• jol@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s frustrating. It’s 2026 and we’re still pointlessly gendering things. And I don’t mean this is a “omg you assumed my gender” way. I mean that organization’s that should know better go the extra mile to apply strict genders to things and processes. If this email is about workplace harassment or something like that, it would be easier to just not gender people.

    • _skj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 day ago

      The email sounds like a college student participating in a sociology study for class and asking the professor for clarification. This is exactly the kind of thing that I’d expect to ask about gender along with a bunch of other personal information. The goal being to see if any patterns in the responses.

      Sociology in general does have the problem that categories are important and helpful to spotting patterns, but people are very difficult to categorize. People just don’t fit cleanly into categories

    • SaltSong@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      We can’t tell if it’s pointlessly gendered unless wet know what the questions are about. Seems likely to be a study of some kind, and knowing how men perceive other men, for example, might be valuable data.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        But they’re very correct that so many things aren’t needed. I mean, gender on a driver license? Really?