Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?

[Greg K]

No, I will not use it. It is not how elves are in my campaigns. However, if someone wants to play a transgender elf, they can play a transgender elf.

 

[mrpopstar]

The best explanation I've heard is that they don't learn as quickly, because as a race they just aren't time pressured to do it. A human will be practicing constantly to hone skills, whereas an elf might learn how to pick locks, and then go do other things or relax for 10 or 20 years before getting back to practicing it some more. Elven PCs would be an exception to that since they are involved in a lot of practice in a very short period of time during adventures.

Elves are fey and we refer to fey as 'children' of the wood for a reason.

 

[MiraMels]

Transsexual & transgender elves were already canon in my games and settings (even the ones set in official settings like the Forgotten Realms)

As are trans humans, trans dwarves, trans orcs, trans tieflings, etc.

Some of my players are trans, so of course they can find themselves (and people such as themselves) in my worlds. That's my duty as a dungeon master.

 

[Warpiglet]

Frankly, the sort of fantasy and swords and sorcery my group is interested in does little to explore gender identity or sexuality. I believe if we make assumptions we are generally defaulting to typical depictions of fantasy characters in areas we don't actively have interest in.

To the point, none of the group is really invested in hashing out sexual attractions or gender identity of characters to date. I don't see that changing. As a result, we usually default to heterosexual cis-gendered characters of either sex.

I don't see any of us thinking: "I really want to play a female barbarian who feels trapped in a male body." Just not of interest. Does not get the blood pumping.

If someone wants to do so, that is fine. If some is transgendered and a nice person I would play a game with them and make them feel welcome.

I just do not see these issues of more modern awareness to be a big part of the campaign. Just not terribly interesting for me...

At the same time, having some "chosen" individuals with something that is reminiscent of their deity is not a bad thing or without precedent. My warlock has weird eyes that are similar to his patron. Not unheard of...

However I do sort of chuckle when the only people who have this ability are the good guys and anyone who assume people be cisgendered are likely neutral or chaotic evil. Whatever. I just shrug.

The quality of the books and games are great and the rules are such you really can play the way you want. I am glad that people can incorporate these elements if they are interested in them! More choice = more players. More players = more D&D. More D&D = better world

Bottom line is we play what seems cool regardless of what makes society happy. I don't have a problems with this depiction but it does not make me want to play an Elven Eldritch Knight right away either. It is there if someone has interest. I just really don't.

At one time, many people were upset about the implications of D&D with the great panic. I would not let that sway the content I use. Neither would making genderqueer people happy on a societal level (someone at my table is another matter). I am just into seems cool and evocative of swords and sorcery or maybe LOTR/Elric.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my area/in my circles, the language goes thus: Folks whose gender matches their birth sex are "cis-gender". Those whose gender is the opposite of their birth sex are "transgender". Those who do not well fit into the distinct two-gender pattern are "non-binary". A transgender person still specifically identifies with one of the two broadly accepted genders, while non-binary people do not strongly identify with one, so the one cant' really be used as an overall term. This is not "individuals who argue otherwise". This is the common use of the local LGBTQ community that I interact with. I can't say everyone in the Boston area follows this use, but I can say it is dozens of people. I've been told that when I have to say, "not-cis", then say "not-cis" or say, "trans- and non-binary".

And, my apologies to those who don't like this form. It is how I've been told to use the language by those I interact with, and I have to take *someone's* guidance.

Yeah, the language surrounding gender is still developing and different people have different perspectives on how best to describe things. The most important thing is just to respect people’s preferences for what they want to be called, and specifically referring to “trans and nonbinary” people is a good way to keep your bases covered. Personally, I don’t care for the model you describe here because it implies a link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum - that your gender can be “the same as” or “opposite from” your sex, instead of treating them as two completely independent spectra. But I do understand the desire to distinguish nonbinary folks from trans folks of binary gender so as not to erase nonbinary identity. Personally, I tend to use “transgender” when referring to binary trans folks, “trans” when using it in the umbrella sense, and “queer” to refer to LGBTQIA as a whole.

Edit to add: I've also been told that "gender-queer" is becoming a more accepted form to refer to all those who are not cis-gender.

Genderqueer is an interesting case, because queer is a reclaimed slur. I’m all for its widespread use personally, it’s a wonderful and versatile term. But it’s the kind of thing it’s best to make sure a person is ok with being referred to by it before doing so.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yeah, the language surrounding gender is still developing and different people have different perspectives on how best to describe things.

I'm just glad to hear I wasn't completely off-base in my understanding of the terminology.

Personally, I don’t care for the model you describe here because it implies a link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum - that your gender can be “the same as” or “opposite from” your sex, instead of treating them as two completely independent spectra.

I'm curious how you reconcile the proposition that there is no link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum with the proposition that genders are culturally constructed and assigned to particular sexes. If culture constructs another sort of identity -- say, nationality -- and assigns that identity to people from a particular patch of land, it seems reasonable to say there is a link between nationality and geography, and it'd be odd to say that they are completely independent.

Genderqueer is an interesting case, because queer is a reclaimed slur. I’m all for its widespread use personally, it’s a wonderful and versatile term. But it’s the kind of thing it’s best to make sure a person is ok with being referred to by it before doing so.

Yeah, I avoid that one. Even aside from what the person being referred to is okay with, it feels like a slur to me. And talk about implications... it's a *ahem* strange term for a community seeking normalcy.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm just glad to hear I wasn't completely off-base in my understanding of the terminology.

For sure

I'm curious how you reconcile the proposition that there is no link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum with the proposition that genders are culturally constructed and assigned to particular sexes. If culture constructs another sort of identity -- say, nationality -- and assigns that identity to people from a particular patch of land, it seems reasonable to say there is a link between nationality and geography, and it'd be odd to say that they are completely independent.

I might not have worded that as well as I could have. What I mean to say is that sex characteristics do not dictate the identity of someone who has them. Framing someone who is born with a penis but identifies more with women than with men and is a woman in their own self-image has a gender that is “opppsite” their sex implies that identifying as a man when you have a penis is “normal” and the “opposite” is by aberrant by contrast. But as sex characteristics do not dictate identity, it is clearly not abnormal for someone with a penis to identify with women and see themself as a woman. So that model is flawed. Rather, sex should be seen as one spectrum and gender as another, and any placement on either as a normal, natural thing. Most cultures, however, have an expectation that one’s place on the sex spectrum ought to dictate their place on the gender spectrum. And this creates conflict with people who do not meet that expectation.

Yeah, I avoid that one. Even aside from what the person being referred to is okay with, it feels like a slur to me. And talk about implications... it's a *ahem* strange term for a community seeking normalcy.

Totally fair. Reclaimed slurs are a tricky thing, and when in doubt, not using them is always a safe bet, especially if you are not part of the group that has been targeted by it. Me, I love calling myself queer because it takes the power away from the people who would use it to hurt me. Damn right I’m odd, and proud of it! “Seeking normalcy” is kind of funky phrasing - we seek to be acknowledged as a normal part of life, not to pretend we aren’t different from cis people. To be accepted, not assimilated. To celebrate our differences rather than to have them ignored or demonized.

 

[Zardnaar]

How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love? In the USA 3.8% apparently identify as LBQT so in a somewhat liberal place a straight 5% of 1 in 20 chance an NPC might be receptive. In other parts of the world it would be functionally impossible to find anyone due to cultural norms that are oppressive?

I would let people RP whatever they wants but surgery or a magical equivalent would not be readily available. You would have to use magic to transition I suppose. Modern day liberal democratic norms and human rights would not exist.

Parts of my world you can and will get tortured and/or executed for being the wrong species or religion. I do not have a Kumbaya world where things like that happen in the evil lands. The default is kinda evil by modern standards but would more or less be the norm 500-1000 years ago.

 

[Yaarel]

How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love? In the USA 3.8% apparently identify as LBQT so in a somewhat liberal place a straight 5% of 1 in 20 chance an NPC might be receptive. In other parts of the world it would be functionally impossible to find anyone due to cultural norms that are oppressive?

I would let people RP whatever they wants but surgery or a magical equivalent would not be readily available. You would have to use magic to transition I suppose. Modern day liberal democratic norms and human rights would not exist.

Parts of my world you can and will get tortured and/or executed for being the wrong species or religion. I do not have a Kumbaya world where things like that happen in the evil lands. The default is kinda evil by modern standards but would more or less be the norm 500-1000 years ago.

That 5% or so tends to be individuals who are strictly gay women and men, and self-identify as such. When you bring bisexuality into the equation, the percentage is much higher.

So, the actual number seems to depend more on culture.

As a rule of thumb, I try to make sure about one out of every ten couples is samesex.

Plus it is interesting. Sometimes I downplay characters, sometimes I emphasize them. It tends to be fun to include them.

 

[Zardnaar]

That 5% or so tends to be individuals who are strictly gay women and men, and self-identify as such. When you bring bisexuality into the equation, the percentage is much higher.

So, the actual number seems to depend more on culture.

As a rule of thumb, I try to make sure about one out of every ten couples is samesex.

Plus it is interesting. Sometimes I downplay characters, sometimes I emphasize them. It tends to be fun to included them.

Well 1 in ten is way higher than what it is in liberal democracies. People tend to over estimate how many LBQT people there actually are probably because you are going to see it more on TV for example than IRL. Our values are actuallyin the minority on Earth most of the population is not a liberal democracy and you can still get killed or face massice discrimination in a good chunk of the world for being LBQT so you I guess in those parts of the world its very much in the closest.

USA the number came in at 3.8% using google fu. I'm in New Zealand bi sexuals are 1.8%, gay 2.6%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_New_Zealand

Sure not everyone will tick the box on a census form but NZ is one of the most gay friendly countries on the planet in terms of rights and acceptance.

My world doesn't have anyhting close to a liberal democracy maybe some free cities where people don't care about much of anything where money is more important. The Elven lands they won't care to much about it but in their and slavery is the default so you could buy a boby pleasure slave to do whatever you like with.
In the Knights of Vanya lands slavery is illeal but they are basically very conservative humanocentric types.

These are the nice places to live. By nice I mean safe.

Its basically if you want to make a nicer place you have to create it (going back to AD&D/BECMI domain type rules). Of course if you can amass enough political power/money/influence you can more or less do what you want (except maybe in the Knights of Vanya lands they are a theocracy).