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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9523004" data-attributes="member: 93670">I embedded that tweet with "Gary's original letter" because she went beyond the sarcasm comment & explained how the calls for revision themselves were sexist in it.  What she wrote in that tweet was:[spoiler="text of tweet in question"]How many "you are sexist" remarks do people need to hear before they snap and respond with sarcasm?I can imagine those people reading this letter like that: yada yada yada yada, yes, I am sexist, yada yada yada.The entire context of the message is ignored because of that one sentence.Let me tell you something important: There is a huge number of Warhammer 40K girls who play without needing a concept like "fair sex." We love our Space Marines, we love our Adeptus Mechanicus, our Ork Boyz, and we also love Adepta Sororitas. If you think female players enjoy WH40K or any other wargame just because the figures have specific genders designed to pander to us, you are mistaken.Those who keep crying for female Space Marines are not the women who play Warhammer 40K but those who want to "pander to girls." These people are sexist because they believe the hobby needs to be "adapted" for us, implying it's not something we can naturally enjoy.Gary was right: adapting wording and mechanics to fit a female audience is more sexist than anything Gary ever said. It assumes you know better than women themselves what we think or want.[/spoiler]Note the bold bits, there are an awful lot of folks who have a 10,000 character limit.. She is one of those people.  It's certainly possible to disagree about her use of  the word "more", but she very much seems to have done a nice job of using a mofern example to spotlight that the alternatives he was being called to give "are" sexist & nobody here seems to have tried to hold up something from Gygax as an example that might throw the "more" into question... Would be nice if any such example could be limited to one that justifies a disclaimer in a history book about early d&d too.Kinda weird to completely ignore the "are sexist" without arguing that she is wrong on that point.  Taking your (quoted) post91 claim about "his original letter" you've ignored any impediment to your claims while creating a no win trap scenario where he was apparently presented with a paradoxical catch22 accusation where Gygax in addition to early d&d itself was sexist if he did rewrite early d&d but both were also sexist if he didn't rewrite by critics.  <a href="https://www.lionel.com/products/girls-set-loco-2037-6-31700/" target="_blank">It's also not exactly a historically proven success to do that kind of sexist paintjob.</a>Can we move on to the part where you cover the "more" refute the "are" or explain how that catch22 paradox justifies putting a warning on early d&d history that extends to the current comic code level <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhxVlgehNpc&t=2107s" target="_blank">inclusivity review bar of today</a> that expected the warning label?</blockquote>

Verification