(And don't give me that "it was never meant to go live" crap - everything that goes to changelog is already approved and is supposed to go live at the next code synchronization)
It was in beta, so we didn't post about it in news...bluemeringueDecember 17 2009, 16:19:28 UTC
We were testing out a beta option and inadvertently added a binary gender question that was imposed on all beta users who tried to modify their profile settings. It was pushed out before we had the opportunity to hone the language AND add a third option. We intended to ask: "How do you currently identify your gender?" We will be making the necessary adjustments and adding another choice. Just so you know, we fully understand and support the fact that gender identification is fluid, not anatomically based/driven, self-actualized, and socially circumscribed in ways that tend to diminish, trivialize, and perpetuate bias.
Re: It was in beta, so we didn't post about it in news...saekhwaDecember 17 2009, 17:50:58 UTC
While I appreciate that you recognize that gender is not binary, LJ has, quite frankly, ceased to earn the benefit of the doubt on such matters, because it still sounds like backpedaling, PR spin, and outright burial to me rather than transparency.
And as ryf said: "That's not something you 'inadvertently' code."
So LJ can keep its advertising and sponsors. I'm taking my conversation elsewhere.
Re: It was in beta, so we didn't post about it in news...foxfirefeyDecember 17 2009, 22:48:32 UTC
So, what I'm about to say isn't an accusation or an assertion that I think the problem I'm going to point out is indeed exactly how LJ will end up implementing this and therefore needs to be rallied against, or something that you personally got wrong or need to respond to or anything. It's more along the lines of discussion, suggestion, etc.
I think in order to fully support the ideals described and not get people's hackles up, you probably need to add two more choices, not one.
One of those would be something along the lines of "other" or "none of the above", for people who don't identify along the gender binary.
The other would be "unspecified" or "declines to say".
Now, if those two have to be whittled down to one, I think it's best to go in the direction of unspecified, like the old status quo. That way it'll still be a gender binary choice, but at least people who don't fit in it won't have to label themselves wrongly, and the people who don't want to give that information won't feel cornered. And, well, it's often harder
( ... )
disclaimer: i'm a LJ employee but not necessarily an apologist.
(And don't give me that "it was never meant to go live" crap - everything that goes to [info]changelog is already approved and is supposed to go live at the next code synchronization)a lot of times we'll have FEATURES that we want to go live that have been approved. let's use something relatively innocuous as an example: v-gifts. the US side will give and tacitly approve "we want holiday v-gifts that should be this and that". the v-gifts are designed and their entry is coded and bundled into a release. the release is pushed to beta. then we see it for the first time and we all break into laughter because either the wording is wrong, the english translation doesn't make sense, or the icon itself is just a little off or unintentionally funny. did LJ "approve" the idea of the v-gift? of course. did we approve the FINAL product? heck no. we catch it in beta and send it back for revision or just eliminate it from the final production push
( ... )
(And don't give me that "it was never meant to go live" crap - everything that goes to changelog is already approved and is supposed to go live at the next code synchronization)
Reply
Because that was utter bullshit, and it should be addressed.
It only makes me glad that I've taken my business (and my money) elsewhere.
Reply
Reply
That's not something you 'inadvertently' code.
And no, this is not live now. An explanation and apology should have still been in this news post.
But LJ lost my business months ago after 5 years of paying for it anyway.
Reply
And as ryf said: "That's not something you 'inadvertently' code."
So LJ can keep its advertising and sponsors. I'm taking my conversation elsewhere.
Reply
I think in order to fully support the ideals described and not get people's hackles up, you probably need to add two more choices, not one.
One of those would be something along the lines of "other" or "none of the above", for people who don't identify along the gender binary.
The other would be "unspecified" or "declines to say".
Now, if those two have to be whittled down to one, I think it's best to go in the direction of unspecified, like the old status quo. That way it'll still be a gender binary choice, but at least people who don't fit in it won't have to label themselves wrongly, and the people who don't want to give that information won't feel cornered. And, well, it's often harder ( ... )
Reply
(And don't give me that "it was never meant to go live" crap - everything that goes to [info]changelog is already approved and is supposed to go live at the next code synchronization)a lot of times we'll have FEATURES that we want to go live that have been approved. let's use something relatively innocuous as an example: v-gifts. the US side will give and tacitly approve "we want holiday v-gifts that should be this and that". the v-gifts are designed and their entry is coded and bundled into a release. the release is pushed to beta. then we see it for the first time and we all break into laughter because either the wording is wrong, the english translation doesn't make sense, or the icon itself is just a little off or unintentionally funny. did LJ "approve" the idea of the v-gift? of course. did we approve the FINAL product? heck no. we catch it in beta and send it back for revision or just eliminate it from the final production push ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment