Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gender and Sexuality in Golarion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pauper" data-source="post: 7461479" data-attributes="member: 17607"><p>I am quoting you verbatim. You said:</p><p></p><p>"I also don't think it is nearly as relevant as some people think it is, as I don't think whether or not the only differences between the genders are cosmetic matters much."</p><p></p><p>The follow-on phrase makes it clear that the 'it' you are referring to is the original poster's quote about the only game differences between genders being cosmetic. Expression within a game's mechanics, including whether or not those expressions are purely cosmetic, is a presentation of gender and sexuality -- if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as the entire point of 'inclusiveness' is to present expressions of gender and sexuality that people who don't fit the assumed social 'default' can identify and identify with. You appear to believe those presentations "aren't nearly as relevant as some people think." If this is not your belief, please say so, in so many words.</p><p></p><p>And I explained that reference without once denigrating your reading comprehension skills! Some might call that being respectful....</p><p></p><p>I find your argument that the distinctions made for inclusiveness, including these cosmetic differences...again quoting you..."seems like a false debate, ginned up for the purposes of demonstrating one's virtue" is curious, because to say that the distinctions between genders are not "nearly as relevant as some people think it is" and the follow-up that the result "seems like a false debate" is exactly what I was referring to in my post as being, not a statement of neutrality, but a statement that the truly bad actors in tabletop gaming can use as a shield for their own reprehensible behavior.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Considering that I quoted you accurately, and have now clarified my statement, I see no reason to retract my post -- if anything, your response shows why my post is valid, because it highlights that your statement is not politically neutral, but useful to a specific side in the debate. If it's not the side you want to be associated with, I imagine that's a problem you need to work out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to respond. Thanks for the consideration.</p><p></p><p>--</p><p>Pauper</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pauper, post: 7461479, member: 17607"] I am quoting you verbatim. You said: "I also don't think it is nearly as relevant as some people think it is, as I don't think whether or not the only differences between the genders are cosmetic matters much." The follow-on phrase makes it clear that the 'it' you are referring to is the original poster's quote about the only game differences between genders being cosmetic. Expression within a game's mechanics, including whether or not those expressions are purely cosmetic, is a presentation of gender and sexuality -- if it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion, as the entire point of 'inclusiveness' is to present expressions of gender and sexuality that people who don't fit the assumed social 'default' can identify and identify with. You appear to believe those presentations "aren't nearly as relevant as some people think." If this is not your belief, please say so, in so many words. And I explained that reference without once denigrating your reading comprehension skills! Some might call that being respectful.... I find your argument that the distinctions made for inclusiveness, including these cosmetic differences...again quoting you..."seems like a false debate, ginned up for the purposes of demonstrating one's virtue" is curious, because to say that the distinctions between genders are not "nearly as relevant as some people think it is" and the follow-up that the result "seems like a false debate" is exactly what I was referring to in my post as being, not a statement of neutrality, but a statement that the truly bad actors in tabletop gaming can use as a shield for their own reprehensible behavior. Considering that I quoted you accurately, and have now clarified my statement, I see no reason to retract my post -- if anything, your response shows why my post is valid, because it highlights that your statement is not politically neutral, but useful to a specific side in the debate. If it's not the side you want to be associated with, I imagine that's a problem you need to work out. I think you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have taken the time to respond. Thanks for the consideration. -- Pauper [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Gender and Sexuality in Golarion
Top