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

[Wik]

This makes no sense.

The only language in which I am fluent is English. It is not a choice - I was born into an English-speaking family in a predominantly English-speaking community. I could not unlearn English even if I wanted to.

But the notion that my fluency in English is genetically determined is obviously absurd.

The notion that not genetically determined entails chosen or subject to control is just wrong.

Ha, what?

By the way, you ARE genetically pre-disposed to language. Maybe not a specific language, but to learn a language? Absolutely.

 

[CaptainGemini]

This makes no sense.

The only language in which I am fluent is English. It is not a choice - I was born into an English-speaking family in a predominantly English-speaking community. I could not unlearn English even if I wanted to.

But the notion that my fluency in English is genetically determined is obviously absurd.

The notion that not genetically determined entails chosen or subject to control is just wrong.

Actually, being fluent only in English often is a choice. Most English-speaking nations also have classes in other languages, and education opportunities that allow a person to achieve fluency in those languages. Some even mandate some base education in another language.

Plus, that can be changed. Pass legislation that the national language is now German, and require everyone be educated in speaking German. Wait enough time and most people will speak German only.

So, your own example actually undermines your last sentence, since that can be changed. And a lot of people use the very same logic you used to justify trying to force heterosexuality by law and argue that it is a choice.

Of course, it doesn't help that science disagrees with you as well. Current scientific evidence, last I checked, is that both gender and sexual preference are determined in the womb as part of that set of genetic traits which are not inherited but develop before birth.

 

[Wik]

Uh, well, actually, the standard human being comes with twenty-six chromosomes, two arms, two legs, relatively poor night vision and spatial reasoning, an immune system similar to the pig's, and a nervous system which is a fairly powerful learning machine, to the point where the standard human being has no difficulty learning (over the space of many years) to translate atmospheric vibrations (or alphabetic writing) to/from abstract thoughts.

It doesn't make much sense to claim, as you seem to, that variation is so great that no meaningful standard exists. And singling out "sexuality" as something special here wouldn't make sense.

Okay. You want to play the genetic game? Because that "meaningful standard" really only applies when we look at differences between our species and others... and even then, it's a bit iffy. Consider the debate on whether neanderthals are just a subspecies of homo sapiens. Because hey, they hit all of your definition, but a large portion of people think they're an entirely different species.

Not to mention that when you look at the big picture, we all differ from that genetic ideal. Some of us have learning deficiencies. Others (such as myself) have genetically-caused diseases (I'm a type 1 diabetic). We all have genetic factors that mark us as unique. Others have differences in sexuality that may or may not be caused by genetics (it's an open debate that isn't really in the nature of a forum to be debated by non-experts).

Your "standard" only really applies in the absolutely broadest sense. There is no standard genetic sequence. Variation among humanity is huge, to the point that a "standard" only works when you zoom out to the macro scale. Which is why I say "If you're going to say 'standard', you have to be specific as to what it's standard in regards to". Otherwise, the heterosexual with redhair isn't standard, nor is the homosexual with brown hair and brown eyes, or the healthy male with a predisposition to cancer, or...

 

[pemerton]

By the way, you ARE genetically pre-disposed to language. Maybe not a specific language

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

you don't have to unlearn English in order to develop fluency in other languages.

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.

Actually, being fluent only in English often is a choice.

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.

Current scientific evidence, last I checked, is that both gender and sexual preference are determined in the womb as part of that set of genetic traits which are not inherited but develop before birth.

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.

 

[CaptainGemini]

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.

The number of Americans I've met who speak only English and still manage to not be fluent in it suggests that you are wrong on this.

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.

Unfortunately, morality often doesn't work that way. Often, if it's not a physical cause beyond your control, it's your choice. And that can include some mental disorders.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Okay. You want to play the genetic game? Because that "meaningful standard" really only applies when we look at differences between our species and others... and even then, it's a bit iffy. Consider the debate on whether neanderthals are just a subspecies of homo sapiens. Because hey, they hit all of your definition, but a large portion of people think they're an entirely different species.

Not to mention that when you look at the big picture, we all differ from that genetic ideal. Some of us have learning deficiencies. Others (such as myself) have genetically-caused diseases (I'm a type 1 diabetic). We all have genetic factors that mark us as unique. Others have differences in sexuality that may or may not be caused by genetics (it's an open debate that isn't really in the nature of a forum to be debated by non-experts).

Your "standard" only really applies in the absolutely broadest sense. There is no standard genetic sequence. Variation among humanity is huge, to the point that a "standard" only works when you zoom out to the macro scale. Which is why I say "If you're going to say 'standard', you have to be specific as to what it's standard in regards to". Otherwise, the heterosexual with redhair isn't standard, nor is the homosexual with brown hair and brown eyes, or the healthy male with a predisposition to cancer, or...

There is a standard set of human traits. Not all human traits are standardized (there are an infinite number of traits; see the Ugly Duckling Theorem), but many of the traits that are standard are part of the definition of what species is. (Others, such as "cannot be dropped from orbit without dying", are so common IRL that they are simply taken for granted, even if D&D characters don't have those traits.)

I'll leave the Neanderthal thing on the table since I don't actually know very much about the genetics involved (I read Westhunter on the Neanderthal/Denisovan thing so I know some of our genes originated with archaic human groups like the Neanderthals, but details completely escape me).

I actually kind of agree with you that it helps to be specific about what aspect of "standard" one is discussing when it comes to human traits, but the context usually makes that pretty clear. It's not really helpful or true to pretend that there aren't standard human traits. You yourself just now pointed out to pemerton that he undoubtedly has a predisposition to learn language. How did you know that? Because it's normal, part of the standard human package. Would that make someone with a neural disability, maybe due to cancer, who could no longer learn new languages and words even if he could process already-learned ones--would that make that person bad? No. "Standard" in the context it was raised in this thread is descriptive, not normative.

I think some people are too defensive and reading things that aren't there into what's been written. If I want to say, "What you're doing is wrong," I don't need to hide behind words like "majority" and "tradition" and "standard" to say it. At the risk of dragging in something even more divisive than gayness--I am capable of saying "Warlords are badwrongfun and no one should homebrew one." But if I have not said that, and I simply say, "Warlords are nonstandard," you can't actually reasonably infer anything about my preferences, because all I've done is make a descriptive statement of reality as it exists. You can dispute my statement ("4E still exists!") and I can clarify ("I meant in 5E"), but you can't infer that I think "Warlords are abominations against nature which destroy the whole gaming ecosystem". They are, however, nonstandard.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Okay, so maybe I misunderstood your use of the word "only" when you said you were fluent "only in English." I thought it was an important part of your point, but it turns out it was just a throwaway qualifier, and your main point would still stand even if you knew Spanish. Sorry for misunderstanding.

 

[Sunseeker]

Of course, it doesn't help that science disagrees with you as well. Current scientific evidence, last I checked, is that both gender and sexual preference are determined in the womb as part of that set of genetic traits which are not inherited but develop before birth.

But it's fair to note that science isn't wholly clear on what combination of genes and hormones causes orientation and that it is not necessarily a black and white switch. Science has only concluded that your genetics and hormones during development in the womb play a formative role in establishing a baseline for selective attraction to one or more things.

 

[CaptainGemini]

(Others, such as "cannot be dropped from orbit without dying", are so common IRL that they are simply taken for granted, even if D&D characters don't have those traits.)

NASA has performed experiments which suggests that humans actually can survive reentry with the proper equipment. So, this one isn't necessarily true

 

[Sunseeker]

NASA has performed experiments which suggests that humans actually can survive reentry with the proper equipment. So, this one isn't necessarily true

Is "a space shuttle" one of those pieces of proper equipment?