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

221–230 of 298 posts

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

#221

Post by jrockway »

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...

50% of the time, it's going to be right by simply choosing a random number.

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

#222

Post by crux_ »

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).…

While I think privacy and gender issues are incredibly important symptoms, there's a deeper debate being had here:

Will the internet of the future be a place where your persona can generally be isolated from your person? Historically, online spaces were a haven for that type of anonymity.

The trend is firmly in the opposite direction; with good and bad consequences.

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

#223

Post by demallien »

mentat wrote: post #161
demallien wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"introspection" You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Seriously. Well, either that or your reading comprehension could do with some work. Also, you seem to suggest that I am sexually objectifying men if I don't find every single one of them attractive? Absurd.

No, he's saying that judging sexual attractiveness is inherently objectification and that both sexes do it. Though I believe it is a fallacy to say that you can't dislike to be objectified if you are in fact objectifying others, in non-logical areas (like here) it does tend to weaken one's perceived case.

Oh, you too. That is not what sexual objectification means, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification

Specifically, sexual objectification is when you see someone as nothing other than a sexual object - they have no other characteristics in your eyes. Now, knowing that, I would like you to explain to me how making the judgement that someone is not attractive is in any way shape or form sexual objectification...

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

#224

Post by crux_ »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #218
jfager wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be suggesting that our culture can't be described as objectifying women unless all or most men are assholes to women in bars or engage in similar behavior, and in your other comments, unless such behavior happens exclusively to women. Which is absurd. As others have pointed out, if even 10% or 1% of men behave this way, it creates a hostile environment. If 1 out of every 100 random people you encounter pu…

"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.

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

#225

Post by rufibarbatus »

crux_ wrote: post #222
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).…

While I think privacy and gender issues are incredibly important symptoms, there's a deeper debate being had here: Will the internet of the future be a place where your persona can generally be isolated from your person? Historically, online spaces were a haven for that type of anonymity. The trend is firmly in the opposite direction; with good and bad consequences.

IRC and anonymous or pseudonimous fora are still out there, and there is no trend in forcing gender choice in them.

Those of us who have been here for long enough to play with online personas and to enjoy intelligent use of anonymity are bound to feel nostalgic, but I honestly don't see a trend so much as I see the real world's biases finally catching up with the internet, where's the space for everyone and then some.

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

#226

Post by parfe »

epochwolf wrote: post #215
parfe wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They is traditionally plural.

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." ?

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

#227

Post by Daniel_Newby »

Duff wrote: post #162
iron_ball wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So privacy is either impossible or mandatory? The slopes sure are slippery around here. I shouldn't have worn my dress shoes.

Not at all. I just don't think that hiding gender is meaningful beyond making some people feel good. It's a false set of security -- gender and identity are linked. It's a social networking application. Knowing what people put on social networking sites, my guess is that if you couldn't see someone's name/alias or gender, you could identify the gender of a user with a reasonable degree of confidence. The predators (r…

"The predators (rapists, stalkers, etc) are highly attuned and skilled at identifying WILLING victims."

There, fixed that for you.

"Hiding gender in that case could create a dangerous, false sense of security."

It's even worse. Exploiters and stalkers build a relationship with a delusion. Maintaining ongoing contact using a mystery persona gives their imagination free rein, ungrounded by contact with reality, building up a fantasy relationship that does not exist. The solution is to use your real persona, and end all contact the moment you start getting creepy vibes.

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

#228

Post by protomyth »

parfe wrote: post #220
protomyth wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever think that people who care about the issue aren't going to use the service or going to use a "fake" photo?

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.

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

#229

Post by crux_ »

rufibarbatus wrote: post #225
crux_ wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I think privacy and gender issues are incredibly important symptoms, there's a deeper debate being had here: Will the internet of the future be a place where your persona can generally be isolated from your person? Historically, online spaces were a haven for that type of anonymity. The trend is firmly in the opposite direction; with good and bad consequences.

IRC and anonymous or pseudonimous fora are still out there, and there is no trend in forcing gender choice in them. Those of us who have been here for long enough to play with online personas and to enjoy intelligent use of anonymity are bound to feel nostalgic, but I honestly don't see a trend so much as I see the real world's biases finally catching up with the internet, where's the space for everyone and then some…

Of course -- however, the default used to be "On the internet, nobody know's you're a dog." There were very few sites, especially online communities, that would require your real name; of those that did, very few of them would require its disclosure to, say, search engine crawlers.

That's becoming the exception.

(edit: minor grammar fix.)

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

#230

Post by Daniel_Newby »

temphn wrote: post #139
demallien wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bzzzt! Thanks for playing! No, I would have a problem with it from anyone if the attention was unwanted. It is the 'unwanted' aspect of things which is important. A woman in a bar is not necessarily looking for any action - she may already be in a committed relationship, she may have just had a hard week at work and is unwinding with some friends, she might be a lesbian, or whatever. For your information I have also…

> I am always conscious that I am being objectified sexually ...fat, bald guy Again, lack of introspection. You complain about being objectified sexually while dissing fat, bald (and no doubt short) guys. Of course men are going to objectify women, just as you and other women objectify men. In other words you have nothing to complain about.

"Again, lack of introspection."

You are repeatedly criticizing a woman for her lack of logical insight into female emotions. This suggests you lack the same insight.

Post reply on HN