. On the other hand, someone could easily want to be referred to as "he" in his UI, but not want to present that to other users.
1. What gender do I want to identify myself as?
2. Do I want to publicly publish this information?
The issue is being muddied because some people that answer 'no' to question #2 are using the gender of 'Other' as a hack around the system, when in reality their gender identity is not 'Other.' This in effect co-opts the gender identity of 'Other' from the people that truly want to be gender-identified as 'Other.' Now when you view a profile with a gender of 'Other' you can't be sure if the person really identifies as 'Other' or if they identify as male/female, but are trying to hide it.
We could easily frame this problem in a different light without getting into the "OMG! There are really only two genders! I hate all this PC bullshit!" discussion. If Google+ made mandatory both choosing a gender (only a binary male/female choice) and publishing that choice publicly, then a lot of women that wish to hide their gender would choose 'Male.' Now the gender field is useless because you've designed a system that doesn't fit your users' needs, forcing them to provide you with wrong information.
I don't get this trend at all. Something is wrong with priorities and perceived risk vs. real risk. It's pretty difficult to assault someone physically over the internet ( http://bash.org/?4281 ). On the other hand, woman broadcasts her gender when in public. Will x years from now we all be walking in some kind of uniform enclosures as to protect from anyone knowing if one is male or female? Also, in some languages n…
Do you then proclaim to everyone that they must let their children roam alone on the streets as the real risk is low?
What is important is people have a choice to act on their perceived risks. In your example, the ability to wear clothes to hide their gender is their choice, it is not imposed on them.
In this case, they do not have a choice that is sufficiently suitable.
Really, I'm more disgruntled that Google+ lets you put down your relationship status and types of relationships you're looking for, but no way to specify which genders if any you are interested in talking to. I've been mulling over removing that part from my google profile because I can't mark that I'm only interested in women for relationships and dating. I have some female friends that would prefer to talk only to other females as well, it doesn't even have to go as far as preferences for dating.
Human sexuality and gender is so complicated that I'm willing to give a pass to any company that at least tries to make an effort to be more inclusive. They sure fall short here and there, but maybe with better education and awareness and bug reports, that will change.
He's written about gender very well before.[1] It is certainly a subject that I don't know very much about, but I appreciate that it can get very complicated very quickly. What are the good reasons for requiring it to be public? Secondly, do you think that "other" is enough? To what lengths should developers go to handle rare corner cases? [1]: http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/06/sex-and-gender/
He's written about gender very well before.[1] It is certainly a subject that I don't know very much about, but I appreciate that it can get very complicated very quickly. What are the good reasons for requiring it to be public? Secondly, do you think that "other" is enough? To what lengths should developers go to handle rare corner cases? [1]: http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/06/sex-and-gender/
In this Portable Network Gender (PNG) system, the R channel is degree of traditional female gender; the B is degree of traditional male gender; the G is a catchall for other gender expressions (or perhaps a lookup table rather than a magnitude); the A indicates the overall transparency/importance of the other values.
On the other hand, this only offers around 4 billion unique combinations, which may not be enough to represent the diversity of the planet's 6-billion-plus individuals (not to mention situational identities). Everyone deserves gender-appropriate and gender-precise targeted advertising! So ultimately, a new Gender Protocol offering 128-bits of resolution may prove necessary (GPv6).
I don't get this trend at all. Something is wrong with priorities and perceived risk vs. real risk. It's pretty difficult to assault someone physically over the internet ( http://bash.org/?4281 ). On the other hand, woman broadcasts her gender when in public. Will x years from now we all be walking in some kind of uniform enclosures as to protect from anyone knowing if one is male or female? Also, in some languages n…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct to say that there are two genders , but not that there are two sexes ? Since gender is only a social construct, presumably the prevailing views of the society in question are what defines it?
Gender is social. There are more than two genders. Some examples are masculinity, femininity, and androgyny (among others).
Edit: (expanding upon the above)
Sexuality is social. There are more than two sexualities. Some examples are heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality (among others).
A person's sexual identity is the triplet defined by these three items. For example, one could be an androgynous male homosexual.