Seeing as the site is made up of men and women, I'd say no

Not at all. I find it amusing when men vote on the tampon ones though.

No, only the ones not directed at me

No, both men and women are here.

No, it's funny to see the questions only for women, and only for men, to see what the opposite sex says about a question that doesn't even relate.

no, some questions cantbe answred by everyone

No, because thats still a substantial percentage of the voters. I can't say 50%,because I believe there are more women on this site

How could a question be narrow?

I don't think so at all

Even if a question is stated for one sex, in the question, the opposite sex jumps right in. No problem with that. It's interesting to get both sides.

It's not like you get one of those every five seconds, they're pretty spread out. And it is interesting to see what the opposite sex has to say.

Yes, they are too narrow because they do not apply to both genders and exclude trans-gendered individuals.

On 1/2/2008 12:04:45 AM Betsybird wrote: Yes, they are too narrow because they do not apply to both genders and exclude trans-gendered individuals.

Practically every question excludes someone; it's almost impossible to be all-inclusive.
Are questions about clothing "too narrow" because they may exclude amputees and nudists?

On 1/5/2008 5:58:00 PM melLowStar wrote: On 1/2/2008 12:04:45 AM Betsybird wrote: Yes, they are too narrow because they do not apply to both genders and exclude trans-gendered individuals. Practically every question excludes someone; it's almost impossible to be all-inclusive. Are questions about clothing "too narrow" because they may exclude amputees and nudists?

Being transgendered is not the same as being a nudist. Being an amputee is also not the same as either of these things... and last I checked, amputees need clothing too.

I do agree with your point though. Questions are narrow. Who cares if they are?

On 1/5/2008 6:19:45 PM pepperdrinks wrote: Being transgendered is not the same as being a nudist. Being an amputee is also not the same as either of these things....

Obviously. What is your point? I know these words have different definitions. Everyone is fully aware that nudists and transpeople and amputees are different groups of people without you saying so.

The point of the example was that every question -no matter how broad- excludes some small group of people. It's nearly impossible to include every group.

On 1/5/2008 6:19:45 PM pepperdrinks wrote: ..amputees need clothing too.

I obviously wasn't suggesting that amputees don't need clothing at ALL.
Would someone without legs need socks, shoes, or pants, though? Would someone without hands need gloves? No. Thus, a question about these things wouldn't apply to someone with no legs or hands.

Your examples were weak, and now you're being deliberately obtuse.

Whether you intend it or not, using an example about nudists and amputees when talking about transgendered people lumps all of those people together as if they are somehow comparable.

And I got the point of your example, weak as it was... I actually agreed with your point in my reply.

Not a bit. They appeal to at least half of YT.

On 1/6/2008 10:15:19 PM pepperdrinks wrote: Your examples were weak...

The fact that they offended your sensibilities says nothing about their relevance.

On 1/6/2008 10:15:19 PM pepperdrinks wrote: ...lumps all of those people together as if they are somehow comparable.

I've already covered this. They are obviously comparable in the sense that there aren't many of them on YT, and that's clearly what I was invoking.
There aren't many open transpeople on YT, and there aren't many amputees and nudists, either. Ergo, the comparison to drive home the point that every question will exclude some small group of people.

If you're not able to understand this, I don't think I can break it down further for you.

Neither of my replies to you expressed a lack of understanding of what your intention was. And you didn't actually offend my sensibilities. I felt your example was weak and contributed nothing to the discourse.

If you're unable to understand me, I don't think I can break it down further for you.