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

[Sunseeker]

I guess, if the guys shirt actually said something to make people feel unsafe.

Edit: Because the Holocaust is not the same as supporting Marriage between a Man and Woman.

Godwins Law, discussion serves no purpose from this point out.

You don't get to determine what makes other people feel unsafe. The person who feels unsafe does. That person then has every right to complain to the appropriate authorities and then the appropriate authorities will make a official determination based on the context and the law to determine if any violation has occurred. But YOU don't get to determine that you did or didn't make someone feel unsafe.

While I agree that the Judge could have easily asked the person to change before the game started, what happened happened.

Given that MTG is no sex, gender, color or anything else exclusive and that WOTC invites people from many places to all compete in a cooperative environment, the shirt IMO was inappropriate for the setting. Given that tournaments are often recorded allowing someone to remain with that shirt, or any other shirt making any statements at all could be used against WOTC. WOTC has a vested interest and a legal right to control the message contained in any event they hold.

The Judge's behavior may not have been perfect, but it was not in error.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well, "stereotypes" sort of, but they're statistically solid, usually. Do some research on how people view conversational participation, for a nice clear example. If you have a conversation with a mixed group of roughly equal numbers of men and women, the men will consistently report that women are "dominating" the conversation if the women are talking more than about 30% of the time, as I recall. There's some really fascinating studies on this.

I'm a political scientist. Studying people and how they think is what I do. Statistically blacks commit more blue-collar crime at a higher rate than whites, who commit white-collar crime at a higher rate. That doesn't statistically mean that blacks are blue-collar criminals. Statistics, usually bad ones (my all time favorite quote: "Statistics are only true if you know who made them up.") are often the foundation for racism, bigotry and offensive stereotypes. Jews are statistically very frugal. That doesn't mean that they're biologically inclined to be cheap.

So my point, which has been substantiated thanks to the various posts after it, was that presentations and assumptions about men are based on stereotypes. Stereotypes which are more acceptable within society than stereotypes about women. Even if they are "positive" stereotypes, much like the "smart Asian" stereotype, they're still stereotypes. Women don't write better men because they're more attuned to what it takes to be a man. Women write better men because men are more accepting of the stereotypes about their sex. Women are less accepting. If women were stereotyped into being strong, wealthy, go-getters with a drive for success, I suspect they'd be more accepting of it too.

"Positive" stereotypes are stll stereotypes. Just because people are more okay with them (largely because it's difficult to understand why a positive stereotype is bad) doesn't make them more accurate representations.

For a D&D centric perspective, it would centre around the idea of male dominated artwork, for one. The reaction to the use of female gender pronouns when 3e came out would be a perfect example of this. Do you honestly believe that women would complain about having female gender pronouns in the PHB? It's the existence of boob plate and the hyper sexualization of male figures. It's the complete and utter lack of any female centric material in D&D material for years. Heck, @Morrus just posted Google Analytics about EN World where over 90% of EN World participants are male. Do you honestly believe that an image like this:

is directed at female readership?

Of course not. Because women by-and-large weren't gamers. Corporations will always sell what the majority of their market demands and then whatever else they can get away with without being burned at the stake. WOTC isn't being inclusive to make people happy. That's a side effect. They're being inclusive in order to better market their product. Assuming any greater noble intent than that is really just asking to be taken advantage of.

 

[Mistwell]

Disagreed. It might have been more appropriate to ask the guy to change before booting him

It's as inappropriate to do it the way it was done, by waiting until the tournament starts, not privately talking to the guy, not attempting to make arrangements with him, publicly shaming him, etc.. as the shirt itself. What the judge did is indefensible. That's not how adults should behave. He's in a position of authority and abused his power to make himself feel better by aggrandizing and engaging in a public shaming punishment instead of dealing with it appropriately.

...but a shirt like that is absolutely going to make a lot of people feel unwelcome and, given historical context, even unsafe.

So take him aside quietly before the tournament begins and talk to him about it, explain why the shirt is likely to harm others, explain how it's fine if he will just change his shirt, and work with him to find a shirt he can wear instead. That judge doesn't know what led that guy to have those beliefs, what went into his experiences, and what impact a public shaming like that will have on him. And he should at least give the guy an opportunity to quietly defend himself and explain his reasoning as well. It's not the judge's job to publicly make an example of that guy over that kind of issue. It's not how it should have been done.

It also harms gay marriage advocacy by doing it that way. It entrenches the extremes on the issue, and makes those on the fence want nothing to do with either side, and the news becomes the spectacle and the partisanship rather than the issue itself. That's the biggest flaw with political correctness like that - it fails. It doesn't accomplish the ultimate goals it purports to be about. That's why it fizzled out the last time PC was in vogue. You cannot change minds with a blunt instrument like that - Americans just get pissed off when you tell them they CAN'T have a belief. You have to actually inform and persuade people to change their minds if you want them to change their minds. Public shaming like that can only breed resentment, and further private indoctrination of their children and friends and family. So it's a foolish tactic, in addition to being inappropriate in these circumstances.

 

[Shasarak]

Godwins Law, discussion serves no purpose from this point out.

Exactly, so why bother to bring up Swastikas.

The Judge's behavior may not have been perfect, but it was not in error.

Of course it was in error. WotC have to rely on professional people to run their games and it is sad to see someone abusing their position to make some kind of statement. It is just poor judgement and a prime example of exactly the wrong thing to do.

Otherwise Magic tournaments should just enforce a strict blank shirt rule to be fair for everyone.

 

[Celebrim]

Disagreed. It might have been more appropriate to ask the guy to change before booting him, but a shirt like that is absolutely going to make a lot of people feel unwelcome and, given historical context, even unsafe.

So I've played a character that was implicitly bi-sexual, although it made no real difference in play, and I've had two gay men in my party play characters that were rather strongly implied to be homosexual or bisexual, although it again made no real difference in play. So obviously, I've already made my statement on the appropriateness of such characters.

But are you sure you want to make that the standard? Because I don't think you are going to much like where it goes.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But are you sure you want to make that the standard? Because I don't think you are going to much like where it goes.

Forbidding slogans that make already victimized/marginalized groups feel threatened or unwelcome? Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable making that "the standard" for what a private company permits at its events.

 

[Celebrim]

Forbidding slogans that make already victimized/marginalized groups feel threatened or unwelcome? Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable making that "the standard" for what a private company permits at its events.

Ok, so what's the bar here?

Suppose someone comes in wearing a t-shirt that says "Romans 1:28-32". And the judge, being a bit savvy knows what that means. I would presume that this far more threatening statement than the first one would also potentially make someone feel threatened? So that goes too right?

 

[aramis erak]

I don't know enough about your play and behavior to evaluate that claim, but it seems to me that this contradicts your previous claims. You had stated that this text didn't need to be present because it didn't change anything or have any effect. But if it doesn't have any effect, then you wouldn't be part of the set of people that would be excluded. It's only if it would have any effect that you'd be excluded.



I've never seen the "other way around", either. I've only seen people suggesting that the baseline community norm should be to provide a safe and welcoming envrionment for LGBT players. That's not at all the same claim as "support gay rights". And yes, that absolutely should be the community norm, for the same reason that we've gradually migrated towards "provide a safe and welcoming environment for female players"; because it enriches the hobby and results in us having more people.



Ahh, but you haven't been told you can't be here anymore. You've been told that certain specific behaviors will not be tolerated. You are welcome to continue playing if you don't do those things. If you want to do those things more than you want to participate in the community, then you aren't a member of the community.

Communities involve reciprocal agreements about standards of treatment. If you are unwilling to treat people according to those standards, you aren't a member of the community, even if you participate in the activity.

The working standard for public games really should be, across the board, "Make no issue about it" in either direction.

I think the tourney judge in question went way too far, and his delay constitutes plenty of evidence of malice and intent to embarrass. Which is a violation of Wizards' guidelines.

At most, he should have been asked to change the shirt or turn it inside out (and I object to even that)... but the Tournament Judge both (1) waited until it was too late to correct before play (forcing a forfeiture) and (2) aimed for a public shaming response. It's highly likely that it was also a directly religious shirt (every such shirt I've seen has scriptural citations or religious emblems).

 

[Sunseeker]

Exactly, so why bother to bring up Swastikas.

I dunno, you tell me since YOU brought it up. Noone named Nazis, Hitler, WWII or the Holocaust in their statements. The line you quoted said "the past". There is far, far more abuse of homosexuals in recent western history than the Holocaust. Does "the past" include the Holocaust? Yes it does. It also includes Witch Burnings and the Spanish Inquisition (both of which often targeted "immoral" sexual acts). As we as things just as Harvey Milk and that Matthew kid out here in Wyoming.

Of course it was in error. WotC have to rely on professional people to run their games and it is sad to see someone abusing their position to make some kind of statement. It is just poor judgement and a prime example of exactly the wrong thing to do.

Otherwise Magic tournaments should just enforce a strict blank shirt rule to be fair for everyone.

WOTC likely should have a dress code for participants. But its facetious to say everyone needs to wear a white shirt. WOTC has a legal right to control the message their tournaments send. They are just as much within their rights to boot people for wearing red as they are to boot people for wearing heavy metal T-shirts. It's a private tournament on private property. There's no freedom of speech there. The exact same rules apply there as they do here. We're allowed to do exactly as much as the property owner allows us to.

In any case, this whole "issue" is also a red herring.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ok, so what's the bar here?

If there was a simple, easily defined bar, you'd already see it in the legalese on many conventions and other such events. There isn't. A lot of it is always going to be up to individual judgment, and not everyone's going to agree.

The fact that acceptance and safety cannot always be encouraged perfectly or consistently doesn't mean we shouldn't make the attempt.

Suppose someone comes in wearing a t-shirt that says "Romans 1:28-32". And the judge, being a bit savvy knows what that means. I would presume that this far more threatening statement than the first one would also potentially make someone feel threatened? So that goes too right?

I had to look it up, myself. But I would be fine with that individual being told s/he needed to change or leave. OTOH, many other Bible verses would be just fine.