Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 750692" data-attributes="member: 2486">Here we go again...Like fusangite and Teflon Billy, I fear that I am one of the veterans from the original cross-gender thread (hong was probably there too, but then hong gets everywhere <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).  Unlike fusangite and TB, however, I put the case for cross-gendering.The first notion is the idea of burden of proof.  For a DM to explicitly ban a player from playing an entire gender's worth of characters (i.e. half of all characters) there has to be a series of very good reasons to do so.  I'm from the liberal school of DMing- if there isn't a good reason to ban something, then don't.  So fusangite has set out his shop, and I believe that he has best articulated the core arguments of the DMs who are opposed to cross-gender roleplay (apologies to Kahuna Burger, TB et al.)  Unfortunately, whilst articulate, they fail (IMO) to bear up to serious scrutiny. This was the source of great contention.  Nevertheless, I am (and was) happy to admit that the core premise (elves don't exist) was correct.  However, it does not accurately translate into an argument about cross-gender roleplay.  Women are not monolithic in their personalities or psychologies, and neither are men.  There exist men with personalities much closer to canon 'females' and vice versa.  The Keirsey-Meyer Temperament Sorter marked a paradigmatic difference in general between men and women, with men tending towards the 'T' component and women towards the 'F'.  Yet this does not preclude men from tending towards 'F' or women towards 'T'.   ...which leads me on to this.  This is an unjustifiable comment.  Again, it is derived from a monolithic assumption of psychology.  Whilst, *in general* men are, granted, less adaptable and empathic than women, it is perfectly possible for the converse to be true. This assumes a monolithic personality common to all members of a class.  There is no reason why a sorceress need not have a 'masculine' personality- sorcery is a natural talent which can come to any female; conversely, paladinhood is a religious vocation which can be undertaken by any women (and indeed, in the caring professions as would tend to be epitomised by paladins, there is a greater concentration of women than men). Why?  Gender is emphatically not equivalent to sexuality.  Even those against cross-gender roleplay do not see any problem with a heterosexual man roleplaying a homosexual one.  If sexuality is the fundamental underpinning objection, then it is incredulous to object to cross-gender roleplay but not cross-sexuality roleplay. As with his first point, fusangite works from the assumption that all members of one gender have a monolithic personality and psychological composition.  Were this true, this advice would be sound.  However, the assumption is false.  There are females with a much more 'masculine' outlook and personality who would actually find it more difficult to empathise with a 'feminine' female than a 'masculine' male. This is sound advice, but then this could be argued for any concept.  Dice-based interaction is always 'safer' and 'easier' than roleplayed interaction, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, class, alignment or any other such considerations.  However, if the group generally prefers roleplayed interaction for 'regular' roleplay, there is no reason why it should not condone it for cross-gender roleplay. I can't argue with this- it's true.  However, it should again be at the discretion of the player, and again fails to identify the notion of the 'feminine' male and 'masculine' female.In conclusion: fusangite comes from a different set of parameters to me.  His canon assumption is that all members of one gender are highly similar in personality and tha no member of (the male) gender can empathise with the other.  I approach from a more flexible (and accurate) set of parameters, being that personalities can vary widely amongst the genders, and that someone who is ostensibly male can be psychologically closer to a female, or vice versa.  If fusangite's core assumption were to be correct, his arguments would be solid and profound.  Unfortunately, his starting-point is inaccurate so wherever he proceeds from there is bound to be flawed.  Not all men are the same; not all women are the same.  There is no reason to ban cross-gender roleplay.</blockquote>

Verification