[Noisebridge-discuss] Gender & Technology followups from 5Mof

[maymay]

On Sep 19, 2009, at 1:27 AM, Sai Emrys wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:42 AM, maymay  
> <bitetheappleback at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Do you want to get busy with a person who has a penis?"
>>>
>>> Not really, IMO. For instance, pre-op MTF trannies (aka "chicks with
>>> dicks") are almost exclusively a straight male thing.
>>
>> Sorry, can you clarify? A straight male thing in being that pre-op  
>> "MTF
>> trannies" are straight men or that straight men want to experience  
>> sexual
>> activity with these people? If the latter, how do you know this is  
>> true?
>
> Sorry - in that such people are regarded *as females* by straight men
> (and themselves). And thus, that their gender (female) and not their
> anatomy (dick) is the relevant part.
>
> And I didn't say that all straight guys are into MTFs; rather, that
> straight men, not gay men, are the consumers of MTF porn and sex
> workers. (I.e. it's a subset of straight men - those who are into
> girls exclusively but curious about cock.)
>
> I can't cite a study on that (alas), but it's from observation - and
> FWIW, Dan Savage agrees with me on it (and has mentioned it more than
> once in his column & podcast).
>
> (Mind that this is for the porn version of MTFs. This is a subset of
> real ones, of whom I've known a few and who aren't really like that.
> But hey, we're talking about perceptions vs identity, ne? ;-))

I think, if I understand you correctly at this point, that the  
relevant factor is the combination of physical body and gender identity 
—and (I think) that's what I was saying in the first place. If what a  
straight guy on OkCupid is after is a sexual encounter with a pre-op  
MTF transsexual, OkCupid's line of questioning that only provides the  
option to indicate gender as "male" or "female" is both ambiguous on  
physical and gender identity grounds. Being more precise by asking  
both questions would help in this situation, no?

> Sure - but unawareness defaults one to not-into-ness. You can't be
> looking for something you don't know exists.

I don't think that's not at all. Many people have told me that my  
writings crystalize things for them that they weren't sure how to  
articulate before. This is exactly the kind of I'm-searching-for- 
something-but-don't-know-that-what-I'm-looking-for-exists that I'd say  
"normal" people (many people, actually) do all the time.

> So by default, the unswashed masses who think sex = gender and thus
> that there are only two genders (don't bother bringing up
> intersexuals; they're rare and the masses haven't heard of 'em anyway
> except as freaks), are also canonically "straight" or "gay" (or maybe
> "bi").

The dichotomy of "straight" and "gay" is what dominates all  
pornography right now. I think that's a problem too, but I have a  
whole other (totally "Not Safe For Work") blog about that topic.[0] :)

> IME, most normal people - and pretty much everyone on this list is
> excluded from that group - really are not very introspective at all,
> which makes them having nuanced genders a rather difficult
> proposition. ;-)

I don't think someone who hasn't introspected on their own gender is  
exempt from the possibility of having a nuanced gender….

>>> What about the above trannies, who identify as female and are mostly
>>> sought by straight males, despite their having cocks?
>>
>> Okay, so, there are a few issues all wrapped into one question  
>> here. One is
>> the way in which people identify themselves independent from the  
>> physical
>> bodies they have. Another is the distinction between desiring  
>> something and
>> wanting to be something—sometimes these are similar and sometimes  
>> they are
>> not (e.g., "Wow, that person is really cool. Do I have a crush on  
>> them or do
>> I just want to mimic their behavior because I admire it?"). I'm not  
>> sure
>> which you're addressing, if either…?
>
> I'm not sure either, really. I think it's the desire though.
>
> FWIW, I do know one such person - fairly normal, straight male.
> Exclusively into girls. But likes sucking cock (mostly his own). He'd
> go for MTF, since it'd let him do the physical things he wants to try
> (giving fellatio) while remaining in his sexual identity (exclusively
> straight).
>
> And see above disclaimer about this being about the porn version of
> MTFs, and yes I know that's not very representative, etc etc.

I'd say that desire might be a somewhat nuanced gender expression. :)

>> Yeah; from a technical standpoint, it's all about functionality in  
>> the end.
>> That's why it frustrates me to see male/female drop down menus in  
>> places
>> where the answer to that question means nothing to the  
>> functionality being
>> offered (i.e., hotspot example in presentation).
>
> In that example, the functionality is for them, not you. It's probably
> because they're selling ads at some point, or want to know what their
> user demographic is so they can buy ads appropriately. Etc.
>
> You could argue that companies oughtn't ask stuff that's purely
> self-interested, rather than directly for providing a service to the
> user, but that's an entirely different issue.

Actually what I'm arguing is that the hotspot company in this case  
isn't necessarily getting the best data with which to target their  
advertisements. I bet it's the advertisers, not the hotspot company,  
that requires gender information from them. This is the explanation  
that Pandora gives when you create an account.[1]

I'm routinely advertised things that I can only assume are based on  
gender norms that I'd never buy in actuality, and things I might buy  
but in a way that doesn't end up appealing to me. A good blatant  
example are the Axe deodorant commercials. Apparently Axe is for  
"manly" men, which I am not—gender in advertising. :) I think most  
people experience this sort of thing on a daily basis, but it's hard  
to tease apart the instances in which gender insensitivity causes the  
advertising dissonance versus the times when over-saturation or some  
other problem is the culprit.

Advertisers have historically been slow to adopt new technologies in  
effective ways (in fact, the industry most successfully doing that is  
pornography), so I doubt advertisers are likely to adopt new ways of  
thinking about demographics with anything faster than what will feel  
glacial to me. And of course, advertising is merely one use case for  
having more accurate gender demographics. (Clothing is another big one.)

>> I don't know how or if that interface is tied into the user-matching
>> algorithms that OkCupid uses, though.
>
> It's not, TTBOMK, other than as much as any generic text is.
>
> (Also FWIW: I know someone who works at OKC. So if you have real
> suggestions, I can pass 'em to someone who might be in a position to
> implement 'em.)

Oh, neat. Who do you know? I used to know someone who works (worked?)  
there, but haven't spoken to him in ages.

>> It will always come back to functionality, and that's highly
>> application-specific, of course. For a site like OkCupid, which  
>> shows little
>> reservation about making users answer a whole lot of questions at  
>> some point
>> or another, I think this kind of expanded self-identification  
>> scheme is
>> likely to be a pretty good fit.
>
> For profiles, sure. But your suggestion abandons their real need for
> filtering based on sexual orientations.
>
> IOW: I think you punted on my dare. :-P

Not sure I did; categorization can be complex, ala LinkedIn's industry  
field, but on OkCupid's site, the gender categorization is remedial.  
Why? Possibly because people expect it to be and the developers have  
other priorities and/or methods. That's cool, but it's a chicken-and- 
egg problem from where I stand. If people expected gender drop down  
menus to have tons of options, OkCupid's site would have tons of  
options for their gender drop down menus. And vice versa. This comes  
back to the "technology can define 'normal'" point in my slideshow.

So OkCupid's "functionality" seems to straddle the fence between  
"doing what users expect" and "providing a filtering scheme," and  
they're doing that. At a minimum, *I'd* like to see them add  
transgender options to that gender drop down of theirs, but can't  
judge whether or not this would be a bad move with regards to what  
users expect to be present in that field, y'know?

>> My argument is centered around the belief that more
>> sites—regardless of what their exact purpose is—can meet the goals  
>> of more
>> people more effectively by becoming more aware of gender bias at  
>> every
>> level, from interface to business logic, and if executed well,  
>> users who
>> prefer not to introspect about the details won't have to know  
>> anything's
>> changed.
>
> And that's why I challenged you to propose how a site for which gender
> is a relevant factor (like OKC) ought to do gender.
>
> I think it's a rather more interesting question than just pointing out
> how the way they do it now over-pigeonholes people.

I think so too! I haven't got a solution, only a lot of questions and  
not enough free time between trying to replace my refrigerator and  
interviewing for jobs to brainstorm them all. But I'd certainly love  
to drop by Noisebridge more often when you're around and talk about  
such things with you!

>> Some people, myself included, are constantly confronted by the  
>> reality that
>> by using the categories most known we are interacted with in ways  
>> we don't
>> like and that, at their worst, don't feel respectful. I acknowledge  
>> that in
>> this way, I'm a social edge case, but from a technical standpoint,  
>> making
>> one's systems robust enough to handle the edge cases is what  
>> iterative
>> improvement is all about.
>
> Sure. What do you propose that would be such a robust handling, yet
> not force genderqueerness on the masses?

I didn't propose something because, like I said before, I don't have a  
proposition, just a bunch of ideas. :) This one's tough, and just as  
much a social/political/issue as a technical one at times. And I hope  
that at least after 5MoF, I'm not the only one with the questions in  
mind.

> your problems with gender in tech will
> remain as obscure as GPG is now. Yes, some edge cases are aware of it
> and maybe even use it (... says the guy whose GPG key is on his
> business card), but it just isn't going to impact anything widespread,
> and without that, you don't accomplish what you're after.
>
> - Sai


:) If I expected this sort of thing to be resolved in my lifetime, I'd  
be a much happier person. I see you've been reading back entries on my  
blog; now you have a taste of why I'm so generally upset at "society".

In other words, I'm not hoping to *answer* the questions with my  
presentation at 5MoF or these thoughts (yet), I'm hoping to get more  
people *asking* more questions. :)

Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://MaleSubmissionArt.com <-- totally and utterly not safe for  
work. Enjoy.
[1] http://blog.pandora.com/faq/#gender