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.

​

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

This is not an apt analogy.

First, because this law does not FORCE Gen-Con to exclude homosexuals. It gives them the option, sure. But, we don't know for sure that any restaurant or hotel near Gen Con would infact choose to discriminate.

Second, homosexuality is BEHAVIOR, skin color is not. A business has no way of knowing if a person is homosexual unless that person does something to reveal it. For example, two men are kissing in a restaurant, and the restaurant manager asks them to leave.

A better analogy is smoking. Restaurants can say smoking is not allowed, but does that mean that are discriminating against smokers?

One important thing missing from your assumption...me. Transgender folks are often the forgotten "T" of LGBT. Some of us "pass" as a cisgender person and can get by without being discriminated against because people assume we're "normal." A lot of us, however, don't "pass." There are visual and auditory indicators that we are not cisgender. And we are thus targets for discrimination regardless of behavior.

And it is very much discrimination against LGB folks if a same sex couple if asked to leave for kissing if a heterosexual couple is not asked to leave for the same behavior. Its a vicious and hurtful double standard.

 

[Morrus]

Second, homosexuality is BEHAVIOR, skin color is not.

No it is not, and that is an astonishingly offensive remark. Whoever told you that sexual preference was a choice was lying to you.

I'll prove it to you: be gay for a month. You can do that, right? It's just a choice of behaviour.

 

[billd91]

Second, homosexuality is BEHAVIOR, skin color is not. A business has no way of knowing if a person is homosexual unless that person does something to reveal it. For example, two men are kissing in a restaurant, and the restaurant manager asks them to leave.

There are lots of clues people give off that may reveal homosexuality and it's not fair to force homosexuals to constantly hide them just to have the same privileges as heterosexuals, though you do touch on an interesting point. Homosexuals, if they want, can blend in to a degree people of another race usually cannot. Dan Savage of the Savage Love advice column thinks this is one major reason homosexual rights are currently advancing as quickly as they are despite massive setbacks in the early 2000s - literally anyone might be one. They start out distributed through the population without a lot of known patterns. Any family can produce one. Pretty soon, a homophobe's discrimination is hitting his own family or other close relationship and that's more likely to break the barriers down.

That said, expressing homosexuality may be behavioral, but being homosexual is not and goes deeper than voluntary behavior.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Just curious, how did you, personally, conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one, and your physical anatomy and all accompanying social expectations were the wrong ones?

First, I'm going to ask you the same thing. How did you conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one? Does that question make you uncomfortable? If so, consider that you are not used to being asked that question. Transgender people, on the other hand, are asked to validate their gender and sense of self all the time. We are asked to justify and explain ourselves in every conversation like this. Our validity and worth as human beings is brought into question...every time.

Second, to answer your question...my personal journey is none of your business, and not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Umbran]

Just curious, how did you, personally, conclude that your "sense of self" was the correct one, and your physical anatomy and all accompanying social expectations were the wrong ones?

No disrespect intended, but that's probably not an appropriate discussion for this open thread. Please have it in private.

 

[Umbran]

it would seem odd, and not something I was comfortable with... but to turn that around what do you think of a women's only gym or school?

In a perfect world, in which men no longer posed significant implied threat to women, and where the genders were culturally viewed as equal, we might not have need for such.

We are not yet in that world, so some things are still called for.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yep. And it *should* get redrawn all the time. This is not something you can decide once, and walk away and figure you never have to look at it again. You want the benefits of living in a big, culturally diverse nation, the cost of that is active maintenance.

you are 100% correct. If we as a people want to function we must always strive for that perfect we will never have... and that means re drawing that line all the time...

I think single sex schools are problematic (and fortunately on the decline); women-only facilities do have valid safety concerns. Absent that, they'd be questionable, but the world we live in means that those safety concerned are, sadly, valid.

yup and yup... I would never attend a "No black people Gen Con" I would think nothing of going to a mens only sporting event. I would not be happy with being told I could not shop in my FLGS just because I was a DC guy instead of a Marvel one... but I'm fine with bars and restaurants saying "No smokeing"

If a woman (who identified as a man) walked into the mens room and got in line behind me for a stall, I would make a joke about making her feel at home since the womens room normally has a line and think I was being funny but wouldn't care

If a man got in line behind my sister at the womans room it would freak her out... if she had my neice with her she would run away... fast.

21 year old me thought it was cool to walk around with two bikini clad girls, and was blown away that one took her top off... 35 year old me would be a little off put if a topless woman sat down across from my family at chillis...(immature male giggling that 21 and 35 year old me share aside)

I also understand why if me and the guys are out walking to our cars and look like trouble makers (biker jackets, tattoos, chains, leather, ripped jeans, a shaved bald man, all of us large) why a person might cross the street, or even turn around... we are all big teddy bears and the nicest guys, but if you don't know us I understand you may not get that vibe at first.

 

[Fallen star]

By contrast, when the doctor said, "Its a boy" when they observed that I had a penis, they were wrong. My sense of self doesn't match the gender labels forced on me by the doctor who delivered me, my parents, and society as a whole.

...my personal journey is none of your business, and not relevant to this discussion.

If your personal journey is not relevant, and none of my business, then why did you post that you were born male?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That was the starting line and endpoint- relevant to ID someone as having a personal stake in the discussion- not the journey.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

If your personal journey is not relevant, and none of my business, then why did you post that you were born male?

I used myself in a generic example to provide a sense of context and credibility. I find it disingenuous and self-serving for one to argue on behalf of a group one does not belong to.

Edit: That came off as a little...confrontational which was not my intent. I should say that I find it disingenuous and self-serving to argue on behalf of a group one does not belong to without the consent or acknowledgement of a member of that group, which can be offered passively simply by participating in the same discussion.