Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensivetrixieleitzJanuary 31 2010, 04:41:34 UTC
b) I reject your gender binary
At the risk of endlessly multiplying entities, this could split into: b/i) I reject gender/gender doesn't apply to me/I don't have a gender b/ii) I have a gender, but it doesn't fit into either of your two boxes
Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensivejamocheJanuary 31 2010, 19:55:12 UTC
Ooh, pick me!
Female, but it's none of LJ's business, precisely because of this kind of idiocy. (And if I could, not Facebook's business either, since they use it for wildly mistargeted ads. They've got my age and education level, so I get ads suggesting I go back to school to become a nurse. WTF?)
You could probably word the poll to catch the distinction between "none of LJ's business, but otherwise I have no problem saying" and "none of anyone's business, thanks".
Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensiveazurelunaticJanuary 31 2010, 04:40:54 UTC
And all along I've been reading LJ's setting of "unspecified" as "this user has chosen to not specify their gender to LJ", rather than "this user's gender is, in the physical world, unspecified in terms of the gender binary".
Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensivelittlebelleblueJanuary 31 2010, 18:13:33 UTC
Yes. So "unspecified" works for me because LJ doesn't need to know my gender, whereas it might not work for someone who doesn't id with the gender binary. But I feel uncomfortable putting "it's personal" because that implies something else . . . I don't know quite what. And there's still a big gap for people who don't id with our binary gender system.
Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensivepauammaJanuary 31 2010, 19:13:07 UTC
That (your reading) is how I translated it. Not that it would influence your reading, but you're not the only one. (And now I'm wondering what the other translation teams did.)
Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensivespringheel_jackJanuary 31 2010, 07:27:39 UTC
Why only three choices? You'll never find a single option 3 that everyone will like. Why not just add a few more? People like more choices rather than fewer.
Re: To me, "unspecified" is offensiveradiantsoulJanuary 31 2010, 15:40:56 UTC
Or none at all. Presumably there is no need to record gender and so why bother? It is not as if it is a dating site and if people want to know the bizarre complications of what someone deems their gender to be then they can go into it in their journal.
Reply
Reply
At the risk of endlessly multiplying entities, this could split into:
b/i) I reject gender/gender doesn't apply to me/I don't have a gender
b/ii) I have a gender, but it doesn't fit into either of your two boxes
Reply
Female, but it's none of LJ's business, precisely because of this kind of idiocy. (And if I could, not Facebook's business either, since they use it for wildly mistargeted ads. They've got my age and education level, so I get ads suggesting I go back to school to become a nurse. WTF?)
You could probably word the poll to catch the distinction between "none of LJ's business, but otherwise I have no problem saying" and "none of anyone's business, thanks".
Reply
Reply
It would be nice to have an option for gender variant people who would like to disclose their non-binary gender, even if is as clumsily as 'other'.
Reply
Reply
Reply
And I think that's how it was intended.
Reply
Reply
"Unspecified" includes "I have no problem telling people who aren't going to use it for advertising, which does not include LJ."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Presumably there is no need to record gender and so why bother? It is not as if it is a dating site and if people want to know the bizarre complications of what someone deems their gender to be then they can go into it in their journal.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment