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

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm Canadian. I don't even know the rules of football. I have no feelings regarding the Superbowl .

And Google "abnormal" and do an image search. Those are images associated with the term. That's what people think of when they use the term "abnormal". That's what you're associating people with when you refer to the opposite of some things (behaviour, sexuality, gender) as " normal".

I didn't use the word "abnormal." I said it would be normal to watch the Superbowl instead of painting miniature orcs. If you think that means it would be "abnormal" instead of "rare", "uncommon", "unusual", or any of those other flattering words that you like, that's kind of on you.

Have some boots.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Third gender identity is common in south east asian and Polynesian cultures and so I used that IMC to declare that Orc Shaman were cross geneder and acculturate female. Interstingly that sparked a debate about drag queens stereotypes.

(BTW, I love your avatar Tonguez.)

Huh. That also kind of reminds me of Scythian Enarees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enaree

You can do a lot of interesting things with real-world cultures and D&D. At one point, I ran orcs as polygamous, where males are mutually-hostile (in interesting ways) and most tribal warriors that adventurers would fight are the unmarried ("surplus") buck males. Orcish social connections were maintained via "the rope" of in-law relationships, like the Mundugamor I studied in high school sociology class. It partially explains why they are so violent.

Of course nowadays there are those who would demand an explanation for why those surplus males don't just settle down with each other and start a farm. To which I respond, "That's not what these orcs are interested in."

 

[Jester David]

I didn't use the word "abnormal." I said it would be normal to watch the Superbowl instead of painting miniature orcs. If you think that means it would be "abnormal" instead of "rare", "uncommon", "unusual", or any of those other flattering words that you like, that's kind of on you.

The antonym of normal is abnormal. If something is normal and you're not that, then it means you're abnormal. In the exact same way that if you're up, it means someone who isn't must be down.
Which is why you just don't use words like "normal" to refer to people.

For example, 75% of the USA is Caucasian, but you'd never refer to being white as normal. Sociologically and statistically it is the norm, but the term carries linguistic connotations.

You have no control over what people hear, how people interpret your words. All you have control over is your words. If you upset someone because they misinterpreted something you said then, at the least, there is equal blame (if the speaker doesn't have all the blame).
As the saying goes, if you cannot say what you mean, you'll never mean what you say.

 

[MostlyDm]

You have no control over what people hear, how people interpret your words. All you have control over is your words. If you upset someone because they misinterpreted something you said then, at the least, there is equal blame (if the speaker doesn't have all the blame).
As the saying goes, if you cannot say what you mean, you'll never mean what you say.

Your contention is that if someone takes offense, then either the speaker and the offended party share responsibility for that offense equally, or the speaker bears more responsibility? In no situation is the person getting offended responsible for their reaction?

I take a fundamentally different view. Offense is taken. Even if someone intends to offend, the other party can actually choose to not be offended. Whereas, if someone is not trying to offend, they have no control over whether the other party chooses to be offended anyway.

You can only control yourself, and your behavior. You can't control someone else, or their reaction to your behavior.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The antonym of normal is abnormal. If something is normal and you're not that, then it means you're abnormal. In the exact same way that if you're up, it means someone who isn't must be down.

Thesaurus.com disagrees with you. "Normal" has a variety of antonyms, some of which include:

Extraordinary, rare, uncommon, unusual, untraditional, abnormal, different, disorderly, exceptional, extreme, irregular, unconventional.

Ref: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/normal

Clearly, all of those antonyms don't apply simultaneously, and they don't all have the same connotation, and many of the connotations are context-dependent. ("Exceptional" may sound good to you, but to a computer science geek, "exceptional cases" may sound bad.) If you're not sure how the word is intended, instead of jumping to conclusions, you could try asking the speaker for clarification. If you do jump to conclusions, and you choose to read pejoratives in where they don't otherwise exist, that's on you, not on the speaker.

For example, 75% of the USA is Caucasian, but you'd never refer to being white as normal.

That's false. Ask a Filipino what Americans normally look like. They'll tell you they normally have white skin, "tall" noses and fancy cars; but that some of them are tall, dark, and skinny. They won't start waving their hands about trying to avoid the idea of a "normal" American as if that were a pejorative to every American who doesn't fit their brief description.

Anyway, we've already established that my skin is a lot thicker than yours when it comes to the word "normal," so probably not a lot left to say there. I think you'd do better to fix the thing you can fix, which is to thicken your skin and not be so easily offended; you probably think I'd do better to fix the thing I can fix, which is to soften my words and think about other people's feelings. If so, there's probably some truth in both perspectives.

 

[aramis erak]

I doubt it brings in new players... but I would bet my life that at least one person read that, smiled and felt better... I can't imagine a better reason to have it in the book

And for every one it makes feel better, at least one is annoyed by it.

 

[billd91]

And for every one it makes feel better, at least one is annoyed by it.

I get the impression that WotC is OK with annoying people that are annoyed by explicitly inclusive language.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And for every one it makes feel better, at least one is annoyed by it.

How would you test that hypothesis?

 

[Mirtek]

In that magical situation the child not only does not know anyone who is gay but also does knows no one who is divorced, no one who has remarried, no one that has had a parent die, etc.
That's pretty darn rare.

actually depending where you life it's not. If you're living in a City certainly, but if you're living in a small town or village it can easily be.

 

[Jester David]

actually depending where you life it's not. If you're living in a City certainly, but if you're living in a small town or village it can easily be.

Only 46% of homes in the US conform to the so-called "standard" of two parents who have never remarried raising their child. Small towns mean little to this, as there's just as likely to be a "non-standard" family. (Or, since 54% of families are NOT a married man and women people and their kids, the new standard.)

Your contention is that if someone takes offense, then either the speaker and the offended party share responsibility for that offense equally, or the speaker bears more responsibility? In no situation is the person getting offended responsible for their reaction?

I take a fundamentally different view. Offense is taken. Even if someone intends to offend, the other party can actually choose to not be offended. Whereas, if someone is not trying to offend, they have no control over whether the other party chooses to be offended anyway.

You can only control yourself, and your behavior. You can't control someone else, or their reaction to your behavior.

If I'm talking with my hands, swing wide, and hit someone in the face then I have hurt them. Careless motion caused harm. At no time is it entirely their fault. That's blaming the victim and avoiding responsibility. At best they may not have been paying attention or standing too close, but that doesn't absolve the hand talker. It may have been an accident, it may have not have been the intent to hurt, but someone still hurt someone else.

Words are exactly the same.

You don't choose how to feel. You don't choose society's connotations for a word. There's no point where someone stops and says "hey, I'm going to feel upset about this", they just feel upset. Hurt. The ONLY person who has a choice is the person doing the talking. They're the people with the control.

And, frankly, if someone can't control what they say they become someone who can't control their arms and is swinging wildly about. And that's someone you don't have conversations with for long.

Thesaurus.com disagrees with you. "Normal" has a variety of antonyms, some of which include:

Extraordinary, rare, uncommon, unusual, untraditional, abnormal, different, disorderly, exceptional, extreme, irregular, unconventional.

Ref: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/normal

Yes, I am aware of that. I'm also aware that "up" has several antonyms as well. But when you say someone is up, the first antonym to pop into mind is "down". Just because you can propose an alternative, doesn't mean it's likely.

Clearly, all of those antonyms don't apply simultaneously, and they don't all have the same connotation, and many of the connotations are context-dependent. ("Exceptional" may sound good to you, but to a computer science geek, "exceptional cases" may sound bad.) If you're not sure how the word is intended, instead of jumping to conclusions, you could try asking the speaker for clarification. If you do jump to conclusions, and you choose to read pejoratives in where they don't otherwise exist, that's on you, not on the speaker.

Okay, fine. Do you mean to suggest that homosexuality is abnormal?

Keep in mind that the percentage of the US population that is gay is roughly the same as the population that is of Asian descent. Would you say it is normal to be non-Asian? Because you're referring to the same number of people as "not normal".

That's false. Ask a Filipino what Americans normally look like. They'll tell you they normally have white skin, "tall" noses and fancy cars; but that some of them are tall, dark, and skinny. They won't start waving their hands about trying to avoid the idea of a "normal" American as if that were a pejorative to every American who doesn't fit their brief description.

Sorry, but that's a terrible excuse. You cannot use what other nations or cultures find acceptable or unacceptable as the guidelines to determine your own actions. That's grade school logic ("But Timmy's allowed to stay up past 9!")

Anyway, we've already established that my skin is a lot thicker than yours when it comes to the word "normal," so probably not a lot left to say there. I think you'd do better to fix the thing you can fix, which is to thicken your skin and not be so easily offended; you probably think I'd do better to fix the thing I can fix, which is to soften my words and think about other people's feelings. If so, there's probably some truth in both perspectives.

We're done here.
I'm sorry but that's NOT acceptable.
You do not get to tell me how to feel. You do not get to tell me what I should or should not be upset about. You do not get to tell me to thicken my skin. You do not get to be the sole judge of what is acceptable.