Defining "inclusiveness" in the context of homosexuality & bisexuality

[Morlock]

Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population

The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.

I figured since a lot of people here seem to value inclusiveness of homosexuality/bisexuality in their products very highly, we should define the term:

It means 16/1000 homosexual and 7/1000 bisexual, or thereabouts. In many cases, this would mean a very low chance of any instances at all. E.g., We'd need to see well over 50 example texts involving a character's sexuality to make a homosexual example text make sense. Same goes for imagery. The numbers are well over 100 for bisexual texts or imagery. Or, if you want to roll them together, the math changes a bit. But in my experience, practically no products qualify. Unless my math is off, of course.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Or unless what people report to surveys isn't actually true. The closet is a thing. And the WaPo isn't loading, and isn't known for its reliablity.

As for making sense, this logic claims that there should never be a wizard or elf PC.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm not sure your point, so I'll say this.

Being Gay is OK.
Being Gay and knowingly attempting to make others feel uncomfortable is not OK.

Being Straight is OK.
Being Straight and discriminating against others who aren't is not OK.

Being a reindeer is OK.
Being a reindeer and excluding others based on the color of their nose is not OK.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Being a reindeer is OK.
Being a reindeer and excluding others based on the color of their nose is not OK.

But what if his nose glows? I mean come on.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Alzrius]

Here's a quote from Wikipedia's entry on LGBT demographics in the United States (note that the sources are cited):

According to the Williams Institute review conducted in April 2011, approximately 3.80 % of American adults identify themselves being in the LGBT community; wherein, (1.70%) identify as lesbian or gay, (1.80%) bisexual, and (0.30%) transgender, which corresponds to approximately 9 million adult[1] Americans as of the 2010 Census.[2] However, a measurable higher percentage acknowledge having same-sex attraction, or experience, without identifying as LGBT. This makes it difficult to accurately record the demographics of LGBT community in the United Sates. Studies from various nations, however, including the U.S., covering varying time periods and age groupings, have produced a consistent statistical range of 1.20–5.60% of the adult population.[3]

None of which means very much, in all honesty; it's not like any group isn't deserving of representation until they hit some magical number representing their percentage of the population.

 

[bogmad]

Really not sure of what this thread is advocating.

Are you saying that the hobby needs to figure out an algorithm that dictates just how many instances a text should reference "homosexuality" based on a survey of how many people self-identify as gay or bi?

Aside from that just being an incredibly problematic idea to hash out, it's a fantasy game, not a science textbook or peer reviewed study. There's not a magic number of references that reaches an "inclusive" threshold.

It's as easy as putting in a single reference about how there are all different types of people with different types of relationships and identities, and not then respecting, not demeaning or pathologizing those relationships, in the rest of the game.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Really not sure of what this thread is advocating.

Are you saying that the hobby needs to figure out an algorithm that dictates just how many instances a text should reference "homosexuality" based on a survey of how many people self-identify as gay or bi?

Random tables! All threads should advocate random tables.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Morlock]

Or unless what people report to surveys isn't actually true. The closet is a thing. And the WaPo isn't loading, and isn't known for its reliablity.

As for making sense, this logic claims that there should never be a wizard or elf PC.

Hmm, I wonder if guys in fashion pretend to be gay. Would that make them "in the living room," or something.

Sure, surveys are imperfect, but they're a good place to start. Closeted people don't want their closeted-ness included, I'd suppose.

What would you proffer as a reliable source?

 

[Nikosandros]

Could you state more clearly the point that you are trying to make? Are you saying that there is too much inclusiveness in RPG products?

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, ENWorld is a TTRPG site, and this is a specifically D&D subforum, and real world questions of the representation of sexuality is kind of not our bag what with the no politics & religion thing. The thread isn't bad, but if we can't explicitly relate this to something D&D-specific in the next few posts, I'ma hafta klunk it just for OT reasons.

Morlock, you're pretty new, so this might not've been evident. So just a heads up right now -- stay on topic, like Biggs told ya to.