D&D 4E Racial Intolerance Chart in 4E.

[pawsplay]

Yeah, those would be the prudes I was speaking about, who have attempted to further codify an arbitrary usage.

Other than it sounding strange to one accustomed to using the two different words, they work pretty much interchangeably, even amongst academics.

First of all, it's not a prude usage. You would use one word in one context, the other in another. Many academics in fact study sex and sexuality.

Second, it's not arbitrary. It is sometimes very important to talk about being masculine (in the eyes of a certain culture) versus having a penis. While they might in some usage be interchangeable, the reason the distinction is made is because in some situations, the distinction is vitally important. As to why "gender" was chosen over "sex" for a certain sense, it is mostly because gender already had an established usage in grammar.

Third, the words can be very important "in the real world" if you deal with someone who does not, for whatever reason, fit the gender norms.

I'm working on a Masters degree now, and the usage has been thoroughly consistent throughout my school career. I take umbrage at the suggestion the distinction is anything other than pragmatic.

 

[DreamChaser]

Yeah, those would be the prudes I was speaking about, who have attempted to further codify an arbitrary usage.

Other than it sounding strange to one accustomed to using the two different words, they work pretty much interchangeably, even amongst academics.

Until the discussion turns to transexual (people who feel that they are the wrong sex) and transgendered (people who feel the are the correct sex but reject their prescribed gender role).

Just because a word was repurposed up to describe a new sort of conversation (Bulletin Board anyone?) does not mean that the revised meaning does not have value, validity, and connotative weight.

We're not nearly as sexually dimorphic as gorillas, but we have clear physical differences between the sexes.

sexual dimorphism - the existence of differences in the appearance of the male and female of a species

On the continuum of sexual dimorphism (say 1 to 10) humans are a 1.5 or 2 at most (like nearly all mammals). Most great examples of sexual dimorphism are found among plants and simpler animals. A great example: the Driver Ant. The male is called the "sausage fly" and looks nothing like the females that make up the bulk of the colony...males aren't actually even part of the colony.

Physical ability has nothing (inherently) to do with dimorphism; it only relates to appearance.

That said, just because it is more "realistic" to make men slightly stronger on average than women does not mean that it is more fun. The game should then also accommodate slower starvation and suffocation rates for women, not to mention an enhanced ability to recover from a range of injuries.

Nor is assumed racism more fun. These are things that can be added ad hoc but DMs who want a more "realistic" game but I was thrilled to see them go and I would not welcome their return.

DC

 

[Kintara]

I'm working on a Masters degree now, and the usage has been thoroughly consistent throughout my school career. I take umbrage at the suggestion the distinction is anything other than pragmatic.

To be clear, I agree with this. But at the same time, I wouldn't correct someone unless it was in an academic setting, or if clarification was necessary given the topic (i.e., with gender identity discussions and such).

Edit: This goes to how I view language. If people commonly use the word gender for both physical and social/environmental aspects, then that's what the word means. And when I call it academic jargon, I don't mean that in a negative way. "Jargon" just means that it's specialized and more technical. People get way too hung up on right and wrong when it comes to grammar and syntax. Language is much more...messy than that.

 

[Irda Ranger]

It's slightly correlated. And we're not that sexually dimorphic.

Slightly? Hardly. The Men's Powerlifting ranks (for squat) are measured at 900 lbs and 1,100 lbs. The Women's competition tops out at 600 lbs. That's a 183% difference. There are guys who bench 600 lbs. Similarly, getting punched in the face by Mike Tyson is a lot different than being punched by ... uh, some female boxer.

Not that I'm claiming a pro level female boxer wouldn't be able to kick my ass. She would. But she wouldn't last very long against Mike Tyson or George Foreman or any of the other men at the world-pro level.

But I agree that it's not going to happen for 4E for political correctness reasons. In your own campaign it would probably be fair to 'cap' female strength at 14 (before racial modifiers). There probably wouldn't be a lot of female 2H-weapon Fighters with that cap, but that would be both physiologically and historically accurate.

As for racial tolerances, I'm glad to see them gone. I don't need the PHB telling me which races get along with which in my campaign. I can decide that for myself just fine.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

First of all, it's not a prude usage.

It certainly was originally, as I said.

I'm working on a Masters degree now, and the usage has been thoroughly consistent throughout my school career.

Your school career ... in academia?

I take umbrage at the suggestion the distinction is anything other than pragmatic.

Take umbrage over a grammatical disagreement if you wish.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Well, I'd wager that an untrained man would probably have a serious advantage in a wrestling match against an untrained woman (both of a typical, average build), but adventurers aren't untrained (and the system is more forgiving of weight differences between characters of the same mechanical size).

A trained woman versus a trained man would be similarly disadvantaged. There's a reason women are trained (in self defense courses) to kick for the junk and run: unless a 90th percentile women is fighting a 10th percentile man, they just can't win a contest of upper-body strength.

I really don't see what the big deal is. Even if the DM enforced a hard cap of 14 Str on females, the only class this would have any material effect on is Fighter. Even Fighter would be an option, and all other classes would be at no meanigful penalty at all.

 

[Gloombunny]

Altering a PC's stats based on the averages for their sex is dumb. PCs are supposed to be exceptional. If a guy can model his character after Conan, why can't I model mine after Brienne of Tarth?

 

[grimslade]

Why are academic fights so vicious? Because the rewards are so small.

As for the OP, you already have the answer no, no, and no. Not a way to attract new players by alienating potential new players.

The verisimilitude argument is blown away by simply stating, ' my female half-orc chain fighter would wipe the walls with Mike Tyson's squeeky larynx'

 

[Kintara]

But I agree that it's not going to happen for 4E for political correctness reasons.

Well, I'd say that it's more about not being unnecessarily restrictive. As you describe, the house rule would be pretty simple to implement. And I'd prefer that I be able to create a very strong female if I feel like it. Really, we don't know what is possible for men and women, just what is likely.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Take umbrage over a grammatical disagreement if you wish.

It would be fitting. Gender refers to grammatical elements. Any other use is too post-modern to be taken seriously.