Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6218167" data-attributes="member: 8835">There are women who are annoyed that video games don't offer female avatars as choices when there is no reason not to when others do so.There are women who are annoyed that a modern RPG book doesn't include women as examples or pronouns in the writing when other texts do.It seems they are asking to be included.  I am inclined to oblige them.As others HAVE demonstrated the ability to do so, the bar has been raised.  My not doing so may appear as an act of objection to their cause to be included.  My not doing so may indicate my own incompetence at keeping up with the industry if others have changed successfully and I have not. After all, how hard can it be to write a bit more inclusively, especially if somebody else has done it, that means examples of the new art exist to learn from.If every time we talk about the Civil War and lots of people say it was about slavery, and a certain demographic always say it was about "States' Rights" (as we had that talk on EN, and it turns out it was States Right to have slaves), then what the "lots of people" hear when somebody says "States Rights" again, is that person likes slavery.Since we all know slavery is bad nowadays, what in the name of common sense makes it a good idea to EVER keep arguing using the "States' Rights" position as it always casts you as the bad guy.Sexism is bad.  Some people are asking for a a change in writing style to be inclusive.  Don't argue with them, just give it to them because Sexism is bad.  There are better battles to fight over far more consequential things.</blockquote>

Verification