I expected it to be a bit silly and off, but I certainly didn't expect the vile littany of racial epithets, confirmed at "150 f*cking percent, you whore!!" It wasn't even accurate; I just happen to be attracted to such people.

I got a 99% chance of being female and 1% of male--this despite the fact that, of 26 sites listed, only 3 had male-female ratios of .6 or less, and 12 had male-female ratios of 1 or more. The "female" sites were Prevention, J. Jill, and Television Without Pity.

Huh.

It guessed I was a male 100 percent. But what was surprising was some of the website gender numbers. The big surprises to me was not only are moviewatchers and dominos more visited be females but it wasn't really close.

Hmmm, I'm only 77% male. It was that macys.com visit, it fem-ed me all up!

What I found amusing is that the baseline site is YouTube. It is the only one in my history listed as 1:1 women:men ratio.

So google (at .98) is .02 more feminine a site than YouTube.

This will be hilarious to anyone who has read my other posts here: I got 28% male, 72% female. I looked at what sites could have been responsible for this gender confusion, and the results were somewhat surprising. Apparently, buying plane tickets (Southwest, Continental), having social networking pages (Facebook, MySpace), abbreviating URLs for forum posts (tinyurl), playing web games (arcadetown, miniclip), and going to college (NYU homepage) were all strikes against my masculinity. Even something as simple as having an email account (gmail, hotmail) is apparently skewed towards the womenfolk. And a bonus fact for those who have been 'concerned' about Obama's supposed difficulty in winning over female voters: apparently the male-female ratio of barackobama.com is 0.68, which is probably what did me in.

One obvious drawback is that it only factors in what individual sites you've visited rather than the number of visits - in my defense, I spend far more time at gamefaqs and ign than I do at Obama's site, to which I was just directed once by a link from a news story I was reading. What I'd like to know is how quantcast (the source of the site's data) gets their demographic numbers.

So, I have a 75% probability of being male...

WRONG!

It seems that the most "female" sites I visited were Barack Obama and AOL...

And out of the humdreds of sites I visited over the past few days, it seemed to register the Tractor Supply Warehouse (where I was searching for a rubber mat to cushion our new front loading washer) but not the All About Romance site which I visit daily.

Pretty bogus...

I'm a dude, but I work on the web site for a "mainly female" network, so my results are:

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 81%

Likelihood of you being MALE is 19%

Don't let it get out! :P

66% male, 34% female. evidently my college homepage is a really feminine website, whereas national review (where i spy on the opposition) is absurdly male. like REALLY.

The thing says I have 62% chance of being female, and only 38% chance of being male. Hm! I'm offended. Or maybe I'll take that as evidence that I'm a sensitive male in contact with his anima and his feminine soul... despite my wife's complaints about me forgetting to wash the dishes. Damn! the script took no note whatsoever of all the strip club and beer-drinking gambling sites in my history, and decided I was probably female because of a couple of visits to victoriassecret.com and familywatchdog.us (motivated by links from here!) Curiously, my visits do jezebel.com actually added to my masculinity (male-femaleness ratio of 1.02).

This reminds me of those babel-fish-like automatic translation sites. Ever tried to translate a sentence from Engish to, say, Hungarian, and then back from Hungarian to English? In some sites you get such funny answers that you wouldn't believe

I am a female whose browsing history indicates a 77% chance that I am male. I am not surprised though because I am really into baseball, and it looks like a couple of those sports websites put some hair on my chest.

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 17%

Likelihood of you being MALE is 83%

I'm female.

I'm not surprised at being judged female after seeing the list of sites, I'd forgotten I'd visited some of them recently. I'm a little surprised that Facebook and Myspace label me as female, but not at all surprised that Big Fish Games, Sparkpeople and Sally Beauty Supply (where I got a coupon for buy-one-get-one-free nail polish) were judged girly.

My prolific browsing of Lifehacker and Newegg were apparently not enough to compensate.

What I found curious, though, was how many of the financial sites I visit (banks, etc) and travel sites checked from my recent vacation (delta.com, tsa.gov) apparently have more female visitors. Not by as vast a margin as Big Fish, maybe, but it was interesting.

...mostly for higher-education-related websites and Television Without Pity.

Salon, Huffington Post, and (especially) Politico all tilt male. RealClearPolitics skews male at a ratio 1.82.

Was it the porn? It was the porn, wasn't it?

I am 77% male, but I was surprised to find that Salon is actually more butch than Home Depot or Sherwin Williams which I also visited today. I guess a lot of women are looking for spare parts for a texture spraying machine these days.

Who'd have thunk it?

Reading the letters reminded me of old forum threads about "My TiVo thinks I'm gay". The same kind of phenomenon would hit TiVo wishlists. Just a few HGTV shows thumbed up and suddenly someone who mostly watches sports and westerns has episodes of Queer Eye and the like in their suggestions list.

To me that and the responses here are great. It means we're not so boringly predictable that a simple computer algorithm can figure us out. I'd be far more concerned if a simple score like this were fairly accurate for most people.

Likelihood of you being FEMALE is 54%

Likelihood of you being MALE is 46%

Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Neither does it surprise me that it got most Broadsheet lws wrong :) I mean, aren't gender issues why we're here in the first place? If we comfortably fit into the 2 categories available, what would we argue about? and why the heck would we want to change the culture surrounding it?