There Are No Girls on The Internet- reason for this assumption?

Just like a Dalek to do that.

Guess why I pick that as my avatar.

edited 21st Aug '12 2:29:24 AM by IraTheSquire

Yes...that was the joke.

...so, what about if people use a female avatar? What do people tend to assume then?

They're female, of course.

The general perception is this; If using something without a gender or is most likely male, they're Male. If they're using a female avatar, they're Female.

That's how one would "first" assume they are. Avatars themselves... are easy to screw up on. I don't blame that. Atleast it has no accidental sexist implications. But always assuming everyone's male is completely sexist in itself. Same with purposely not using better language when you know it, to prevent confusion and flame wars. That's just as horrible and should not be done.

Yes, I know.

I don't think it matters. Not for me, at least.

edited 21st Aug '12 2:32:30 AM by IraTheSquire

edited 21st Aug '12 2:32:17 AM by DeviantBraeburn

@Ira: Personally, I feel even using "it" isn't good enough as that is not having an indefinite pronoun, but a gender neutral pronoun. It's far better to use he/she, s/he, he or she, (s)he, or he/she/it/they (I tend to favor the first and last ones).

Also, I tend to find more of a correlation between the sex that individuals find attractive and the sex of the individual's avatar than the individuals sex/gender and the sex of the individual's avatar... :/

edited 21st Aug '12 2:34:05 AM by deathpigeon

Well, if I can call other living organisms of either gender an 'it' I don't see how it is not indefinite enough.

Depy: Nice-to-look-at kind of reasoning? :p

I misread "he/she/it/they" as "he/she/Italian" for some reason at first.

I vote we just call everybody Italian and call it a day.

edited 21st Aug '12 2:36:48 AM by 0dd1

I don't mind "it" that much, but it's meant to refer to objects or robots.

I would rather not refer to people as objects. It's kind of what we're fighting against as well.

>...so, what about if people use a female avatar? What do people tend to assume then?
>They're female, of course.

Never fails to get a laugh out when it happens to me.

"Also, I tend to find more of a correlation between the sex that individuals find attractive and the sex of the individual's avatar than the individuals sex/gender and the sex of the individual's avatar... :/ "

Yeah, you can never be really sure if they are using something they want to be viewed as or just something they like to look at or find cool/interesting/funny.

edited 21st Aug '12 2:43:31 AM by Adannor

@Ira: Which is making the assumption of agenderness just as much as referring to people as "he" as a default is making the assumption of maleness. I only refer to people who are agender with the pronoun "it", and, if I don't know his/her/its/their gender, I cover all the bases, unless I'm feeling lazy, in which case, I only cover the two most common, he and she.

@Celestia: That is a good conclusion to draw from the observed correlation, but that is hardly necessarily fact.

@Irene: It refers to things without a gender and/or sex. It is appropriate to refer to people with the pronoun "it" if, and only if, they are agender, in which case, unless the individual prefers a different pronoun, that is the only appropriate pronoun to use for it.

I consider "it" as an object/machine only.(yes, I know some people call their cars she, but that's not what I mean)

So I tend to use slightly more "non-object" stuff. I know there was Xir, but I prefer Hir.

Either way, it's not nearly as bad here as always saying one specific sex.

If I don't know their gender I just use "they."

I know that, technically, it's not grammatically correct but it saves a lot of hassle.

I'm up for that.

The only problem is that it makes some conversations confusing.

"Did you see that Italian."

"No, that wasn't an Italian, it was an Italian."

"Oh, I totally thought that Italian was an Italian."

'Italian, your always mistaking Italians for Italians."

edited 21st Aug '12 2:56:30 AM by DeviantBraeburn

I used too have Sook-Yin Lee as my avatar, did anyone mistake me for Canadian?

@Deviant: Brilliant!

@Agenderedness: Pardon, but how exactly does one define oneself as being agendered? Because I take it that its definition is equivalent to that of "androgyny".

I think agendered is no gender, where as androgyny is between. :o

@Irene: I dislike xir being used for agender people since it's attempting to create a pronoun to refer to something for which there is already a pronoun to refer to, just a slightly more specific case, specifically genderless people rather than genderless things, and is, thus, not needed. Using xir to refer to people of the third gender or people with an androgynous gender is acceptable, to me.

@Rel: Well, there are actually multiple camps on that issue, with some people considering it to be grammatically correct, and others considering it to be grammatically incorrect. Personally, I reside in the camp that its grammatical correctness, or lack thereof, is unimportant as it is inelegant, confusing, inaccurate, and imprecise, which is further aggravated by the fact that there is a less confusing, more accurate, and more precise, though equally inelegant, way of doing it, "he/she", and a far more accurate and precise, though no less confusing, when compared to he/she, and far less elegant, way of doing it, "he/she/it/they".

@0dd: Agender means you have no gender, androgyny means your gender is in between male and female, while being both and neither. Ninja'd by Celestia.

edited 21st Aug '12 3:01:55 AM by deathpigeon

We need a new language.

Well, that's what I meant for Xir. A default until I know. But I almost never use it, preferring s/he and hir. Hard to offend someone when I never called them the wrong gender in the first place.(unless they're a troll and purposely taking offense)

Dammit, why does human sexuality have to be so complicated.

Purple: It involves humans, 'nuff said. :p

Italians, were getting off topic.

...What was the topic again?