D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[epithet]

When did we get sidetracked by the assumption that normality is a virtue? The people responsible for your favorite performance of your favorite song are abnormal. Athletes at the top of their game, and experts at the top of their fields, are not normal. The people you very likely wanted to be when you grew up were more than a standard deviation away from the norm.

Normal is typical, not exceptional. Normal isn't bad, but it isn't good, either. It's just normal.

Mammals generally, and humans in particular, evolved to reproduce sexually. Gender and gender dimorphism are the result of that evolutionary path, so yeah... male-female hookups that can produce offspring (the old fashioned way) are the norm. That said, we have too many people already and several ways to science your way around the need to copulate to reproduce, so there is no harm to be associated with exceptionality.

People really need to quit trying to call everything "normal" just because it's natural and "not bad." We're a race of abnormal deviants--it might be our greatest strength as a species.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Things in life are rarely clear cut, almost never one thing or another. Human sexuality likely has both a genetic and asocial component.

Sexuality is also not binary. The Kinsey Scale rates people from 0 to 6 but it probably be even more granular. There's a lot of people who identify as straight who might be comfortable having a homosexual experience: look at how many people "experiment" in college. Remove the social and cultural stigma (and risk of STDs) and there'd be more people having sex with each other because they want to have sex at that moment and someone is willing. A lot more instances of "well, I'm not gay, but I'm horny and it's been a while, and they're into me... so why not?"

What do you mean by "a lot of people" here? And How are we defining sexual preference...purely on the Kinsey Scale? The Kinsey Scale has various issues, including the fact that current iterations lean heavily toward typifying all individuals as being a complex spectrum and underplaying the fact that there are, in fact, still a plurality/majority who do identify as having binary preferences (straight or gay). Most people who identify straight but in fact feel attraction to both genders are, in fact, bisexual but the social stigma of admitting such leads them to veer toward the "straight but curious" camp to avoid repercussions. As a society it will be good to reach a point where people can identify as bisexual, just as there are plenty of straights and gays who have a decidedly active preference for one or the other gender.

 

[Jester David]

What do you mean by "a lot of people" here? And How are we defining sexual preference...purely on the Kinsey Scale? The Kinsey Scale has various issues, including the fact that current iterations lean heavily toward typifying all individuals as being a complex spectrum and underplaying the fact that there are, in fact, still a plurality/majority who do identify as having binary preferences (straight or gay). Most people who identify straight but in fact feel attraction to both genders are, in fact, bisexual but the social stigma of admitting such leads them to veer toward the "straight but curious" camp to avoid repercussions. As a society it will be good to reach a point where people can identify as bisexual, just as there are plenty of straights and gays who have a decidedly active preference for one or the other gender.

"A lot" as in "a vague number I'm not even going to guess at a percentage at because there's no way to know".

After all, we're not attracted to sex or gender. I'm not attracted to "women" as a whole, I'm attracted to individuals. or to "people who have traits I find appealing that are predominantly found in women." Theoretically, removed of social and religious stigma, we're all some degree of gay/straight given the right person.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What do you mean by "a lot of people" here? And How are we defining sexual preference...purely on the Kinsey Scale? The Kinsey Scale has various issues, including the fact that current iterations lean heavily toward typifying all individuals as being a complex spectrum and underplaying the fact that there are, in fact, still a plurality/majority who do identify as having binary preferences (straight or gay). Most people who identify straight but in fact feel attraction to both genders are, in fact, bisexual but the social stigma of admitting such leads them to veer toward the "straight but curious" camp to avoid repercussions. As a society it will be good to reach a point where people can identify as bisexual, just as there are plenty of straights and gays who have a decidedly active preference for one or the other gender.

Caveat: what's written below is my personal experience. I've never been in anyone's head but my own, so it may or may not generalize. Don't be offended please if your experiences are different from mine--just say, "My experiences are different."

The Kinsley thing is also complicated by the fact that, as the saying goes, "I am not my body. My body is nothing without me." There's a difference between whom you feel attracted to and what you choose to do about that attraction. (Anything between 'ogle them'/'ask them out' and 'frown in puzzlement for a second and shrug it off.') If someone asks you a Kinsley Scale question, you first have to figure out what kind of question they're asking. After all, at a basic neurological level, healthy meat is healthy meat. If I wanted to be physically attracted to a man, and I genuinely thought it was a good idea (e.g. Haldeman's Forever War), I could probably arrange to do so. (Method: just find one who reminds me of my (female) best friend.) But at the level of emotional intimacy as opposed to physicality, it would be much, much harder to do so, to the point where I'm not sure if I could manage it. I suspect that (some?) "gay" men are similarly emotionally programmed to be unable to connect emotionally to women, even when they are capable of feeling sexually attracted to them.

So there is definitely a multidimensional spectrum there, and modern discourse tends to paper it over.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

After all, we're not attracted to sex or gender. I'm not attracted to "women" as a whole, I'm attracted to individuals. or to "people who have traits I find appealing that are predominantly found in women." Theoretically, removed of social and religious stigma, we're all some degree of gay/straight given the right person.

Either that, or we're all some degree of ourselves and the choices we make, and "gay/straight" is an imprecise and perhaps incorrect way to think of the underlying reality.

There's nothing about the terms "gay" and "straight" that guarantees they map to neurological realities.

 

[Mistwell]

Not being allowed to oppress others is not oppression, and that's the "dangerous, important" speech we're talking about here.

Speech alone isn't oppression. It can be offensive, but it's not in itself enough to cross the threshold into oppression. Only societies that have forgotten what real oppression is like would confuse speech with oppression.

Gosh, I wonder what that's like.

I have not done that to you. If someone else has done that, complain to them.

You posted a list of rules.

No, I did not. I explained that to you twice now. Each time you cut the explanation from your quote, and then again claimed I posted a list of rules. That's disingenuous and a sign this debate can never progress. You let me know if you ever want to respond to what I said, rather than the strawman you keep repeating. Until then, there are others in this thread who are interested in an honest debate and I'd rather spend my time on that.

 

[SuperZero]

I have not done that to you. If someone else has done that, complain to them.

It's the thing you're talking about. And you accused me in the first place--I certainly didn't do it.
Although, yes, yes you have. You're treating a minority group like a hypothetical topic of discussion.

No, I did not. I explained that to you twice now. Each time you cut the explanation from your quote, and then again claimed I posted a list of rules.

This is only the second time you've said that, and you're not explaining it here, so you've not explained it twice.
Of course, I can't help but notice you cut my explanation. Well, it's certainly not the first time I've explained something twice:
If you can call me not wanting to be around people who want to hurt me "authoritarianism," and you did, I can call your list of rules "a list of rules."
You were going on about what people wanted to force or ban, and when it was pointed out that nobody had said anything about either of those things you tried to stretch those words' definitions. But now your list of rules is somehow not a list of rules because... you didn't label it "List of Rules"?

That's disingenuous and a sign this debate can never progress.

I never owed you a debate.
That said, I've responded directly to what you've said and you... have not done that.

Hey, remember when you were demanding I answer a question you hadn't asked me but that I'd already answered? 'Cuz I think you forgot some I asked you in that post you quoted:
"Why don't you consider my idea that doesn't make any sense?
"Why are you arguing about arguing, anyway?"

You let me know if you ever want to respond to what I said, rather than the strawman you keep repeating.

Bwuh? I... suggest you rethink that particular accusation.

Until then, there are others in this thread who are interested in an honest debate and I'd rather spend my time on that.

Didn't your list say you're supposed to listen to everybody, anyway? And y'know, as an actual member of the minority group we're supposedly talking about (beside this odd debating about debating thing), my experiences and insights might be a little bit extra relevant and insightful.
Although I suppose actually listening isn't on your list anyway. Just responding.

 

[MostlyDm]

Which is my point. I can't choose whether or not I'm fluent in English, but my English fluency is not genetically determined.

Of course not. My point is that I can't voluntarily choose not to be fluent in English. Yet my fluency in English is not genetically determined.

But being fluent in English is not a choice. Nor is it genetically determined. If, at birth, I'd been kidnapped and moved to (say) Argentina then I would probably be fluent in Spanish - despite my genes being identical.

I don't know much about the biology or psychology of sexuality - it's not my field. My point is a more narrow one in the philosophy of science (which is, to an extent, my field): the fact that something is not genetically determined does not entail that it is chosen, nor that it is subject to voluntary change. Which was the assertion made by [MENTION=6788973]MostlyDm[/MENTION], to which I was responding.

I don't actually object to what you're trying to say here. There are a collection of non-genetic things that are outside our control due to birth circumstances. Agreed.

I was more bringing it up because it's a thing I've run into many times in the past; when I criticize the idea that sexuality is genetically determined, people often leap to the idea that I am saying sexuality can be chosen and changed at will. The two don't necessarily follow, but it's a common logical jump.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Didn't your list say you're supposed to listen to everybody, anyway? And y'know, as an actual member of the minority group we're supposedly talking about (beside this odd debating about debating thing), my experiences and insights might be a little bit extra relevant and insightful.
Although I suppose actually listening isn't on your list anyway. Just responding.

Classical liberalism doesn't necessitate listening to everybody. No one has time to listen to every viewpoint in the world. It does, however, require that you allow everybody to speak. The idea is that as long as everyone is free to express their thoughts, correct ideas will gradually win acceptance. (Or at least, it is to be hoped that this will happen.)

The following is one of my email .sigs:

'If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.'

 

[MostlyDm]

Sexuality is also not binary. The Kinsey Scale rates people from 0 to 6 but it probably be even more granular. There's a lot of people who identify as straight who might be comfortable having a homosexual experience: look at how many people "experiment" in college. Remove the social and cultural stigma (and risk of STDs) and there'd be more people having sex with each other because they want to have sex at that moment and someone is willing. A lot more instances of "well, I'm not gay, but I'm horny and it's been a while, and they're into me... so why not?"

I don’t really have any disagreements with this (though Hemlock raised some interesting related thoughts.)

It's not the norm. It's just the majority. Norm implies something is expected or acceptable. There are lots of things in the world that are common, but I would NOT call "acceptable", that should not be "the norm".

So, it reads to me like you are saying here that heterosexuality is… unacceptable?

What am I misunderstanding?

I lumped assuming heteronormativity - discriminating against sexual orientation - in with racism and sexism.

I know “heteronormativity” is an evil buzz word… but what exactly about what I said was discriminating? What exactly are you reacting so negatively to? I don’t get it…