Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?

I like to think that it is also part of bringing the game into the current century. I think it is a pretty good idea to update the game in its representation of gender as we understand it today.
Not all of us gamers, and otherwise citizens, understand gender as you do today. There's a diminishing consensus (in the USA at least) about the way we understand gender - or, as I prefer to say - sexual identity and the various roles society ascribes to it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

TheSword

Legend
Quite. A societal and therefore political goal.


There are 2 kinds of ordinary. There's "ordinary" as being a human being, deserving of love, respect and a chance at happiness. For me, all people born of an human being are thus ordinary, and are my fellow humans: gay, bi, transsexual, heterosexual, black, white or green, hermaphrodite, with Down syndrome, etc.

And there's a different king of ordinary: ordinary as being in the majority.

Transssexual individuals are a tiny minority of the global population, and so there's nothing ordinary about them, in that meaning of the word.

I'm aware that since the dawn of times there have been human beings who didn't fit within the mundane biological/sexual framework. And the society of their times had a place and roles for them - by the way, we all have a place and roles in our society and I don't see anything demeaning about that. For example, I'm a straight husband, with a wife and a kid, and that's a part (only a part) of my role within my society.

So I don't deny transsexual individuals a place in society. I want them to feel welcome, at my table and in other parts of the world. And I will play with transsexual individuals as I play with any other fellow human beings. I'm quite sure (without being able to prove it) that there's an overwhelming majority of gamers, in the western part of the world, who would accept transsexuals at their table, like I do.

But I won't pretend to their faces that they're ordinary - ordinary as in mundane, ordinary as being in the majority. Frankly, I would feel like it's vaguely insulting to them. Being transsexual seems to me to be hard living, and I bet it's not solely because of the intolerance and the ills of the society around trans persons. Being or feeling different is always (often) hard by itself.

Let me clarify: if I had a trans at my table, I wouldn't treat him/her differently from the way I treat any other gamer. Specifically, I wouldn't present him/her with an option like Corellon's Blessing which has been carved to pander to his/her specificities by some well-meaning/deluded "progressives" in the rpg industry.


Good. To each table its own.

Yes, I too care. Soon I will introduce my 10 years old kid to 5th edition D&D, and there's zero chance in Hell that I will present transssexual-glorifying material to him in a nonchalant way. Nope.

To me, transsexuality is not "a way of life" or a choice. I don't subscribe to the post-modern "gender identity" baloney theory, and I don't believe in a future where - whether we are bi, hetero, trans, gay, green, white or black - we all choose our identity "a la carte" while chanting kumbaya together like in a happy-hippy weirdo leftie family (though I dig hippies :).


Not at my table. And not in my rpg of choice, if I have any choice in the matter (and as a customer and gamer, I have).

You were doing so well in the first two paragraphs. Then like a driver revving their engine you hit the throttle and promptly backfired, blowing your exhaust all over the thread.

Unfortunately the words you choose to describe something matters. It conveys tone, intentions, and creates an environment of inclusion or segregation. The truth is the words ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ aren’t very good at describing human beings. Replace these words with ‘accepted’. If you accept people for what they are then the frequency becomes irrelevant.

Phrases like ‘No chance in hell’, ‘Transexual-glorifying’, ‘gender identity-baloney’, and the rest of your post aren’t worthy of an adult in 2018. I’ve not been posting on the threads very long but I pretty sure your opinions don’t chime with the majority of posters or the rules of the forum. I wish I could change your approach to raising your kids, I can’t. I just hope you know that history has shown that your 10 year old will be what they are, whether you agree with it or not.
 

TheSword said:
...the words you choose to describe something matters.
Yes.
TheSword said:
It conveys tone, intentions, and creates an environment of inclusion or segregation.
My primary purpose with my words is not to create an environment of inclusion or segregation. It is to express myself and to convey my point of view.

TheSword said:
The truth is the words ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ aren’t very good at describing human beings.
Those words are part of our vocabulary and for us to use.
If I use the word "ordinary" in a sentence like: "They were ordinary middle-class conservative Americans, appalled at their current president, but having voted Republicans nonetheless, because they were deeply untrustful of the other candidate" it paints a pretty good picture of what I mean, I think.

Replace these words with ‘accepted’.
Why would I need to do that ? I thought I made it pretty clear that I accept any human being on principle.

If you accept people for what they are then the frequency becomes irrelevant.
I don't think so. I can accept anyone and still acknowldge that they are in the minority or in the majority.

TheSword said:
Phrases like ‘No chance in hell’, ‘Transexual-glorifying’, ‘gender identity-baloney’, and the rest of your post aren’t worthy of an adult in 2018.
That's spicy language. I don't feel childlike because I use it. That's also provocative language, though not disrespectful of specific people (I even said I like hippies).

TheSword said:
I just hope you know that history has shown that your 10 year old will be what they are, whether you agree with it or not.
I'll love my kid, no matter what. That's what counts, and not me agreeing with him or not.
 

Sure, but none of this changes the fact that trans is an umbrella term and anyone who is not cis falls under the trans umbrella. That's just the way those words are used in LGBTQIA spaces. I speak from experience in this matter.
I don't doubt it. I'm not challenging you on the point, I'm just lingnerding out.

Worms, which feed on entropy.
I don't really have any more comments about the Krill except that these words make my science brain cringe. Somehow, even more than the mention of actual-factual magic in the game. XD

No, they have an identity. Their culture has no concept of gender, but they still have an identity. Another culture that does have a concept of gender will assign certain aspects of identity to certain genders, and when a person's identity does not match what their society says it should be based on whatever criteria it uses to assign gender, there is going to be conflict.

They may well have a strong preference for the aspects of their identity that human culture dictates are "for women."
Sure, but what aspects exactly are we talking about here, and how does this conflict play out?

I'll try to explain what I mean. Take sexual orientation. I know we're on the same page that sexual orientation is absolutely, totally not the same thing as gender identity. But it's also obviously an important aspect of identity. And traditional society has assigned the "likes men" aspect of identity to women. So, as you say, there is conflict between society and people who like men and are not women. Most of these people, however, are cis men, and object rather strenuously to the suggestion that they are women or womanlike. The conflict, then, plays out by challenging their society's assignment of this sexual orientation to that gender identity, not by adopting that gender identity. And if our eladrin likes men, and runs into conflict with human society over it, they can say, "I'm a gay man."

They can repeat this exercise for almost any culturally-gendered aspect of identity. Emotional disposition? There are tons of quiet, sensitive men, regardless of how machismo values those traits. If our eladrin is quiet and sensitive, they can say, "I'm a quiet and sensitive man." Profession? The history of women's rights is all about busting up the assignment of certain fields to men, and men also struggle to be taken seriously in traditionally female fields. If our eladrin is a nurse, they can say, "I'm a male nurse." Fashion choice? In the words of Eddie Izzard: "It's not a woman's dress, it's my dress, I bought it." If our eladrin likes dresses -- okay, this one is a little weird, because it's completely culture-based, and they'd be accustomed to eladrin clothing which is presumably unisex in our scenario -- but if they took a shine to human dresses, they could say, "See Eddie Izzard."

To get around to my point, the only aspect of identity I can see for which the fundamental problem is not society being overly restrictive in assigning that aspect to only one gender, but rather the aspect having a fundamental conflict with the gender, is gender identity itself. There seems to be something in all of us which says "I am a man" or "I am a woman" or something of a nonbinary nature. And it must stand irrespective of any other aspects of our identity, or what society has to say about those aspects. As we've seen, somebody can be a cis man and still like men, be quiet and sensitive, work as a nurse, and wear dresses. What's more, somebody else can be a trans woman and still like women, be ambitious and competitive, work as a cop, and absolutely hate dresses. All that matters is that the first person feels he is a man, and the second feels she is a woman. And I don't believe for a moment that when I say any of this I'm telling you anything you don't already know. But I hope I've framed it in such a way that you can understand why I think that the eladrin describing themself as a "woman" under the circumstances strongly suggests the presence of an underlying gender identity.

Depends on whether or not those dwarves try to assert their own cultural norms on the human. If unak aren't allowed to be warriors, and this right-handed human is a warrior, how do the dwarves resolve this dissonance? Do they write it off as "not our way" but leave the human to his own people's way? Or do they shame him for behaving in a manner unbefitting an unak, which he so clearly is? In the former case, sure, I'd assume the human would most likely live and let live just as the dwarves are doing. But if a dragon attacks and the dwarves don't want to let the human help because the other warriors refuse to stand beside an unak on the field of battle... Might be a different story.
Hmm. Fair warning: I'm running out of gas after the above and am not going to come to any conclusions in this paragraph, just thinking aloud. (Well, not aloud...) Speaking of different stories, there is no shortage of stories about the parallel case, where sexists won't let a woman fight because she's a woman. When (movie) Wonder Woman wants to fight for the Allies, she plows through their resistance and does it anyway, as a woman. When (movie) Mulan wants to fight for China, she disguises herself as a man, but shows no sign of truly identifying herself as one and returns to womanhood once the disguise has run its course. But in both these stories, the protagonist had an existing gender identity as a woman, and that's not prone to changing for the sake of expediency. Which makes them not such close parallels to our human with no strong handedness identity, or our eladrin without a gender culture. Or, wait... Diana of Themiscyra is from a one-gender society, so gender roles can't exactly have been a part of her upbringing. Isn't she basically what we're looking for after all? And despite being an outspoken warrior and leader, she emphatically does not become a trans man upon encountering English culture where they see those as manly qualities. But on the other hand, the Amazons are aware of men, and (more so in the comics than the movie) define themselves oppositionally to "Man's World", so maybe gender roles are still there in the background. Nevertheless, they can hardly be an everyday thing. Hmm...
 

TheSword

Legend
Not all of us gamers, and otherwise citizens, understand gender as you do today. There's a diminishing consensus (in the USA at least) about the way we understand gender - or, as I prefer to say - sexual identity and the various roles society ascribes to it.

A very quickly diminishing consensus, soon to be replaced with an increasing consensus, thank god.

I’ve just seen your post history, and I find it hilarious that you’ve only posted in threads about black stereotyping and transsexuals. Have you ever considered that as a married straight white male father, it may be worth branching off into other topics, you know, like the game of D&D?
 
Last edited:

A very quickly diminishing consensus, soon to be replaced with an increasing consensus, thank god.

I’ve just seen your post history, and I find it highly suggestive that you’ve only posted in threads about black stereotyping and transsexuals. Have you ever considered that as a married straight white male father, it may be worth branching off into other topics, you know, like the game of D&D?
Highly suggestive of what ?

I'm concerned about the social intentions - and the desire for change as conveyed in their products - of a sizable part of the RPG industry.

I write in this forum to make my position on the subject as clear as possible. I'm not in sync with the progressive goals of this sizable, and increasing, part of the RPG industry.

And judging by the number of posts in this thread, and the different viewpoints therein, I gather I'm not the only one interested in the subject, nor the only one in disagreement with this kind of self-described progressives in the industry.

I'm just making my voice being heard, that's all.
 


TheSword

Legend
Highly suggestive of what ?

I'm concerned about the social intentions - and the desire for change as conveyed in their products - of a sizable part of the RPG industry.

I write in this forum to make my position on the subject as clear as possible. I'm not in sync with the progressive goals of this sizable, and increasing, part of the RPG industry.

And judging by the number of posts in this thread, and the different viewpoints therein, I gather I'm not the only one interested in the subject, nor the only one in disagreement with this kind of self-described progressives in the industry.

I'm just making my voice being heard, that's all.

I amended my post before your replied to be less accusative. However, since you asked...

... suggestive that you care more about preserving your own idea of how the world should look like than you do about the game we all play. The more you post the more the ugly sentiment is revealed.

You created this thread presumably to make your voice heard and the overwhelming response was that the inclusive character trait was positive. The justifications against the inclusion didn’t stand up to scrutiny such as the bogus ‘real world issues’ argument.

My advice is to stop worrying about the 0.004% of MToF that isn’t relevant to you, and focus on the bits that are.
 
Last edited:


I amended my post before your replied to be less accusative. However, since you asked...

... suggestive that you care more about preserving your own idea of how the world should look like than you do about the game we all play. The more you post the more the ugly sentiment is revealed.

I care about the society I live in. And I have opinions about the way it (the society) should go.

I 've also come to care deeply about D&D for the 35 years (give or take) since I've been playing it.

Insofar as D&D is a cultural medium, it is linked to the society I live in. And, as important, D&D has been a part of my personal life - as a gamer and a social creature - for a long time.

In this thread, I talk about society and D&D, as they relate to each other. For me, there's nothing "ugly" about this way of dealing with D&D and the world at large.

If this medium wasn't in any way relating to the culture at large that we share -and thus to society - the self-described progressive segment of the RPG industry wouldn't be so interested to change it to reflect their world view.
Mind you, I don't begrudge them their worldview (or at least, I'm trying not to): I just happen to disagree with it, in a somewhat strong and spicy way.

You created this thread presumably to make your voice heard and the overwhelming response was that it was positive.
That is debatable.

The justifications against the inclusion didn’t stand up to scrutiny such as the bogus ‘real world issues’ argument.
That argument didn't convince you.

My advice is to stop worrying about the 0.004% of MToF that isn’t relevant to you, and focus on the bits that are.

I could have done that a few years ago.

But some of those self-described progressive voices have become - to me - so prevalent, loud and even shrill in recent times, that I would feel remiss if I didn't vocally stand in opposition to them.

I didn't start the culture wars. And neither did you. You and I both do not want to be at war, and I don't think we are. I wish there wasn't a war.

But we both live in troubled times (as the Chinese* would have it).

*"May you live in interesting times" is a traditional Chinese curse.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top