Don't claim to create safe spaces

[nonchip]

Please don't claim to create safe spaces using the 23andme api, as it per design discriminates on trans people, people with genetic defects, races, implements kin liability, etc.

see also #1, closed by now because it's answered and no "real" issue/bugreport, while this one is: @offensive-computing you should imho mention that while this project can help filter the masses for safe spaces, it should never be the only option, because it's way too exclusive, DNA just isn't enough to filter people. you'll still get false positive trolls you'll have to moderate away, and false negative users you'll be excluding and there should be another option for them to join.

[blackfrat]

Please disregard this complaint. I am planning to create social website for black women living in underprivileged areas, and I would like to be sure my users are actually black women not white trolls seeking to disrupt our safe community. Besides using geographic area registration access control I am very interested in this project.

[refdoc]

This is as per the example "No blacks, no Jews!". Bizarre and sick.

[blackfrat]

The examples also mention Jews only, and Blacks only websites, so you trying to turn it into "evil racist software" is laughable.

Fortunately using immutable genetic traits as access control is the future, and it is already implemented in many places demanding high level of security. That this technology would become accessible to general public is great, and your emotional objections does not matter.

[lleaff]

I for one look forward to my Aryan supremacy safe-space.

[nonchip]

@blackfrat: the problem is your black women dont' neccessarily have an Y chromosome, so nope, don't disregard this complain. also, genetic traits are not immutable and don't really tell you anything about the person in question. maybe a person born as a black woman undergoes therapy to change both their skin color and sexual organs and then wants to murder all your users because they joined @lleaff's safespace ;)

also, your claim of me being laughable is laughable, because I'm not trying to turn anything into evil racist software, I'm just saying that banning e.g. non-jewish/non-black/non-cis-female/etc people is by definition racism/sexism/*ism. fun fact: you don't have to be white and hate blacks to be racist, it works the other way around too (as you're demonstrating by "making sure" your users are "no white trolls").

also, genetic access control is nothing "fortunate" (because genetics don't say anything about the person, except you're using it to explicitely match one person, which your use case doesn't), and sociological facts don't have anything to do with my emotions.

I'd like to advise you to get outside and take a closer look at people: there are many cases where genetics don't only not tell you anything valuable about them, but also tell you wrong infos (see e.g. trans people trying to use your gender-filtered website).

to clarify: I don't think 23am or this api are a bad thing for managing access to individual accounts, I just think you should not filter your users by it.

also, afaik, 23am tests cost about $100, I'd really like to see the shitstorm when you tell your underprivileged users to pay that just to use your website.

[blackfrat]

@nonchip :
First, mismatch between sex and gender identity is extremely rare and is considered to be a mental disease, it is as yet untreatable, even for people who undergone surgery to remove their body parts the suicide rate is extremely high. For 99.99% of population sex is immutable trait which determines gender. I am not going to be "inclusive" for the sake of ability to effectively filter my users.

Second, are you seriously claiming artificialy altering one's skin colour makes one a black/white/whatever person?
Furthermore, no, you can not change your sexual organs. You can have surgery to remove the organs you were born with, and have the surgeons remodel some parts of what remains to resemble organs of the opposite sex.

Third, you are religiously claiming to not allow anyone in is racism. This is demonstrably false. Sometimes having safe space requires exclusion of the people who would introduce hostile environment, or are not the target demographics. When I am setting up website for black underprivileged women, I am setting it for them not for everyone.

because genetics don't say anything about the person

Yes, and pigs can fly. We have come a long since the discovery of the DNA, and here you grandly proclaim "it does not say anything about the person". Every physical trait has its reflection in the genome, including sex, skin colour, ancestry and many others. There is an ongoing research which shows links between DNA and many behavioral traits.

also, afaik, 23am tests cost about $100, I'd really like to see the shitstorm when you tell your underprivileged users to pay that just to use your website.

We are considering obtaining government funding from one of the many programs targeted at minorities.

[nonchip]

ok, @blackfrat, first, I'd like to thank you for calling me a border case and mentally ill ;)

First, mismatch between sex and gender identity is extremely rare

yeah, sure, 14% of the population is "extremely rare": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual#Prevalence

oh, you shouldn't have started that bs sentence, only gets worse from here:

and is considered to be a mental disease,

total BS, ICD-11 has just redefined it as not a mental but physiological disease by removing "transsexualism" and implementing "gender incongruence".

it is as yet untreatable,

yeah suuuuuure, that's why I'm currently undergoing treatment -_-

even for people who undergone surgery to remove their body parts the suicide rate is extremely high.

well, I'll grant you that one, but don't really see how it matters in this case. except you want your safe space to be exclusive for people not requiring any safe space ;)

For 99.99% of population sex is immutable trait which determines gender.

while that number is reeeeeally nice and big and almost 100% it's also simply not true. 100-14 = 86 != 99.99. see above.

I am not going to be "inclusive" for the sake of ability to effectively filter my users.

ooooh, ok, yeah, can do that, your decision, but that's ableism, transphobia and bullshit ;)

at least those users who'd still use your service then will be as immoral as you, so no problem there.

Second, are you seriously claiming artificialy altering one's skin colour makes one a black/white/whatever person?

of course, because IF you're dividing people by skin color (which was your idea, not mine), you should look at their skin, not their sperm genes.

Furthermore, no, you can not change your sexual organs. You can have surgery to remove the organs you were born with, and have the surgeons remodel some parts of what remains to resemble organs of the opposite sex.

yeah, exactly that's called changing organs. but fun fact: you don't even need surgery for that, even hormone therapy starts to change the sexual organs.

Third, you are religiously claiming to not allow anyone in is racism.

no, I'm claiming only allowing black people is racism. because that's what it is. see your favorite dictionary or read the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism. even your "blacks only safe space based on biological differences" is mentioned in one of the first sentences.

This is demonstrably false.

I like how you say big numbers and "demonstrably false" without any backing. Because your 99.99% above were totally invented, I'd assume this claim to be too, unless you start to, well, demonstrate how it isn't.

Sometimes having safe space requires exclusion of the people who would introduce hostile environment, or are not the target demographics.

that's true. but I doubt black underprivileged trans women are introducing hostile environments. or black underprivileged women with XY chromosome defects.

When I am setting up website for black underprivileged women, I am setting it for them not for everyone.

understandable, but chromosomes are not the way to go, because they don't tell you anything valuable.

because genetics don't say anything about the person

We have come a long since the discovery of the DNA, and here you grandly proclaim "it does not say anything about the person".

true, because it doesn't. you want to prevent trolls and nazis from using your service, and you'll be unable to use DNA for checking that.

Every physical trait has its reflection in the genome

not every, but most, yes, but when trying to filter away bad guys, physical traits don't tell you much ;)

There is an ongoing research which shows links between DNA and many behavioral traits.

there are some traits that could be more or less accurately derived from a dna profile, but with strong emphasis on "some" and "less accurately". you'll be filtering some "mental diseases", but that's still just ableism and intolerant and will get you many false positives.

also, afaik, 23am tests cost about $100, I'd really like to see the shitstorm when you tell your underprivileged users to pay that just to use your website.

We are considering obtaining government funding from one of the many programs targeted at minorities.

if you're going to get funding for your program (which I like btw) I really hope you're going to spend it also on a way to be able to talk to those which were blocked by your DNA fence and determine if they were false positives.

but I doubt you'll get it, because "programs target at minorities" shouldn't fund people who say they're "not going to be inclusive because" they're too lazy to do any real profiling based on the personality of their users instead of DNA imaging.

DNA based auth is a good thing, but DNA based demography is not.

oh and watch http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ to see why depending on DNA profiling only is the wrong thing to do.

to be clear: while it's kinda sad that our society needs such safe spaces, I understand that it does and I like the idea of you making one. I'm not telling you not to do so or to allow anyone in. I'm just telling you that while DNA filtering will do most of the work for you, you should not get lazy over that (it's tempting to let the lab do all the work) but still allow people who were falsely excluded to get e.g. a face to face check to still get in. but saying "they're so few, I'll ignore them" is just the wrong thing to do.

[ethanwillis]

@nonchip That prevalence section said that the transgender population is GROWING at 14% per year. The actual prevalence is much less.

[nonchip]

oh, thanks @sn3twork, my fault there. but still, we're too many to just ignore us, especcially for a project trying to do something good for minorities. (better numbers: http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/how-many-of-us-are-there.htm says about 1:30k-1:100k in some european studies; and that are just those who've already undergone or are actively seeking surgery)

it's just that @blackfrat's argumentation seems pretty bigot by saying they're doing a project to support minorities but don't want to be "too inclusive" just because of "some minor statistical errors". that's the same argumentation as people who "are no nazis [so they claim], but don't like minorities" in their project/town/whatever. or actually even worse, because it sounds like they're just too lazy. also actively ignoring the problem as the "please disregard this complaint" statement shows. it's kind of "out of sight, out of mind"…

[ethanwillis]

@nonchip Well there are genetic bases for gender dysphoria as well. The analysis might not yet be up to par, but this could be modified/extended to also include trans people.

[nonchip]

@sn3twork it could be modified to include those trans people who are trans because of genetics, but not all the others. it's true there are some genetic bases for gender dysphoria, but that doesn't mean all gender dysphoria is genetically based. so yes, the system can always get better, but never good enough to become the only option when applied to individual people it wasn't trained for.

@Matsurishi please get your account closed and sued for the sick bullshit you're writing, thanks.

[ethanwillis]

@nonchip That is true, this system isn't perfect. At the same time I don't think the author believes it or tries to pass it off that it's perfect. I do think there's some value here for quick categorization of individuals who have the genetic basis for being quickly identified as true positives. If this system is used in that way then it reduces management overhead when creating safe spaces. And I think that's the main takeaway?

This system augmented with alternative methods of more manual identification and systems to allow individuals to ask for a human review would be better obviously. I just think those systems fall outside the scope of an OAuth project.

[ganeshran]

Regardless of what the author's intentions are, tools like these have massive potential for misuse. Imagine having an entire section of the internet walled off simply by virtue of your race/gender etc.

Anyways, more than the API author, it is the provider of genetic data (23andme) which should be more concerned about misuse. The gattaca-ish implications of the tool are not lost on most people.

[ethanwillis]

@ganeshran Lots of tools we produce as developers have massive potential for misuse. However they also have massive potential for good uses as well. That's where as users and downstream developers our responsibility for how we use the tools we're given comes in.

Also, the provider of the data shouldn't be concerned about the misuse because the users are the ones who control their own data and decide when and how it is used.

[ethanwillis]

And before someone chimes in saying how easy it is for me to say these things as a white male, I'd like to say that in fact I'm not. I'm 1/4th "asian" and wouldn't be passing any racial purity tests on either side if some kind of racist walled garden were built.

I can let anyone see my 23andme data to back that up too, and only if I expressly authorize 23andme to share my data!