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

[I'm A Banana]

On the topic of gender differences: Consider height. If you have a hundred men and a hundred women, sampled at random, the average height of the men will be higher. Now, assuming roughly the same population averages as the US, if someone is 5'9", what does that tell you about their gender? Basically nothing. You can't tell male from female by height. But the difference is still there statistically.

But if someone's 5'4", you have a moderately strong suspicion that they're more likely female than male. If you collect enough other data points, even though none of them are absolute proof, you can end up with reasonable certainty.

Same thing tends to happen with personality traits. If you have enough data about a person, you can be moderately confident (though probably not certain) whether they're male or female.

Also, in general, women are quite consistently able to write men convincingly. You can't be a woman in most cultures and not know how men behave and think. It is very easy to be a man in most cultures and be very ignorant of how women behave and think.

It's much more difficult with "personality traits," because personality traits are squishy, hard to define, and vastly context-dependent across populations. Defining something like, I dunno, "Politeness" is fraught with pitfalls and vaguenesses that defining something like "height" is free of. It's not as easily measurable.

And I do imagine, in general, it's hard to be a woman in most societies without having to be concerned with what men think on some level, simply because men are the gatekeepers to power and prestige in most societies. If you want those things, you have to figure out how men are going to see you. Which, I bet, sucks sometimes.

 

[seebs]

It's much more difficult with "personality traits," because personality traits are squishy, hard to define, and vastly context-dependent across populations. Defining something like, I dunno, "Politeness" is fraught with pitfalls and vaguenesses that defining something like "height" is free of. It's not as easily measurable.

And I do imagine, in general, it's hard to be a woman in most societies without having to be concerned with what men think on some level, simply because men are the gatekeepers to power and prestige in most societies. If you want those things, you have to figure out how men are going to see you. Which, I bet, sucks sometimes.

Agreed that it's not as easy to measure, but it turns out that, like most mammal species, we are very well equipped with instincts to make us constantly pick up cues to try to discern gender in other people. In practice, a lot of people can tell pretty well; certainly, way better than chance.

And I know plenty of authors, and I assure you, women are not putting any special extra effort or research into writing men convincingly; they have to be able to do that in order to have survived well enough to get to the point where they can put time into writing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not only is knowing how men act, speak and think a part of getting on in our culture, it is effectively impossible to avoid. every media is dominated by male POV, by men for men about men. If you think there is a neutrl tone, you are actually thinking of the male POV. Men have to think in order to portray women. The reverse simply isnt the case.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And I do imagine, in general, it's hard to be a woman in most societies without having to be concerned with what men think on some level, simply because men are the gatekeepers to power and prestige in most societies. If you want those things, you have to figure out how men are going to see you. Which, I bet, sucks sometimes.

By this logic, men should also be experts on what women think because women are the gatekeepers to sex.

And I know plenty of authors, and I assure you, women are not putting any special extra effort or research into writing men convincingly...

Um... my experience with women writers I know has been exactly the opposite. Have you really never gotten the "What would a man do in this situation?" question?

 

[aramis erak]

It always seems weird to me that people think a trans character is less PG13 than a cis character. Unless one of them has a lot more sex than the other, they should be pretty similar.

Not less PG13 - but definitely offensive to bible-believing Christians, and Koran believing Muslims. (Most Jews no longer follow the prohibitions in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, let alone Leviticus. But those who do also find it equally offensive.)

ANY overt sexual relationships put it firmly into PG13, and anything explicit pushes it beyond.

If it's not overt, it's usually immaterial.

Okay, let me rephrase and let's see if I can make a statement that both of us will agree on.

Obligate homosexuality (as opposed to omnivorous bisexuality) has negative implications for fitness, but that does not necessarily imply that the overall phenotype has a net fitness penalty even if the trait has a genetic basis (which is not a foregone conclusion). Some negative alleles can be tied, loosely or tightly, to other positive alleles with positive implications, especially if the genetic prevalence, penetrance, or expressivity is low or if the allele's positive effects are very strong. The classic example is sickle-cell anemia, which drastically reduces life expectancy for homozygotes but confers malarial resistance to heterozygotes, increasing their life expectancy. In an environment where malaria is a risk factor, an equilibrium (crudely speaking) occurs when the sickle-cell trait is just common enough to minimize sickle-cell and malarial deaths combined, instead of optimizing either one separately. This is an example of a balanced polymorphism, where multiple alleles co-exist within a population without any of them reaching fixation. One explanation for the paradox of obligate homosexuality is that homosexual behavior, in humans or other animals, may be an outgrowth of a balanced polymorphism. Researchers are actively pursuing this possibility.

Additionally, Darwinian "fitness" has no special moral implications. Something can have negative implications for Darwinian "fitness" even if it is unequivocally a positive trait for individuals that possess it. (Arguably "higher education" falls into this category, although we haven't finished watching that one play out yet and won't for several centuries.)

Agree/disagree? Are there any parts of that statement that are wrong in your eyes?

Note that moral systems evolve out of survival needs; moral systems which fail to encourage reproduction (EG: Shakers, certain subsets of the Cathars and the Pelagians) tend to be limited duration blips historically. Moral systems are spread by two means - attracting converts and induction of children raised in them. Few spread far by converts alone.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

(Deleted)

 

[Hussar]

Not less PG13 - but definitely offensive to bible-believing Christians, and Koran believing Muslims. (Most Jews no longer follow the prohibitions in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, let alone Leviticus. But those who do also find it equally offensive.)

I'd amend that to "offensive to a minority of ..." because it certainly isn't the majority view.

ANY overt sexual relationships put it firmly into PG13, and anything explicit pushes it beyond.

If it's not overt, it's usually immaterial.

What do you mean by overt sexual relationships? Physical displays of affection? If so, virtually no relationship in any D&D book is ever overly sexual. How is writing married character with children not overt though? It's right there, in black and white. But, it's certainly not PG-13 to have a straight couple with children. So, why would a same-sex couple get a higher rating?

 

[Salamandyr]

redacted

 

[billd91]

Not less PG13 - but definitely offensive to bible-believing Christians, and Koran believing Muslims. (Most Jews no longer follow the prohibitions in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, let alone Leviticus. But those who do also find it equally offensive.)

The reality of the matter is that people with fluid, non-binary genders and sexual preferences exist within the D&D market. That some people take offense at reality or, more precisely, the acknowledgement of that reality is unfortunate.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

The reality of the matter is that people with fluid, non-binary genders and sexual preferences exist within the D&D market. That some people take offense at reality or, more precisely, the acknowledgement of that reality is unfortunate.

It is better to be welcoming to the diverse than to be welcoming of bigots.