llGetSex()

A.82. llGetSex()

integer llGetSex(key avatar);


Returns the sex of avatar.


So attachments can play the right sounds/anims etc.


C.16. Sex Constants

MALE
0


FEMALE
1

How would the system determine the sex of an avatar? Would it just use the body type? What about animal and prim avatars? Maybe it's a checkbox in appearance? Or a third, non-human option?

llSetSex() ?

Should be an easier option for the non-scripters.

Due to the first impression I had upon reading this thread title, I'd like to make a small suggestion:

call it llGetGender(), instead.

GJ jack, you raised my hopes and dashed them quite quickly

Let me guess, you want it unable to be overriden, too?

I'd have to wonder what sort of things people would be using this for?

Well, I've seen some mens and women's dance bracelets. One bracelet could work properly for both genders with the new function. Also, you could use it to gather information via a sensor, say, the gender makup of your shoppers at your store. I can't think of any other practical uses.

Er, what if a female av -wants- to use the male dance bracelet, or vice versa? Why force the issue within the script?

Oh, right, because people like nothing more than forcing the issue.

If this sort of thing is used in 'mature attachments', okay, fine, but you generally know what that's going to be when you build one of those anyways.

I just don't want to see objects that I would buy being feminized unwittingly. If I buy a car from you, and it turns pink as soon as I get in, I'm demanding my money back, i'll tell you that much.

But what else could it be used for?

*Gender restricted areas.
*Guys could have "chick sensors?" - this can't be good.
*Gender restricted items. (Guns that don't work for women? Bullets that seek out men only?)

As far as dance bracelets go, I have a 'male' and 'female' one - I dont like them, particularly, but when I do use them, I use both.

I just don't really see the practicality of coding gender into attachments - again, unless you're talking about mature attachments which are usually specific from the get go.

What I -can- see it being used for is restriction, and that doesn't sound so good. It seems innocuous, but I have a feeling that there's a reason why LL left it out in the first place.

One of the things that struck me about There is that it's so deeply gendered. As a female character on There, you can only buy capri pants and darling little tops -- you can't buy or wear men's clothing, even if you want to. I'd hate to see SL turn into this sort of thing.

I just think it opens up a can of worms, But if the original poster could clarify what he'd want it for, what he'd be using it for, maybe there's something that I'm not seeing.

The reason I got up in arms about the female sit is that I don't want to see gender behaviors hardcoded into SecondLife. This forces one's hand in how they portray themselves, and usually links them unbreakably to a stereotype. You could say that someone who doesnt want it could just 'not buy' such attachments, but use of a function such as llGetGender() could become the norm.

I don't know WHY it'd become the norm -- but people seem to get really excited about the ability to categorize and pigeonhole people, especially on gender.

If anything, if the feature was there, it should be able to be overriden by the end-user. (2 for undisclosed, or be able to set 1 if you're 0, or 0 if you're 1.) This way people wouldn't be able to hardcode-in gender specific discrimination or stereotypes.

for( ; TRUE ; )
     llGetSex()

Put that in a bracelet, and the wearer would never have to worry about getting cyber-laid again.

- Ace

You can change your sex in the game with a radio button in the Appearance screen.

I don't want to maintain two objects. I just want to maintain one, and not force a dialog box.

You can change your sex in Appearance, but that also changes your appearance. Which is exactly my point - behaviors shouldn't be hardcoded to appearance.

Heres a quick script.

integer age;
default
{
state_entry()
{
if(age==20&llGetSex()==FALSE)
{
llSetStatus(STATUS_VIRGIN,TRUE);
}
}
}

That fine but I'm still going to force a dialog or hope this function gets implemented. I'm not going to maintain two versions...

What if specified gender (used by scripts) and appearance gender were seperate?

I'd say go for it, and maybe it could affect the basic stateful animations as well, while they're at it.

As long as they truely were separate and chooseable through a method accessable by mere mortals.

You know, so that I don't have to wear a "gender fix bracelet" in noscript areas or some other boneheaded make-good.

(Yes, you're picking up what I'm laying down.)

Well then, you're going to alienate some people, period.

But I would personally never put 'ease of coding' higher on the list than 'suiting the customer's needs.'

You want to only maintain one product and don't want to give your customers versatility and choice by using a dialog, then there are people who aren't going to buy them. It's the equivalent of designing a shirt and saying 'male avatars can only buy a blue one, female avatars can only buy a pink one'; there are some people who are gonna say fine, screw it then, I'll go buy a shirt from someone who lets me buy the color I want.

::shrugs:: I guess you just have to decide whether it's worth it.

I'm not sure I see the utility of a llGetGender(key kAv) LSL function. There's nothing it could do in terms of an scripted animation that couldn't also be achieved with a verbal command, a notecard, or some other existing API method.

On the other hand, there are a variety of uses that some users would consider invasive. Targeted solicitations, scripts that attempt to enforce implied gender roles on avatars based on their body shape, and other somewhat grief-like or gender-preoccupied things.

There are better ways of implementing the functionality of your script-- ways that don't have a potential structural impact on gender roles for users of SecondLife.

Indeed, what of those who play robots. I've seen people who have made avs intentionally androgynous. (Colin Linden comes to mind.)

why don't ya just use a listen and a coded word to switch beteen them?

Simple solution to all of your sex-related problems:

llDialog(llGetOwner(), "Play which set of animations?", ["Male", "Female"], 1)

For more information, see http://www.badgeometry.com/wiki/llDialog.

The two presets in Appearance are deceptive, and without getting into the specific reasoning behind it too deeply, the entire Appearance/audio/gestures gender thing is BS, frankly.

To quote Snow Crash: "It was, of course, nothing more than sexism, the especially virulent type espoused by male techies who sincerely believe that they are too smart to be sexists."

It's not that Linden Lab has a policy of institutionalized sexism, it's that the spec was designed by people who got their degrees in silly things like engineering or computer science instead of gender theory.

The problem with Western society's fanatical urge to pigeonhole and categorize people ("Catherine, can we have one thread that doesn't end with you screaming about the Deuteronomists?" is that in doing so, you invariably run into problems -- what happens when you get someone who doesn't appear to be one gender or another? (SL's necks make it easy for this to happen!) Or what if the "gender" bit is set to "Male", but their avatar appears female? That's easy enough to do. Or for that matter, what if you have a dance animation with a short guy and a tall woman? I'm almost 2m tall IRL, and my SL avatar reflects that.

As Michi and Liam said, if you attempt to force gender roles on people, you run the risk of alienating and excluding users. If you're writing or creating for an audience, you have to be receptive to the audience's needs. People like choices and hate being told what they can and cannot do. Are there seriously people who would be bugged by the choice to animate in one of two heterosexist, conformist gender roles?

"So I bought this bracelet... and it asked me if I wanted to use male or female animations!"
"Omigod!"

If my behaviour and identity are to be packaged up and placed in one of two bins, I'd at least like the option to pick which one I end up in.

Catherine's Deuteronomical rantings and larger issues of gender aside, an llGetGender() call could be useful.

[sidenote: Let's add a 'Trans' option for genders, or else make 'em checkboxes. :-]

I've seen considerable amounts of clothing (shirts especially) with male and female versions. Being able to determine gender would allow a much more seamless vending experience.

I'm not sure the specific advantages of llGetGender() offset all the idiotic ways it would be used.

Hrm. It's entirely possible that this entire reply was pointless. Please contact me in-game for a refund of your valuable time.

I tend to side with the people who feel that it would be better NOT to force a gender catagory onto a person, and rather make it something they choose at the time it will effect them, as in a dialog box, which is already implementable via llDialog.

"Seamless" vending experiance? Hmm... consider this scenerio: opposite-sex partners shopping for one another. If you could only access the "male" gift section of the vendor because of something like this, how can you buy something for your girlfriend?

If you really want your scripts to differentiate between the gender of the user, pop open a dialog box.
==Chris