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

[MechaPilot]

I like to be a little more blunt when I feel like someone is jerking me around but I wouldn't claim that is the wisest course of action. It is very cathartic though.

I certainly understand the cathartic reaction. However, apart from during extreme circumstances I tend to be less confrontational than most. If someone wants to try to manipulate me, I'd much rather cut them out of my life than confront them for it. It's just easier for me, and it avoids feeding the trolls.

 

[Arial Black]

Being dishonest is possible, but being ignorant of the word is another possibility.

In America you may call someone pal, dude, guy, homey, all sorts of such terms, whether you know that person or whether you just met.

In Britain we might call them mate, fella, squire, and loads of others.

I called a customer of mine 'squire'. He took offence. I was surprised. His own mates were surprised at his reaction. He claimed it was a disrespectful term. I told him that its origins were from the title 'esquire', denoting a gentlemen; hardly an insult!

He said no, it was disrespectful.

His own mate then Googled it on his smartphone, and read out that it was a 'term of respect'; the exact opposite of his claim.

He was still determined to be offended though. Because I was working, I left it alone.

Who gets to decide if a term is offensive? Anyone can claim to be offended, and anyone can claim that they were not being offensive. So how do we determine who is in the right in any particular case?

It cannot be that one side is always right and the other always wrong. Surely, society itself has a 'reasonable' measure such that you ask the question, "would a reasonable person have been offended by what was said?"

If you don't, if you always side with those who claim to be offended regardless of how ignorant or malicious their case may be, then innocent people can lose their job when they haven't actually done anything wrong just because someone wants to make trouble or is just simply wrong about a word.

 

[Lwaxy]

Really, you're shocked at MechaPilot's experience? Purely anecdotal on my part, of course, but I'd bet money that his experience is more common than yours. Your last sentence is kinda funny, yes, it is the player's doing in ALL cases.

No, sometimes it was the GM insisting on hormonal changes having an effect. Makes sense,too, because it is a new experience for the char.

It's really difficult for me to imagine such weird problems coming up. We did play as teenagers, and the worst we had happen was when people cross-gendered and got stuck on stereotypes but it didn't happen often. Maybe it had to do with having an equal amount of female players in most games.

 

[jasper]

.....

Who gets to decide if a term is offensive? Anyone can claim to be offended, and anyone can claim that they were not being offensive. So how do we determine who is in the right in any particular case?

....

Hmm According to my preacher a term is offensive in the ears of the listener not the speaker. She delete my response to her a few weeks later when I told her what she said in another thread was offensive. She defense was I was did not get her Nuance and was uneducated in the subject of the thread.

 

[Ganymede81]

Would they even have a paragraph about gender and sexual orientation if identity politics wasn't a thing in the world?

I seriously doubt the supposed presence of "identity politics" is the reason for the paragraph.

I think it has a lot more to do with the gradual societal acceptance of GLBT individuals as regular, normal people. Consider that three editions of D&D were released while the US sanctioned the criminalization of GLBT relationships. Similarly, 5th edition has been the only one to be released post Windsor and its nationwide legalization of marriage equality.

I mean, seriously: you really think, "You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender [and] your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide" is "identity politics," especially considering a line for sex/gender has been on character sheets for decades?

 

[Satyrn]

I mean, seriously: you really think, "You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender [and] your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide" is "identity politics," especially considering a line for sex/gender has been on character sheets for decades?

In a very small, very neutral way, I do think it is identity politics, because it's addressing a subject that is politicized.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Eltab]

Surely, society itself has a 'reasonable' measure such that you ask the question, "would a reasonable person have been offended ... ?"

We used to: Refer to a neutral third party or look up an authority on the subject - such as using Webster's Dictionary to find the definition of a word.
Doing so still works for me.

 

[Ganymede81]

We used to: Refer to a neutral third party or look up an authority on the subject - such as using Webster's Dictionary

Be wary, as this is what Merriam-Webster has to say on that particular issue.

"Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. ...t is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing."

 

[MackMcMacky]

Be wary, as this is what Merriam-Webster has to say on that particular issue.

"Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals. ...t is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing."

Here's the thing. I have only so much time to spend on what other people think is the burning issue of the day. For me, I weary of the "gotcha" mentality some people have with language. If you aren't up on what someone else considers a newly verboten word because you are not deeply involved in the social politics they are deeply involved in then accusations may fly OR they begin blathering in an attempt to re-educate you as you must not be sufficiently enlightened because you aren't keeping up with the issues important in their life.

Attacking word choice is about the most pointless way to deal with the issue of verbal abuse and hatred. Does anyone really think people who verbally attack people will stop because a new word has been elected to be deemed offensive by a group of people? This constant talk about this or that word just comes off as a way to browbeat or gain attention.

And the splitting of hairs going on... When I used identity politics it made perfect sense. The authors of the rulebook didn't write up that paragraph in a vacuum. They were consciously addressing one of the issues of the day.

 

[Ganymede81]

Here's the thing. I have only so much time to spend on what other people think is the burning issue of the day. For me, I weary of the "gotcha" mentality some people have with language. If you aren't up on what someone else considers a newly verboten word because you are not deeply involved in the social politics they are deeply involved in then accusations may fly OR they begin blathering in an attempt to re-educate you as you must not be sufficiently enlightened because you aren't keeping up with the issues important in their life.

Attacking word choice is about the most pointless way to deal with the issue of verbal abuse and hatred. Does anyone really think people who verbally attack people will stop because a new word has been elected to be deemed offensive by a group of people? This constant talk about this or that word just comes off as a way to browbeat or gain attention.

That sounds like an incredible burden of yours.

I'm not sure anything of value is left to be found here. Either this post of mine or your response to it can be the last word in this conversation between us. I'll leave that choice up to you.