D&D 5E MTOF: Elves are gender-swapping reincarnates and I am on board with it

[TheCosmicKid]

I'm assuming that orcs have binary* dimorphic anatomy, with corresponding gender roles, and D&D books have only ever described ONE of those genders: the masculine warrior orc perspective.

See Luthic, orc goddess of fertility. Her role, and the role she preaches for orc women, isn't exactly... progressive. But these are orcs we're talking about.

As for hermaphrodites with gendered mindsets, I recommend you read Ursula Le Guin's excellent novel "The Left Hand of Darkness".

It crossed my mind as I wrote the post. My criticism of it is the same: it's written from the perspective of someone used to the gender binary and who can't quite shake the habit. (Whether that person is the viewpoint character or the author herself is a delightful ambiguity.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There’s nothing to say that a sentient humanoid hermaphroditic species would necessarily have similarly divergent roles as their sexually dimorphic neighbors.

But there’s also nothing to say they wouldn’t.

I mean, if we look to nature, most of the known hermaphroditic species- like worms- don’t share their ecosystems with similar non-hermaphroditic species. We don’t have exemplars to compare and contrast.

And members gender fluid species pretty much act like males of similar species when male, female when female.

But, AFAIK, none of those species are particulary “intelligent”, and intelligence could change everything.

As would the precise details of how the hermaphroditism or fluidity works. If you can freely change your gender, that will tend to lead to certain cultural structures...probably much more fluid than our own. But if you can only change gender under certain circumstances, gender roles might be a lot more familiar.

 

[Sunseeker]

But, AFAIK, none of those species are particulary “intelligent”, and intelligence would change everything.

Fixed that for ya. Considering that "gender" is arguably 90% social construct.

I mean, lets take lions as an example. Females out-number males dramatically. Females are also the primary hunters. In fact, male lions are kinda lazy jerks. But it's still fairly clear that males are the "leaders" of prides, while females do most of the work, have all the kids, and other supporting roles.

If we were to apply intelligence to this situation, instead of relying on basic animalistic nature, we might start seeing female lions question their "role" in "society" considering the level of contribution they make to it compared to males.

 

[Ganymede81]

...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fixed that for ya. Considering that "gender" is arguably 90% social construct.

I mean, lets take lions as an example. Females out-number males dramatically. Females are also the primary hunters. In fact, male lions are kinda lazy jerks. But it's still fairly clear that males are the "leaders" of prides, while females do most of the work, have all the kids, and other supporting roles.

If we were to apply intelligence to this situation, instead of relying on basic animalistic nature, we might start seeing female lions question their "role" in "society" considering the level of contribution they make to it compared to males.

And yet, there are human societies that follow a very analogous social structure, and have for decades or centuries.

 

[Sunseeker]

And yet, there are human societies that follow a very analogous social structure, and have for decades or centuries.

And it could be reasonably argued that they don't actually have "gender". Humans are animals. In lieu of higher social constructs, we're just hairless apes. Biology doesn't create roles or social structure. It does whatever is most efficient. That's why some animals are matriarchal, some are patriarchal, some are more fluid, and some animals aren't social in the slightest.

Outside of the way Orcish gods are set up, it might be interesting to have an orcish society that doesn't even conceptualize "gender", perhaps their males and females are so physically indistinguishable, that having an innie or an outie isn't defining enough to create social constructs.

Though I'm less familiar with the Dragonborn lore, if we took a more reptilian visual approach to them, it could easily be applicable there.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’m genuinely puzzled. Lions have a certain social structure, based on gender as you laid out. You then assert that more intelligent versions of lions might question those roles and challenge or even overturn that structure.

That is how I read your post. Did I misunderstand?

Yet, when I reply that there are stable human (who are arguably more intelligent than lions) societies that have structural similarities to a pride of lions as a counterpoint that Intelligence doesn’t necessarily change that equation in a meaningful way, your reply is...

And it could be reasonably argued that they don't actually have "gender". Humans are animals. In lieu of higher social constructs, we're just hairless apes. Biology doesn't create roles or social structure. It does whatever is most efficient. That's why some animals are matriarchal, some are patriarchal, some are more fluid, and some animals aren't social in the slightest.

I didn’t assert societies have genders.

Where is the disconnect?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Outside of the way Orcish gods are set up, it might be interesting to have an orcish society that doesn't even conceptualize "gender", perhaps their males and females are so physically indistinguishable, that having an innie or an outie isn't defining enough to create social constructs.

That's a pretty common setup in depictions of dwarves.

 

[Yaarel]

If trying to model reallife human biological gender, then humans probably evolved as paleolithic nomadic clans that resemble bonobos.

Generally, bonobos are peaceful, highly sexual, and egalitarian. Bonobos use casual sex for social bonding and resolution of conflict. Bonobos are bisexual. (Are there any studies to see if minority individuals have a preferred orientation?) There is no awareness of the connection between sex and pregnancy, so culturally the bonobos have mothers but no fathers. So children are loyal to their mothers. In this way, when the female group decides in an egalitarian way, the male group being loyal to their mothers tend to go along with the decisions of the female group.

In paleolithic human gender division, there are probably males who self-identified with the female group (care-givers and gatherers), and females who self-identify with the male group (hunters).

In the human context, I suspect individuals already exhibited strong sexual and gender diversity. So all permutations existed. Males who self-identify as male but prefer other males. Males who self-identify as female but prefer other females. And so on. Likewise, some individuals were strongly monogamous, and other individuals strongly polyamorous. And so on. Even if some individuals discovered the connection between sex and pregnancy, it was culturally insignificant. Paleolithic humans only had mothers. And were generally peaceful. Resembling bonobos.



The Neolithic Revolution introduced new, more violent, cultures, where the discovery of farming led to non-nomadic settlement, competition over farmable land, and the repurposing of hunting skills to ‘hunt’ other humans in war.

In some sense, the human shift from paleolithic peace to neolithic violence is a reallife ‘exile from the Garden of Eden’.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

If trying to model reallife human biological gender, then humans probably evolved as paleolithic nomadic clans that resemble bonobos.

Generally, bonobos are peaceful, highly sexual, and egalitarian. Bonobos use casual sex for social bonding and resolution of conflict. Bonobos are bisexual. (Are there any studies to see if minority individuals have a preferred orientation?) There is no awareness of the connection between sex and pregnancy, so culturally the bonobos have mothers but no fathers. So children are loyal to their mothers. In this way, when the female group decides in an egalitarian way, the male group being loyal to their mothers tend to go along with the decisions of the female group.

In paleolithic human gender division, there are probably males who self-identified with the female group (care-givers and gatherers), and females who self-identify with the male group (hunters).

In the human context, I suspect individuals already exhibited strong sexual and gender diversity. So all permutations existed. Males who self-identify as male but prefer other males. Males who self-identify as female but prefer other females. And so on. Likewise, some individuals were strongly monogamous, and other individuals strongly polyamorous. And so on. Even if some individuals discovered the connection between sex and pregnancy, it was culturally insignificant. Paleolithic humans only had mothers. And were generally peaceful. Resembling bonobos.



The Neolithic Revolution introduced new, more violent, cultures, where the discovery of farming led to non-nomadic settlement, competition over farmable land, and the repurposing of hunting skills to ‘hunt’ other humans in war.

In some sense, the human shift from paleolithic peace to neolithic violence is a reallife ‘exile from the Garden of Eden’.

And as usual, you present highly speculative hypotheses as though they were universal truths without any citations or arguments. Remember, humanity had already spread all over the world before the Neolithic Revolution, so trying to make general claims about what paleolithic societies were like is going to be no less perilous and error-prone than making general claims about what all the societies on Earth are like today. Remember, too, that some societies on Earth today are still paleolithic, or were until recently, so we don't have to speculate about what a paleolithic society might look like -- we can go ask. And sure enough, they are very diverse. Some are peaceful, some are extremely violent (but even the peaceful ones have per capita violent death rates far higher than Western nations). Some are patriarchal, some are more egalitarian (actual matriarchies are hard to find, though the details are controversial). Gay and bisexual people are universal; nothing cultural about orientation. Trans people are universal too, but their status is conceptualized very differently from society to society, and because they're less frequent than gay people, any given tribe may well not have or have encountered any. And although there are some exceptions, most societies know what sex is for. There do exist countless other varying beliefs and misconceptions about sex, but as this is a family forum I won't go into any further detail.

And on the subject of bonobos, it is a mistake to try and draw conclusions about human behavior from them. Humans are not their closest living relatives: other chimpanzees are. And if bonobos can be so different from other chimps, how much more different can they be from us, who branched off a few million years earlier and adopted a wildly different lifestyle? Furthermore, for what it's worth, it turns out they are less idyllic than they have gotten a reputation for. Violence, including sexual violence, is well within their observed capabilities.