skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173582acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Best Paper

Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism?: The Social Implications of Embedded Gender Recognition Systems

Authors Info & Claims
Published:19 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Automatic Gender Recognition (AGR) refers to various computational methods that aim to identify an individual's gender by extracting and analyzing features from images, video, and/or audio. Applications of AGR are increasingly being explored in domains such as security, marketing, and social robotics. However, little is known about stakeholders' perceptions and attitudes towards AGR and how this technology might disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. To begin to address these gaps, we interviewed 13 transgender individuals, including three transgender technology designers, about their perceptions and attitudes towards AGR. We found that transgender individuals have overwhelmingly negative attitudes towards AGR and fundamentally question whether it can accurately recognize such a subjective aspect of their identity. They raised concerns about privacy and potential harms that can result from being incorrectly gendered, or misgendered, by technology. We present a series of recommendations on how to accommodate gender diversity when designing new digital systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn1040-file5.mp4

mp4

9.1 MB

pn1040.mp4

mp4

332.3 MB

pn1040.mp4

mp4

332.3 MB

References

  1. AJL - Algorithmic Justice League. Retrieved September 7, 2017 from https://www.ajlunited.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Rena Bivens and Oliver L. Haimson. 2016. Baking Gender Into Social Media Design: How Platforms Shape Categories for Users and Advertisers. Social Media + Society 2, 4: 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Lindsay Blackwell, Jean Hardy, Tawfiq Ammari, Tiffany Veinot, Cliff Lampe, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2016. LGBT Parents and Social Media: Advocacy, Privacy, and Disclosure During Shifting Social Movements. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 610--622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Zach Blas. 2011. Facial Weaponization Suite | zach blas. Zac Blas. Retrieved September 7, 2017 from http://www.zachblas.info/works/facial-weaponizationsuite/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Judith Butler. 1988. Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory. Theatre Journal 40, 4: 519.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Liangliang Cao, Mert Dikmen, Yun Fu, and Thomas S. Huang. 2008. Gender Recognition from Body. In Proceeding of the 16th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM '08), 725--728. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. John Christman. 2015. Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Andrew R. Flores, Jody L. Herman, Gary J. Gates, and Taylor N. T. Brown. 2016. How Many Adults Identify As Transgender in the USA? Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved August 22, 2017 from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/How-Many-Adults-Identify-asTransgender-in-the-United-States.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn. 2008. Human values, ethics, and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3, 6: 16--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Batya Friedman, Eric Brok, Susan King Roth, and John Thomas. 1996. Minimizing bias in computer systems. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 28, 1: 48--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Beatrice A. Golomb, David T. Lawrence, Terrence J. Sejnowski. 1990. Sexnet: A Neural Network Identifies Sex from Human Faces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 3: 572--577. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jaime M. Grant, Lisa A. Mottet, Justin Tanis, Jack Harrison, Jody L. Herman, and Mara Keisling. 2011. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Ansara Y. Gavriel and Peter Hegarty. 2014. Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Feminism & Psychology 24, 2: 259--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Oliver L. Haimson, Jed R. Brubaker, Lynn Dombrowski, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2015. Disclosure, Stress, and Support During Gender Transition on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '15), 1176--1190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Oliver L. Haimson, Jed R. Brubaker, Lynn Dombrowski, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2016. Digital Footprints and Changing Networks During Online Identity Transitions. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16), 2895--2907. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. David Hankerson, Andrea R Marshall, Jennifer Booker, Houda El Mimouni, Imani Walker, and Jennifer A Rode. 2016. Does Technology Have Race? In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '16), 473--486. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Lucas D Introna and David Wood. 2004. Picturing Algorithmic Surveillance: The Politics of Facial Recognition Systems. Surveillance & Society 2, 2/3: 177--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Sandy E. James, Jody L. Herman, Susan Rankin, Mara Keisling, Lisa Mottet, and Ma'ayan Anafi. 2016. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Retrieved August 22, 2017 from http://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/us ts/USTS Full Report - FINAL 1.6.17.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. James Vincent. 2017. Transgender YouTubers had their videos grabbed to train facial recognition software. The Verge. Retrieved August 28, 2017 from https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/22/16180080/transg ender-youtubers-ai-facial-recognition-datasetGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Haiyan Jia, Mu Wu, Eunhwa Jung, Alice Shapiro, and S. Shyam Sundar. 2012. Balancing Human Agency and Object Agency: An End-User Interview Study of the Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '12), 1185--1188. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Stephanie Julia Kapusta. 2016. Misgendering and Its Moral Contestability. Hypatia 31, 3: 502--519.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Gopinaath Kannabiran and Marianne Graves Petersen. 2010. Politics at the Interface: A Foucauldian Power Analysis. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI '10), 695--698. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell, and Thore Graepel. 2013. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA of America 110, 15: 5802--5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Irwin Krieger. 2017. The Impact of Stigma on Transgender and Non-Binary Youth. In Counseling Transgender and Non-Binary Youth: The Essential Guide. Jessica Kingsley Publisher, 46--47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Vijay Kumar, R. Raghavendra, Anoop Namboodiri, and Christoph Busch. 2016. Robust transgender face recognition: Approach based on appearance and therapy factors. In IEEE Conference on Identity, Security and Behavior Analysis (ISBA 2016), 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Chien-Cheng Lee and Chung-Shun Wei. 2013. Gender Recognition Based On Combining Facial and Hair Features. In Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Multimedia (MoMM '13), 537--540. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Gayathri Mahalingam and Karl Ricanek. HRT Transgender Dataset. Retrieved August 23, 2017 from http://www.faceaginggroup.com/hrt-transgender/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Gayathri Mahalingam and Karl Ricanek. 2013. Is the eye region more reliable than the face? A preliminary study of face-based recognition on a transgender dataset. In IEEE Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS 2013), 1--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Erno Makinen and Roope Raisamo. 2008. Evaluation of gender classification methods with automatically detected and aligned faces. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 30, 3: 541-- 547. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Kevin A. McLemore. 2015. Experiences with Misgendering: Identity Misclassification of Transgender Spectrum Individuals. Self and Identity 14, 1: 51--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Choon Boon Ng, Yong Haur Tay, and Bok Min Goi. 2015. A review of facial gender recognition. Pattern Analysis and Applications 18, 4: 739--755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Mei Ngan and Patrick Grother. 2015. Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) - Performance of Automated Gender Classification Algorithms. NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) - 8052.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Nick Whigham. 2017. Glitch in digital pizza advert goes viral, shows disturbing future of facial recognition tech. news.com.au. Retrieved September 18, 2017 from http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/desig n/glitch-in-digital-pizza-advert-goes-viral-showsdisturbing-future-of-facial-recognition-tech/newsstory/3b43904b6dd5444a279fd3cd6f8551dbGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Y. Avriel Ansara. 2012. Cisgenderism in medical settings: How collaborative partnerships can challenge structural violence. In Out of the Ordinary: LGBT Lives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge, 102--122.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Cathy O'Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown Random House. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Özlem Özbudak, Mürvet Kirci, Yüksel Çakir, and Ece Olcay Güneş. 2010. Effects of the Facial and Racial Features on Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference (MELECON), 26--29.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Joyojeet Pal, Anandhi Viswanathan, Priyank Chandra, Anisha Nazareth, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Hariharan Subramonyam, Aditya Johri, Mark S. Ackerman, and Sile O'Modhrain. 2017. Agency in Assistive Technology Adoption: Visual Impairment and Smartphone Use in Bangalore. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 5929--5940. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Arnaud Ramey and Miguel A. Salichs. 2014. Morphological Gender Recognition by a Social Robot and Privacy Concerns. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE Iternational conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI '14): 272--273. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Jemima Repo. 2017. The Biopolitics of Gender. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Bridget A Sarpu. 2015. Google: The Endemic Threat to Privacy. Journal of High Technology Law XV, April 2012. Retrieved September 7, 2017 from https://sites.suffolk.edu/jhtl/files/2014/12/SarpuGoogle-The-Endemic-Threat-to-Privacy.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Christine Satchell. 2010. Women are people too: The problem of designing for gender. Retrieved December 18, 2017 from https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/events/experiencingcriticalth eory/Satchell-WomenArePeople.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Ari Schlesinger, W. Keith Edwards, and Rebecca E. Grinter. 2017. Intersectional HCI: Engaging Identity through Gender, Race, and Class. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17), 5412--5427. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Michael Skirpan and Micha Gorelick. 2017. The Authority of "Fair" in Machine Learning. Retrieved September 7, 2017 from https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.09976.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Jinshan Tang, Xiaoming Liu, Huaining Cheng, and Kathleen M. Robinette. 2011. Gender recognition using 3-D human body shapes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part C: Applications and Reviews 41, 6: 898--908. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Jisha C. Thankappan and Sumam M. Idicula. 2010. Language Independent Voice-Based Gender Identification System. In Proceedings of the 1st Amrita ACM-W Celebration on Women in Computing in India (A2CWiC '10), 1996: 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Transgender (1974). In Merriam-Webster's Dictionary. Retrieved September 3, 2017 from https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/transgenderGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Archana Vijayan, Shyma Kareem, and Jubilant J. Kizhakkethottam. 2016. Face Recognition Across Gender Transformation Using SVM Classifier. Procedia Technology 24: 1366--1373.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Shiqi Yu, Tieniu Tan, Kaiqi Huang, Kui Jia, and Xinyu Wu. 2009. A Study on Gait-Based Gender Classification. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 18, 8: 1905--1910. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism?: The Social Implications of Embedded Gender Recognition Systems

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader