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

291–298 of 298 posts

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

#291

Post by rimantas »

timsally wrote: post #35
rimantas wrote: post #17

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…

It's not a "trend". We came out of the cave and realized that gender is not a simple binary. Or are you under the impression that it is?

> We came out of the cave and realized that gender is not a > simple binary

That's a bad reason to pretend gender differenced do not exist.

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

#292

Post by mentat »

demallien wrote: post #285
mentat wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I see the way you're using sexual objectification now. I think people in this thread have been using it to describe both positive and negative reactions to people based on objective characteristics, not using desire as the important quality, but instead placing it on the objectification. Are you saying that reacting to someone as fat and bald as the primary characteristic of them is not objectification in the gen…

It's not how I use the term, it's its definition - Humpty Dumpty aside, words have meaning! So no, rejecting someone as a sexual partner is not sexual objectification, pretty much by definition.

I'm not sure what your educational background is, but when you spend significant time working on literary subjects, you come to understand that definition is the trickiest part of any intellectual engagement. Your claim that your definition is the definition even though I've pointed out several issues with it. It's too bad you seem to be unwilling to take other perspectives.

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

#293

Post by parfe »

klipt wrote: post #260
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." ?

> "John was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic." It sounds ungrammatical because the gender-neutral pronoun follows a gender specific name. The actual use is more like "A friend of mine was late for dinner. They were caught in traffic."

This conversation is regarding asocial network where your name is always public.

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

#294

Post by andreyf »

zb wrote: post #106
andreyf wrote: post #6

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 already is the definition of "gender". The issue here is whether there should be an option to make the data non-public.

I can't imagine why I wouldn't want someone to know I prefer to be referred to as a "he"...

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

#295

Post by ignifero »

wtn wrote: post #280
rufibarbatus wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Facebook abuses "their".

They do! In fact, their stream stories used to allow tags so that when an app published something, you didn't need to refer to him/her as "them". But that changed about a year ago, so now facebook is a major paragon in familiarizing folks with the word "their" being singular.

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

#298

Post by salemh »

scott_s wrote: post #188
temphn wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. You don't seem to be introspective enough to realize that your problem is thus not with "men", but with unattractive men. Pretty obligatory link: http://www.dailyhaha.com/_vids/sexual_harassment.htm It's not unwelcome if Tom Brady does it. So computer scientists get it in the neck twice, as they are enriched for unattractive men AND blamed for excluding women.

Unwanted is unwanted, but I can easily see how the other person being physically unattractive to you making it even more unwanted. Imagery also helped make her example real.

Semantic argument about an asshole grinding on a woman in a club which was undesirable, even in the face of potential influence of "looks," even if it was a Brad Pitt type, the attention could have been undesirable.

Please picture 8 foot tall gigantic men wanting to sexually have at you on a 24 hour basis whence in public, and maybe you'll have an idea of what a women feels like. Or, go to jail as a frail man, then get the same idea (I'm reaching / exaggerating, but these discussions are getting very "all the dudes I know would never.." vs the reality of data, supporting evidence, statistics, and just the fact that the majority of men can overpower the majority of women. It is a physical dynamic men can't understand, unless the above extreme examples, or if you have had your ass kicked, badly, in a physical confrontation.)

Post reply on HN