Gender statistics?

Update: PEOPLE! I already decided against this!

Would members want or mind aggregate gender statistics as one of the things we do stats on for works? I'm thinking charts with data like:

Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond
male_pct => 42.6
female_pct => 49.8
nonbinary_pct => 7.6

The Seven Husbands of Evelyn Hugo by Taylor Jenkins Reid
male_pct => 10.5
female_pct => 80.9
nonbinary_pct => 8.6

Heated Rivalry by Rachel Reid
male_pct => 24.6
female_pct => 64.6
nonbinary_pct => 10.8

The data would come from members who've added pronouns. There is simply no way of processing all the variants, except to say:
A. If there's a he, him, his, man, male or etc. in the field, then male
B. If there's a she, her, hers, female, woman or etc. then female
C. If both, then nonbinary
D. If there's a they, them, theirs, nonbinary, enby, etc. then nonbinary.
E. If other (mostly misuse, mistakes and spam), then drop from stats

The data is thin. Only about 23k members have added pronouns. One suspects that's an unrepresentative sample, but there's no way to be sure how it skews.

I wouldn't show numbers, but only percents, and only if we had more than 100 members with data. So you'd only see it on popular books, like the above.

Yes, no, maybe with comment?

A poll:

I still would not feel any need to enter a pronoun.

Considering the very low number of entries, this will be so unreliable to be unusable IMO...

The pronoun thing seems a peculiar US phenomenon to me, so aside from low numbers, it will also represent only a fraction of geographic demographic on LT I would think. I did not enter any, so I have no say beyond that

I voted unsure because I have no dog in this fight, have not declared pronouns and don't really understand why beyond because we can and we're nosy. Oh and I don't need charts or statistics to show me that the majority of men won't read women authors.

>1 timspalding:

It’s not something I’m interested in and, frankly, I don’t see the point, particularly as so few people have added pronouns.

FWIW, having spent a lot of time around the Autism Society of Minnesota, where gender issues are rampant (one study found that half of people with gender identity issues are autistic, and part of me thinks that's low...), I think the real issue is that pronouns won't settle much. There are:
1. people who use "they" because they don't like "he" and "she"
2. there are older people like me who would happily use a gender-neutral singular pronoun if we had one, but have it too deeply ingrained that "they" is plural to use "they" as a singular
3. People who use no pronouns at all, ever, because... many reasons
4. People who are non-binary but were brought up with a pronoun and continue to use that pronoun
5. People who use non-traditional pronouns to protest the system
6. A whole BUNCH of people who are neither male nor female nor non-binary but "other," or "don't care about gender," or some who don't even believe in it.
7. I'm pretty sure there are other cases that I can't think of at the moment because it's been a while since I've encountered them. But pronouns are an area where you can't win. :-)

And more.... I honestly don't think "they" pronouns can be a reliable measure of anything. "He/him" and "She/her" at least indicate how people are inclined to feel, but if you're concerned with the fraction of the population who use other pronouns, you're entering a deep morass.

I don't care. I never bothered to put pronouns in my profile on LT. I do on other platforms, to indicate allyship (and possibly piss a few terrible people off), but here it's all about the books. If there was an optional field for pronouns in the profile, I'd probably have filled it in, because I'm a completist, but it's not the kind of data I'd go looking for.

A fun idea as someone who likes funky stats, but I don't know how well it would work in practice... Pronouns may map cleanly to gender in most cases, but not always. I suppose I'd be sorted into either 'nonbinary' (due to the it pronouns) or 'male' (due to the he/him pronouns) but for whatever reason I feel weird being solely counted as either. And then there's also the issue of, as mentioned, people not using the pronouns field, or also some languages just not using them at all, etc. I almost wonder if it'd be easier to have a gender field somewhere that people can fill in that's made clear it's only use for site statistics. Maybe not even a text entry field (that becomes it's own problem) but a set of checkboxes that let you suggest multiple of "male", "female", and "nonbinary/other". And then if someone has multiple checked, just count them into the stats for each gender they have checked? Iunno lol this doesn't seem like such a great idea either..

>11 timspalding:

I mean, we could ask gender, but I'd rather not.

And then if someone has multiple checked, just count them into the stats for each gender they have checked

So people with he/she/they pronouns gets three votes? :)

Okay, I won't do it.

I was inspired to look at the stats from a reporter asking me if I had any such data with regard to m/m romance books, like Heated Rivalry. He had heard that women were buying it more than men. So far as LT's data is concerned, it looks like so, but I wanted to ask your opinions about having that data be public. I won't reply to him.

Heated Rivalry by Rachel Reid
male_pct => 24.6
female_pct => 64.6
nonbinary_pct => 10.8

If anyone is offended that I released data for three books in #1, well, such is life.

>12 timspalding:

I think it's a pity you abandoned this. Some day we'll be out of this fascist moment and the developments in understanding gender will become both commonplace knowledge and decent practice widespread.

As for shoddiness of the data, there are ways to make even such sets yield some interesting info.

That said, you of course don't owe it to anyone to pioneer stuff or indulge in complicated analysis on this topic specifically.

But it would've been nice and forward-looking.

>13 LolaWalser:

I actually don't object to it either, as long as you identify it properly: "uses masculine pronouns," "uses feminine pronouns," "uses something else." But I think you're in trouble when you say "male," "female," "non-binary," because those don't even begin to convey all the non-standard cases. I use masculine pronouns, because that's what my plumbing says and that's how I was raised, but that certainly does not convey who I am. And I am definitely not the same gender as Donald Trump or Elon Musk!

If feminine-pronoun users outnumber masculine-pronoun uses by a sufficient margin, or vice versa, it does tell us something. It's all the cases where that doesn't happen that get tricky. :-)

>13 LolaWalser:

I think that the data is probably off, but it's directionally interesting. So, for example, it's unlikely that 10% of LT members are non-binary, and the male/female ratios may be off, it's directionally interesting to see which books are held more by this or that gender. Patterns emerge. See >1 timspalding:

>11 timspalding: Could it be possible to give people with multiple pronouns a split vote? As in, instead of one vote for each category, 1/3 of a vote for each. I would imagine the answer is "no" lol

If the data are not accurate — and you really have no way to know — I'm not sure it serves any purpose. But thank you for asking.

Thanks for asking about it and also deciding against doing it.

Yes to everything that >8 waltzmn: said.

Pronouns /= gender, and trying to deduce gender from pronouns is . . not good.

It's also not great on a site that's a) more cataloging than social media, and b) doesn't explicitly provide space for declaring pronouns or gender. (Whether you want to provide such profile slots is a whole other conversation.)

(A journalist who is looking for solid information should ask publishers, who have that info. Or academics. Y'know, people who actually have solid information.)

>18 karenb: doesn't explicitly provide space for declaring pronouns or gender
>9 tardis: If there was an optional field for pronouns in the profile, I'd probably have filled it in, because I'm a completist

There is, in fact, a place to record your pronouns, which is free text.

It's on the main settings page, near the top.

I leave it blank mostly because by the time I saw the field was there, I was growing weary of stating my pronouns all the time, and it didn't seem particularly relevant.

I do think the statistics are mildly interesting, as long as they're explained per >14 waltzmn: as based on pronoun choice. But I don't think it's something I care to see on every work page - it's more interesting in the aggregate, when you can also look at tag data or other works catalogued.

I didn’t fill the field in when it was added because it didn’t seem relevant to my activity on LibraryThing, and it doesn’t really bother me what pronouns someone uses to refer to me here, I suspect that something similar probably applies to many of the other people who haven’t filled the field in too. It’s good that people who do feel strongly about pronouns get the opportunity to say how they want to be addressed, but I’m pretty sure that any stats you base on that field will be skewed towards people who want to make a point about gender, one way or another.

>19 keristars: Thanks, yes I missed that.

>12 timspalding: It makes sense that these books are being read more by women than by men. Nobody thinks it strange that (straight) men watch porno of two women together. Descriptions of men acting sexually are most likely to be of interest to people who are interested in sex with men. There are a lot more straight women than there are gay men. Even if the average gay man is twice as interested in these books as the average straight woman, those numbers make sense.

Also for books of this genre, did you compare public and private catalogues? Are these books ones that people want to piblicly admit to reading? Could that also affect whether or not it was entered?

It would also be necessary to look at the general statistics, not just for each book. I would guess that people who prefer not to be called he or she are more likely to have filled that in. Are there differences in numbers for female vs male? Before these statistics have any meaning at all, the proportions of the various categories among thses who have filled in their pronouns would need to be determined. If the breakdown is not what you would expect in the general population that affects how specifics for any single book should be read. Obviously, if 60-70% of the people who put a pronoun have put she, that gives a totally different picture.

>22 MarthaJeanne: "It would also be nessexary to look at the general statistics"

I see what you did there. 😆

>23 Bookmarque: It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. :-p

>23 Bookmarque: Fixed it. I usually manage to find most of my typos before I save.

>25 MarthaJeanne: Awww, it was fun.

>21 karenb: It's easy to miss, especially if you last edited your profile 20 years ago!

Then you have cases like my books which are a mixture of mine and my partner's books. We both read SFF, but he tends more to the hard SF side, and I tend more to the fantasy side. I read some romance, he avoids it like the plague. (Oddly, the smut is mostly mine; reading the Freya Marske trilogy for the Hugos a couple of years ago, he commented the smut was a bit over the top.)

There must be other household libraries that are a mixture of 2 people's purchases.

>28 Maddz: There must be a huge number of them, a majority even among the larger libraries. Who sits down and catalogs thousands of works without also cataloging the entire family's books?

I think gender statistics would be great fun to have, but I think the data that LT has is so limited and misleading that there is no point to this project at all, more's the pity.

>28 Maddz: That's another reason not to add my gender. The majority of the books in my account are 'mine', but I keep track of all the books in the house, including many of 'his' that I would never read.

>29 anglemark: Me. I would never add any other books that those I consider to be mine.

>31 PawsforThought: Heh. That was a hyperbolic question intended for dramatic effect, but point taken. In our case, we have similar literary taste, combined our book collections thirty years ago, and our finances are shared, so it would be hard to imagine what separate libraries would look like ...

>30 MarthaJeanne: I've started adding a tag to indicate who 'owns' a particular work, but in many cases, we both do, especially where paper books are concerned - when we moved in together, we de-duplicated the paper library. Ebooks are marginally easier because we have purchase records, but it takes time.

Like you, there's many of 'his' books I wouldn't read, but because I manage the LT account, he's started checking to make sure we don't own a book before he buys it. (Must log the recent purchases - I've been engaged in a massive reconciliation exercise and splitting my anthology tag into anthology & collection. Also been adding contained within relationships where possible.)

>33 Maddz: I have a special collection for his books. He gives me his purchases to enter so he can check what books we have in series. As for the books we "married together" almost 50 years ago, I have read a lot of them.

>17 krazy4katz: If the data are not accurate — and you really have no way to know — I'm not sure it serves any purpose. But thank you for asking.

I mean, that's true for all LibraryThing data. We're not inspecting your living rooms. It's always going to be biased toward the particular demographics of graphics of LibraryThing, etc.

Anyway, this isn't one of those features I feel strongly about pushing. I don't really care. "Yes" is winning, but not by a lot, and the negative votes are enough for me not to do it.

Is it possible to change your vote in a poll?

This conversation makes me wonder if such data, not publicly released but available, would be of interest to researchers (I assume yes, but no idea how many such researchers that amounts to); and, what the ToS currently say if one such came to LT and requested to purchase that data.

>35 timspalding: Living room? Good lord, that's less than 25% of the paper books in the house... The bulk of the collection is in the home office. The only rooms without books are the bathroom, the 3rd bedroom which is full of clothes, the downstairs loo and the utility room. Every other room has at least one bookcase in it, as does the attic...

You cannot assume that the pronouns given in the settings apply to the person who has read each book, given that so many libraries in LT are family libraries.

>38 Maddz: You don't have books in the bathroom?

>40 MarthaJeanne:

My bathroom has my backlog of "The New Yorker".

We have a couple of old joke books.

>19 keristars: Huh. Shows how often I look at profile settings. I checked and I HAD filled it in. Still don't care about the stats, though.

>43 tardis: you know yourself well :)

I think they show up in the pop-up when you hover over a username, but I turned that off ages ago, so I'm not sure. But that's unrelated to the stats, just one of the reasons you might have done it besides being a completist.

>40 MarthaJeanne: Not stored there, no. I might read in the bath, but on the whole I would prefer not to drop my Kobo in the tub, and paper is a pain to dry out... Besides, we're about to have the bathroom remodelled into a shower room. We're both over 60, so by doing that we save over £2K in VAT.

>37 elenchus: This conversation makes me wonder if such data, not publicly released but available, would be of interest to researchers (I assume yes, but no idea how many such researchers that amounts to); and, what the ToS currently say if one such came to LT and requested to purchase that data.

LibraryThing has the right to sell data, but we only sell aggregate or anonymous data, with the exception of reviews, which you can control. So if we ever had useful data here—which is not likely—we would sell it by work, not, obviously, by member.

>40 MarthaJeanne: You don't have books in the bathroom?

We have books everywhere, but I firmly reject books in the bathroom. The bathroom is for cell phones, people!

>46 timspalding: I had assumed aggregated (not at member level), and also recalled user control over personal reviews, but wasn't certain about LT's option to sell. I'm supportive of that option, generally, especially for academic research as opposed to marketing -- though I'm not sure a seller has a legal opportunity to discriminate.

This discussion is yet another example of the intolerance displayed by many participants in the LT forums:

– If I don't like something, nobody else should like it either.
– If something doesn't exactly match my expectations, I don't want it.
– If I don't need something, it's irrelevant to everyone else.
– If I don't like something, everyone else should agree.
– If information, analysis, graph, etc., doesn't make sense to me, it's worthless to others as well.
– If I don't find something interesting/funny, nobody else has the right to feel the same way.
– If something doesn't meet 100% scientific criteria, it's completely worthless.
– etc.
This list could probably be expanded.

I also believe that all these concerns should be voiced, but their primary purpose shouldn't be to prevent anything.

I also believe that information, statements, and the content, statistics, graphics, etc., generated from them should not be traceable back to individual users.
And they certainly shouldn't be able to work against them.
It should also be clear what the statements are based on, how they were generated, and how accurate they are.

Information and compilations generated in this way have often helped me to question and correct false, outdated, and obsolete opinions.

So, when making future proposals, please think outside the box and try to improve rather than prevent things.

>48 birder4106: Is this supposed to be a plea for tolerance? Because it didn't work.

>48 birder4106: I don't think this thread demonstrates intolerance. Tim asked a question and provided a poll. In doing so, I think he created an opportunity to share perspectives. That is useful for LT and for the rest of us. And everyone has been very polite.

>14 waltzmn:

To be sure, one would have to be careful about drawing conclusions.

>15 timspalding:

Yes, even just in the most broad sense, it could give some idea, qualifiable if not properly quantifiable, of the changes in the Zeitgeist.

Anyway, I'm off to update my profile page, for (if) whenever this info gets used.

Test

>48 birder4106:

I voted "yes" in the poll, and I'm slightly taken aback at the intensity of the "no". I don't have a dog in this race, have never entered my pronouns on LT (and I probably never will); this proposed feature will be useless to me and to how I use LT. I even agree with the sentiment that pronouns != gender, but I understand Tim wanting to leverage good-enough proxy features. Of all the useless-to-me features Tim proposes, I'm sad to see this one scuppered.

I think the data is somewhat interesting and will get so slowly, but fundamentally, gender is the third rail. This is hitting people the way it hit people when I suggested an ethnic-identifications field for authors. I think it would be interesting to know which books men read most, and who's the most popular Filipino-American romance writer, but I get the trepidation. If this were a mission-critical feature, I'd push. It's not.

>54 timspalding: FWIW, if you really want to do something about the research, you could -- you could ask for a voluntary identification of gender, for those who want to reveal it for purposes of determining book statistics. In that case, you've protected yourself. It's important to make it voluntary and for the purposes of statistics. In other words, informed consent.

Also, from a psychological standpoint, the typical framing of this issue is very bad. "Male/Female/Other" truly "otherizes" the third category. Even though I read a claim somewhere that 6% of the population is to degree physically inter-sex. So, much as we might want to wish them away as hard to explain, much as their existence is denied by one American political party, they are real. And that's apart from people who are not intersex but are not comfortable with the sex assigned at birth! Isn't it obvious why a category "other" is repellent?

So don't make the categories "Male/Female/Other," make them "identifies as male," "identifies as female," "does not identify with these categories," or "self-identify," or something like that, and you are not othering people.

Do that, and I'd actually like to see the resulting statistics. Because I agree that there will almost certainly be gender differences (and, I strongly suspect that I, who in terms of my physiology am male, would be identified as belonging to one of the other categories).

>55 waltzmn:

Even though I read a claim somewhere that 6% of the population is to degree physically inter-sex

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

>56 lilithcat:

. Thanks. It looks like the claim I remembered is wrong. Still, intersex individuals do exist.

>57 waltzmn:

They do, indeed. There's also a debate about what should be included in the term.

But, as is not uncommon around here, we digress.

You would also need a category for 'multiple genders in household'.

>58 lilithcat: Just to agree with you, there's currently an argument about whether to define PCOS/PMOS as an intersex disorder. An estimated 10% of people with ovaries have PCOS/PMOS to some degree.

Absolutely not interested in providing "pronouns" (I couldn't care less!), but I'd complete an optional "what is your sex" question if asked - but it must be voluntary.

>60 Watry: … people with ovaries, as in women?
We aren’t going to go away just because you erase the language to describe us, you know. invisible women

>62 amberwitch: @watry is not trying to erase women but define the issue. There are transgender people who have ovaries but consider themselves male. There are intersex people who have ovaries and also have male sexual characteristics. The first do not consider themselves women; the latter may consider themselves men, women, or something else.

The whole issue here is that not everyone conforms to the traditional man/woman binary!

>63 waltzmn: Thank you, I appreciate this. I have PCOS myself and have fired doctors for being sexist! But my best friend ALSO has PCOS and is transmasc nonbinary.

>62 amberwitch: Girls aren't women.

I have ovaries but definitely wasn't a woman when I was 8 years old.

(That's when my condition became apparent, not an arbitrary choice of age. A peach-fuzz mustache on a little child is weird, especially a little girl.)

I voted no. I try to steer clear of demographic matters, and whenever the issue arises on official forms, I click/tick "prefer not to say" right across the board. Even if it's fairly obvious what box I might fall into.

I find that demographical statistics simply drive bigger wedges between us all. If 1000 other people are reading the same thing as me, that's great. I don't need to know the demographic split. Not helpful. Not on age, gender, ethnicity, religion, waist measurement, IQ, bank balance, or anything else. Yes, I might look to see what percentage of readers rate a book highly, but it's not helpful for me in any way, to start "contextualising" or in any way questioning those ratings, due to how those readers are unnecessarily partitioned.

If demographic data does get splurged upon us, please be sure to provide us the tools to turn it off and never see it again.

>63 waltzmn: it continues to amaze me that people who consider themselves liberal, and rally around battlecries such as ‘believe all women’, decides not to believe women when they say they are being erased and pushed out of physical spaces, data, and language amongst other things.

>68 amberwitch:

I'm a woman, and I do not feel erased or pushed out at all. Do not pretend to speak for us all.

>68 amberwitch: Intersex people aren't all women, and the OP was talking about intersex issues.

PMOS is on the far side of the intersex spectrum, but so whether it "counts" is debated. What's not debated is that many people with PMOS find "intersex" to be a useful way of understanding/viewing themselves. By insisting that all "people with ovaries" MUST be women, you're dismissing and erasing them, as well as people with other intersex conditions that have ovaries but aren't women.

>70 keristars: Whereas when you refer to women as one of the 'people with ovaries', you're not dismissing and erasing them? I honestly get a headache from these 'debates'. It loses any sense and purpose pretty quickly. Choose your desired designation, let others be what they are and move on. It's not rocket science it's made to be, unless you believe others are obliged to pay careful intention to everyone's particular intricacies of identity. Personally, I reserve that for people I'm close to, not random people I'll never know.

>71 SandraArdnas: I don't think so, because I'm including them even if they're not explicitly named.

I get tired of the arguments, too, but since they effect me and my right to exist as I am, I don't exactly get to ignore the whole thing. :(

>72 keristars: I get tired of the arguments, too, but since they effect me and my right to exist as I am, I don't exactly get to ignore the whole thing. :(

Exactly. My gender identity does not perfectly align with my biological identity (although I'm close enough that I could survive in a binary society -- as some people I know could not). And, even more to the point for my personal case, as someone who has spent a lot of time around autistic adults, I belong to a community where gender identities (a) do not conform to the standard binary, and (b) are not decided by physiology.

The more we try to enforce a biological binary, the more people I know who are threatened and otherized by it. It was not until I became associated with that community that I realized just how incredibly complicated gender is.

I have several male friends with ovaries, and several female friends without. I do not understand these objections. Do you mean that trans men are not men and trans women are not women?

I'd like to remind you of Tim's original question.

The gender discussion —as important as it is— should be continued elsewhere and in a more appropriate forum.

Even if this seems provocative to some of you, I want to reiterate that I cannot understand why someone who sees value in this feature shouldn't have it.

Always assuming that no one is harmed and no one is forced to use it.

I'd just like to note that I said we wouldn't do this a jillion messages ago…

>76 timspalding: I had missed that amongst the flying custard pies. Thank you for clarifying.

>79 Nightmusic: What was the personal attack?

>80 eclbates: I had to look this up. TERF=Trans-Exclusive/excluding Radical Feminist. It may not be a "banned word," but it is derogatory.

I wasn't targeted with that, but I've also felt attacked in this thread for being willing to accept people's right to self-define their gender.

>76 timspalding:
Sorry, I have missed that.

Oh, goodness. TERF isn't a bad word or derogatory. It just means a feminist who doesn't care for trans people. It's descriptive.

Objecting to it is saying it's worse to be called trans-exclusive than to *be* trans-exclusive, which as far as I've ever seen, TERFs are proud to be. IIRC, they created the word for themselves, besides.

The alternative would be asking if someone is a transphobe. I'm not sure how that's preferable.

>82 Nightmusic: Hmm, I disagree that it's a derogatory term, and if it was written out as "are you a trans-exclusive radical feminist?" instead of using the abbreviation, it's pretty obvious that it's simply asking for clarification of the political viewpoint of the person they're trying to talk to about this particular topic.

Is there another way to ask someone that?

>82 Nightmusic: >84 keristars: >85 eclbates:

Perhaps we should all remember, here, that whether a term is derogatory depends on context. To speak from my own experience: If someone calls a child on a playground "autistic," it's an insult; if one of my friends calls me "autistic," it's a compliment. :-p

I think we need to respect others' opinions here. Which is the whole problem, if you think about it. :-(

It wasn't meant to be a personal attack, just like @keristars writes, it was simply a question. I can rephrase it, no problem.

>68 amberwitch:

First off, phrases such as "people with ovaries", "people with uteruses", "people with penises", "people with testes", "people who menstruate", ungainly as they may be, are ACTUALLY inclusive, in a way that neither "women" or "men" are. (You want to talk about erasing women; recall the centuries/millennia when we were just expected, at best, to read ourselves into totally male-coded language or lump it...)

Second, these phrases do not, as you seem to think, serve to replace categories "women" or "men" wholesale, but to acknowledge something that increasingly occurs in life, which is the liberation of trans people and the concomitant need to address reality in a precise manner. Medically, scientifically, legally etc. there may arise situations in which such phrases will be necessary. If we're talking about "ovaries", then it is relevant to talk about "people with ovaries". This is simply how it is: not only do not all "women" have ovaries, some who live their lives as "men" do have them.

But this in no way impinges on the usefulness and need for the term "women". Chances are, outside those specialised instances above, any of us daily has hundreds more times reason to discuss something pertaining to "women" than to "people with ovaries". Since you express concern for women, presumably we'd agree that today women are being subjected to a misogynistic backlash without precedent. But by blaming trans-inclusive people and policies you're utterly missing the target. And it actually boggles my mind, that anyone literate can watch what the trumpists did to your country, and women especially, and put the blame on trans-inclusivity.

>71 SandraArdnas:

Biology is more complicated than rocket science.

I agree. If you want to fight about gender generally, take it elsewhere. This is about a feature proposal which I have declared we aren't going to do anytime soon.

I am not going to adjudicate any disputes, because the context is apparently gone and it was said to be "close to the line" not over, but let's not chop words. "It's descriptive!" is not a good defense against calling someone a name that will probably offend them. You are all smart people with a talent for words; you can phrase your objections to someone's words as pertaining to the words, not the person. When in doubt, do so.

As someone who's part of the LGBT+ community I will say pronouns do matter. As for this site, I'm fine with just putting gender. It would be nice to see how many authors I've read that are gays, but I wouldn't like that on this site since people tend to mislabel others based on assumptions.

Can someone close this discussion? I think everything has been said that should and should not be said.