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.

​

 

[Fergurg]

While lots of businesses in the US might claim to be Christian or religious, that doesn't stop them from being open on Sundays. Much of Europe shuts down on Sundays, including secular cities such as Paris. So it seems disingenuous to ask to refuse patrons for religious reasons when the owner is violating one of the Ten Commandments.

Actually, the role of the Sabbath is a great debate among Christians now. But Hobby Lobby is one of the largest Christian-owned businesses that is closed on Sunday.

Another thought, is that the Bible is not very forgiving of games of chance and the supernatural. Under the bill, those owners would have every right to turn away GenCon attendees.

Actually, the Bible defines gambling as more than games of chance. Please make an attempt to understand our views before reciting how we are "violating" them.

But they won't, because they're happy to take our money, instead picking and choosing when to enforce their beliefs.

If that's true, then what are you worried about?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are two major issues with the above...

First what does a person's weight have anything to do with this?

level of threat... my sister is small. If she walks in to a strange or threatening situation with a 100lbs person she will feel less threatened then a 300lbs one... I am well over 300, almost 400lbs, and I know I am a big teddy bear, but if you don't know me you might think me threatening looking.

A 300 lb person isn't any or more less dangerous than a 100 lb person depending on the circumstances.

correct, but when someone out weights you 3-1 it is far scarier...

A 300 lb. person isn't any more likely than the 100 lb. person to be the transgender boogeyman that certain, shall we say, extremists, want you to be afraid of.

I'm not afried of boogeymen... I'm afried of monsters that are far too real.

Second, I'm not a guy. The 300 lb. person in your example isn't a guy if she's in the women's restroom. Transgender people are not "choosing to identify" as a gender...they are that gender.

now this is going to get not pretty, but everyone is born with physical markers of gender. Each gender looks a way. If anyone finds that the mental and physical gender do not match up I am sure that is 100 types of hell, and I don't want to make life any harder on them then good old mother nature already has... but you don't walk around with people seeing only your 'true mental self' they see what you were born with.

3 seconds, you have only the books cover to go by... it sucks, it's not how we want the world to work, but it is...

3 people born men... all three 300+lbs all bald with tattoos... and all in pretty neutral clothing. 1) is a happy go lucky straight guy who really had to go and the mens room was out of order, so he thought he would just duck in and out quick... 2) is a very nice and friendly trans who was born male but sees himself as a woman, but can't afford surgery... 3) is a scary monster, he is going to take advantage and possible injure, or kill the next little girl that stumbles into the bathroom...

the problem is that no one can tell the difference, all three are "Man in the womans room"

I assume that you understand that.

And there is an easy solution - remove unnecessary gendering of restrooms.

exept if it is ok for people to share a non gendered one, that what is the harm in going to one that is for your physical gender... obviously there are people on both sides of this... and a compramize may be impossible, but it is a real complicated issue that people like to pretend is just people being jerks... (Mixed with people on both sides really being jerks)

Its a bathroom - everyone needs to poop and pee, it all stinks, and everyone needs a place to do it. That's it, that's as complicated as it needs to be.

if that where true then the issue would be solved with 'just use the one that matches physicly...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My mom is in the same position on that.

And honestly, while I know that the current standard of health care in this country insists that someone seeking gender reassignment surgery needs to live as that gender as fully as possible for a year (or more) beforehand, it is difficult not to sympathize with the reactions of someone who only sees the physical person standing in the dressing room or restroom, not that person's doctors' orders.

yes, it is like my most recent EX used to joke about me and my best friend always making her look weird... Tuesday night I come home from work, walk the dog and go to pick her up, I'm in a suit and tie... my friend kurt meets us he is either in the same type of shirt and tie or sometimes a polo if he is on the doc that day... she comeing from work is covered in swet, is in work boots, a tee shirt, and jeans... she has no time for hair or make up... then on saterday Me and kurt most likely haven't showered or shaved, threw on a ratty tee and jeans, and she is in a dress and hair make up and nails... because if it's just game night we don't care what we wear...

That doesn't excuse violence or abuse of those people in those situations, though.

neaither do I

In all honesty, I can't say I'm 100% cool with it either. But in my case, it is very different. I'm a 250+lb guy- I'm not threatened by someone of the opposite gender in the rest room or dressing room, just a little weirded out by it. (That's my issue.) There is no historical context of an implicit threat of the presence of a woman in a men's restroom or dressing room.

yea, like I said "I AM the scary one..." so no I woundt either

But that is completely not the case for women. Unfortunately, unless the guy in the women's restroom or dressing room is from maintenance or janitorial, historical odds are very good that he's not there for innocent reasons.

ding... that's the issue

 

[Darkstar360]

It's not hyperbole. Forcing someone to provide labor or service against their will under threat of a gun (which all laws are) is slavery.

I'm sorry, I just can't let that one pass.

Dictionary definition of Slavery:

noun
1.the condition of a slave; bondage.

2.the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.

3.a state of subjection like that of a slave : He was kept in slavery by drugs.


And Slave:

noun
1.a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bondservant.

2.a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person:a slave to a drug.


It is wholly incorrect (and a little offensive) to liken making someone legally obliged not to discriminate to being a slave.

Business owners will not be slaves to the LGBT community (or anyone for that matter) if they are sanctioned against discrimination.

At the most basic, fundamental level a businessman can chose to stop being a businessman (though he may not want to), whereas a slave cannot chose to stop being a slave (no matter how much he wants to).

Also, dictionary definition of Hyperbole:

noun, Rhetoric
1.obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2.an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to betaken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”.

 

[Morrus]

It's not hyperbole. Forcing someone to provide labor or service against their will under threat of a gun (which all laws are) is slavery.

OK, that's enough of that. Comparing being asked not to discriminate against people to the horrors of actual slavery suffered both historicaly and by people today is completely offensive. Do not do this on this website.

Everyone else, please do not respond to and continue this line of conversation.

 

[Darkstar360]

OK, that's enough of that. Comparing being asked not to discriminate against people to the horrors of actual slavery suffered both historicaly and by people today is completely offensive. Do not do this on this website.

Everyone else, pleae do not respond to and continue this line of conversation.

Sorry, In retrospect it was obvious a moderator was going to step in on that one. I should have just let it go.

 

[Jester David]

Actually, the role of the Sabbath is a great debate among Christians now. But Hobby Lobby is one of the largest Christian-owned businesses that is closed on Sunday.

Actually, the Bible defines gambling as more than games of chance. Please make an attempt to understand our views before reciting how we are "violating" them.

If that's true, then what are you worried about?

The catch is, you don't get to pick and choose which part of your faith you follow. Either you accept it all, or reject it all.
You cannot exclude one "unclean" group but give all others a pass because they're cureently more accepted. If you feel obligated to exclude homosexuals and not serve them, that same view must apply to menstruating women, or unmarried couples, or the unbaptized, or adulterers, or those who worship "false" gods, or tax collectors.

Once you start picking and choosing what parts of the religion you're going to enforce over offers, then it becomes straight discrimination and religion is a convenient excuse. Then it becomes hate and discrimination.

If someone's desire to earn a living outweights their desire to treat all people equally, them that's just selfish. Their putting their desires and comforts above others, and that's uncool.
If someone cannot in good faith serve everyone and treat everyone equally then maybe the service industry is not right for them. It wouldn't be the first time religion kept people from certain professions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The catch is, you don't get to pick and choose which part of your faith you follow. Either you accept it all, or reject it all.

no... just no. I practice and truly heart and soul believe in a religion that has origins 2,000 years ago, but our main book was written from 100-600 years later, and retconed twice... in fact the book we use is called the king james version... and all of those writers are people influenced by divine but not divine themselves... and you think I have to choose 100% blind faith to every writer and revisionist the same way I show faith to the inspiration of the book?

 

[Jester David]

no... just no. I practice and truly heart and soul believe in a religion that has origins 2,000 years ago, but our main book was written from 100-600 years later, and retconed twice... in fact the book we use is called the king james version... and all of those writers are people influenced by divine but not divine themselves... and you think I have to choose 100% blind faith to every writer and revisionist the same way I show faith to the inspiration of the book?

I had a reply half-typed but I'm just going to delete it. This really isn't the forums to get into that level of religious debate. Especially since religion is the ultimate example of a personal choice.

The intersection of that personal religious choice with the laws of the land or the lives of other people....that's more debate worthy. But I'm not going to argue against someone's personal expression of their faith, and commenting on that direction was likely a mistake on my part.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

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.