tarchon said:
It's not a "straw man" if that's what the actual position is.
And I don't think it is, for significant reasons that get lost in the reductio ad absurdum, which is why it resembles an appeal to consequences rather than a real argument. Reductios are rarely the sign of a sound argument because they are usually used to ignore distinctions rather than addressing them.
tarchon said:
If someone says "I am overwhelmed by the yellowness of the sky," I'm not constructing a straw man if I construe that to be a statement that the sky is yellow.
That's not what he was doing. What he was doing was saying, "So you are also overwhelmed by the redness of the ocean, the whiteness of the forest, and the greenness of the snow."
tarchon said:
Just because someone can show that an argument is weak, that's not that same as making it into a straw man. That's not how the fallacy works.
I know what a straw man is. You are building another one here. I said that his argument was either a straw man or begs the question. I also did not claim that it was a straw man "just because someone can show that an argument is weak." I called it a straw man because it shows that an argument that nobody is making is weak.
tarchon said:
I don't know if this is the argument you personally support since you've been leaping from argument to argument a lot, but many people on this thread are very much saying that the main problems with cross-gender roleplaying are that it's (1) hard to accept and (2) too difficult to do well, and both of those are wide open to Lasher's criticism.
Let's go back to Lasher's actually criticisms:
Lasher Dragon said:
I find it incredibly amusing that anyone would rule against someone playing an opposite gender. So, you are saying you cannot play that which you are not IRL. Am I wrong or has the premise of ROLE PLAYING been completely lost on you?
...followed by the reductio ad absurdum...
Lasher Dragon said:
Next thing ya know, you'll have these kinda rules:
Fat players cannot play skinny PCs, and vice-versa.
Young players cannot play old PCs, and vice-versa.
Wanna play any kind of caster? Well better prove to me you know magic first.
Wanna be a rogue? OK go hide in the yard, and if I find you, sorry, you weren't meant to be a rogue.
LMAO
This "argument" assumes (i.e., begs the question) that any of these other characteristics (weight, age, skill, etc.) are equivalent to character gender without ever bothering to make that point clearly or prove it. Either that, or Lasher Dragon was simply running with the straw man from his own earlier post, the idea that "you cannot play that which you are not IRL". Nobody is claiming that. That makes it a straw man. A straw man argument is when "the author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument."
His argument "begs the question" because, "the truth of the conclusion" (that it makes no more sense to limit a characters gender) "is assumed by the premises" (that a characters gender is no different from any other characteristic that it makes no sense to limit). And, ultimately, the "shock value" of the reductio is serving simply as a crude "appeal to consequences", which is when "the author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false."
The real argument is, "Why limit gender if you don't limit other things." Removed from the snappy reductio, that might be a good point to debate, though I did briefly address the point from one angle in my first response to this thread.
tarchon said:
More difficult and unbelievable than playing a Chaotic Evil half-dragon centaur alchemist? The only element to that that seems even vaguely buyable is the idea that sometimes female players might be offended.
Yes, more difficult and unbelievable than playing a Chaotic Evil half-dragon centaur alchemist. I forget the context but I was reading a discussion about something called the "uncanny valley". More detail on the original theory here:
http://www.arclight.net/~pdb/glimpses/valley.html
Basically, the more human-like a robot gets, the more likely it is that people will notice minor flaws and find them disturbing. You can find the same problem with photorealistic computer animation. A friend of mine, for example, didn't like the Final Fantasy movie because the hands just weren't right but he'll accept the exaggerated hands of a cartoon character because they aren't supposed to be right.
Just as people are familiar with what a "correct" human should look like and are troubled by something that's slightly "off". Similarly, I think some people can pick up on when the portrayal of a male or female character is "off". If the "off" character is portrayed by a player of the same sex, there are sufficient other clues to push someone to the conclusion that they are simply playing an unusual member of their sex. If the "off" character is being portrayed by a player of the opposite sex, however, all of the other clues scream, "This is a man doing a bad job of playing a woman." And just as with the "uncanny valley" in robotics or computer animation, different people can have different points of distraction and have a different ability to ignore it.
Please note that I'm not claiming that there is a wrong way to play a man or a woman. What I am claiming is that people develop a sense of "normal" and "abnormal" or "outside of the norm" and that not only do certain people pick up on things that place a character "outside of the norm" but such a sense draws them in to figure out why. And when the audio and visual clues are "this is a 40 year-old 250 pound bearded man doing a very bad job of playing an 85 pound teenaged Japanese schoolgirl" rather than "this is just an odd 85 pound teenaged Japanese schoolgirl", suspension of belief can and does break for some people.
What about the Chaotic Evil half-dragon centaur alchemist? I have no intuitive sense of what a normal or abnormal Chaotic Evil half-dragon centaur alchemist is so the odds of my getting an intuitive feeling that there just isn't something right about the portrayal of this Chaotic Evil half-dragon centaur alchemist is next to zero. In fact, I think that's one of the attractions to role-playing in fantasy settings rather than real life or historical settings. And notice that some people did point out other character types that they would steer certain types of players away from because they would get it "wrong".
I spent over a year living in Tokyo. In that time, I did develop an intuitive sense of what normal Japanese behavior is and how Japanese people do things. Are there Japanese people outside of that norm? Of course. I worked with a guy who knew how to be sarcastic and rude and another guy who spent time in the United States and liked South Park. But those people were unusual in Japan and other Japanese people knew that, too.
I would not want to play in a role-playing game set in modern Japan or with non-Japanese gamers pretending to be Japanese (myself included) because I know their behavior would be wrong. When confronted by a quirky and sarcastic Japanese co-worker who is Japanese, I'm left with the impression that he's an odd Japanese person. When confronted by the quirky and abnormal portrayal of a Japanese character by an American role-player, I'd be left with the impression that I'm watching an American role-player mangle their portrayal of a Japanese character.
tarchon said:
One cites confusion that wasn't pronoun-based (3); he couldn't remember which of his players was female. You cited pronoun-based confusion and a couple other people said that that could be a problem, but that it wasn't enough to rule out cross-gendering.
I also said that I don't think there are any one-size-fits-all explanations for any of this. I think that there are good and "bad" reasons for taking either side of this issue.
tarchon said:
You're mainly saying that pronouns are the fundamental problem.
I don't think there is "a" fundamental problem. I think there are many problems. Sometimes people have one. Sometimes they have several. I've heard the pronoun problem mentioned many times (here, in other online discussions, and within my own group) so it seems to play a role for many people. Is it "the" fundamental problem? Probably not. And in some cases, its probably just a symptom of some other problem.
tarchon said:
On top of my previous observations on that, clearly when the DM is playing a party of orcs, no one has trouble keeping track of whether to call the orcs "they" or the DM "they." If the DM is playing a talking lamp referred to as "it", no one has trouble remembering whether the DM is a he, she, or it. When a male DM is playing a female NPC, no one has trouble remembering whether to call the DM "he" or "she." Many PCs have familiars, henchmen, followers etc., who they run simulataneously. Is that less confusing somehow?
I addressed this in my first reply. A GM provides many more "identity" markers for the characters they are portraying. That's both because they frequently switch identities and have to help the players keep them straight and because the GM might be using more third-person than first-person pronouns. When I role-play and my character does something, I say, "I do X." When I GM and an NPC does something, I'll often say, "NPC does X," "He does X," or "She does X." Those all provide reminders for the players about the identity of the character. In addition, most players don't identify the GM as strongly with a single NPC as they do a player. While Knights of the Dinner Table illustrates a lot of bad role-playing, I think the fact that the players spend much of their time talking in terms of player names rather than character names reflects what a lot of role-players do, either verbally or mentally.
tarchon said:
Why is it that with this one particular case, it's a big enough issue that the practice should be banned?
Because in this one particular case, it's a big enough problem to warrant it. Please note that I am not saying that cross-gender role-playing should always be banned for every group. I am saying that it is a legitimate thing for an individual group or GM to decide to ban based on any number of reasons that ultimately boil down to participant enjoyment. If cross-gender role-playing makes the games less enjoyable for a group, it seems silly not to ban them. If drinking beer produced less enjoyable games, I don't think many would complain if the GM banned drinking alcohol at the table. Would they?
tarchon said:
It just seems pretty strange that DMs can juggle 5 players with 10 characters, NPCs, and a whole world, but remembering whether Bob is playing an elf maiden just blows all the circuits. It's harder than remembering he's A 6'3" Flan with red hair and a beard?
Look, I don't care if you think it's strange or not or whether you buy it or not. Not everyone's mind works the same way. Don't assume that just because something is easy for you that it's easy for everyone else. If people are telling you that they have a problem and you don't understand it, you can either assume they are liars or believe that they have a problem that you don't really understand. I think there is way too much assuming that people are liars in threads like this.
tarchon said:
As for my subjective observations, you can accept them or not, but I think if you get past the Sapir-Worfish position you've staked out, you would see that many guys just don't like to have their guy friends playing hot chicks because it makes them feel ooky, and they come up with all sorts of stretched reasons to justify their feeling of ookiness.
I'm sure that's true for some guys. It's not true for all guys. Go back and read my first reply. I've played PCs who have had romantic involvements with female NPCs run by male GMs. I've played female NPCs who have had romantic involvements with male PCs run by male players. I have no problem imagining my guy friend GMs playing "hot chick" NPCs nor having my PCs have deeply emotional relationships with them, nor do most of the people in my group. In fact, I'd really like to know what the woman, who drove through a parking lot where I was standing around doing some one-on-one role-playing of a romantic relationship with a female NPC run by male GM, thought of our role-playing, since the male GM was adopting the body language of the female NPC for the duratoin of her dialog.
Am I bothered by the idea of thinking of a male role-player as a female? No. Is the most outspoken opponent of cross-gender characters in my group, who is running a Paladin who fell from grace over a romance (role-played, not roll-played) with a female NPC that I'm running troubled by thinking of a male role-player as a female? Not at all. So I'm sorry but I've simply seen too many anecdotal data points that don't fit your theory. And if you lack the alternatives to imagine any other options, that's your problem, not mine. Like I said, you can call me a liar or believe that you don't really understand all of the reasons why people don't like cross-gender characters. That choice is yours. But don't be surprised if people get annoyed by being told that you know what they are really thinking better than they do.
tarchon said:
That's an appeal to the obvious, if you want to look it up on your fallacy page.
It's an unsupported assertion. A fairly insulting one, at that. It's like assuming that any male who wants to play a cross-gender character is a closeted homosexual. Yes, both assertions may be true in some cases but both carry enough negative baggage that they really shouldn't be cassually applied to people for whom they are not true.
tarchon said:
I mean, how many people on this thread have prefaced their remarks with "I'm not gay but..." or "I don't hate homosexuals but..."? That ought to tell you something right there.
Yeah. It tells me that they've had a few encounters with the PC thought police and know that plenty of people are going to try to tell them what they really think. Being called immature, insane, a homophobe in denial, or a closet homosexual even once by people who assume, as you see to, that the only reason to avoid cross-gender PCs is one of those reasons and that any other explanation is simply "stretched reasons to justify their feelings of ookiness", is enough to make one defensive. Try not assuming that people are liars or that you know what they are thinking better than they do and maybe they'll be less defensive.
tarchon said:
"Oh, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, but I thought I'd point out that I'm not gay." This may be the least gay thread in the history of ENWorld.
I'm not gay. For me and my group, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. I role-play immersively and I experience thoughts and emotions in character. I've experienced romantic love, in character, with female NPCs run by male GMs -- role-played romances and not roll-played romances. If looking across the table at a male role-player running a female NPC and adopting her body language stirs deep-seated homophobic or troubling homosexual feelings inside of me, I haven't noticed. Perhaps you'd rather think I'm a liar or delusional than simply accept that I don't fit your theory, and maybe other people don't?
tarchon said:
OK, whatever, but maybe people would understand this a little better if they stopped worrying about whether what they feel about is socially acceptable or not and actually looked at what they feel about it.
I did reply without talking about social acceptability, by the way. So did others. I play Dungeons and Dragons as an adult in my late-30s. If I was concerned about social acceptability, I'd find another hobby. Really.
