[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

# Re: Gender RL vs. gender in-MOO

- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 17:48:00 PDT
- From:
- Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
- Comments: Just my opinion, not that of my employer.
- In-Reply-To: <m0slN93-0001bRC@freya.yggdrasil.com>

        Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 17:14 EDT
        From: "Walter A. Aprile" <aprile@NL.CS.CMU.EDU>

        Do you have any policy that enforces that the gender people use in
        your MOO must match the gender they have in Real Life ?

    This is probably the closest chance many guys ever get to feeling how
    irritating it is to be pestered sexually on the basis of so arbitrary an
    issue.  Why remove their opportunity to step into someone else's shoes and
    learn what a hassle it can be?  Or for that matter, the opportunity of a
    woman to step out of her conventional role and interact for a while
    without the "benefit" of such attention.

    Anyone who has an existing MOO that is even contemplating requiring people
    to be a certain gender should first count the number of sometimes-!r verbs
    named "@babes", "@fems", "@girls", etc. and then ask yourself what could
    be the purpose of such a verb other than to pick people out of a hat for
    someone to hit on.  That being the case, are you sure you want to condemn
    certain people to being sitting ducks for such idiotic programs?

References:

- Gender RL vs. gender in-MOO

- From: "Walter A. Aprile" <aprile@nl.cs.cmu.edu>

- Prev: RE: Gender RL vs. gender in-MOO
- Next: generic deck of cards?
- Index: MOO-cows
- Thread: MOO-cows

Home | Subject Index | Thread Index