I'm not sure that you're correct. Then again, I'm not sure that I am correct. But 'biological essentialism' is literally so obscure term that it doesn't even have Wikipedia page, so it is possible that it actually isn't particularly strictly defined.
Eh, nothing is strictly defined, language is based on usage. That’s why I don’t care to argue semantics here. If you don’t like the term I’m using, feel free to substitute another term you like more, the point is what I’m using it to
mean.
Sure. The point of those clear example was to show that it is actually a continuum.
I don’t think anyone disputes that it’s a continuum, so this doesn’t really add anything helpful to the conversation.
Sure. And I think in hands of some other writer those same things might have been described in somewhat more problematic light. But it is actually a good example how to write a description.
Agreed! This is why sensitivity readers are a valuable thing to have.
I don't think your distinction is coherent here. It is not essentialising to describe them having a quality due their biology,
Right, because that quality doesn’t define their essence. To use an analogy, it isn’t misogynistic to observe that male humans are larger abs stronger on average than female humans. But it is misogynistic to say that men are better athletes than women.
but it essentialising to point out that this might make them good at things that quality is useful for?
It’s essentializing to attribute their essential nature to that biological trait. Might being naturally stronger be an advantage if you decide to become a weight lifter? Absolutely. That doesn’t mean men are essentially better weightlifters than women. There is a great deal beyond raw physical strength and size that goes into weight lifting - technique, mindset, drive, etc. to say nothing of the fact that some women are in fact stronger than some men. The same can, and should, be true of different fantasy races. Now, is it biologically essentialist to say Goliaths are stronger than gnomes on average? No. But it would be to say that Goliaths are better barbariana than gnomes. And even if the game never outright says that, the mechanics are such that they imply it. If you want to build a gnome barbarian, you’re going to find that your character is just worse at doing most of the things a barbarian does.
(And under the current rules and without ASIs goliaths definitely make better weightlifters than most other races.)
A Goliath
can lift more than
a member of another race
with the same strength score. That doesn’t equate to “Goliaths are good weightlifters.”
I think that is way less concerned about this stuff than either of us...
Given that WotC felt the need to publicly announce that they had done a poor job representing race in 5e and would be taking steps to change it? I disagree, I think the general D&D playing public is clearly concerned about this matter.
Right. So funny looking humans with superpowers. Have fun!
If you insist on calling it that. I will!
You're really not telling stories about dwarves if there isn't anything that even coherently defines a dwarf. "Dwarves are just like humans except maybe a bit shorter."
There are more differences than that between humans and dwarves. See my previous post.
You can tell varied stories about humans, and if your non-humans are not different from humans, you don't need them to tell those stories.
Of course you don’t
need them to tell those stories. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of people
want to use them to tell those stories, and that’s enough for them to be worth including.
