What would an acceptable inclusion measure be?
That's ridiculous. You're making things a thousand times more complicated for no good reason besides ideological performance. It reminds me of how, in ancient China, once a new emperor was crowed, everyone was supposed to stop using the characters in his name in written documents (i.e. re-spelled a bunch of stuff).
Classical gender is actually a pretty good solution to a lot of practical problems.
Cool, I had no idea you were able to peer inside my brain and tease out my inner thought process. Thank you for explaining to me that I didn't actually think the idea through and am just operating on what you classify as "ideology".
It's strange because I thought I just wanted to be able to find what I want. Like, if I want a blouse, I want to filter for blouses. If I want a t-shirt, I want to filter for that.
I thought that I thought that searching by sex is just a proxy for what I'm actually trying to find and that providing more granular filter options, and more accurate descriptive data about garments that could be used for searching and so forth, that a shopping service would be more useful, not less.
But, hey, you obviously know me better than I do, so my bad.
> Cool, I had no idea you were able to peer inside my brain and tease out my inner thought process. Thank you for explaining to me that I didn't actually think the idea through and am just operating on what you classify as "ideology".
I don't need to peer inside your brain to understand your proposal makes things far more complicated for me, and there's no reason to drop classical gender as a classification except for ideological reasons.
> It's strange because I thought I just wanted to be able to find what I want. Like, if I want a blouse, I want to filter for blouses. If I want a t-shirt, I want to filter for that.
And if you pair this with dropping gender as a classification (the context of this thread), now you're expecting people to be very familiar with a lot of clothing jargon, so they can use that jargon as a proxy for gender. An even then, it breaks down. For instance: men's and women's t-shirts are typically not interchangeable.
It's also an idea that is over-optimized for a particular kind of online search, and breaks down for physical retail (in more than one way).
There's nothing wrong with adding the criteria you propose to a classification system that includes classical gender, and it would be a great improvement, but it's not a substitute for gender.
Good thing I never suggested that.
Go back and look.
I never once suggested those things should be exclusive of one another.
> And if you pair this with dropping gender as a classification (the context of this thread)
Again: I never said that. In fact, no one in the thread I was responding to suggested that.
Go read from the beginning as it seems you've let your own ideology get in the way of your reading comprehension.
It all started with AnEro objecting to being asked about their gender.
Counttheforks agreed with them, saying it would be more inclusive to not ask users for that kind of sensitive personal information.
deelowe then asked "What should the option be when I'm searching for clothes and I want to filter out dresses and blouses?".
Counttheforks provided an excellent suggestion that involves classifying the type of clothing rather than asking for personal information about the user and then inferring what they're trying to do.
I suggested another alternative involving filtering by garment type/style. Those suggestions are certainly complementary and in fact countthefork's suggestion specifically mentions gendered styles as one way to classify garments.
All of this would improve the shopping experience while simultaneously making that experience more inclusive and not violating individual privacy.
Look, I understand, you apparently see culture wars everywhere. But if you wanna have that fight, you can do it with someone else.
Sorry, that's not really true. Upthread, there's this:
>> What would an acceptable inclusion measure be?
> Not asking.
Followed by a whole lot of discussion about finding clothes by using classifications other than gender.
>>> What would an acceptable inclusion measure be?
>> Not asking.
Yeah.
Not asking about the user's gender, not the gendered style of the products they're searching for.
Do you really not see the distinction?
Here, let me clarify: If I was a trans man, this is the difference between telling the website I'm a trans man, versus searching the website for clothing styled for men.
The objection was about the former, not the latter.
Want proof? Here's AnEro's actual comment, which it appears you didn't actually read:
> What features are you bringing me that are improved cause you know my sex? What features are you bringing me that are improved cause you know I'm trans?
(emphasis mine)
> Followed by a whole lot of discussion about finding clothes by using classifications other than gender.
Yeah, because that's the question that was asked.
AnEro asked "What features are you bringing me that are improved cause you know I'm trans".
In response, deelowe asked "What should the option be when I'm searching for clothes and I want to filter out dresses and blouses?".
We answered that specific question with some alternatives ways to achieve that same endgoal that doesn't require the website to ask for the user's gender.
Did you just expect people to change the subject?