My issue is with the connotations that "expect" carries. As I said I'm sure the girl recognized that others choosing to harass her was a distinct possibility, but to me "expect" implies something far more inevitable, and takes focus off the choices that others are making.
If I hold a heavy weight over my foot then drop it I expect it to fall and hurt my foot. I expect this because the weight and the force of gravity acting on the weight have no capacity for choice- they will simply act as the laws of nature dictate, thus there is an inevitable consequence that I can expect to follow from my own choice, with no other choices between my own and the end consequence. However, with the case of this girl being harassed, the harassment was not an inevitable consequence of her choice, but rather something that followed purely from the choices of others. As I said, I'm sure she recognized that others might choose to harass her based on the information she provided, but the key thing is that this consequence was the result of the choices of others, not an inevitable result that followed from the girl's choice. Saying "she should have expected it" only serves as an attempt to transfer the responsibility for bad choices from those doing the harassing to the girl being harassed.
Alright, I think I'm done being pedantic now.

Don't worry, others can be just as pedantic as you ;-)
Let's get one thing straight from the start. If an asshole harasses someone over their sexuality, then the asshole is to blame. However, and this is where the argument gets hairy, there is such a thing as common sense.
I'll start with the word "expect", which you seem somewhat hung up on. If, with the knowledge I have of how a system works, I estimate that if I perform action A within the system, there is a better than 50% chance that reaction B will occur, then I "expect" B to follow A.
Furthermore, if you will allow me to attempt a bit of statistical theory applied to a purely subjective phenomenon, then if the percentage of assholes in the community is 10%, and the community comprises, say, 10 million individuals, then you're dealing with a million assholes. Now, you said that others "might" choose to harass her, purely because she published that information. That implies that a certain probability is involved. Let's say that the probability of any given asshole choosing to harass her is 1%. This means that, statistically, 1 out of every 100 assholes in the community will react in this manner. That's 10.000 harassing assholes.
As is evident, the above is not accurate in any way, and is a feeble attempt to apply scientific rules to human behavior (where is Hari Seldon when you need him?), but it does illustrate my point.
If I cross the street without looking, even if it's at a zebra crossing, and my light is green, there is a chance that some asshole in a car does not follow the traffic laws, and runs me over. I know that assholes who drive like maniacs exist in the areas I travel. I've seen them. If I did this every time I crossed the street, I would expect to get badly hurt some day. If an asshole did break the law and ran me over, he would be entirely to blame, but I'd still be entirely dead, or at least entirely less than healthy. You could argue that I shouldn't have to look at all, since the traffic laws state that I have the right of way, but that would be a rather suicidal argument. Therefore, I always look both ways before crossing the street. It's common sense.

Though I agree with the fact that the sole responsibility lies with the people hurling the abuse, I still feel it's simply a case of being aware of what's likely to happen. If a girl gets dressed up showing a lot of skin, then goes for a walk down a load of dark alleys in some random city, it's entirely possible that something nasty is going to happen. The blame will ALWAYS lie with the perpetrator of the crime, but the fact does remain that it was far less likely to happen if she stayed at home and watched tele.
Now clearly I don't think people should change their actions based on what fuckwits get up to, but one does need to be aware of these things. The woman *should* have been aware of the fact that putting that information in her profile may result in some harassment. Again, of course this would be her FAULT but it's impossible to ignore the fact that without that information there the harassment likely wouldn't have come. From there, it's up to her if she wanted to put it up anyway and deal with what happens or not. Personally, I'd say fuck it and fuck them, put that information up because that's who you are. The people involved should have been banned for being idiots and that's that.
Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that being aware of how your actions will have an effect on others and subsequently yourself isn't a bad thing, just as long as people don't start trying to shift the blame. Just because one could argue cause and effect with respect to what this girl did doesn't diminish the fact that the morons had a choice to harass her or leave her be.

We need to make the field of psychohistory a reality now. XD Isaac Asimov FTW.

Tell me, if you did have a bit of a habit of crossing on greens without looking both ways and you did eventually get hit, how many people do you think would be saying "well, it's terrible, but he should have expected it." I'm guessing not many, and that any who did would be regarded as complete and utter wankers. This is because the language of "they should have expected it" implies that the person being spoken of is at fault for what happened to them. It's this implication that I've been taking issue with. I have no argument against the idea that we should all maintain an awareness of how others may choose to respond to our actions; it's only when people start trying to shift responsibility for people's actions that I have to take issue.
I agree completely.

Laws supersede any arbitrary rules made by corporations and individuals. I'm not a big fan of what I like to call the dictatorship of the sheep, but I dislike corporatism even more. If Microsoft broke an anti-discrimination law, it should be prosecuted.
To be honest, from a philosophical point of view, I like the idea of a private club being free to impose whatever rules they want. I was once shown the door because of the color of my skin (I'm white, but racism is everywhere) and, to be honest, I didn't care much. I just went to another nightclub. I don't feel the whole world should be centered around me or even simply follow my own arbitrary moral values. As long as I can do what other people do, as long as I'm not treated a second class citizen because of an irrelevant characteristic, I don't care if I have to go to place A or B to do it (as long as place A and B are somewhat equivalent).
The problem in this case is that XBox Live is not an obscure private club at all. Particularly, someone who is not satisfied with the terms of services imposed by Microsoft can't choose a competitor. Because of that, any kind of discrimination from their part, even if it's indirect, should be illegal (unless of course society judge discrimination against that particular group perfectly justified).
(BTW, Thatcher was a woman? Are you sure?)
Your children are not your personal property. They are human beings and so they have rights granted by society which you have to respect. You certainly have a right to promote your own personal and arbitrary values to your children, but only as long as they are socially accepted. You can't teach them whatever you want. For example, you can't teach your children to practice animal sacrifice rituals or to participate to sexual games at an early age.
Anyway, the question in this case is not what you teach to your children and what you allow your children to see, but what you impose to other people because of your desire to hide certain facts of life to your children. It's not me who want to control what you do, it's you who want to limit the freedom of other people. I'm sorry to say, but you and your children are not the center of the world. I certainly don't want my life controlled by you because you feel you can't explain something to a kid. It's your problem, not mine.
Personally, I'm not a freedom extremist. I regularly limit myself because of sympathy I have for other parents. My behavior certainly change when there are children around me. I know raising a child is not easy, I know not everyone is a child psychologist, in fact most people are grossly incompetent at raising children, so I understand that hiding some knowledge to children is a necessity. But in this case, I judge your demands (and Microsoft's terms) as abusive, so don't count on me to obey your wishes. I will agree on a "no proselytism" rule, I will agree on a "no incitation to illegal behavior" rule, but I will never agree on a "hide your (shameful) characteristics" rule.

Back in 2004 a man was playing a Madden NFL game on XBox Live. He won the match against the guy he was playing with. The guy he was playing with then proceeded to threaten to come to his house and kill his children, then his wife and then him. He sued the man(as he rightly should have), but the other man won in court because he was protected by the first amendment(freedom of speech). Funny how the first amendment also states that all citizens have the "Right to self expression" yet according to Microsoft no-one is allowed to express there sexual preference. Just another reason why I hate Microsoft, hypocrites and America.

The thing is the language of "should have seen it come"/"should have expected it" tends to carry an unspoken "and thus should have acted differently". I think most people here are not implying anything of the like, but at the same time it did seem to me that there were a few who were implying exactly this, which is why I started off on this line of discussion to begin with.
At this point, though, I don't think there's actually much disagreement as much as a whole lot of of pedantry that I take full responsibility for initiating and propagating, so I'll drop this particular line of discussion before the thread gets derailed too far.

Aww, long-winded pedantic arguments is the most fun part of forums such as this. I love a good discussion, and trying to out-pedant someone else is a great challenge :-D

That was quite a good discussion, and I'll hand you the award for superior pedant... at least until next time. ;)

I look forward to it :-)

think a lot of heterosexual folks fail to realize just how often they themselves mention their sexual orientation. Just think about your activities on this forum- how many of you have made your gender known at some point and have also mentioned having a husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend, or have simply mentioned someone of the opposite gender that you find hot? In doing so you've made your sexual orientation known.
By that line of thinking, you're expecting gay/lesbians not to have had any experience with hetrosexual partners (or vice versa). But there are plenty of people who have a wife/husband and then later on once they have children, realise that they are now attracted to someone of the same sex (and again, many people attracted to same sex partners may then go on to become attracted to a member of opposite sex and start a family). So just because a person mentions a member of the opposite sex, you cannot automatically assume that they are hetrosexual. It's just not that black and white.

Honestly, I don't care if gamers tell each other they're lesbian, gay, bisexual, or straight. They should all have the right to share and have such feelings with others, and even though I don't think having sexual relationships with the same sex is right, I won't hate those people. My cousin is openly gay, and I don't treat him any worse than I did before I found out.
However, given the majority of XBox Live users are rather immature, there are certain things that are probably best not to broadcast on that service. With each service on the internet, there are different average maturity levels, so you have to make an educated decision about what you chose to reveal where. For example, I would never tell anyone on XBox Live that I'm autistic. The media is doing a very bad job of explaining what autism is, so to most people it just means you're retarded. I have no trouble talking about it here, because I know most 13-year-olds aren't interested at all in the classics. However, I won't get on here blabbing about every little secret I have, because there's parts of my life that aren't exactly part of general discussion. I'm certain many of you feel the same way.

I'm not certain if I fully understand your post, I have no problems with gay people, my brother is gay, and I'm currently allowing two lesbian women to crash at my place for a few days. what is bothering me about this thing, is that information that is not necessary to be told to us, is being waved in our faces. be gay, straight, or into beastiality, i don't really care, just stfu and play the game already. does our success in the match depend on me knowing how much you love to be gay? eat pizza? be straight? or do crack?
no, it does not.
so, given your rationale, I should leave the raising of my children to the state. XD
But there is no reason, if during a game of Wall-E that the question of "What is sex?" or "What does homosexual mean?" need to come up. I'll tell my children when I feel that they are good and ready.
And as far as what I can, and can't do, I certainly do have a lot of freedom behind closed doors, and open doors. I wouldn't do anything like you described, and like I said earlier they have family that is gay, so I am quite prepared on how to handle that, but you cannot take away a parents right to raise their own child in the style they wish. Of course you can't teach them to break the law, and not expect to face the law, but that's the same with your own personal freedoms, you aren't free to kill someone, but you are Free*.
I'm free to raise my kids as athiest, hebrew, catholic, muslim, agnostic, or even heathenistic. I could even raise my kids to be a part of the KKK or a NeoNazi.
As long as they don't infringe on the rights of others or incite speech intended to cause a riot, it's "free speech."
do I care to do any of that? well, I'd certainly try to raise them agnostic and let them pick from there with tools enough to judge what is rational and not (i.e KKK is not socially acceptable). I doubt this woman was going online to play with seven year old boys to explain what lesbian sex is, but I have a right as a parent to censor what my kid sees, and it isn't topical in a game of Shrek to discuss World War II, The Exorcist, or Left 4 Head.
And I believe that any whackjob who goes into these kinds of games with the intent of bringing up these kinds of topics should be banned.
Now I don't know what kind of games she played, maybe she played only M rated games, like L4D or Silent Hill. But I do know that she was harassed by other gamers, I don't feel harassment is appropriate on any level, maybe seein' as it was against the T&C, reporting the user to a moderator is acceptable, but no reason to harass anybody over it.
Also, Laws maybe supersede any arbitrary rules made by corporations and individuals, however in this case it is their own right to terminate service with a customer. Regardless of the reason, it doesn't have to be stated. Microsoft certainly can't force her to do something, but they certainly can refuse service to her.