D&D 5E What happened to the Hermaphrodites???

[Azzy]

No it doesn't. At most it relies on WotC believing such cabal exists and making changes based on their perceived (from the viewpoint of WotC) opposition to the inclusion. It's also a ridiculously hyperbolic analogy and not really a good representation of the scenario nor my opinions on it.

Ooh... cabal.

Considering that some of the WotC staff (including Jeremy Crawford) are *members* of the LGBTQ+ community, the likelihood of them "submitting" to some oppressive cabal is slim—even amusing. Chances are great, however, that when made aware that the term "hermaphrodite" has a pejorative meaning, they scrapped it because that's not what they wanted to convey with the text.

 

[Arial Black]

I don't have anything to offer on that, but I did find this article which is a kind of interesting read:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Dungeons_and_Dragons

--
Actually, I guess in regards to the claim that there is an alt-right player base, I think you can make an argument just based on statistics that almost certainly there are many dnd players who consider themselves alt-right. cf:
https://gamingwhileconservative.wordpress.com/

But whether that is a big enough population to significantly affect, say, dnd sales, I have no idea.

Well I clicked on the links.....!

Thank you for introducing me to the astonishing term: 'semi-fictionalised demons'. It made me laugh out loud and despair at the state of Humanity at the same time.

Also, a customised Wikipedia for those seeking Alternative Facts? Yeah.

 

[MackMcMacky]

Certainly, there are terms that are pejorative and they have no place. At a certain point, it is reasonable to deny another person the privilege of deciding for you that a term is "now" considered pejorative because they said so.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Thank you for introducing me to the astonishing term: 'semi-fictionalised demons'. It made me laugh out loud and despair at the state of Humanity at the same time.

Actually, that Conservapedia article (unlike most of their articles, I hasten to add) struck me as admirably fair-minded despite coming from a worldview wildly different from my own. You read the first sentence and then laugh at the writer's superstitions, while the writer states the facts about D&D, calmly walks through the diverse perspectives on its controversial aspects, and comes to some practical and sensible conclusions. So between the two of you, I've got to favor the writer as far as the state-of-humanity thing goes. It's a timely reminder: just because somebody disagrees with us doesn't mean that they can't be a reasonable person, or that we can't build bridges through common interests like tabletop gaming.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I do remember a thread where someone politely remarked that hermaphrodite is perjoratively used and the designers made the change out of respect.

 

[jaelis]

I could be wrong but I doubt you would consider something that describes a writer not covering an oil spill or a political scandal, or editing parts of it because it might reflect badly on someone to be "just another word for good salesmanship or being a pleasant person.

Well it depends. If the writer has reason to be afraid of some kind of retaliation from a powerful target, then yes I would consider that censorship and a problem.

If there's no reason to expect retaliation but the writer is trying to curry favor from a powerful figure, then I would not call that censorship, though it fits the description of 'soft-censorship' that wikipedia gives.

 

[Ganymede81]

Well it depends. If the writer has reason to be afraid of some kind of retaliation from a powerful target, then yes I would consider that censorship and a problem.

If there's no reason to expect retaliation but the writer is trying to curry favor from a powerful figure, then I would not call that censorship, though it fits the description of 'soft-censorship' that wikipedia gives.

I don't get why this is still being bandied about. Neither censorship nor soft-censorship are in play here.

Feedback was given to WOTC. WOTC said "Ahh yeah, that makes sense." WOTC made a minor tweak to a paragraph reflective of their newfound understanding.

They're still expressing the same idea, and notations about Corellon's ambiguous sex still exists in SCAG; there is simply no idea here that was censored.

 

[happyhermit]

I don't get why this is still being bandied about. ...

The topic of self-censorship and soft-censorship came up and there was some question over whether or not it was a "thing" or a problem. Like I mentioned, it has for example caused people to not write or talk about things important to them (like their own sexual preferences), not because of risk of actual harm but for other much more indirect reasons. It is a thing and an issue. It might be slightly off topic but "bandied around" doesn't describe the post jaelis was responding to that you quoted.

 

[MechaPilot]

I also don't like the absence of the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity. It is a D&D classic and a lot of fun. And if you think about it, it might actually be a quest objective for characters that actually want the change.

For a long time I really despised the gender-swap curses on items because the gender you belong to is not a curse (though society can certainly be extremely unfriendly to you based on your gender if the campaign includes anything approaching realistic sexism and misogyny/misandry). Rather recently however, I actually asked myself why I hate these cursed items, and this is what I realized:

I do not hate the items because they treat changing genders as a curse; I hate them because they are poorly played out, frequently by adolescent gamers (or puerile adult gamers) who focus too much on physical characteristics and gender stereotypes.

In every game where I've seen a PC afflicted with a gender-changing curse, the DM (and, often, other players) has tried to tell the player how to act more like the gender they have been changed to, claiming that their mindset, motivations, sexuality, and emotional state have been altered by their gender change.

This does such items a HUGE disservice.

Having your gender changed is not a curse if you also change in your mindset, motivations, emotional state, etc. You have effectively just changed your gender with the PC having no real issue with it, while the player probably does. But, if the item just changes the character's sex (or just changes the character's gender identity), then the character is left with a very real conflict between who they are and their physical characteristics. In real people, this conflict leads to depression, self-mutilation, and suicide, and that sounds an awful lot like someone laboring under a curse to me.

So, I have changed my stance on sex-changing curses, and items that inflict such a curse. If handled with actual tact and maturity, they can lead to an enormous amount of RP opportunities, and they may even help people learn to have empathy for those people who are really suffering from a gender/sex conflict.

 

[MechaPilot]

My initial response was an eyeroll that "hermaphrodite" is an offensive term to the LGBQT community, but after doing some poking around on the internet, looks like that is definitely the case . . . . but it is a real thing, and it isn't synonymous with "androgynous".

As a member of the LGBQT community, I don't personally find the term "hermaphrodite" offensive. However, I'm not intersexed. If I knew someone who was intersexed and who found it offensive, I would certainly refrain from using it around them, or when referring to them.

I do have a friend who is transgendered, and she doesn't find the term "tranny" offensive, but she's also told me (for her at least) it's a matter of usage and inflection, and that you can pretty easily tell when someone is using it in an insulting or pejorative manner, and when they are using it in a friendly or neutral manner. And she's generally right about that. I have a friend who often calls me a word which can be used to describe a female dog. There is no malice at all in her voice and in the context of her speech when she says it, and it doesn't feel like an insult when she says it, and I don't mind her calling me that. But, that doesn't mean I'll be happy, complacent, or otherwise lackadaisical about it if anyone else uses that word to try to insult or degrade me.