Gen Con Takes Stand For Inclusiveness

This rather breaks all my rules, in that I'm reporting on politics, and regional politics at that. That said, Gen Con, the hobby's largest American convention, intersects with this particular example, so it's hard to ignore; and this is an RPG news blog, after all. Plus, I agree with the sentiment, even if I'm doubtful about its actual effectiveness given the current contract. Gen Con has written to the local politician in its home city of Indianapolis, USA, threatening (kind of - they're contracted to stay there for five more years whether they like it or not) to consider moving elsewhere if a local law relating to businesses being able to refuse custom to same-sex couples is passed.

With multiple recent articles in just the last week (Monte Cook Games & Thunderplains, Green Ronin's Blue Rose), the subject of inclusiveness is not one that anybody can afford to ignore. However, the vitriolic comments these topics give rise to make discussion on them difficult at best.

Here's the letter they wrote.

​

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The relevant aspect of religion in this thread, I think, is that not everyone believes the same thing and no one religion should have the ability to influence laws that affect all religions and those without religion. Gen Con and the gamers who attend should not be forced to deal with a law that forces one religion's belief system on everyone.

The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong. It is the best if you can find a way to make both happy... but the problem is (and it really shows in this thread) is that the world defaults to X beliefs (weather it is right or not) and some people want to change it to Y beliefs. the problem is that there are people uncomfortable with X and there are people uncomfortable with Y. It's why things are more complicated then people want to admit....

 

[Morrus]

The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong.

As a concept, that's very flawed. Obviously some things are wrong, and often criminal. Society is happy to declare certain things wrong, and religion isn't a defense in those cases. Subjectivity has its limits.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong. It is the best if you can find a way to make both happy... but the problem is (and it really shows in this thread) is that the world defaults to X beliefs (weather it is right or not) and some people want to change it to Y beliefs. the problem is that there are people uncomfortable with X and there are people uncomfortable with Y. It's why things are more complicated then people want to admit....

Simply put, my right to exist and have the same rights as a cisgender person trumps religious beliefs. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is fundamental. My pursuit of happiness involves being able to go to Gen Con (when I can afford it) without having to worry about being discriminated against anywhere in the city the convention is being held (or anywhere at all for that matter).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As a concept, that's very flawed. Obviously some things are wrong, and often criminal. Society is happy to declare certain things wrong, and religion isn't a defense in those cases. Subjectivity has its limits.

that would be fair enough if we were talking about my religious right to sacrifice children... but we are not. That example doesn't just cross the line, it hops a jumbo jet and flies past it... but that doesn't mean that we can both point out exactly where the line is...

the big issue is that the world is changing... and nobody is sure when those lines are going to move one way or another...

the general rule of don't be a jerk doesn't even help. A perfectly sweet an innocent person could call someone by the wrong adjative insult them.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

that would be fair enough if we were talking about my religious right to sacrifice children... but we are not. That example doesn't just cross the line, it hops a jumbo jet and flies past it... but that doesn't mean that we can both point out exactly where the line is...

the big issue is that the world is changing... and nobody is sure when those lines are going to move one way or another...

the general rule of don't be a jerk doesn't even help. A perfectly sweet an innocent person could call someone by the wrong adjative insult them.

Don't be a jerk does apply in that case. The innocent person can learn why the other person was offended, educate themselves, and not make that mistake again. We all make mistakes - not being a jerk means owning up to them and learning from them.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Simply put, my right to exist and have the same rights as a cisgender person trumps religious beliefs. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is fundamental. My pursuit of happiness involves being able to go to Gen Con (when I can afford it) without having to worry about being discriminated against anywhere in the city the convention is being held (or anywhere at all for that matter).

ok first I'm going to ask... what is a cisgender person? In context I am going to guess like me someone who was born with body and mind both agreeing on gender... but cis doesn't make anysense to me...

And I don't know anyone here arguing you should not be able to live your life... so pretending that is the argument is wrong. I also don't see anyone arguing you should not be able to go to Gen Con (if you can afford it). So maybe I missed the person who argued that... but it 100% defiantly was not me... all I'm saying is that you need to consider that making things perfect would be great, but we don't live in a perfect world. it's way more complicated. You need to be able to live your life but so does everyone else...

 

[Henry]

First of all, Kudoes to Russ keeping this thread open, and all the relatively calm discourse going on here.

Second, I am all for business owners having as much freedom as possible in choosing how they do business. However, this issue draws directly in front of my "right and wrong" meter, and having a restaurant telling two guys to leave because they're holding hands, or a person to leave because they've somehow been noted as transgender, just stops me cold.

Third, I am not about to keep quiet if I'm ever at Gencon, and half my party I'm with is turned away from the bar/restaurant/store because they're "not the right kind of clientele". How would any of us feel in that situation?

Fourth, I think the problem is self-correcting, at least as far a GenCon is concerned. All it takes is a business word-of-mouth boycott from the attendees there, and I guarantee somebody's one-off policy will change quickly, for the same market forces mentioned. Most of the businesses in the vicinity of the Convention aren't stupid enough to go along with that kind of thinking. Sure, it's not right on principle, but I really don't think it will make a difference in a practical sense.

 

[Morrus]

Here's an interesting analogy. How would people feel if *GenCon* declared that no black people were allowed at the convention? Would they defend Gen Con's right to do business with who they chose, despite that being illegal?

 

[billd91]

ok first I'm going to ask... what is a cisgender person? In context I am going to guess like me someone who was born with body and mind both agreeing on gender... but cis doesn't make anysense to me...

It's them latin roots, man. In some ways, cis ("this side of") is the opposite of trans ("the other side of"). And so I think it was applied, not directly as a true opposite of transgender, but as an analogous word construction.

And it does basically mean that mental gender identity matches the physical/birth sex identity.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that person A believes one thing, and person B believes another... no one should be able to tell either one they are wrong.

As Morrus said, as a concept, that is very flawed. Person A believes that red is a sinful color, and won't wear it, that's fine. Person B believes Person A is a heretic, and must be stoned to death...

That is an extreme example, but it demonstrates that in a non-monolithic society, we do have to draw lines - there will be times when a believer may not be allowed to fully express or practice their beliefs.

Now we get to argue over where those lines get drawn.