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

[Sai Emrys]

On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 2:24 AM, maymay <bitetheappleback at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 it'd also confuse and turn off the vast majority of people
who've never heard the term 'cisgendered' and potentially even think
that questioning their gender is offensive and demeaning (ironically
in much the same way as transgendered people might find binary
categorization demeaning... but there are a lot more conservatives
than trannies :-P).

> 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.

But these are people reading you in the first place. I'd wager that's
a very self-selecting group for:
> 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.

I'd say it's a subset of normals who do this - the subset who are on
the edge of normalcy to begin with.

I think this is representative as an example. Your approach *makes
people think*, possibly makes them realize their identity is more
subtle, yada yada self-discovery is nice.

But good-as-in-popular customer service does NOT make people think, it
stays invisible. Only genderqueer folk will think twice about a 'are
you male or female' question. *Everyone* would doubletake a bit at a
"... or [insert list of other choices]" question.

So here you have a conflict between what might change someone, and
what they'd find smooth to use.

I suppose one could argue this on world-changing grounds, but OKC
isn't out to change the world, just to hook people up. (And do you
think that most people - who aren't already seeking-and-questioning -
would be changed by such a prompt, rather than just mildly irritated?)

> The dichotomy of "straight" and "gay" is what dominates all pornography
> right now. I think that's a problem too,

There's certainly bi porn also. It's fairly limited though.

> but I have a whole other (totally
> "Not Safe For Work") blog about that topic.[0] :)

Seen it. What does it have to do with sexual orientation though? It
seems entirely orthogonal.

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

That's an interesting question. Can one have an identity one isn't aware of?

It certainly seems to be a *different* sort of identity at the least.

> 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]

Sure. So?

That's what their upstream deal is, so that's what they do. I don't
think they're in a position to argue to the ad company that they ought
to change their ways because of a tiny population that is anomalous.

> 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.

And there we get at the question of whether advertising is intended to
*service* or *form* your desires and identity.

Though I think the intent is usually the former, there's a good
argument that the actuality is the latter. And therefore, just 'cause
you're a sissy non-manly man, doesn't mean Axe can't try to convince
you to want to be by showing you that manly men get laid more.

> 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.)

Indeed. Further evidence that the thing you originally objected to
(being asked your binary gender by a hotspot) is not something that
pragmatically will change any time soon.

So why bother with railing against things that don't give a damn about
your queerness anyway? I think you'd be better off (unless of course
you simply want to vent, which I suppose is fine) picking more
malleable targets.

> Oh, neat. Who do you know?

He goes by the handle 'toranin'. IIRC he considers his RL name
semi-confidential.

> 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?

What transgender options? (There certainly isn't a clear answer to
what options one ought to pick...)

And pragmatically: how many people do you think they'd gain from it
vs. lose from 'this is too weird for me' dropout?

(Remember, conservatives date too, and are much more numerous...)

> But I'd certainly love to drop by
> Noisebridge more often when you're around and talk about such things with
> you!

In ASL, perhaps? ;-)

(Fun fact: the ASL sign for 'transgendered' is a derivation of
"beautiful inside". Sometimes used very ironically.)

- Sai