14 ms·

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

463 points by macrael 15y ago

macrael 15y ago
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/ http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/06/sex-and-gender/
- MartinCron 15y ago
  It seems that giving people an option to make it non-public would be sufficient. That's not a crazy corner case, really.
  - dazzer 15y ago
    Yup I see it as an oversight. While I believe that people get overly sensitive about gender (or any politicall-incorrectness), I also believe that it is in their right to do so, and if Google does fulfil this request then all the better for it. Aside, though, this post by Randall seems a little overkill at this stage... unless Google has taken an obvious stance on the issue there is no reason to take umbrage.
    - flipside 15y ago
      He's making a point since this is such a frequently overlooked issue. By raising awareness, other companies and startups are less likely to make this mistake.
    - wnoise 15y ago
      > seems a little overkill at this stage Better to correct earlier than later. > no reason to take umbrage. I don't see umbrage, just a desire to have something fixed.
- tiddchristopher 15y ago
  Male, female, other, and leave blank / prefer not to disclose are all the options I would list. It's important to allow women and men who do not want to disclose their gender that option. It's also important to allow people who would like to list their gender as other to do so. Gender is an extremely tricky issue. Whatever you do, I recommend NOT listing "male to female" or anything of that sort. Transgendered people identify, from my understanding, as their adopted (actual) gender, not the one society would often assume them to have. I hope this helps.
  - wunderfool 15y ago
    these pages aren't your "identity", hasn't years of facebook abuse taught people anything? these pages exist to tune an ad matching algorithm. hel-lo, this is what google does even better than facebook. your freedom to expand or contract your profile will be consistent with google's ad targeting agenda. people who want a free-form digital identity should get their own domain and move on. i know we're in a honeymoon here where google can do no wrong, but randall is just showing himself up here as a second rate thinker...the real answer to owning your identity is to not equate it with a database row
- Qz 15y ago
  I vote for the text field option.
  - pvarangot 15y ago
    I'm with you! It would also be ideal, given the current sexist state of language, to add a combo box to choose if you want to be refered to as "he", "she", or, in what now seems like a distant utopia, gender-neutrally, obviously given each language possibilities. That would be so much a big step into having gender equality on the net that the fact no big social network has done it yet tells us about how misunderstood a problem discrimination and biases towards sex and gender are.
    - waterhouse 15y ago
      The user specifies what pronouns to use, and perhaps there would be default values (or you could fill them all in by selecting a "traditional" option). I actually really like this idea. Users would be able to hide their gender if they wanted, and if they wanted to use something like "he or she/him or her/his or her" or "ey/ey/eir", they would be able to just fill it in, and the system would use it in its automatically generated notifications and stuff (Alex posted a comment on eir webzone). This would give us an easy way to gain exposure and experience to the various attempts at creating gender-neutral singular third-person pronouns, and maybe figure out which ones are good (or whether it's worth bothering about). Also, it might allow for funsies like this. Possessive: His Majesty's Subjective: His [random from: Awesomeness, Sleepiness, Whimsy]
      - henrikschroder 15y ago
        I pity the people working on localization if you have that system. Also, some languages, for example Finnish, doesn't have gender-specific 3rd person pronouns, so giving them that option wouldn't make any sense to them.
  - FeministHacker 15y ago
    The range of answers you get when you give a free text entry field is wonderful, and proves why this is the best route. On matters like forced revealing of gender, my gender is rage. I'm in the process of trying to convince an genderfork academic I'm friends with to actually put a 20 marks question on an exam "what is your gender?".
- dazzer 15y ago
  I vote for the solution below which asks "how do you wish to be identified" instead of "what is your gender".
  - hugh3 15y ago
    Which is larger? The number of people who would object to "what is your gender" on weird-ass gender politics grounds, or the number of people who would object to "how do you wish to be identified?" on the grounds that it's ridiculous politically correct pandering to weirdoes? I don't just "wish to be identified" as a man... I am a man, and I have the external sexual organs, facial hair, Adam's apple and XY chromosomes to prove it. Someone's always gonna complain, no matter what you do.
  - dfxm12 15y ago
    This fixes the issue of "there's more to gender than male/female/other", but it doesn't fix the issue of "women might not want to get sexualized comments sent to them".
- gojomo 15y ago
  Clearly, gender should be represented as a user-chosen 32-bit value with separate R, G, B, and A channels, and conveniently represented as an 8-digit hexadecimal number. 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).
  - yid 15y ago
    Jokes aside, I like to fit people into two numbers between 0 and 1, non-inclusive. The first, number A represents your gender identification, with 0 being ideally female and 1 ideally male (remember the scale is non inclusive of the bounds). The second number B represents the gender identification that you're attracted to. So, for example: Hetero male: A=0.8, B=0.2 Gay male: A 0.7 b 0.9, or a 0.8 b 0.7 It's a convenient way to explain gender to nerds, and remember that there are error bars on each number that vary over a lifetime.
    - TeMPOraL 15y ago
      I like this idea. Could be useful when doing some fuzzy computations. EDIT According to the comment by walrus down the thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2741580 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2741580), we should upgrade this system to use three numbers :).
    - pvarangot 15y ago
      I don't know how much has your technique been exposed to the scrutiny of gay people, neither I want to be overly critic... But just be aware that many gay men are far from identifying with being "ideally female", and many gay women are far from identifying themselves as "ideally male". Making gender one-dimensional is of course richer than using a boolean flag, but I think the problem is even more complicated than that. EDIT: as gjm11 states, I'm wrong and your scale is indeed two dimensional, as in one might feel a (wo)man and be attracted to a (wo)man.
- cube13 15y ago
  >Secondly, do you think that "other" is enough? To what lengths should developers go to handle rare corner cases? Other is enough. It covers all the possible alternate cases. If the person really doesn't identify with either gender, they can select it. If they don't want it to be public, it's broad enough that selecting it doesn't reflect anything on the person, especially if they post pictures(like several people in the "other" camp do in the comments have). Randall even admitted in his blog post that it's simply not worth the effort to cover all the possible cases. The problem with this entire thing is that it's so complicated. The original survey apparently wasn't good enough for a segment of the population, and the question was framed for pure genetics. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, because you'll get complaints no matter what you do.
wunderfool 15y ago
more navel-gazing from the navel-gazing generation on my deathbed i will relate the momentous problems solved by my generation - do you recall the great g+ circle jerks of 2011?
andreyf 15y ago
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.
- tiddchristopher 15y ago
  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.
  - pyre 15y ago
    That's because there are really two questions at play here: 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.
- dazzer 15y ago
  At first glance at your comment I said "how would that help". Then I thought about it a second time, and I think this is actually a legitimate way to approach the problem of gender identification. So +1 for me. Wonder what others think
  - 15y ago
ern 15y ago
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.
- waterlesscloud 15y ago
  It just ensures that I don't put much of use in my profile.
- killerswan 15y ago
  I think they unambiguously want to be indexing everyone's whole social graph. Facebook and others certainly do it anyways, but under the pretense that some people are to remain hidden and others are not...
- dorkwagon 15y ago
  There is an option -- check near the bottom at https://profiles.google.com/me/about/edit/d https://profiles.google.com/me/about/edit/d .
  - forza 15y ago
    "If you currently have a private profile but you do not wish to make your profile public, you can delete your profile. Or, you can simply do nothing. All private profiles will be deleted after July 31, 2011." http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1192471&p=public_profile http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2321727 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2321727
  - waqf 15y ago
    That only stops Google+ internal search from returning your profile given your name. Your page is still public (and linked to by, for example, your friends' pages) so any search engine can index it.
thurn 15y ago
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?
- ahi 15y ago
  Not really. Who gets to decide what the prevailing views of the society are? For that matter, which society? A non-binary construction of gender is not limited to post-industrial cities in the United States.
- walrus 15y ago
  Sex is physical. There are more than two sexes. Some examples are female, hermaphrodite, and male (among others). 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.
  - com 15y ago
    I'd add a couple more things to condition your list: * people are sometimes contextually gendered or contextually express specific sexuality (I know people who might describe themselves - and present that way too - as TV in some situations, but not others. I might imagine certain contextuality in sex is possible also, but with rather more logistical difficulty * people sometimes change over time, and while they may choose to simply identify as their current (or desired goal situation) sex/gender/sexuality/... some people are happy to identify some or all aspects of their history, such as visible trans people It's a pretty diverse world out there if you pay attention, even in somewhat conservative communities, so take care out there.
- sukuriant 15y ago
  This is a United-States-ian stance. In other countries, there are more than two genders. There's more than two sexes, as well. It's ... complicated, to say the least.
dazzer 15y ago
Guys, lets not get carried away by the issue here. The issue is NOT about gender identification. It is Google+ not providing the ability to hide your gender on your profile (I won't say they're FORCING you to post your gender). The issue of Gender Identification is merely an example provided to justify the usage of such a feature. So let's avoid a massive gender debate here, when you can read all about it in the post itself.
- killerswan 15y ago
  Mandatory labeling of race, religion, and, yes, gender is rarely wise...
  - dazzer 15y ago
    And that's a separate issue to what Randall is raising.
    - killerswan 15y ago
      > It is Google+ not providing the ability to hide your gender on your profile ... Seriously, what am I missing?
    - dazzer 15y ago
      I don't know. I had the feeling you were raising a contradictory point? Or am I mistaken.
- dpcan 15y ago
  Right, and I don't think Randall's long-winded post really made that clear at all IMO. Basically, the request is: don't make the Gender checkbox mandatory when signing up - or - I guess make it so I can completely hide my Gender.
- ugh 15y ago
  Exactly. I would like to hide my gender not for any gender related issues but for purely aesthetic reasons. You could play a game of “which one doesn't belong” with my profile and gender would win. There is no reason to explicitly name my gender in my profile. Google did a nice job with making nearly everything optional and making sure your profile looks great no matter how much or little information you enter, gender just sticks out like a sore thumb. Google should just leave everything as it is and let us hide gender. Other profile fields already have an UI for doing just that. That's not to say that other reasons for hiding the gender are invalid, it's just not even necessary to discuss them. Google should allow us to hide the gender even if those reasons were invalid.
jordanb 15y ago
This seems like a really pointlessly long rant that boils down to a feature request: Change the "other" category to "other/not-disclosed". Also do these women who don't want to disclose their gender really need Randall Munroe to file the bug report for them?
- mooism2 15y ago
  The feature request is to add the ability to hide your gender, not to institutionalise co-opting of "other" as "not disclosed". I bet the post was read by a lot more people because it was written by Randall Munroe.
- edanm 15y ago
  "Also do these women who don't want to disclose their gender really need Randall Munroe to file the bug report for them?" That's disingenuous. He's simply acting as a good "beta tester" by filing a report on what he sees as a bug. I don't think he's setting himself up as "representing women", just someone who noticed a problem and has the ability to act on it (which is true of very few people in this case; how many Google+ users have used the feedback option?)
  - archgoon 15y ago
    >which is true of very few people in this case; how many Google+ users have used the feedback option?) I have, but for more mundane UI issues. Though I suspect that Mr. Munroe has considerable amplification power of his opinions. I have multiple reshares of that post at this point.
- T-R 15y ago
  As with other minority issues, I'd imagine he's speaking out on it because he feels that: - The population he speaks for is a minority: they aren't yet well represented within the group - Those who are in the group may feel uncomfortable speaking out about it, particularly because they're a minority - The issue is important enough to that minority that it may lead them to leave or not join (and so continue to be underrepresented), and the group and the minority are important enough to him that he thinks it's worth addressing. The "long rant" serves to bring attention to the significance of the issue, as does the fact that someone so well known is taking the time to make it.
rimantas 15y ago
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 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 name is very clear indication of the gender. And even some ambiguous nickname won't help, because in some languages you usage of verbs, adjectives etc. differs depending on gender. Recently I saw a story about some kindergarden in Sweden where kids were not allowed to say "he" or "she" when talking about person but rather had to use something equivalent to "it" (I don't think English has equivalent to that, Russian language has "оно" for neuter nouns). To me it looks extremely stupid. But I guess it is easier just to ignore our differences than teach to cherish them and respect the other side.
- dazzer 15y ago
  Lets propose that you have a child, and in your wisdom, decide that letting your child roam on the streets is low risk and thus ok. 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.
- AretNCarlsen 15y ago
  Black people broadcast their skin color when in public. In some languages, name is very clear indication of race. Therefore, let's add a drop-down to your profile so you MUST choose from one of the following: White, Black, Other.
- pyre 15y ago
  Counter-points: * When you're a women on a forum/chat/irc/etc, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a deluge of messages/comments/etc from guys, especially socially awkward guys that would never think of attempting such a thing in person. * You're missing out on this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/ http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/ * It's easy for people to develop obsessions at a distance that are based on no actual reality before ever meeting someone in person. See celebrity stalkers for examples. Most of these cases are people that have never actually met the celebrity in question, but are in full out crazy mode by the time that they enter physical proximity to the celebrity. * There's a difference between inferring gender, and broadcasting it. From the article this is portrayed as the difference between saying, "Hi, I'm Randall," and "Hi, I'm Randall and I'm a man." While both of these statements may seem logically equivalent (since you could deduce gender from the name), they are not equivalent in human interactions.
silencio 15y ago
I'm just glad Google+ has an "other" option to begin with. Facebook lets you hide gender (which would be nice to have in google+), but they only offer male/female. 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.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  >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. Why not only add female friends to their circles then?
  - silencio 15y ago
    Well, Google+ and many social networks feel designed to be opt-in so interaction between people that aren't directly connected somehow is limited and suboptimal. For example, some people I don't know have added me to a circle of theirs on google+ and have shared some bizarre pictures and things I don't care for, and I have to purposefully seek these out if I cared to look at them. That solves a lot of problems right there. Some networks don't always work like that. It's the general idea of the thing more than it was google+'s implementation I was referring to by the end of that paragraph. I personally just want it in google+ out of habit, because I have it set that way in Facebook and all my dating site profiles and such. Inevitably I have a guy hitting on me and I don't want them to have a misunderstanding or to waste their time. It also helps to search for other people to talk to, and that benefits more than just me or my friends.
    - 15y ago
vacri 15y ago
I've always found Munroe's position on gender equality weird - despite what he says, he 'others' women in his main work. Female stick figures have long hair, even if the strip has nothing to do with gender. Male stick figures have no such indication. That is: 'male' is 'default'.
- pjscott 15y ago
  The male stick figures have short hair, as is typical of men in the society from which XKCD originates. Your criticism is very strained.
  - vacri 15y ago
    I find your defense very strained - essentially you're saying that Munroe draws 'stick figures with hair' and it is just coincidence that male 'stick figures with hair' are indistinguishable from a normal stick figure. This is part of the 'othering' of women - "you look different to what 'normal' looks like". In any case, common male hairstyles in anglo societies still stand out from the head, as much as the non-dangling part of ponytails.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- hebejebelus 15y ago
  I fail to see how the males aren't just the female stick figure with short hair. Your viewpoint is at fault here, not the comics. I see what you mean in a way - that the male stick figures don't have long hair. Again, though, this is only your viewpoint - very rarely is the stick figure's gender actually mentioned in the text of the comic or otherwise. Besides, not all females have long hair, many of the not-overtly-female stick figures may also be female despite not having long hair. Only your viewpoint, again. The internet: where you can argue about the gender of stick figures.
  - vacri 15y ago
nl 15y ago
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 http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html
- brianmatter 15y ago
  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
  - rick_bc 15y ago
    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.
baby 15y ago
This subject is so much interesting it is now the top submission of HN frontpage⸮
JohnLBevan 15y ago
One advantage of publicly disclosing information about gender is that you know it's public. It's possible to glean someone's gender from the language they use (see http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php), meaning people who kept their gender private may be lulled into a false sense of security. Admittedly I still agree that you should always have to option to select which of your details to make public (or to limit which groups/circles this information is available to), but thought I'd chuck in a counter argument to keep things interesting.
jrspruitt 15y ago
I understand the issues that arise with forcing people to expose more about themselves, than they are comfortable with. From a personality standpoint, my google+ account is a well defined sliver of who I am as a whole, by design. Mostly because I consider it something that could be put on a resume. As far as the social issues of such public knowledge, I wonder, is hiding from the problem, by sexually, racially, and or religiously homogenizing profiles ever going to help cure the problem in society that makes, making these things public, an issue? Certain males, act like jackasses around women, is putting them in an isolated bubble going to cure the problem? Does training people that you can't say xy or z around people of a certain race, stop them from being racist? It just makes them Pavlov's Dog, they know saying those things are socially bad, and keep saying and doing the same exact things, when society is more lax about those things being said or done to a different group of people, say, homosexuals. Sure it makes it harder for them to find people to act that way around, making it seem like its less of an issue, but does nothing to change the mentality that causes the behavior, they'll just find someone else to do it to, that is more socially acceptable, like Muslims. Hiding from it, is not the way, dealing with it, which is going to cause some discomfort is the you cure it.
- cjzhang 15y ago
  Are you saying you should be allowed to use racial slurs because disallowing people to say them doesn't make them less racist?
  - jrspruitt 15y ago
    Well technically you can use racial slurs all you want, the only thing stopping people, is the social circles around them's willingness to accept such behavior. Or if you are a media figure, loosing your job. If it was me, I'd rather know they were, than have them hide it, at least I would know who I could trust. And I think once exposed, its a problem that could be better dealt with. Instead of teaching people just keep those thoughts to your self, and let your racist, sexist, ways come out more passively. Which allows people to constantly be suspicious about other peoples motives and causes a lot of tension between people. Though admittedly, getting people to stop needing some other group to put down, so they can feel better about themselves, is not ever going to be easy. Its a shame, in the "survival of the fittest" certain members of the species, find it easier to hold people down, than excel at it themselves. But we are what we are, and have been. At some point in our history there may have been a point to all this, but not anymore. Maybe it made more sense when we were doing these things over food, because there wasn't enough? Who knows. I think its more effect to actually talk to people about why they think this way, what caused it. It was socially acceptable when they were kids, some one picked on them, stole their girl friend, cultural conflicts, etc. Getting to the root of the problem, than just telling them, you can't say it, but keep on thinking it.
fleitz 15y ago
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with women, and he will get noticed, but did anyone bother to look at the VAST majority of men who do not engage in that behavior. These are also the same idiots who are getting into bar fights with other men. This doesn't make it acceptable but it's hardly a hallmark of my "culture". There are people who just don't respect other people in every culture. As to being bigger and stronger, perhaps we should look to the nation of Japan and the feats its military was able to achieve with men roughly the size of north american women. Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves, not that they should have to, just like smaller men are perfectly capable of defending themselves, not that they should have to. These are again averages and if you look at the deviances you'll see that there are a lot of women who are larger than a lot of men. Also, keep in mind that a man is twice as likely to be assaulted as a woman so from a statistical perspective it is men who should be fearing for their safety as they post their gender online. I personally think it's a good idea for Google to make the settings private but it doesn't need the invocation of chivalric myths and the slander of an entire culture for it to happen. Frankly, the idea that women can't defend themselves and we need to add privacy settings to protect them seems more to perpetuate the ideals of chivalry than feminism.
- baconface 15y ago
  "Very" in all caps? Go to walmart please.
- pvarangot 15y ago
  Be careful with thinking that issues you think you have solved for yourself, or that you believe your friends have solved, are issues society or culture have solved. Isn't the phrase "don't be a pussy" part of your culture? Has your culture got over with most cheerleaders being white, female and fit already? The fact things have gotten better with time doesn't mean we are living the golden age of gender equality.
Tharkun 15y ago
I'm all for not asking for gender information in the first place. It's completely irrelevant in all but very few situations. Ending up in bed with someone who has different bits than you expected, is awkward. Everything else is just pointless. The only real reason why computer systems ask for gender information is so they can address you "properly". Some languages have neutral pronounds (their, them, etc) for that, others don't. If your users are using a language where this doesn't exist, tough luck for them. I'm sure every language at least has some kind of rule (ie "use male pronouns when in doubt") of dealing with these situations. My Facebook profile at least has the option of not showing my gender, even if it doesn't let me select Other or NoneOfYourDamnedBusiness.
olalonde 15y ago
He's quite a bit harsh with his own culture (presumably the American culture). American culture is way ahead of most cultures in terms of respect for women. Travel to Africa, Asia or South America and you'll realize your culture isn't all that bad. (Disclosure: I'm not American)
- corin_ 15y ago
  I would argue that it's better to rate something based on how it should be, not on alternatives. It drives me mad when people say "<so and so country> is better than <other country> because they only lock up gay people, not kill them" or "country A is better than country B because women there can go outside without a man, even if they can't vote". Sure, it might be better, but can we not agree that it's still shit? I can't really speak to sexism in America (I'm English, and on my trips to NYC/LA I haven't personally experienced it at all) - I'm not saying you should hate America because of problems, but don't brush them away as being fine just because there are far worse situations elsewhere.
  - olalonde 15y ago
    I agree with you, but in this case it seemed that the author was putting emphasis on his own culture as opposed to other cultures. Replace "Our culture" with "America" here: > America's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them I might be wrong though.
benmmurphy 15y ago
i don't see how an option to hide your gender solves randall's problem. if most people who are hiding their gender are women then hiding your gender is a credible signal that you are a woman.
brianmatter 15y ago
i'd love to know what makes "Radall" the expert on what "Many women grow up with"
- perlgeek 15y ago
  I've seen a video of Randall talking about a variety of stuff (I think it was "Google Tech Talks" or so), and I got the impression that he just talks to people, and listens to what they say. While reading his comics I also thought multiple times that he must be a very good observer. That doesn't necessarily make him an expert in the sense that conducting a scientific study would make him, but it's still worth listening to him.
  - brianmatter 15y ago
    i don't doubt it. i just question his ability to talk about what many women feel. how many women do you have to "talk to", "listen to" and "observe" before you can consider yourself to be assigning what "many woman feel" without ever being capable of feeling it yourself?
    - mentat 15y ago
      We all draw conclusions about the feelings of groups of people without experiencing what the group actually feels. Making observations and conclusions based on those observations is necessary to reason. "Many women that I've talked to" should be the read version of all group observing statements. Then the conversation can continue about how someone else's observations may differ.
- erikb 15y ago
  Reading the article, I also get the feeling that he can't have so much experience in this topic. What he says sounds logical, but doesn't really acknowledges all the aspects. Also I have a quite different view about how women view men, even those, who actually have really bad experiences with men.
- hugh3 15y ago
  He's the King Arthur of the White Knights of the Internet.
paganel 15y ago
This all could be have been averted had Google not forced its users to make their profiles public.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
temphn 15y ago
Everyone, including Randall Munroe, is free to note the "obvious fact" that men make most unwelcome sexual advances. No one is free to note the "obvious fact" that men make most of the welcome technological advances.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
ignifero 15y ago
The main question to ask is: do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? For developers, when google opens up their platform, having the gender by default will make it easier to make a better interface and use pronouns correctly. On the other hand, i dont know many apps that distinguish gravely between men and women. The name of a person and their photo is usually enough to infer sex anyway. So, they're just making it easier for a developer to have the sex of the user. Another useful variable would be language. I actually think the friends' list maybe should be private, but gender should be public by default. I think Mr. Munroe's concerns are completely unjustified. It's kind of horrifying too, it paints things as being really bad for women in america; I doubt it's really that bad. I find the whole "attracts more attention" argument rather weak. After all, when you introduce yourself in the real world, its apparent from either the looks or voice whether you're male or female.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- geekagirl 15y ago
  "After all, when you introduce yourself in the real world, its apparent from either the looks or voice whether you're male or female." Apparently, it's really not. I get called 'sir' all the time, and I'm a tall skinny chick with long hair. One memorable week, it happened four times. On another memorable occasion, I was wearing a bright pink coat. "it paints things as being really bad for women in america; I doubt it's really that bad." Let me tell you my experiences as a woman in America. Online, we get to deal with turds like these: fatuglyorslutty.com. You know what else? 50-year-old men private messaging you pictures of their penises. It's happened three times. o_O Maybe it's the anonymity, as one poster suggested, and clearly face to face interaction isn't that bad? I had a classmate tell me that I only got into college because of my gender. Never mind that my GPA nearly two points (out of four) higher than theirs. Ever been flashed trying to work a drive thru? I have. "having the gender by default will make it easier to make a better interface" If your developers are worth their paychecks, they can probably figure out to handle 'decline to answer' and 'other' as the same case.
asdpalpl4444 15y ago
The reason is this: Advertisment! Advertizers pay more if the ads are "targeted", the more information you have the more "segments" of customers you got. Google gets 98% their revenue from advertizing, which means they want as much information as possible to target as good as possible so that they can sell you more crap! Just try to give as little information as possible everytime you deal with companies as google.
Dove 15y ago
Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them—men who are usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead, understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble appreciating. This is so absolutely dead right on the money, I find myself wondering where a male author gets such an insight. I feel this way, and I was raised in idyllic suburban circumstances surrounded by loving and honorable men. (Edit: Here's an old comment of mine on the phenomenon of women preferring gender anonymity online: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750413 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750413 )
ignifero 15y ago
I support the ability to hide sex as an option, clearly on the grounds that more options are better. But the logic presented here to support it is really wrong. It's the same logic by which women hid themselves in burqas, long dresses, and the shadows of their men for centuries. If anything, having sex open might encourage everyone to be more aware of the issues that arise and fix them.
- dgabriel 15y ago
  No it's not. It's the same logic that by which women choose gender-neutral or masculine nicknames when interacting with strangers on the internet. I do this.
  - ignifero 15y ago
    Because you believe that the men of the internet are hostile towards women, you can't do anything to fix that, so it's best to hide?
    - cjzhang 15y ago
      Because when they complain about being sexually harassed or uncomfortable with the attention they get by being seen as a pair of tits, men invariably say or imply that they're being unreasonable for being offended, which doesn't solve the problem itself (which is that they're offended)?
philthy 15y ago
Oh fuck off! If you want to be a woman, you're a woman, a man, then you are a man.
tmcw 15y ago
As a heterosexual, male-identifying, rather vanilla-sexed individual, I instinctually chose 'Other' nonetheless when I signed up for Google+, much like Facebook, which still refers to me as "you" or something like that. Computers are not for that.
mikecaron 15y ago
This BLEW MY MIND.
scythe 15y ago
>Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them Daaaaaamn are people ever good at misinterpreting this line. It doesn't matter whether women are at actual risk; it's about the perception of risk. They're your customers, not your students or children or friggin' royal subjects. Answering the question of actual risk has basically turned into a playground of competitive sophistry. On the other hand, perceived risk is goddamn obvious, and it's what matters. You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' to feel the way they do.
- hugh3 15y ago
  It doesn't matter whether women are at actual risk; it's about the perception of risk. And what proportion of 'em perceive this risk when filling out a little box on the internet? You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' to feel the way they do. Hang on, let me rephrase that for you: You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're right or wrong to feel the way they do. There, much better without the scare quotes around right and wrong, don't you think? Sounds less like you're trying to have and simultaneously skip a debate about epistemology in the middle of a sentence. Aaaaanyway, what proportion of customers are alienated by this? Surely for every person who complains, ninety-nine women don't see an issue with it?
  - scythe 15y ago
    >Surely for every person who complains, ninety-nine women don't see an issue with it? 1% of Google's profits is more than you'll probably ever make in your entire life.
- roundsquare 15y ago
  You're making this into a business decision. I'm sure that google has put a lot of thought into this and made what they think is the best business decision (in addition to the fact that they are testing it in beta). There are, however, concerns above and beyond profits that could drive this decision.
darthpanda 15y ago
Just don't use it. Did someone break into your house and force you to sign up at gun point? No. It's voluntary. Stop crying about a free service.
cletus 15y ago
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). Give all that, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for hiding gender but, like I said, I don't have the experience. That all being said, I really don't see the issue with hiding it. I strongly encourage people who feel strongly about it to be vocal about it and ask for either the ability to have it not stated or to hide it (like you can with things like the number of "followers" you have). EDIT: on the accuracy of gender prediction from Facebook profiles: http://cis.poly.edu/~ross/papers/NameCentric.pdf http://cis.poly.edu/~ross/papers/NameCentric.pdf I realize this isn't exactly the issue here. Most people concerned with harassment probably aren't worried about computer models that can predict their gender based on their name, information from their profile or their writing style. I imagine harassment is far less systematic than that. EDIT2: I would contend that a bigger factor in whether someone gets harassed is how they present their profile rather than a single field. For example, if your profile is public, has pictures of how partying and getting drunk, has many messages about what a party animal you are and/or your dating life, some will see that (rightly or wrongly) as an invitation for attention (good or bad). I would be very interested to hear from people who have been harassed or bullied online or have been the victims of such crimes in the real world and hear how they use social networks and how they present themselves online. I suspect they tend to keep everything private. I'd also be interested to hear how important it is that gender is shown on a profile. It's all well and good for us to speculate about this but I really would like to hear from some people with first hand experience.
- FeministHacker 15y ago
  There are more names than you realise that give away little about gender, or are used by people across the gender spectrum. For example, Alex, Sam, Rowan, Raven, and Kim. And as for photos, it's harder to tell than you think from a static photo, as a lot of gender presentation comes from body language. Speaking of which, photos only give you gender presentation - which can be quite different to someone's self-dentified gender.
afterburner 15y ago
So he's saying extend the ability to make profile details private to the gender field. Sounds fine and logical to me.
parfe 15y ago
Every single reply to his post includes a picture. Tempest in a teapot. It seems even people who care about this issue enough to post don't care enough to protect their likenesses.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Ever think that people who care about the issue aren't going to use the service or going to use a "fake" photo?
  - parfe 15y ago
    So what problem are we talking about them? People who care don't reveal that information. Problem solved. Fake photo, fake sex, fake name.
    - protomyth 15y ago
      Forcing your users to lie is not a good starting point for a relationship.
      - parfe 15y ago
        Google is forcing people to use their free service now?
        protomyth 15y ago
        No they are not and you sadly you went with the snarky comment. If you are a user, you need to make public your sex or lie (other is not undisclosed and has a different meaning to a part of the population). Yes, there is always the "don't like - don't use it" defense. On the other hand, they could simply not make it public without permission and save the trouble. Downplaying the concerns of people just because you don't have the life experience to see the problem is not the best way to run a product. Understanding the concerns and making a good faith attempt to provide a solution or at least an explanation why you won't / cannot beyond "get over it" will win respect if not customers.
redrobot5050 15y ago
FTA: >> Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them—men who are usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead, understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble appreciating. << I want to comment on the attitude Randall is projecting in the above referenced quote. It's a commonplace attitude in the modern world today. That a woman's only protection is a man's forbearance. I feel this attitude is also toxic to our social fabric -- it really is just another form of gender bias. Attitudes like this lead to strange unintended consequences: Single, unmarried men cannot be seated next to unaccompanied minors on a plane. Men are now less likely to come to the aide of a screaming or crying child in public. Just because some Vikings rape and pillage does not mean that all men do. Just because my grandfather was of German descent and fought in WWII should you assume he was a Nazi (he was a medic for the Allies). Google+ is supposed to have privacy options "superior to facebook". (And considering they also have access to our search history and email, they had better be). Women online (and this is likely not their first social networking experience) have the same access to those privacy tools as everyone else. Let them block the harassers and those that objectify them. (But still some really good points made about co-opting "Other").
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
9999 15y ago
That Randall Munroe is a real person's person.
beatpanda 15y ago
Diaspora got this right, and Google+ should have copied it that way they copied the UI for aspects for "circles".
kevinpet 15y ago
The argument that it follows from name is a red herring. If I create a photo sharing service, should I require you to list a race and justify it by saying that it can be inferred from your photos anyway? To summarize: name: relevant because it's the center of identity, which is what the product is about. sex: not a necessary feature of a public profile. If 99.9% of your users say "um, sure, I wouldn't mind sharing that", and 0.1% say "hell no, I absolutely don't want to share that", then you make it optional unless there's some important reason to not make it so.
spiffworks 15y ago
Is there any particular reason that Buzz and Plus need public profiles? I really like Plus, but I have a friend who has voiced a few significant concerns where it defaults to public on some occasions(such as when you change your picture). Especially given that Plus is so integrated with the rest of Google's services, I want to fully understand the privacy implications before committing to it.
hexadecimator 15y ago
Google have taken Randall's feedback into consideration and have added the feature to hide one's gender on Google+ profiles. Women using the service are reporting that their low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability has lessened somewhat as a result. "Hiding female identity from male view on the internet is very important and is likely to lead to real social change," a spokesperson from Google added.
JabavuAdams 15y ago
Some data points: 1) I'm a 6'3" brown guy. I never get heckled when I walk down the street. I'm reasonably handsome, but in general, I don't have the sense that a lot of women are checking me out as I go about my daily business. I was surprised to learn that my wife would get catcalls when she wasn't with me in our old somewhat sketchy neighbourhood. It never happened when she was with me, so I was like "WTF, people actually do that?" 2) At a previous job, I had a long walk to the coffee shop in suburbia. One time I was walking about 20 m behind a couple of women. I found one very attractive. I noticed that almost without exception, guys driving in oncoming traffic would crane their necks to look at her. I sometimes do this too, so I'm not suggesting that this is wrong per se, but it is very noticeable. Imagine you're just stepping out to run some errands. Almost every guy you see checks you out. I'm not going to argue about whether this is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that many women's experiences are very different from men's. It's a weird vibe when you can't go anywhere without being obviously on display. 3) Tall people get paid more than short people. Many short people I know are very aggressive, as though they've become accustomed to defending their turf. I'm taller than almost everyone I meet, so when I'm in an elevator with someone taller, it feels wrong. Subconsciously I'm thinking about how I'd win a fight with them. You could argue that this is just weird and neurotic, but my wife says the same thing. She knows how to incapacitate a man, but again there's just this back-of-the-mind threat assessment that's overlaid on everyday situations. 4) Sexually, mechanically, it's less threatening to probe things with your appendage than to let something into an orifice. In a non-sexual context, you'd poke a lot of stuff that you wouldn't eat. In many cultures male-male anal sex isn't considered gay for the top. Only the bottom is gay. So there's probably something biological going on here. So to all those arguing about probability of violent sexual assault, etc. You're missing the point. It's a completely different vibe, and you won't be able to speak intelligently about gender and social issues until you understand that.
- JabavuAdams 15y ago
  EDIT> I feel different when I'm in a good neighbourhood versus a bad one. In a bad neighbourhood, I'm on guard -- my spidey-sense is tingling. Now imagine that for roughly half the population it feels that way even in good neighbourhoods. How does it feel to always be on guard?
skrebbel 15y ago
I don't think most posters in this thread realise how many flat-out nutcases there are out there. My girlfriend's 90+ year old grandma used to be occasionally harassed on the phone because she was listed as "Maria Lastname" in the phone book (in Denmark, where this is common). I can only assume that the callers didn't expect her to be 90+. The harassments stopped a while after she changed it to "M. Lastname". My conclusion: some people will go pretty far to get in touch with the other gender. If people want to hide their gender online, they should be given the possibility to.
dreamdu5t 15y ago
This is why social networking sucks: It's all about putting yourself in a box, which is the last thing I want to do socially. I want to express myself, not be placed in an echo chamber.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

463 points by macrael 15y ago

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/ http://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/06/sex-and-gender/

MartinCron 15y ago
It seems that giving people an option to make it non-public would be sufficient. That's not a crazy corner case, really.
- dazzer 15y ago
  Yup I see it as an oversight. While I believe that people get overly sensitive about gender (or any politicall-incorrectness), I also believe that it is in their right to do so, and if Google does fulfil this request then all the better for it. Aside, though, this post by Randall seems a little overkill at this stage... unless Google has taken an obvious stance on the issue there is no reason to take umbrage.
  - flipside 15y ago
    He's making a point since this is such a frequently overlooked issue. By raising awareness, other companies and startups are less likely to make this mistake.
  - wnoise 15y ago
    > seems a little overkill at this stage Better to correct earlier than later. > no reason to take umbrage. I don't see umbrage, just a desire to have something fixed.
tiddchristopher 15y ago
Male, female, other, and leave blank / prefer not to disclose are all the options I would list. It's important to allow women and men who do not want to disclose their gender that option. It's also important to allow people who would like to list their gender as other to do so. Gender is an extremely tricky issue. Whatever you do, I recommend NOT listing "male to female" or anything of that sort. Transgendered people identify, from my understanding, as their adopted (actual) gender, not the one society would often assume them to have. I hope this helps.
- wunderfool 15y ago
  these pages aren't your "identity", hasn't years of facebook abuse taught people anything? these pages exist to tune an ad matching algorithm. hel-lo, this is what google does even better than facebook. your freedom to expand or contract your profile will be consistent with google's ad targeting agenda. people who want a free-form digital identity should get their own domain and move on. i know we're in a honeymoon here where google can do no wrong, but randall is just showing himself up here as a second rate thinker...the real answer to owning your identity is to not equate it with a database row
Qz 15y ago
I vote for the text field option.
- pvarangot 15y ago
  I'm with you! It would also be ideal, given the current sexist state of language, to add a combo box to choose if you want to be refered to as "he", "she", or, in what now seems like a distant utopia, gender-neutrally, obviously given each language possibilities. That would be so much a big step into having gender equality on the net that the fact no big social network has done it yet tells us about how misunderstood a problem discrimination and biases towards sex and gender are.
  - waterhouse 15y ago
    The user specifies what pronouns to use, and perhaps there would be default values (or you could fill them all in by selecting a "traditional" option). I actually really like this idea. Users would be able to hide their gender if they wanted, and if they wanted to use something like "he or she/him or her/his or her" or "ey/ey/eir", they would be able to just fill it in, and the system would use it in its automatically generated notifications and stuff (Alex posted a comment on eir webzone). This would give us an easy way to gain exposure and experience to the various attempts at creating gender-neutral singular third-person pronouns, and maybe figure out which ones are good (or whether it's worth bothering about). Also, it might allow for funsies like this. Possessive: His Majesty's Subjective: His [random from: Awesomeness, Sleepiness, Whimsy]
    - henrikschroder 15y ago
      I pity the people working on localization if you have that system. Also, some languages, for example Finnish, doesn't have gender-specific 3rd person pronouns, so giving them that option wouldn't make any sense to them.
- FeministHacker 15y ago
  The range of answers you get when you give a free text entry field is wonderful, and proves why this is the best route. On matters like forced revealing of gender, my gender is rage. I'm in the process of trying to convince an genderfork academic I'm friends with to actually put a 20 marks question on an exam "what is your gender?".
dazzer 15y ago
I vote for the solution below which asks "how do you wish to be identified" instead of "what is your gender".
- hugh3 15y ago
  Which is larger? The number of people who would object to "what is your gender" on weird-ass gender politics grounds, or the number of people who would object to "how do you wish to be identified?" on the grounds that it's ridiculous politically correct pandering to weirdoes? I don't just "wish to be identified" as a man... I am a man, and I have the external sexual organs, facial hair, Adam's apple and XY chromosomes to prove it. Someone's always gonna complain, no matter what you do.
- dfxm12 15y ago
  This fixes the issue of "there's more to gender than male/female/other", but it doesn't fix the issue of "women might not want to get sexualized comments sent to them".
gojomo 15y ago
Clearly, gender should be represented as a user-chosen 32-bit value with separate R, G, B, and A channels, and conveniently represented as an 8-digit hexadecimal number. 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).
- yid 15y ago
  Jokes aside, I like to fit people into two numbers between 0 and 1, non-inclusive. The first, number A represents your gender identification, with 0 being ideally female and 1 ideally male (remember the scale is non inclusive of the bounds). The second number B represents the gender identification that you're attracted to. So, for example: Hetero male: A=0.8, B=0.2 Gay male: A 0.7 b 0.9, or a 0.8 b 0.7 It's a convenient way to explain gender to nerds, and remember that there are error bars on each number that vary over a lifetime.
  - TeMPOraL 15y ago
    I like this idea. Could be useful when doing some fuzzy computations. EDIT According to the comment by walrus down the thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2741580 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2741580), we should upgrade this system to use three numbers :).
  - pvarangot 15y ago
    I don't know how much has your technique been exposed to the scrutiny of gay people, neither I want to be overly critic... But just be aware that many gay men are far from identifying with being "ideally female", and many gay women are far from identifying themselves as "ideally male". Making gender one-dimensional is of course richer than using a boolean flag, but I think the problem is even more complicated than that. EDIT: as gjm11 states, I'm wrong and your scale is indeed two dimensional, as in one might feel a (wo)man and be attracted to a (wo)man.
cube13 15y ago
>Secondly, do you think that "other" is enough? To what lengths should developers go to handle rare corner cases? Other is enough. It covers all the possible alternate cases. If the person really doesn't identify with either gender, they can select it. If they don't want it to be public, it's broad enough that selecting it doesn't reflect anything on the person, especially if they post pictures(like several people in the "other" camp do in the comments have). Randall even admitted in his blog post that it's simply not worth the effort to cover all the possible cases. The problem with this entire thing is that it's so complicated. The original survey apparently wasn't good enough for a segment of the population, and the question was framed for pure genetics. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't, because you'll get complaints no matter what you do.

wunderfool 15y ago

more navel-gazing from the navel-gazing generation on my deathbed i will relate the momentous problems solved by my generation - do you recall the great g+ circle jerks of 2011?

andreyf 15y ago

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.

tiddchristopher 15y ago
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.
- pyre 15y ago
  That's because there are really two questions at play here: 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.
dazzer 15y ago
At first glance at your comment I said "how would that help". Then I thought about it a second time, and I think this is actually a legitimate way to approach the problem of gender identification. So +1 for me. Wonder what others think
- 15y ago

ern 15y ago

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.

waterlesscloud 15y ago
It just ensures that I don't put much of use in my profile.
killerswan 15y ago
I think they unambiguously want to be indexing everyone's whole social graph. Facebook and others certainly do it anyways, but under the pretense that some people are to remain hidden and others are not...
dorkwagon 15y ago
There is an option -- check near the bottom at https://profiles.google.com/me/about/edit/d https://profiles.google.com/me/about/edit/d .
- forza 15y ago
  "If you currently have a private profile but you do not wish to make your profile public, you can delete your profile. Or, you can simply do nothing. All private profiles will be deleted after July 31, 2011." http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1192471&p=public_profile http://www.google.com/support/profiles/bin/answer.py?hl=en&#... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2321727 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2321727
- waqf 15y ago
  That only stops Google+ internal search from returning your profile given your name. Your page is still public (and linked to by, for example, your friends' pages) so any search engine can index it.

thurn 15y ago

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?

ahi 15y ago
Not really. Who gets to decide what the prevailing views of the society are? For that matter, which society? A non-binary construction of gender is not limited to post-industrial cities in the United States.
walrus 15y ago
Sex is physical. There are more than two sexes. Some examples are female, hermaphrodite, and male (among others). 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.
- com 15y ago
  I'd add a couple more things to condition your list: * people are sometimes contextually gendered or contextually express specific sexuality (I know people who might describe themselves - and present that way too - as TV in some situations, but not others. I might imagine certain contextuality in sex is possible also, but with rather more logistical difficulty * people sometimes change over time, and while they may choose to simply identify as their current (or desired goal situation) sex/gender/sexuality/... some people are happy to identify some or all aspects of their history, such as visible trans people It's a pretty diverse world out there if you pay attention, even in somewhat conservative communities, so take care out there.
sukuriant 15y ago
This is a United-States-ian stance. In other countries, there are more than two genders. There's more than two sexes, as well. It's ... complicated, to say the least.

dazzer 15y ago

Guys, lets not get carried away by the issue here. The issue is NOT about gender identification. It is Google+ not providing the ability to hide your gender on your profile (I won't say they're FORCING you to post your gender). The issue of Gender Identification is merely an example provided to justify the usage of such a feature. So let's avoid a massive gender debate here, when you can read all about it in the post itself.

killerswan 15y ago
Mandatory labeling of race, religion, and, yes, gender is rarely wise...
- dazzer 15y ago
  And that's a separate issue to what Randall is raising.
  - killerswan 15y ago
    > It is Google+ not providing the ability to hide your gender on your profile ... Seriously, what am I missing?
  - dazzer 15y ago
    I don't know. I had the feeling you were raising a contradictory point? Or am I mistaken.
dpcan 15y ago
Right, and I don't think Randall's long-winded post really made that clear at all IMO. Basically, the request is: don't make the Gender checkbox mandatory when signing up - or - I guess make it so I can completely hide my Gender.
ugh 15y ago
Exactly. I would like to hide my gender not for any gender related issues but for purely aesthetic reasons. You could play a game of “which one doesn't belong” with my profile and gender would win. There is no reason to explicitly name my gender in my profile. Google did a nice job with making nearly everything optional and making sure your profile looks great no matter how much or little information you enter, gender just sticks out like a sore thumb. Google should just leave everything as it is and let us hide gender. Other profile fields already have an UI for doing just that. That's not to say that other reasons for hiding the gender are invalid, it's just not even necessary to discuss them. Google should allow us to hide the gender even if those reasons were invalid.

jordanb 15y ago

This seems like a really pointlessly long rant that boils down to a feature request: Change the "other" category to "other/not-disclosed". Also do these women who don't want to disclose their gender really need Randall Munroe to file the bug report for them?

mooism2 15y ago
The feature request is to add the ability to hide your gender, not to institutionalise co-opting of "other" as "not disclosed". I bet the post was read by a lot more people because it was written by Randall Munroe.
edanm 15y ago
"Also do these women who don't want to disclose their gender really need Randall Munroe to file the bug report for them?" That's disingenuous. He's simply acting as a good "beta tester" by filing a report on what he sees as a bug. I don't think he's setting himself up as "representing women", just someone who noticed a problem and has the ability to act on it (which is true of very few people in this case; how many Google+ users have used the feedback option?)
- archgoon 15y ago
  >which is true of very few people in this case; how many Google+ users have used the feedback option?) I have, but for more mundane UI issues. Though I suspect that Mr. Munroe has considerable amplification power of his opinions. I have multiple reshares of that post at this point.
T-R 15y ago
As with other minority issues, I'd imagine he's speaking out on it because he feels that: - The population he speaks for is a minority: they aren't yet well represented within the group - Those who are in the group may feel uncomfortable speaking out about it, particularly because they're a minority - The issue is important enough to that minority that it may lead them to leave or not join (and so continue to be underrepresented), and the group and the minority are important enough to him that he thinks it's worth addressing. The "long rant" serves to bring attention to the significance of the issue, as does the fact that someone so well known is taking the time to make it.

rimantas 15y ago

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 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 name is very clear indication of the gender. And even some ambiguous nickname won't help, because in some languages you usage of verbs, adjectives etc. differs depending on gender. Recently I saw a story about some kindergarden in Sweden where kids were not allowed to say "he" or "she" when talking about person but rather had to use something equivalent to "it" (I don't think English has equivalent to that, Russian language has "оно" for neuter nouns). To me it looks extremely stupid. But I guess it is easier just to ignore our differences than teach to cherish them and respect the other side.

dazzer 15y ago
Lets propose that you have a child, and in your wisdom, decide that letting your child roam on the streets is low risk and thus ok. 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.
AretNCarlsen 15y ago
Black people broadcast their skin color when in public. In some languages, name is very clear indication of race. Therefore, let's add a drop-down to your profile so you MUST choose from one of the following: White, Black, Other.
pyre 15y ago
Counter-points: * When you're a women on a forum/chat/irc/etc, you are pretty much guaranteed to get a deluge of messages/comments/etc from guys, especially socially awkward guys that would never think of attempting such a thing in person. * You're missing out on this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/ http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/ * It's easy for people to develop obsessions at a distance that are based on no actual reality before ever meeting someone in person. See celebrity stalkers for examples. Most of these cases are people that have never actually met the celebrity in question, but are in full out crazy mode by the time that they enter physical proximity to the celebrity. * There's a difference between inferring gender, and broadcasting it. From the article this is portrayed as the difference between saying, "Hi, I'm Randall," and "Hi, I'm Randall and I'm a man." While both of these statements may seem logically equivalent (since you could deduce gender from the name), they are not equivalent in human interactions.

silencio 15y ago

I'm just glad Google+ has an "other" option to begin with. Facebook lets you hide gender (which would be nice to have in google+), but they only offer male/female. 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.

tomjen3 15y ago
>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. Why not only add female friends to their circles then?
- silencio 15y ago
  Well, Google+ and many social networks feel designed to be opt-in so interaction between people that aren't directly connected somehow is limited and suboptimal. For example, some people I don't know have added me to a circle of theirs on google+ and have shared some bizarre pictures and things I don't care for, and I have to purposefully seek these out if I cared to look at them. That solves a lot of problems right there. Some networks don't always work like that. It's the general idea of the thing more than it was google+'s implementation I was referring to by the end of that paragraph. I personally just want it in google+ out of habit, because I have it set that way in Facebook and all my dating site profiles and such. Inevitably I have a guy hitting on me and I don't want them to have a misunderstanding or to waste their time. It also helps to search for other people to talk to, and that benefits more than just me or my friends.
  - 15y ago

vacri 15y ago

I've always found Munroe's position on gender equality weird - despite what he says, he 'others' women in his main work. Female stick figures have long hair, even if the strip has nothing to do with gender. Male stick figures have no such indication. That is: 'male' is 'default'.

pjscott 15y ago
The male stick figures have short hair, as is typical of men in the society from which XKCD originates. Your criticism is very strained.
- vacri 15y ago
  I find your defense very strained - essentially you're saying that Munroe draws 'stick figures with hair' and it is just coincidence that male 'stick figures with hair' are indistinguishable from a normal stick figure. This is part of the 'othering' of women - "you look different to what 'normal' looks like". In any case, common male hairstyles in anglo societies still stand out from the head, as much as the non-dangling part of ponytails.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
hebejebelus 15y ago
I fail to see how the males aren't just the female stick figure with short hair. Your viewpoint is at fault here, not the comics. I see what you mean in a way - that the male stick figures don't have long hair. Again, though, this is only your viewpoint - very rarely is the stick figure's gender actually mentioned in the text of the comic or otherwise. Besides, not all females have long hair, many of the not-overtly-female stick figures may also be female despite not having long hair. Only your viewpoint, again. The internet: where you can argue about the gender of stick figures.
- vacri 15y ago

nl 15y ago

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 http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Essays/marriage.html

brianmatter 15y ago
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
- rick_bc 15y ago
  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.

baby 15y ago

This subject is so much interesting it is now the top submission of HN frontpage⸮

JohnLBevan 15y ago

One advantage of publicly disclosing information about gender is that you know it's public. It's possible to glean someone's gender from the language they use (see http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php), meaning people who kept their gender private may be lulled into a false sense of security. Admittedly I still agree that you should always have to option to select which of your details to make public (or to limit which groups/circles this information is available to), but thought I'd chuck in a counter argument to keep things interesting.

jrspruitt 15y ago

I understand the issues that arise with forcing people to expose more about themselves, than they are comfortable with. From a personality standpoint, my google+ account is a well defined sliver of who I am as a whole, by design. Mostly because I consider it something that could be put on a resume. As far as the social issues of such public knowledge, I wonder, is hiding from the problem, by sexually, racially, and or religiously homogenizing profiles ever going to help cure the problem in society that makes, making these things public, an issue? Certain males, act like jackasses around women, is putting them in an isolated bubble going to cure the problem? Does training people that you can't say xy or z around people of a certain race, stop them from being racist? It just makes them Pavlov's Dog, they know saying those things are socially bad, and keep saying and doing the same exact things, when society is more lax about those things being said or done to a different group of people, say, homosexuals. Sure it makes it harder for them to find people to act that way around, making it seem like its less of an issue, but does nothing to change the mentality that causes the behavior, they'll just find someone else to do it to, that is more socially acceptable, like Muslims. Hiding from it, is not the way, dealing with it, which is going to cause some discomfort is the you cure it.

cjzhang 15y ago
Are you saying you should be allowed to use racial slurs because disallowing people to say them doesn't make them less racist?
- jrspruitt 15y ago
  Well technically you can use racial slurs all you want, the only thing stopping people, is the social circles around them's willingness to accept such behavior. Or if you are a media figure, loosing your job. If it was me, I'd rather know they were, than have them hide it, at least I would know who I could trust. And I think once exposed, its a problem that could be better dealt with. Instead of teaching people just keep those thoughts to your self, and let your racist, sexist, ways come out more passively. Which allows people to constantly be suspicious about other peoples motives and causes a lot of tension between people. Though admittedly, getting people to stop needing some other group to put down, so they can feel better about themselves, is not ever going to be easy. Its a shame, in the "survival of the fittest" certain members of the species, find it easier to hold people down, than excel at it themselves. But we are what we are, and have been. At some point in our history there may have been a point to all this, but not anymore. Maybe it made more sense when we were doing these things over food, because there wasn't enough? Who knows. I think its more effect to actually talk to people about why they think this way, what caused it. It was socially acceptable when they were kids, some one picked on them, stole their girl friend, cultural conflicts, etc. Getting to the root of the problem, than just telling them, you can't say it, but keep on thinking it.

fleitz 15y ago

I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with women, and he will get noticed, but did anyone bother to look at the VAST majority of men who do not engage in that behavior. These are also the same idiots who are getting into bar fights with other men. This doesn't make it acceptable but it's hardly a hallmark of my "culture". There are people who just don't respect other people in every culture. As to being bigger and stronger, perhaps we should look to the nation of Japan and the feats its military was able to achieve with men roughly the size of north american women. Women are perfectly capable of defending themselves, not that they should have to, just like smaller men are perfectly capable of defending themselves, not that they should have to. These are again averages and if you look at the deviances you'll see that there are a lot of women who are larger than a lot of men. Also, keep in mind that a man is twice as likely to be assaulted as a woman so from a statistical perspective it is men who should be fearing for their safety as they post their gender online. I personally think it's a good idea for Google to make the settings private but it doesn't need the invocation of chivalric myths and the slander of an entire culture for it to happen. Frankly, the idea that women can't defend themselves and we need to add privacy settings to protect them seems more to perpetuate the ideals of chivalry than feminism.

baconface 15y ago
"Very" in all caps? Go to walmart please.
pvarangot 15y ago
Be careful with thinking that issues you think you have solved for yourself, or that you believe your friends have solved, are issues society or culture have solved. Isn't the phrase "don't be a pussy" part of your culture? Has your culture got over with most cheerleaders being white, female and fit already? The fact things have gotten better with time doesn't mean we are living the golden age of gender equality.

Tharkun 15y ago

I'm all for not asking for gender information in the first place. It's completely irrelevant in all but very few situations. Ending up in bed with someone who has different bits than you expected, is awkward. Everything else is just pointless. The only real reason why computer systems ask for gender information is so they can address you "properly". Some languages have neutral pronounds (their, them, etc) for that, others don't. If your users are using a language where this doesn't exist, tough luck for them. I'm sure every language at least has some kind of rule (ie "use male pronouns when in doubt") of dealing with these situations. My Facebook profile at least has the option of not showing my gender, even if it doesn't let me select Other or NoneOfYourDamnedBusiness.

olalonde 15y ago

He's quite a bit harsh with his own culture (presumably the American culture). American culture is way ahead of most cultures in terms of respect for women. Travel to Africa, Asia or South America and you'll realize your culture isn't all that bad. (Disclosure: I'm not American)

corin_ 15y ago
I would argue that it's better to rate something based on how it should be, not on alternatives. It drives me mad when people say "<so and so country> is better than <other country> because they only lock up gay people, not kill them" or "country A is better than country B because women there can go outside without a man, even if they can't vote". Sure, it might be better, but can we not agree that it's still shit? I can't really speak to sexism in America (I'm English, and on my trips to NYC/LA I haven't personally experienced it at all) - I'm not saying you should hate America because of problems, but don't brush them away as being fine just because there are far worse situations elsewhere.
- olalonde 15y ago
  I agree with you, but in this case it seemed that the author was putting emphasis on his own culture as opposed to other cultures. Replace "Our culture" with "America" here: > America's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them I might be wrong though.

benmmurphy 15y ago

i don't see how an option to hide your gender solves randall's problem. if most people who are hiding their gender are women then hiding your gender is a credible signal that you are a woman.

brianmatter 15y ago

i'd love to know what makes "Radall" the expert on what "Many women grow up with"

perlgeek 15y ago
I've seen a video of Randall talking about a variety of stuff (I think it was "Google Tech Talks" or so), and I got the impression that he just talks to people, and listens to what they say. While reading his comics I also thought multiple times that he must be a very good observer. That doesn't necessarily make him an expert in the sense that conducting a scientific study would make him, but it's still worth listening to him.
- brianmatter 15y ago
  i don't doubt it. i just question his ability to talk about what many women feel. how many women do you have to "talk to", "listen to" and "observe" before you can consider yourself to be assigning what "many woman feel" without ever being capable of feeling it yourself?
  - mentat 15y ago
    We all draw conclusions about the feelings of groups of people without experiencing what the group actually feels. Making observations and conclusions based on those observations is necessary to reason. "Many women that I've talked to" should be the read version of all group observing statements. Then the conversation can continue about how someone else's observations may differ.
erikb 15y ago
Reading the article, I also get the feeling that he can't have so much experience in this topic. What he says sounds logical, but doesn't really acknowledges all the aspects. Also I have a quite different view about how women view men, even those, who actually have really bad experiences with men.
hugh3 15y ago
He's the King Arthur of the White Knights of the Internet.

paganel 15y ago

This all could be have been averted had Google not forced its users to make their profiles public.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

temphn 15y ago

Everyone, including Randall Munroe, is free to note the "obvious fact" that men make most unwelcome sexual advances. No one is free to note the "obvious fact" that men make most of the welcome technological advances.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

ignifero 15y ago

The main question to ask is: do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? For developers, when google opens up their platform, having the gender by default will make it easier to make a better interface and use pronouns correctly. On the other hand, i dont know many apps that distinguish gravely between men and women. The name of a person and their photo is usually enough to infer sex anyway. So, they're just making it easier for a developer to have the sex of the user. Another useful variable would be language. I actually think the friends' list maybe should be private, but gender should be public by default. I think Mr. Munroe's concerns are completely unjustified. It's kind of horrifying too, it paints things as being really bad for women in america; I doubt it's really that bad. I find the whole "attracts more attention" argument rather weak. After all, when you introduce yourself in the real world, its apparent from either the looks or voice whether you're male or female.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
geekagirl 15y ago
"After all, when you introduce yourself in the real world, its apparent from either the looks or voice whether you're male or female." Apparently, it's really not. I get called 'sir' all the time, and I'm a tall skinny chick with long hair. One memorable week, it happened four times. On another memorable occasion, I was wearing a bright pink coat. "it paints things as being really bad for women in america; I doubt it's really that bad." Let me tell you my experiences as a woman in America. Online, we get to deal with turds like these: fatuglyorslutty.com. You know what else? 50-year-old men private messaging you pictures of their penises. It's happened three times. o_O Maybe it's the anonymity, as one poster suggested, and clearly face to face interaction isn't that bad? I had a classmate tell me that I only got into college because of my gender. Never mind that my GPA nearly two points (out of four) higher than theirs. Ever been flashed trying to work a drive thru? I have. "having the gender by default will make it easier to make a better interface" If your developers are worth their paychecks, they can probably figure out to handle 'decline to answer' and 'other' as the same case.

asdpalpl4444 15y ago

The reason is this: Advertisment! Advertizers pay more if the ads are "targeted", the more information you have the more "segments" of customers you got. Google gets 98% their revenue from advertizing, which means they want as much information as possible to target as good as possible so that they can sell you more crap! Just try to give as little information as possible everytime you deal with companies as google.

Dove 15y ago

Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them—men who are usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead, understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble appreciating. This is so absolutely dead right on the money, I find myself wondering where a male author gets such an insight. I feel this way, and I was raised in idyllic suburban circumstances surrounded by loving and honorable men. (Edit: Here's an old comment of mine on the phenomenon of women preferring gender anonymity online: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750413 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=750413 )

ignifero 15y ago

I support the ability to hide sex as an option, clearly on the grounds that more options are better. But the logic presented here to support it is really wrong. It's the same logic by which women hid themselves in burqas, long dresses, and the shadows of their men for centuries. If anything, having sex open might encourage everyone to be more aware of the issues that arise and fix them.

dgabriel 15y ago
No it's not. It's the same logic that by which women choose gender-neutral or masculine nicknames when interacting with strangers on the internet. I do this.
- ignifero 15y ago
  Because you believe that the men of the internet are hostile towards women, you can't do anything to fix that, so it's best to hide?
  - cjzhang 15y ago
    Because when they complain about being sexually harassed or uncomfortable with the attention they get by being seen as a pair of tits, men invariably say or imply that they're being unreasonable for being offended, which doesn't solve the problem itself (which is that they're offended)?

philthy 15y ago

Oh fuck off! If you want to be a woman, you're a woman, a man, then you are a man.

tmcw 15y ago

As a heterosexual, male-identifying, rather vanilla-sexed individual, I instinctually chose 'Other' nonetheless when I signed up for Google+, much like Facebook, which still refers to me as "you" or something like that. Computers are not for that.

mikecaron 15y ago

This BLEW MY MIND.

scythe 15y ago

>Many women grow up with a sense of physical vulnerability that's hard for men to appreciate. Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them Daaaaaamn are people ever good at misinterpreting this line. It doesn't matter whether women are at actual risk; it's about the perception of risk. They're your customers, not your students or children or friggin' royal subjects. Answering the question of actual risk has basically turned into a playground of competitive sophistry. On the other hand, perceived risk is goddamn obvious, and it's what matters. You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' to feel the way they do.

hugh3 15y ago
It doesn't matter whether women are at actual risk; it's about the perception of risk. And what proportion of 'em perceive this risk when filling out a little box on the internet? You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're 'right' or 'wrong' to feel the way they do. Hang on, let me rephrase that for you: You don't start a social network by alienating people, regardless of whether they're right or wrong to feel the way they do. There, much better without the scare quotes around right and wrong, don't you think? Sounds less like you're trying to have and simultaneously skip a debate about epistemology in the middle of a sentence. Aaaaanyway, what proportion of customers are alienated by this? Surely for every person who complains, ninety-nine women don't see an issue with it?
- scythe 15y ago
  >Surely for every person who complains, ninety-nine women don't see an issue with it? 1% of Google's profits is more than you'll probably ever make in your entire life.
roundsquare 15y ago
You're making this into a business decision. I'm sure that google has put a lot of thought into this and made what they think is the best business decision (in addition to the fact that they are testing it in beta). There are, however, concerns above and beyond profits that could drive this decision.

darthpanda 15y ago

Just don't use it. Did someone break into your house and force you to sign up at gun point? No. It's voluntary. Stop crying about a free service.

cletus 15y ago

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). Give all that, I'm not sure I understand the rationale for hiding gender but, like I said, I don't have the experience. That all being said, I really don't see the issue with hiding it. I strongly encourage people who feel strongly about it to be vocal about it and ask for either the ability to have it not stated or to hide it (like you can with things like the number of "followers" you have). EDIT: on the accuracy of gender prediction from Facebook profiles: http://cis.poly.edu/~ross/papers/NameCentric.pdf http://cis.poly.edu/~ross/papers/NameCentric.pdf I realize this isn't exactly the issue here. Most people concerned with harassment probably aren't worried about computer models that can predict their gender based on their name, information from their profile or their writing style. I imagine harassment is far less systematic than that. EDIT2: I would contend that a bigger factor in whether someone gets harassed is how they present their profile rather than a single field. For example, if your profile is public, has pictures of how partying and getting drunk, has many messages about what a party animal you are and/or your dating life, some will see that (rightly or wrongly) as an invitation for attention (good or bad). I would be very interested to hear from people who have been harassed or bullied online or have been the victims of such crimes in the real world and hear how they use social networks and how they present themselves online. I suspect they tend to keep everything private. I'd also be interested to hear how important it is that gender is shown on a profile. It's all well and good for us to speculate about this but I really would like to hear from some people with first hand experience.

FeministHacker 15y ago
There are more names than you realise that give away little about gender, or are used by people across the gender spectrum. For example, Alex, Sam, Rowan, Raven, and Kim. And as for photos, it's harder to tell than you think from a static photo, as a lot of gender presentation comes from body language. Speaking of which, photos only give you gender presentation - which can be quite different to someone's self-dentified gender.

afterburner 15y ago

So he's saying extend the ability to make profile details private to the gender field. Sounds fine and logical to me.

parfe 15y ago

Every single reply to his post includes a picture. Tempest in a teapot. It seems even people who care about this issue enough to post don't care enough to protect their likenesses.

protomyth 15y ago
Ever think that people who care about the issue aren't going to use the service or going to use a "fake" photo?
- parfe 15y ago
  So what problem are we talking about them? People who care don't reveal that information. Problem solved. Fake photo, fake sex, fake name.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    Forcing your users to lie is not a good starting point for a relationship.
    - parfe 15y ago
      Google is forcing people to use their free service now?
      - protomyth 15y ago
        No they are not and you sadly you went with the snarky comment. If you are a user, you need to make public your sex or lie (other is not undisclosed and has a different meaning to a part of the population). Yes, there is always the "don't like - don't use it" defense. On the other hand, they could simply not make it public without permission and save the trouble. Downplaying the concerns of people just because you don't have the life experience to see the problem is not the best way to run a product. Understanding the concerns and making a good faith attempt to provide a solution or at least an explanation why you won't / cannot beyond "get over it" will win respect if not customers.

redrobot5050 15y ago

FTA: >> Our culture's relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them—men who are usually bigger, stronger, and (like any human) occasionally crazy. This feeling—often confirmed by actual experiences of harassment and assault—can lead, understandably, to a lifetime of low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability that men have trouble appreciating. << I want to comment on the attitude Randall is projecting in the above referenced quote. It's a commonplace attitude in the modern world today. That a woman's only protection is a man's forbearance. I feel this attitude is also toxic to our social fabric -- it really is just another form of gender bias. Attitudes like this lead to strange unintended consequences: Single, unmarried men cannot be seated next to unaccompanied minors on a plane. Men are now less likely to come to the aide of a screaming or crying child in public. Just because some Vikings rape and pillage does not mean that all men do. Just because my grandfather was of German descent and fought in WWII should you assume he was a Nazi (he was a medic for the Allies). Google+ is supposed to have privacy options "superior to facebook". (And considering they also have access to our search history and email, they had better be). Women online (and this is likely not their first social networking experience) have the same access to those privacy tools as everyone else. Let them block the harassers and those that objectify them. (But still some really good points made about co-opting "Other").

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

9999 15y ago

That Randall Munroe is a real person's person.

beatpanda 15y ago

Diaspora got this right, and Google+ should have copied it that way they copied the UI for aspects for "circles".

kevinpet 15y ago

The argument that it follows from name is a red herring. If I create a photo sharing service, should I require you to list a race and justify it by saying that it can be inferred from your photos anyway? To summarize: name: relevant because it's the center of identity, which is what the product is about. sex: not a necessary feature of a public profile. If 99.9% of your users say "um, sure, I wouldn't mind sharing that", and 0.1% say "hell no, I absolutely don't want to share that", then you make it optional unless there's some important reason to not make it so.

spiffworks 15y ago

Is there any particular reason that Buzz and Plus need public profiles? I really like Plus, but I have a friend who has voiced a few significant concerns where it defaults to public on some occasions(such as when you change your picture). Especially given that Plus is so integrated with the rest of Google's services, I want to fully understand the privacy implications before committing to it.

hexadecimator 15y ago

Google have taken Randall's feedback into consideration and have added the feature to hide one's gender on Google+ profiles. Women using the service are reporting that their low-level wariness and sense of vulnerability has lessened somewhat as a result. "Hiding female identity from male view on the internet is very important and is likely to lead to real social change," a spokesperson from Google added.

JabavuAdams 15y ago

Some data points: 1) I'm a 6'3" brown guy. I never get heckled when I walk down the street. I'm reasonably handsome, but in general, I don't have the sense that a lot of women are checking me out as I go about my daily business. I was surprised to learn that my wife would get catcalls when she wasn't with me in our old somewhat sketchy neighbourhood. It never happened when she was with me, so I was like "WTF, people actually do that?" 2) At a previous job, I had a long walk to the coffee shop in suburbia. One time I was walking about 20 m behind a couple of women. I found one very attractive. I noticed that almost without exception, guys driving in oncoming traffic would crane their necks to look at her. I sometimes do this too, so I'm not suggesting that this is wrong per se, but it is very noticeable. Imagine you're just stepping out to run some errands. Almost every guy you see checks you out. I'm not going to argue about whether this is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that many women's experiences are very different from men's. It's a weird vibe when you can't go anywhere without being obviously on display. 3) Tall people get paid more than short people. Many short people I know are very aggressive, as though they've become accustomed to defending their turf. I'm taller than almost everyone I meet, so when I'm in an elevator with someone taller, it feels wrong. Subconsciously I'm thinking about how I'd win a fight with them. You could argue that this is just weird and neurotic, but my wife says the same thing. She knows how to incapacitate a man, but again there's just this back-of-the-mind threat assessment that's overlaid on everyday situations. 4) Sexually, mechanically, it's less threatening to probe things with your appendage than to let something into an orifice. In a non-sexual context, you'd poke a lot of stuff that you wouldn't eat. In many cultures male-male anal sex isn't considered gay for the top. Only the bottom is gay. So there's probably something biological going on here. So to all those arguing about probability of violent sexual assault, etc. You're missing the point. It's a completely different vibe, and you won't be able to speak intelligently about gender and social issues until you understand that.

JabavuAdams 15y ago
EDIT> I feel different when I'm in a good neighbourhood versus a bad one. In a bad neighbourhood, I'm on guard -- my spidey-sense is tingling. Now imagine that for roughly half the population it feels that way even in good neighbourhoods. How does it feel to always be on guard?

skrebbel 15y ago

I don't think most posters in this thread realise how many flat-out nutcases there are out there. My girlfriend's 90+ year old grandma used to be occasionally harassed on the phone because she was listed as "Maria Lastname" in the phone book (in Denmark, where this is common). I can only assume that the callers didn't expect her to be 90+. The harassments stopped a while after she changed it to "M. Lastname". My conclusion: some people will go pretty far to get in touch with the other gender. If people want to hide their gender online, they should be given the possibility to.

dreamdu5t 15y ago

This is why social networking sucks: It's all about putting yourself in a box, which is the last thing I want to do socially. I want to express myself, not be placed in an echo chamber.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]