In my mind all you really need to say is "Some people don't want to share their gender and we'll all enjoy a better service for having that feature" it seems pretty self evident that the sharing of gender is not an essential feature of a social network, just as in real life we don't walk around with our state sanctioned gender on ourselves and are free to project the gender we wish others to see.
If you're being sarcastic, it's not obvious due to the fact that some people really do believe that.
If you're being non-sarcastic, you're crazy. First, gender isn't "state-sanctioned", it's genetically determined. And y'know what? On 99.9% of people it's pretty damn obvious. Even the folks who go to all the trouble of dressing up to look like the opposite sex are usually identifiable at a glance.
Some folks do have serious issues about their gender identity, but I think Google+ is a better place without them.
Also, people who've had hormonal treatment often look like the sex that they want to be. I know this because I know some of these people, and I would not have guessed that they were born with another sex. Perhaps you even know some of these people without knowing. For the people who are not so lucky, your "Even the folks who go to all the trouble of dressing up to look like the opposite sex are usually identifiable at a glance." is disrespectful.
Does the ability to hide your gender or to select "other" harm you? Just like some people seem to think that other people being gay harms them, even though it has no significant influence on their lives whatsoever.
> Some folks do have serious issues about their gender identity, but I think Google+ is a better place without them.
Come again? You can't socialize if you are unsure about your gender? What the hell...?
I bet most gender-confused people are a lot more fun to be around than I am, despite my well-defined gender.
That would be a great analogy if the sort of violence that takes place between men and women in society was remotely comparable to war, however until we start heavily arming everyone, organising them into regiments and having them deployed in tactical situations (and a whole bunch of other things which make physical strength massively less significant as a factor than it is in civilian situations) it's just nonsense.
> Also, keep in mind that a man is twice as likely to be assaulted as a woman so from a statistical perspective it is men who should be fearing for their safety as they post their gender online.
Yes, because statistics compiled from physical life situations such as bar fights are a useful gauge of on-line behaviour. By your reasoning we shouldn't worry about on-line safety of children because the statistics show they're almost never assaulted.
I agree with you that it's not the norm but that's not to say that it's not an issue. Given that there is absolutely no justifiable reason for it, a relatively small instance of it can be significant and worthy of mention. School shootings are statistically insignificant but you can't deny they say something important about society. Saying it "defines our culture" might be going over the top, but it's not a footnote either.