Hacker News Reader

Comment by fermienrico | Hacker News Reader

I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what actions and indications lead to gender bias?

If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real issues when the noise in the social media is due to all kinds of baseless accusations.

View on HN

I guess the argument is that if the only difference between two "robots" is the gender of their intended audience, and one gets banned, then that's prejudice.

Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice.

They're not wrong.

Of course, CES could argue that it's bad timing - that the new product came out just as CES started cleaning up. Maybe these male-oriented developments will be similarly disallowed. We'll have to wait and see. Still, terrible optics for CES and a bad decision all round.

Their vibrator got banned from competing for an award. It did NOT get banned from being at CES.

The male-focused sex products did not even compete for the awards as far as I can tell, or at least did not get any of the awards.

>and subsequently that we would not be allowed to showcase Osé, or even exhibit at CES 2019.

It did, which means that there is a bias, given that other sex-themed tech was not similarly banned.

"Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice."

I agree BUT:

How do you know the only difference between the selection of the robots was specifically and exclusively gender? May be other robots contending for the award deserved it and they were actually better robots!?

Well, if there where better robots, then they would have won the award in the first place. the strange thing here in regards to that, is that they won the award and then CES came and said, sorry we take it back, with no real reason why.

Ah, good point. That’s really strange.

https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/10/there-s-a-new-sex-robot-...

Did you read through the article? It's laughable for CES to claim that sex toys are somehow too "obscene" for it or are off topic.

Exactly.

They claim it is too obscene in the context of the innovation award categories- there isn't one for sex toys (https://www.ces.tech/Events-Programs/Innovation-Awards/Honor...).

I absolutely agree that they are overly puritanical when it comes to adult products in general though.

The "Tech for a better world" category seems to be a catch-all, including such things as the Nissan LEAF, a smart pet bed, and a wine preservation opener.

Agreed. Unfortunately the organizers seem to limit the innovation award to PG-rated products :/

Which should have been covered in the entry section before the award was even made. They received an award that was rescinded for either puritanical reasons, bad category reasons, or political reasons. None of these are anything other than ineptitude or bias. I can say I'd not want to put money forth for CES given that they can't even get their awarding process straight.

It's easy to blame on gender bias in todays climate, unfortunately. Every single major media outlet will publish your story.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between actual gender bias and gender bias pushed by activist, i feel.

I absolutely agree- every major cause tends to attract those who wish to capitalize off of it for their own gain, and all it does is provide fodder for those who are looking for reasons to detract from the movement.

According to the Fortune article (http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-toy-ces2019/), they were notified around two months ago- why publish a response now? Seems more of a strategic PR play in the news cycle IMO

If the timing is a PR play, it doesn't follow that they're wrong about the sexism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com