> 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). 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?
It's not that easy... Are you for instance aware that many would argue there are more than two genders? And they may use not only social but also biological arguments?
Also supposedly we as humans use technology to improve our quality of life and to sometimes tame what we don't like about the current rules nature has us living in. Why shouldn't we build technology so that one can chose to not broadcast gender information? I mean, it's not as difficult as the uniform enclosures, and for example we do build dams should someone believe changing the course of a river is for the good of a bunch of people.
To answer to your own analogy with one of my own, if we could make an Android app that makes everybody on the street ignore our gender when interacting with us publicly, would it be wrong to use it if I wanted to?
> 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.
Modern language is also somewhat a technological creation, we do study and shape language in a daily basis... and yes, it's currently sexist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss and act in ways between our reach to make our social networks less sexist.
> 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.
One could discuss for years about to what extent those differences and sides are themselves social constructs that are today imprinted on our language... but I myself believe it would be difficult to any of us to sum it up as cleanly and insightfully as Hofstadter has already done in http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html (which reading I recommend, and has already been discussed here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1421022)
Also supposedly we as humans use technology to improve our quality of life and to sometimes tame what we don't like about the current rules nature has us living in. Why shouldn't we build technology so that one can chose to not broadcast gender information? I mean, it's not as difficult as the uniform enclosures, and for example we do build dams should someone believe changing the course of a river is for the good of a bunch of people.
To answer to your own analogy with one of my own, if we could make an Android app that makes everybody on the street ignore our gender when interacting with us publicly, would it be wrong to use it if I wanted to?
Modern language is also somewhat a technological creation, we do study and shape language in a daily basis... and yes, it's currently sexist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss and act in ways between our reach to make our social networks less sexist. One could discuss for years about to what extent those differences and sides are themselves social constructs that are today imprinted on our language... but I myself believe it would be difficult to any of us to sum it up as cleanly and insightfully as Hofstadter has already done in http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html (which reading I recommend, and has already been discussed here http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1421022)