When a man plays a woman

[dropbear8mybaby]

This is an actual topic of concern for people? Really?

This is insane. In fact, I'm going to make a female character and play it solely due to this thread in the hope that I piss someone off who doesn't like switched genders in gaming.

Then I'm going to play a transgender character.

And then I'm going to play an intersex character.

And then one who doesn't have any genitals at all because it's a fantasy game and people being concerned about gender in a fantasy game are being ridiculous.

 

[darkrose50]

The differences between elves and dwarves and men and halflings in most settings is less than the difference between male and female in any given group of them. Gender isn't just about presence/absence of enlarged breasts, a vagina, a uterus, or a phallus... if it were, (1) there wouldn't be the social unrest over LGBTQ issues (on both sides), and (2) there wouldn't be the clear gender roles that are both fairly uniform and near universal amongst primitive human societies. Oh, (3) and there wouldn't be the clear gender roles in other primates, either.

The difference between male elf, male dwarf, and male human is size and shape, and preferred foods, at least in tolkien, and the elves tend to be a bit effeminate. Just a bit. Oh, and lifespan.

The difference between female elf, female dwarf, and female human is again, size and shape, and (for elves) lifespan.

In Tolkien, Brooks, Weiss, Hickman, and even in many other authors works, the differences in behavior by gender are bigger than the differences by subspecies.

Me, I'm uncomfortable playing across the gender line - not because I can't do it, but because I can readily envisage what it means to be a male dwarf, who's prospects for love are likely to be "Give up on female dwarves, because there aren't enough to go around"... but I can't readily envisage what it means to be female. It's less of a role change.

Likewise, I know what it feels like to hunt and to fight - I can extrapolte from there easier to dragons than I can to "seductress"...

Choosing not to play a type of character is your choice.

Telling someone that they cannot play a girl character when they are a guy is stupid as hell.

I am a man, married to a woman, and I am as far into liking women as one can get. I can play a woman without any problems, and I think nothing of it.

 

[darkrose50]

I wish it was that simple. I basically agree with GRR Martin here, in that I create female characters in exactly the same way I create male characters. I have a thread nearby where I'm creating NPCs for a Jann/Arabian setting, and for every purpose but physical description I could switch the gender of any character and feel I had basically the same character with the same utility to the setting.

But I have a female friend who would not be satisfied by that, and who I know would reject that as good characterization on those very grounds. She believes that if a character's gender could be altered without altering the character, that it's poor characterization. She would consider virtually all of my characters inherently masculine. It wouldn't offend her per se, that my female characters aren't to her believably feminine, but it would mean that she considers them rather poor characters.

For example, I felt that Jyn from Rogue One was a vastly better character than Rey from The Force Awakens in every manner. She was more believable; she was more complex; she had an actual narrative and emotional arc; she was competent but not ludicrously so; she was allowed to fail at times, and she had believable and sympathetic motivations. She was also IMO much wiser than Rey and had much better and more quotable lines.

However, my female friend felt that Jyn was a poor character because in no fashion did she feel feminine to her. If Jyn were male, basically nothing Jyn did would be different. On the other hand, characters like Ripley, are generally universally received as both admirable and memorable 'kick butt' heroines, because you can't change Ripley's gender without changing the character and the meaning of the story.

This sets two standards, and meeting both is very hard. Some people demand characters have qualities that make them uniquely gendered or have a uniquely gendered perspective. Others will feel that if you do this, it's sexist precisely because of that. While, at the same time, the first group will feel its demeaning or sexist if you don't.

Note that these two standards can be seriously at odds even if the author is of the same gender as the critic. My friend would probably find Isabella Swan a gendered and thus respectful character. While others would feel that her gender issues are too overt and stereotypical.

I try to set the bar much lower in terms of what is 'good enough'.

Men can understand women and women can understand men. I am surrounded by women. Not all men are masculine, and not all women are feminine. There are women with Myers Briggs Personality types of INTJ (the extreme logical thinker scientist and engineer stereotype), and there are men on the opposite stereotypical woman feeling stereotype (teachers and nurses).

Women TEND seek to communicate problems with others while troubleshooting a problem. The primary goal is to retain a stable social role within the group. Good for long term problem-solving (like identifying that we need to keep people happy in case we need them later).

Men TEND to seek to fix the problem. The primary goal is to fix the problem, and retaining a stable social role is not part of this problem solving. Good for short term problem solving (like who needs to be punched, consequences be damned).

Both methods of problem solving are valid, useful, evolutionary advantageous, and/or god given.

Yet one can be a female with the INTJ personality type (stereotypical male scientist or engineer).

In fact among those with Asperger's Syndrome (~1/200 men, and ~1/900 women) this is common to have the INTJ (likely 50/100 folks with Asperger's Syndrome are INTJ, and in the general population ~1/100 INTJs are women, ~2/100 INTJs are men) engineer and mad scientist personality type. Women with the mad scientist INTJ personality type, are quite often non-feminine, and are quite definitely women (many of them I consider to be quite attractive, as in holy cow, how can you be this seriously attractive . . . if I were single, then I would totally want to date these genius scientist girls as they have brains and beauty).

 

[Celebrim]

Men can understand women and women can understand men. I am surrounded by women. Not all men are masculine, and not all women are feminine. There are women with Myers Briggs Personality types of INTJ (the extreme logical thinker scientist and engineer stereotype), and there are men on the opposite stereotypical woman feeling stereotype (teachers and nurses).

Women TEND seek to communicate problems with others while troubleshooting a problem. The primary goal is to retain a stable social role within the group. Good for long term problem-solving (like identifying that we need to keep people happy in case we need them later).

Men TEND to seek to fix the problem. The primary goal is to fix the problem, and retaining a stable social role is not part of this problem solving. Good for short term problem solving (like who needs to be punched, consequences be damned).

Both methods of problem solving are valid, useful, evolutionary advantageous, and/or god given.

Yet one can be a scientist or engineer with an INTJ personality type (stereotypical male scientist) while being a female.

In fact among those with Asperger's Syndrome (~1/200 men, and ~1/900 women) this is common to have the INTJ (~1/100 are women, ~2/100 are men) engineer and mad scientist personality type (man or woman). Women with the mad scientist INTJ personality type, are quite often non-feminine, and are quite definitely women (many of them I consider to be quite attractive).

Ahh..... good. You understand after all.

But, you must admit, that's not simple, and most people want it to be simple.

 

[Sunseeker]

This sets two standards, and meeting both is very hard. Some people demand characters have qualities that make them uniquely gendered or have a uniquely gendered perspective. Others will feel that if you do this, it's sexist precisely because of that. While, at the same time, the first group will feel its demeaning or sexist if you don't.

Note that these two standards can be seriously at odds even if the author is of the same gender as the critic. My friend would probably find Isabella Swan a gendered and thus respectful character. While others would feel that her gender issues are too overt and stereotypical.

I try to set the bar much lower in terms of what is 'good enough'.

Yes, as the old axiom goes: you can't make everyone happy all the time. The best bet is always to make your character to your liking and take other people's input with a grain of salt.

 

[Lanefan]

This is an actual topic of concern for people? Really?

Unfortunately, yes. I think this might be the third or fourth thread on this exact topic I've seen over the years in here, and the subject has come up in numerous other threads dealing with broader questions around what DMs will or will not allow at their tables.

In fairness, however, I'd say by and large this is the best such thread I've seen in terms of people actually explaining their viewpoints without being (too) snarky.

This is insane.

Ayup.

Lanefan

 

[Dualazi]

[MENTION=6806914]Roseweave[/MENTION] Glad to see you're open about your hypocrisy, at least. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." The "bullies" being harassed are often innocent of any of their supposed crimes (such as the latest controversy around tweets remembering Carrie Fisher), and even if they were bigots, attempting to bring your own brand of vigilante justice to them through social media and the like only proves that you don't want equality, just your turn as the oppressor so you can meet out your preferred brand of 'justice'.

Incidentally, without getting into the accuracy of what he posted, Anon Adderlan is correct in that facts always supersede feelings in importance. Your lived experiences mean nothing. Neither do mine. Not unless they're being presented as a comprehensive (and preferably peer-reviewed) study. This is why you erase the experiences of the people he has linked to supporting his position, and vice-versa, because you're just slinging anecdotes at each other fruitlessly.

I would lastly like to agree with dropbear that this is insane. Not because of the question itself per se, but because it so aptly highlights the poisonous depths that identity politics has dominated discussions in recent years. Play what you want, you don't need a doctorate in sociology to vindicate your decisions.

 

[Roseweave]

@Roseweave Glad to see you're open about your hypocrisy, at least. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." The "bullies" being harassed are often innocent of any of their supposed crimes (such as the latest controversy around tweets remembering Carrie Fisher), and even if they were bigots, attempting to bring your own brand of vigilante justice to them through social media and the like only proves that you don't want equality, just your turn as the oppressor so you can meet out your preferred brand of 'justice'.

Incidentally, without getting into the accuracy of what he posted, Anon Adderlan is correct in that facts always supersede feelings in importance. Your lived experiences mean nothing. Neither do mine. Not unless they're being presented as a comprehensive (and preferably peer-reviewed) study. This is why you erase the experiences of the people he has linked to supporting his position, and vice-versa, because you're just slinging anecdotes at each other fruitlessly.

I would lastly like to agree with dropbear that this is insane. Not because of the question itself per se, but because it so aptly highlights the poisonous depths that identity politics has dominated discussions in recent years. Play what you want, you don't need a doctorate in sociology to vindicate your decisions.

It never ceases to amaze and worry me how completely divorced some people are from the power dynamics that exist in this world and seem to think everything goes every which way(at least in so far as it is convenient for them), and also the sheer lengths people will go to to uphold this willful ignorance. The concept of "an eye for an eye" like this exists because people don't value our lives, and/or are so insulated from our experiences that they consider minor infractions on the same scale as real world violence. When you have actual "vigilantes" threatening to shoot transgender women who dare to go to the bathroom, for example, it's not a concern, but if someone dares tell someone to check their privilege then it's some sort of atrocity.

This is part of a wider effort to muscle minorities away from spaces like this so you don't have to listen to their concerns. Only people who's narratives fit with yours are acceptable, because god forbid you care about the lives and experiences of those different to you. Trust me when you say you can't imagine what someone like me would have to do to truly extract "an eye for an eye" in recompense with the atrocities committed against people like me. You now have a situation where people have consciously pushed for the rights and protections for people like me to be removed, so more of us can be thrown onto the streets, subjugated, and killed. For there to be "an eye for an eye", we'd have to gain access to that level of institutional power and legitimately restrict the freedoms of cisgender white men and make them live in fear of rejection, unemployment, poverty and violence in a way few of them would have previously.

And yet, we're the ones that have to live with constant accusations of being "oversensitive", often from deeply sheltered and self-focused individuals that are utterly indifferent to the suffering of others that don't look like them.

Please don't accuse me of silencing people's experiences when your whole position revolves around coercing the voices of people like me into silence, of making people like me uncomfortable speaking up in places like this. I'm not going to pussyfoot around this - people who continue to obsess over the dangers of "identity politics" when people are living in fear of the rise of fascism across the western world are not good people, and we need to call that out. You know little about our struggles, you don't care about us, our lives are worth almost nothing to you and that needs to change.

You speak from a position of relative aggression and moral offence. But this doesn't affect your day to day life. It does mine. There is definitely an effort to obscure this fact among the "Anti-SJW"/anti-feminist masses and it needs to stop.

 

[Mallus]

To nudge this back towards the topic...

So my current PC, Black Swann LaVey is in bad straights. Which probably shouldn't surprise me since I rolled up an actress to explore an extra-planar mega-dungeon. Therefore, I'm going to throw together another female PC to replace her, just in case.

Why another female character? Because I came up with a great name! "Dolores/Dolorous Haze" (and by "came up with" I mean "stole from Nabokov"). I want to try out one of the new paladin oaths, so she'll be a half-drow slave sold to the Church of Lolth and trained as a holy warrior, courtesy of her natural aptitudes & authorial fiat.

Thanks to her mild arachnophobia and rebellious streak, she runs away, takes of the Oath of Treachery, spends some time as a street-thief (multiclass), then coincidentally finds herself in the same mega-dungeon as my current PC.

I have no idea who she is yet, outside of this rough sketch -- wait, her weapon of choice is a stolen rapier she names "L'il Stabby -- but I hope to find out more, soon (if Swann slips off her mortal coil tonight).

 

[Roseweave]

funny since my current character is a Spider Hengeyokai/mini-Aranea lol

Also a Rogueish steeet rat runaway sort, and one of the character influences was Darlene from Mr. Robot who uses the screenname D0loresH4ze.