As someone about to implement something this is relevant to, I'd like to know what's wrong with just having a gender choice of: "Male", "Female", "Neutral". Your profile on some web site doesn't need to be a precisely accurate description of the real you. Those three options should be considered not what you are, but what you're okay with the web site referring to you as. If you identify as neither male or female, I don't see how you can be offended by choosing the option that remains neutral on the issue and identifies you as neither.
Once you open your self up to all the conceivable permutations of identity, your logic starts to get really hairy. Consider the GenderBread Person: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/... That shows 8 axises of identity determination, compared to the traditional binary. Does a FTM 2-spirit pansexual want to buy tampons? Beats me but I know women might and men probably don't. Where do you draw the line? FB added, like, a million different options and it seems that there is a new identity every day. There is no clear way to model this data. Some identities are exclusive, some are not, some are contradictory... Whats worse, it seems that many identities are purposefully vague! For example, many people identify as 'queer' yet 'queer' is perhaps the least useful label possible! AFAIK, it paradoxically labels those-who-do-not-want-to-be-labled. I need something that fits into a relational database, is relevant to my work, minimizes the risk that my app will offend somebody... oh and I have to convince my boss that it's worth the investment in time. The best answer I see is an optional "Male, Female or Other." I agree that making the gender field (or any other field) mandatory is a poor idea.
Frankly, I'd like to side-step the whole issue by not asking the user at all.
That people link all sorts of preferences to 'gender' and make charts is not necessarily important to others. Even in a civilized society, I have no obligation to accommodate your fantasies, or even be polite to you.
The gender question, I think, is useful only when it is actionable. If it helps to choose an honorific (Mr, Ms etc) then fine, whatever. Probably safer to just leave both out.
Actually, that's exactly what living in a civilized society means- being polite, to some degree or another. I would also recommend that you not call your users' identities as 'fantasies.' It may not matter to you but it matters to them and you should respect you users if you wish to keep them.
It means civil discourse, which gives everybody a voice. It doesn't mean having to pretend everybody is right. It definitely doesn't mean being polite, not by a far margin.
I'd be glad to recognize any distinctions that don't require an entirely new dictionary. Especially if they are actionable. Mostly, it'd be nice if folks kept private things private.
But these things are not private and they are actionable. And they update the dictionary every year, because language changes. If you dismiss them out of hand, you will lose a lot of opportunity.
If greater concern, though, is that your contempt for non-normative identities is rather poorly concealed. Trust me- you do not want to speak to your users as you have spoken to me.
This whole argument seems extremely petty. Gender is such a basic category that in most cases I think users appreciate it's differentiation. This is like getting angry you got credit card advertisements because you started college. Seriously, how can anyone consider this a 'privacy' concern?
It's not that people are defending gender essentialism, they are just stating certain facts about bodies and brains based on the radically different hormonal profiles found in female bodies and male bodies. Just to give one example, typically female forms of ideation tend to be more holistic and integrative, whereas male forms of ideation tend to be visual, analytical, and reductionistic. Does this mean that women can't be mathematicians? Of course not.
Same thing with bodies - men tend to have greater upper body strength and develop muscle more easily, whereas females tend to have greater difficulty developing muscle and find it easier to develop adipose tissue. Does this mean that no women can get good at bench press? Of course not, but it does mean that men are more likely to be the outliers in any competition of strength.
None of this is to say that one sex is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. People who take these proven sex differences to mean that get offended for no reason.
I'll never understand how some will advocate equality and sensitivity and in the same breath and with no irony, drop a derogative like "neckbeard." The venomous way some spit the word "bro" just reeks of hypocrisy.
11 comments
[ 119 ms ] story [ 553 ms ] threadFrankly, I'd like to side-step the whole issue by not asking the user at all.
The gender question, I think, is useful only when it is actionable. If it helps to choose an honorific (Mr, Ms etc) then fine, whatever. Probably safer to just leave both out.
I'd be glad to recognize any distinctions that don't require an entirely new dictionary. Especially if they are actionable. Mostly, it'd be nice if folks kept private things private.
If greater concern, though, is that your contempt for non-normative identities is rather poorly concealed. Trust me- you do not want to speak to your users as you have spoken to me.
The only reason I can think of to ask the user the question is for equalities monitoring.
Why do companies still want this information?
Same thing with bodies - men tend to have greater upper body strength and develop muscle more easily, whereas females tend to have greater difficulty developing muscle and find it easier to develop adipose tissue. Does this mean that no women can get good at bench press? Of course not, but it does mean that men are more likely to be the outliers in any competition of strength.
None of this is to say that one sex is 'better' or 'worse' than the other. People who take these proven sex differences to mean that get offended for no reason.