andrewducker | Gender Test

It crashed after the first picture!

How odd. Working fine for me in FF on Windows. Seems odd that it'd be doing something so complex that a Mac would have problems.

It worked for me (different FF plugin configuration, I guess).

Said it was 92% certain I was female.

I knew it!

'Twasn't the Mac that crashed - it was the site. Threw a massive Javascript error.

Hurrah for reinforcing the gender binary. Extra hurrah for:

- Men like construction
- Women like babies
- Men like pictures of women (because all men are straight)
- Women prefer pictures of people, men prefer pictures of things

What utter tosh.

It presents a bunch of pictures. It then makes a guess at what gender you are. It then alters itself depending on whether it was right or not. It's a very simple bit of AI code. If it reinforces anything, it's what its users tell it...

... except I would bet you money that it has the following assumptions coded into it:

1. There are only two genders. Male and female. Well, that one's obvious from the name, but still. It's not accurate. Even if you just go with chromosones, there are more combinations than XX and XY.

2. It won't do any internal clustering within the categories of "male" and "female" for, example, "men who like pictures of people not objects". Which reinforces the mars/venus understanding of gender. As long as there are overall traits towards babies/pictures of women, then those traits drag gender classification towards the two poles.

I'm willing to bet that the system has _no idea_ what's in the pictures. It just knows that picture 37 is chosen by 3% more men than women, while picture 92 is chosen by 2.5% more women than men.

And yes, things are more complex than that - but for (last I checked) less than 1% of the population. Not something that they need to take into account for a mass market bit of fun any more than they need to test on a browser with that market share.

Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. Clustering algorithmns don't know about babies, for example - they just let this kind of application work in situations where the data is XOR'd and you can't draw a simple line.

> And yes, things are more complex than that - but for (last I checked) less than 1% of the population.

... whose daily lives consist of being told all the time that they don't exist. Which times should they object, do you think, and which shouldn't they?

You may feel free to object to anything you like at any point you like. And I'll feel free to respond to it depending on my mood at the time :-> If it had been something more than a silly quiz then I'd have been more sympathetic I suspect - we can find out next time...

I don't expect these things to work well - I was merely curious to see how well it worked on the sample set of my friends list, who are notoriously odd. I was expecting to be more accurate with males than females, which isn't being demonstrated so far.

> You may feel free to object to anything you like at any point you like. And I'll feel free to respond to it depending on my mood at the time.

This really winds me up. Yes, you can walk away and enjoy being cisgendered and not have to deal with this shit any time you like. You're really, really fortunate to not have to deal with it. I know you don't mean it this way, but don't rub my face in it, please.

I'm not trying to rub your face in anything. I'm just saying that if you open a conversation in my journal then I will engage with it in the manner which I feel is correct. I can't see how it can work any other way - that's how dialogue works surely?

I just told you that the way you expressed yourself made me feel as if you were rubbing my face in your cis privilege. Do you want to recognise that I feel that way or not?

I already said, "I know you don't mean it this way." Is that the point?

I do recognise that - but I don't understand why, or what way I could engage that would make you happier.

Thank you, this is easier to respond constructively to.

You don't really need to take the time to tell me that you will engage with something in the manner that you feel correct. You're hardly going to engage with it in a manner that you feel is incorrect, are you? May as well tell me that blue is blue.

The reason I objected was because the particular way you said it, and part of what you expressed, is something I hear a lot, and is one of those things that you probably don't even realise you're doing, but that upsets us a lot.

Trans people (or women, or gay people, or people of colour, etc. etc.) get this a lot: "Oh, this thing I said / posted a link to / did... it offends you? Well, I guess I could do something about it. Or maybe I won't. Depends how I feel, really."

Think of a situation - and I'm gonna use the old footstomping here - where someone keeps stomping on your foot. In fact, almost everyone keeps doing it. You ask them not to, and they say, "I'll take that into account. Or I may not. Depending on my feelings at the time."

Here's what makes it annoying: YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT.

Everywhere I go, I get m/f binary stuff yelling at me. Forms I fill in, casual conversation, popular books, and your LJ too, today.

And you know very well that there are more than two genders, as you've said above, but you're quite happy to link to that and your only disclaimer is that your poll says, Snowflake? I'm not a special fucking snowflake, thank you. I'm a perfectly standard, perfectly boring human being, who happens to not fall within the gender binary.

And you're not feeling "sympathetic" about any of that? I guess I'll slink away, then, and come back when you'll be more willing to hear my case.

It's a real power dynamic thing.

Does that make any more sense about why the way you phrased that stuff wound me up?

You don't really need to take the time to tell me that you will engage with something in the manner that you feel correct.
I was responding to your question as to when you should complain about things. As I hadn't stopped you complaining about something, or told you that you shouldn't, I felt that you were actually complaining that I had responded to your complaint - and was therefore clarifying my position on that.

I'm sorry that the "snowflake" option offended you. It wasn't intended that way - I was just following the internet trope of offering a "none of the above" option in a somewhat silly manner. But I can see why it piled insult on injury, and I'll try to avoid that one in future.

I do feel somewhat offended that you feel I was going to shut you up or censor you in some way. I was never not going to "hear your case" - I was referring to the way I might respond to you, not to any way in which you might express yourself. So long as people fall with (remarkably broad) lines of politeness I've ever censored anyone on this journal.

I felt that you were actually complaining that I had responded to your complaint

My complaint was actually about this: "Not something that they need to take into account for a mass market bit of fun". Don't they? Really? I think they do. And I'll complain that they're not. Why aren't you complaining too? It amazes me that people will complain about inconsistencies of grammar (just giving an example, not saying that you do this) but not about this kind of thing.

But I can see why [the snowflake option] piled insult on injury, and I'll try to avoid that one in future.

Oh, no, I know what the snowflake option's about. That's not what piled insult on injury, though. It was the, "And I'll feel free to respond to it depending on my mood at the time." bit. That's the, "You know, I don't have to care about this stuff. Maybe see if you can get me to care another time." part I was objecting to in my last comment.

I do feel somewhat offended that you feel I was going to shut you up or censor you in some way

I didn't and don't feel this. When I talk about power, I'm not talking about your power as the owner of this journal. I'm talking about your position as a person who is fortunate enough not to have their gender denied. If all the people in that situation continue to do nothing for transgender people, transgender people will remain discriminated against. That's how the "tyrrany of the majority" works.

Why aren't you complaining too?
Because I don't feel it's necessary. I know that you do, but I don't feel that I do as well. Yes, I am privileged in my ability to not complain about this, but the lack of every gender option in a silly AI test quiz is so far down my priority list that it's just not visible. I totally understand that it's much higher up yours, of course.

Whereas, say, the trans Stonewall boycott earlier this year felt much more important to me - and something that was worth spreading information about. Also, the "people in that situation continue to do nothing" (where "that" clearly means "your" in that case) is also insulting - considering that you don't know of any personal history I have with trans issues.

I know this is a hot button issue for you - and that not feeling supported makes you angry - but I feel like you're lashing out at the moment.

Yes, I am privileged in my ability to not complain about this

Indeed! Please know that in a conversation with a trans person, they are painfully aware of this the entire time. It's not necessary to mention it like you did earlier in the conversation in the same way as it's not necessary to mention to a person who just had a nasty breakup about quite how awesome your relationship to your partner is.

Sorry, what I meant by "if the people in that situation continue to do nothing" was, "imagine that all the people in that situation do nothing and continue to do nothing. Nothing changes. Hence, they should not do nothing". I don't think - and didn't mean to imply - that you do nothing.

I know this is a hot button issue for you - and that not feeling supported makes you angry - but I feel like you're lashing out at the moment.

Angry people do that, you know. :)

Yeah, I know :->

I'm painfully aware that it's painfully hard for you to deal with this kind of thing - and I don't think many people deal well when they're in pain.

Hang on, how am I not dealing well? I'm angry, yes, but I hardly think it's unwarranted. And I could be having this conversation with you in a much angrier way. I find this comment very patronising. What on earth is wrong with being angry at being told I don't exist?

Sorry - it wasn't intended to mean that you were being inappropriate, or that I objected to your anger.

I tend to lump any kind of loud emotion as not "dealing well" - it doesn't mean that it's not an appropriate response - just that it's not being 100% logical. If someone is crying over losing a relative then that would be both "not dealing well with life" and "perfectly appropriate". Does that make sense? It really wasn't supposed to be a negative statement.

I would consider being 100% logical as not dealing well. :) Maybe I can afford to be 100% logical about something if it's happening 1,000 miles away and I'm only looking at it through a table of numbers, but hey, none of us are. 100% logic's not appropriate.

Anyway, this is a distraction. There are two things you haven't said yet in this conversation.

1. "Sorry for rubbing your face in the fact that I have cis privilege and you don't."

2. "Now I know how to avoid doing this in the future to other trans people and will take steps to avoid doing it."

If you don't hold those opinions, let's talk about that. What's the gap between the opinions you hold and those ones? I'd like to persuade you that the opinions above are the correct ones to hold.

I'll get back to you on that tomorrow. It's 11pm and I have builders turning up at 8am.

I'll re-read the whole conversation, make sure I understand it when I have a working brain, and then try to do the right thing :->

Builders? Hee. Good luck with that!

Re-read the thread just now - and I think I see where the problem is. If I can back track and lay things out, because it's spread over oodles of comments at the moment:

I said (paraphrasing) - they don't need to take cis-gender into account in every internet quiz.
You said: that cisgender people are faced with this all the time and "Which times should they object, do you think, and which shouldn't they?"
I said you could object to anything you liked - and that I'd respond to whatever I liked as well.
And this upset you, because you felt I was rubbing my cis-privilege in your face.

And I can see why you'd feel that - because I was being somewhat snarky. I felt that, as you were implying that you needed permission to complain, or that I was asking you to stop, and I was clearly not doing so, that what you were actually objecting to me responding to you - which felt like you trying to silence me in my own journal. And thus I was snarkier than I should have been, which I apologise for. I wasn't actually trying to say that I'd abandon the conversation if I felt like it - I was saying that if you comment in my journal then I will engage with what you're saying rather than just letting you vent.

But I can see where the misunderstanding came from - and I can assure you that that was not my intent.

So, yes, I'm sorry that I came across that way, and I'll try to avoid this in future (although I'm sure it will happen again).

Classification and discussion win! Thank you. :)

Sorry - it wasn't intended to mean that you were being inappropriate, or that I objected to your anger.

Oh, and thank you. :)

Oh - one of the reasons these things interest me is that they get me right _a lot_ - and I'm fascinated to know why I'm more stereotypical on some axes than I clearly am on others...

You're dead wrong in all these assumptions, you know.

I voted for the construction and never for the children. I generally chose pictures of things over pictures of people. It pegged me as an 80% probability of being female.

I was 92% male and I sometimes voted for the bloomin' children.

I'm female so I have no idea what on earth it thought it was doing.

Does it always show the same pictures?

don't think so. I think each person gets diff ones.

But I def voted for children over rooftops hehe - and that's on a couple of occasions.

Whoops. :) Colour me surprised, then! I take that bit back.

I can't figure out the damned pattern either. It's frustrating me.

Yep, that sounds about right. Some of the "male" images were pretty badly photographed, too, another reason I reluctantly opted for the "female" choice. Amateur hour, all around.

Male -> 86% female. I would have *thought* it would work fairly well even if it was quite simple, but apparently not.

Male → 96% female.

Male → 99% female.

So it's just a bit off...

"there is a 50% chance that you are male".

Um. Riiight.

How much more conclusive do you want?

(via friendsfriends)

It suggested 56% male for me. This is possibly because I don't like children very much.

The quiz was 84% certain that I had outside plumbing, which was correct.

-- Steve's surprised at the number of misses the poll's reporting on males, though given some of the selections of photos maybe he shouldn't be.

53% chance that I'm female

:(

oh and in the test

Seems to think there is a 64% chance I'm male.

In IE8 on Vista (for me) it crashes consistently after the first pair of pictures. In Firefox, it crashes after the first pair of pictures half the time, before the first pair of pictures almost half the time, and in the few remaining cases it only shows me one of the two pictures, and then crashes.

It switched my browser off when I confirmed it was wrong.

I did it five times because I ~~don't want to start packing~~ was interested. Three times it thought female (70%+ each time), the other two times it though male (about 65%).

I think the times it thought I was male there were more pictures of children, which I didn't click.

It was 95% sure I'm male. It's a smidgen worse than chance, so either folks from your flist are weird or the premise of the test is wrong. Or there's a small chance of a random effect.

I didn't have a strong preference in a lot of the photo pairs.

81% female, apparently.

I'd like to know which clustering algorithm they're using; either it's overfitting, or they've used some bad training examples.

There's an 85% chance I'm male. (Perhaps it's a boy and that's confusing matters?)

76% chance I'm a woman, apparently.

It believes that there is a 71 per cent chance that I'm male.

Perhaps it is right.

85% chance male apparently. *shrugs*

I think it would be funnier if it just told everyone there was a 49.76% chance that they were female.

75% chance of male... which I'm really not. *shores up femme credentials*

96% male apparently; although I've 'volunteered' for stuff along the same lines as this before, usually with the same result, so at least there's consistency :)

It thought there was a 67% chance I was female. Bzzzztt!

Mind you, http://genderanalyzer.com/ thinks I'm female too. But only just.

That one thinks I'm 62% male... and apparently gets the results right 64% of the time...

Gee, thanks. Not only did it make an 87% guess that I was female, but clicking "no" at the end shit my damned browser down. Colour me unimpressed.

It guessed I was female at a higher probability than any of your other commenters. I think it was 97%. Which is strange because I expect I come across as more tomboy-ish and macho than 97% of women, so who knows?

Said there was a 99% chance I was female.

94% female

I went on artistic merit (as perceived by me) - but there was at least one shot where the choice was between cra@p and cra@p and a couple where one was out of focus so that was never getting a vote.

Maybe that IS 'girly' :-)

I thought the same - in one of the tests I did, the more steretypically masculine preferences were rubbish shots.

Pressed the wrong clicky! I meant female and wrong! Can I change it?

Yup. Click on the link at the top of the results...

male - 67% male

Would have been more interesting if it showed which of my choices were non-conventional.

Gender Test

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

There's a

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject