I think wizards entered into the modern age with this edition

[CyberThread]

This is quoted from the rules


You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.


I am sorta happy, that they thought of this and made the game more inclusive even if by a default.

[pwykersotz]

This is quoted from the rules


You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.


I am sorta happy, that they thought of this and made the game more inclusive even if by a default.

I'm not sure I like the implication that our imaginations were somehow chained until this was put in. But, to each their own I guess.

[archaeo]

I'm not sure I like the implication that our imaginations were somehow chained until this was put in. But, to each their own I guess.

I don't think increasing the inclusiveness of the new edition serves as an indictment of previous editions and their players. Indeed, I think this simply codifies something that players already know and do, which was an overarching goal of the playtest, after all.

[Psyren]

There is value in openly stating something that was only implied before, so definite kudos to them.

[captpike]

There is value in openly stating something that was only implied before, so definite kudos to them.

what? this is like saying "in your world, the sky can be green or orange or any color you like" its stating something already known in the hopes some people will like it.

it worthless and a waste of time effort and paper

[obryn]

There is value in openly stating something that was only implied before, so definite kudos to them.
Agreed fully. Better to be explicitly inclusive.

[Mrc.]

it worthless and a waste of time effort and paper

Technically not paper yet as it's only out in pdf format but I think that being willing to state something that is as potentially caustic as gender orientation/identity is something to be commended for. That's one thing that Paizo did right in Pathfinder: they made it a much more equal place.

Of course, if you want to run a campaign where minorities, be that gender, race, orientation, whatever, are marginalised I'm not going to stop you. If handled well and with a mature group it can even be a great campaign, but for Wizards to be willing to put their face to tolerance is a fantastic thing to me at least.

[captpike]

Agreed fully. Better to be explicitly inclusive.

so they should say "if you have brown hair you can play the game" too?

[Palegreenpants]

Yes, this was heartening to see. Explicitly inclusive, indeed.

[captpike]

Technically not paper yet as it's only out in pdf format but I think that being willing to state something that is as potentially caustic as gender orientation/identity is something to be commended for. That's one thing that Paizo did right in Pathfinder: they made it a much more equal place.

Of course, if you want to run a campaign where minorities, be that gender, race, orientation, whatever, are marginalised I'm not going to stop you. If handled well and with a mature group it can even be a great campaign, but for Wizards to be willing to put their face to tolerance is a fantastic thing to me at least.

thirty years ago that might have been true, today adding "girls can play too" does nothing, it is neither brave nor any kind of risk. its good PR because people THINK it shows Wotc is brave or something stupid like that.

[Psyren]

what? this is like saying "in your world, the sky can be green or orange or any color you like" its stating something already known in the hopes some people will like it.

it worthless and a waste of time effort and paper

The sky did not undergo decades of oppression and being forced into the closet by a puritanical majority. Terribad analogy is terribad.

[obryn]

thirty years ago that might have been true, today adding "girls can play too" does nothing, it is neither brave nor any kind of risk. its good PR because people THINK it shows Wotc is brave or something stupid like that.
So if it goes without saying and it doesn't matter and it's not risky, why are you so upset by its inclusion that you feel compelled to respond to people who think this is pretty cool of WotC?

[CyberThread]

Well as someone who use to be known as CyberDrag I enjoyed it. We arn't at the stage yet were things like this is just common place things and no need to worry about it. The gaming table is still heavily filled with sex jokes and derogatory remarks towards females. So I don't know what lala land you are living in , if you think everything else is hunkydory.

[captpike]

The sky did not undergo decades of oppression and being forced into the closet by a puritanical majority. Terribad analogy is terribad.

neither did women, nor are women a minority, nor historically have they been. being as men were the ones doing the hard, dangerous labor that got them killed young.

women and men had different roles yes, but for most of human history neither have a choice. more info (http://www.avoiceformen.com/the-facts-about-men-and-boys/)

nor even if that were true would it matter, what matters is how they are today, not last century.


So if it goes without saying and it doesn't matter and it's not risky, why are you so upset by its inclusion that you feel compelled to respond to people who think this is pretty cool of WotC?

because its inclusion implies that it is needed when it is not. because its worthless text that when it goes to the printers will push out needed information. because it supports the incorrect notion that women are persecuted when they are not.

[Psyren]

neither did women

LOL. Just, LOL.

I think we're done here.

[captpike]

LOL. Just, LOL.

I think we're done here.

ah I see your the kind of person who only reads the first few words of anything before they judge, and never looks at the facts.

good to know

[Palegreenpants]

LOL. Just, LOL.

I think we're done here.

Seconded. Ignorance is ignorance.

[obryn]

ah I see your the kind of person who only reads the first few words of anything before they judge, and never looks at the facts.

good to know
I read the whole thing and it was predictable MRA bullcrap.

I wish I'd just read the first few words and laughed!

[Friv]

thirty years ago that might have been true, today adding "girls can play too" does nothing, it is neither brave nor any kind of risk. its good PR because people THINK it shows Wotc is brave or something stupid like that.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are, at this very moment, people ranting that WotC dared to include "terrible perversion" in their game by suggesting that gay people are real. So yeah, this is far from a resolved issue, and reminding people that they are welcome in your game is, in fact, incredibly heartening to those people when they have to face tides of responses like this one (http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/07/dungeons-and-perverts/).

[Mrc.]

Guys, let's keep this civil.

Maybe a different argument will work: the gaming industry, whilst it has changed a huge amount recently, still is stuck with many stereotypes. Amongst these stereotypes is that only white middle-aged men play D&D. This is totally false, but to a lot of people is what gaming is. By being willing to say things like they did, Wizards are not only challenging misconceptions, they're trying to make D&D more accessible. I won't get into real world arguments for the sake of board rules, but even in relatively tolerant countries people are victimised due to sexual orientation or gender. Even if it's only in a small way this is wrong. In fact, victimisation is so wrong it bears repeating. This is WRONG. If, explicitly or otherwise, your choices are represented in even the smallest things, such as a silly game you play with your friends where you all play with magic and Rods of Lordly Might, it can mean a lot. I'm not saying that this is what Wizards were thinking of but the fact that this may be the case is worth applauding them for.

[Psyren]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are, at this very moment, people ranting that WotC dared to include "terrible perversion" in their game by suggesting that gay people are real. So yeah, this is far from a resolved issue, and reminding people that they are welcome in your game is, in fact, incredibly heartening to those people when they have to face tides of responses like this one (http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/07/dungeons-and-perverts/).

Unbelievable. How do people/blogs like that still exist in 2014?

[Morty]

It's funny how every effort to be inclusive and non-discriminating is immediately justified and proved necessary by the reactions and comments to it.

[captpike]

I read the whole thing and it was predictable MRA bullcrap.

I wish I'd just read the first few words and laughed!

ah so you don't know the facts then, and you made a judgement anyway.

I am supported by the facts, and by logic what are you support by? a gut feeling?


It's funny how every effort to be inclusive and non-discriminating is immediately justified and proved necessary by the reactions and comments to it.

there are always going to be exceptions when your dealing with people, I don't think maybe 1% if that of people are worth such a citation, nor do I think Wotc deserves any credit for something like that.

[Felhammer]

Unbelievable. How do people/blogs like that still exist in 2014?

There are loads of people like that everywhere. Comics push the boundaries a bit more often and there is a lot of backlash every time anything related to LGBT and minorities comes up that is controversial. Heck, I have seen people rail against inter-racial marriages. :smallfrown:

[captpike]

There are loads of people like that everywhere. Comics push the boundaries a bit more often and there is a lot of backlash every time anything related to LGBT and minorities comes up that is controversial. Heck, I have seen people rail against inter-racial marriages. :smallfrown:

apparently there was a whole thing about a comic that showed superman drinking a beer...really? how could anyone object to that?

[CyberThread]

I read the whole thing and it was predictable MRA bullcrap.



Actually that wasn't MRA... mens rights deals with things like death in the workplace and getting harsher legal punishments then females do. Please know something before you say something.

The Reddit Redpill is different then the Reddit MRA

[Psyren]

I read the whole thing and it was predictable MRA bullcrap.

I wish I'd just read the first few words and laughed!

I wish I had too, believe me.


It's funny how every effort to be inclusive and non-discriminating is immediately justified and proved necessary by the reactions and comments to it.

Boy howdy.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/9116-Sexism-and-or-Racism

[CyberThread]

I wish I had too, believe me.



Boy howdy.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/9116-Sexism-and-or-Racism


they have some good gems

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/10597-WHITE-GUY-DEFENSE-FORCE-GO

[Friv]

apparently there was a whole thing about a comic that showed superman drinking a beer...really? how could anyone object to that?

I dunno. Some people will object to anything.

Heck, there are people objecting to Wizards referencing gay and transgender people in their book, how crazy is that?

[Psyren]

they have some good gems

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/10597-WHITE-GUY-DEFENSE-FORCE-GO

Oh man, I love that one!


I dunno. Some people will object to anything.

Heck, there are people objecting to Wizards referencing gay and transgender people in their book, how crazy is that?

<3

[StabbityRabbit]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are, at this very moment, people ranting that WotC dared to include "terrible perversion" in their game by suggesting that gay people are real. So yeah, this is far from a resolved issue, and reminding people that they are welcome in your game is, in fact, incredibly heartening to those people when they have to face tides of responses like this one (http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/07/dungeons-and-perverts/).

This is awful, and it had so much potential too with the title "Dungeons and Perverts".:smallamused:

[da_chicken]

I think it's a bit weird because sex never has anything to do with our games. "What's your initiative?" comes up all the time. "What's your orientation?" not so much. That is, sexual identity is not a part of character identity, but I suppose not all games (or all players) are like that.

In the end, there's no reason not to be inclusive, of course.

[archaeo]

I think it's a bit weird because sex never has anything to do with our games. "What's your initiative?" comes up all the time. "What's your orientation?" not so much. That is, sexual identity is not a part of character identity, but I suppose not all games (or all players) are like that.

In the end, there's no reason not to be inclusive, of course.

Sexuality comes up literally all the time in games. Do any of your (presumably hetero) characters ever have a love interest in the story? Do you ever have to rescue a damsel in distress? Do you ever have NPCs who are a married couple? Do you ever have younger boys show up in the plot to be told about becoming a hero? Or a little girl told about finding her prince? Etc.? A game doesn't have to be about sex to be about sexuality.

I mean, it is hard to avoid the heteronormative assumptions undergirding a lot of the most common plot beats. However you want to slice it, it's easy for non-hetero, non-male assumptions to be invisible in games, and it's a lonely world to live in where none of the stories around you reflect your own lived experience. Especially when that story is one you're actively involved in telling!

Which shouldn't be taken as like, an attack; I just hope I've explained how sex frequently impacts games.


I don't think maybe 1% if that of people are worth such a citation, nor do I think Wotc deserves any credit for something like that.

You, on the other hand, are actively antagonistic. Congrats, captpike; you succeeded in actually bumming me out, something I didn't think this forum was really capable of anymore.

[da_chicken]

I read the whole thing and it was predictable MRA bullcrap.

Honestly, with so many people being loudly obnoxious and sexist on both the MRA and feminist sides (with no-true-Scotsmans flying thicker than arrows at Agincourt) I've given up completely on the entire gender debate. Watching the protest videos from U of Toronto made me unreasonably angry. Now I'm convinced that both movements need to go away and neither represents reality anymore. They should be on the same side, dammit!


I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there are, at this very moment, people ranting that WotC dared to include "terrible perversion" in their game by suggesting that gay people are real. So yeah, this is far from a resolved issue, and reminding people that they are welcome in your game is, in fact, incredibly heartening to those people when they have to face tides of responses like this one (http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/07/dungeons-and-perverts/).

Wow and I thought I was wasting my time on the Internet talking about D&D rules.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You all got it wrong, obviously this isn't WotC making any kind of stand for morality or message...

It is a red herring, the Book of Erotic Fantasy 5.0 will be the first splat book on the market.

:smalltongue:

[Palegreenpants]

You all got it wrong, obviously this isn't WotC making any kind of stand for morality or message...

It is a red herring, the Book of Erotic Fantasy 5.0 will be the first splat book on the market.

:smalltongue:

Hah! Very good, but really, that would be terrible. . .

[da_chicken]

Sexuality comes up literally all the time in games. Do any of your (presumably hetero) characters ever have a love interest in the story? Do you ever have to rescue a damsel in distress? Do you ever have NPCs who are a married couple? Do you ever have younger boys show up in the plot to be told about becoming a hero? Or a little girl told about finding her prince? Etc.?

You may not believe me, but no. We tend to fight demons and evil gods and undead and rampaging orcs. Some of us occasionally play female characters or visit a brothel for an "I blow the reward on ale and whores" moment, but, no, gender is not a relevant component of our D&D games.



I mean, it is hard to avoid the heteronormative assumptions undergirding a lot of the most common plot beats. However you want to slice it, it's easy for non-hetero, non-male assumptions to be invisible in games, and it's a lonely world to live in where none of the stories around you reflect your own lived experience. Especially when that story is one you're actively involved in telling!

Which shouldn't be taken as like, an attack; I just hope I've explained how sex frequently impacts games.

Well, our table is composed of all cisgender heterosexual men. All white except one Mexican. All Christian or atheist/agnostic. We do have wives and girlfriends play, but usually only for one campaign every so often due to their schedules.

Nobody feels left out because we're all in the majority, and we don't often encounter non-heteronormative in game because, well, heteronormal is 95% of the population and the bedroom isn't relevant to the game we play. We don't care if you're gay or TG. We care if you have magic items or GP. We're adventurers, not Republicans.

The last time I remember rescuing a woman in-game she was a lost adventurer who had been killed and raised as a ghost, and we were sent by her brother who wasn't brave enough to dare look for her. That's not exactly a trope. Occasionally there are outwardly gay merchants or find that the queen's lover is her chambermaid, but it comes up so rarely that it's not relevant. We do a lot more kick-in-the-door style than politicking. Indeed, I think the chambermaid incident was told to us by the DM as a rumor and we just ignored it because we knew she wasn't involved in anything and the king was a jerk who stiffed us anyway.



You, on the other hand, are actively antagonistic. Congrats, captpike; you succeeded in actually bumming me out, something I didn't think this forum was really capable of anymore.

I just put them on the Ignore List and click View Post when I want a laugh.

[Sartharina]

Sexuality comes up literally all the time in games. Do any of your (presumably hetero) characters ever have a love interest in the story? Do you ever have to rescue a damsel in distress? Do you ever have NPCs who are a married couple? Do you ever have younger boys show up in the plot to be told about becoming a hero? Or a little girl told about finding her prince? Etc.? A game doesn't have to be about sex to be about sexuality.

I mean, it is hard to avoid the heteronormative assumptions undergirding a lot of the most common plot beats. However you want to slice it, it's easy for non-hetero, non-male assumptions to be invisible in games, and it's a lonely world to live in where none of the stories around you reflect your own lived experience. Especially when that story is one you're actively involved in telling!Hmm... none of my characters ever had a love interest in the story, and when we have to rescue people, it's usually random villagers of all types - Bakers, Bankers, Tradesmen, Tradeswomen, Princes, Princesses, etc. Gender roles may be in there, but unless I'm playing in one of my special campaigns with my special friends, sexuality never comes into it.

[Morty]

In the end, there's no reason not to be inclusive, of course.

I think this is what it boils down to in the end. Nothing is imposed on anyone, but people who tend to go unmentioned see their identity acknowledged and supported.

[captpike]

I think this is what it boils down to in the end. Nothing is imposed on anyone, but people who tend to go unmentioned see their identity acknowledged and supported.

by this logic every group that has ever felt they have ever been excluded should be mentioned

[StabbityRabbit]

by this logic every group that has ever felt they have ever been excluded should be mentioned

No, by this logic every group of people that has been discriminated against for no real reason, should be mentioned.

And to that I say: Why not?

[Pex]

Nobody feels left out because we're all in the majority, and we don't often encounter non-heteronormative in game because, well, heteronormal is 95% of the population and the bedroom isn't relevant to the game we play. We don't care if you're gay or TG. We care if you have magic items or GP. We're adventurers, not Republicans.



You had me until there. Let's not bring real world politics into this despite you being wrong on which American political party is the one that's obsessed about identities.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You know, it really makes sense when I read this and I see certain responses the way they are... Not surprising at all.

[captpike]

No, by this logic every group of people that has been discriminated against for no real reason, should be mentioned.

And to that I say: Why not?

becuase you dont have 10 pages to do it, and you would to decide the different between groups that have been treated badly and ones that only say they have.

also how far back do you go? 10 years? 100 years?

I guess the reason this annoys me is that they are getting praise for nothing, like when you see someone come out of the closet today, and people say they are "brave"..they are not. 50 years ago they would have been brave. today they are getting free PR.

[obryn]

I guess the reason this annoys me is that they are getting praise for nothing, like when you see someone come out of the closet today, and people say they are "brave"..they are not. 50 years ago they would have been brave. today they are getting free PR.
Leaving aside the fact that bigotry against homosexuals is still real and happening, and that plenty of states are still fighting marriage equality, do you know why it's easier to come out today than 50 years ago?

Come on, guess.

[CyberThread]

Leaving aside the fact that bigotry against homosexuals is still real and happening, and that plenty of states are still fighting marriage equality, do you know why it's easier to come out today than 50 years ago?

Come on, guess.

Queer eye for the straight guy, and will and grace?

[obryn]

Queer eye for the straight guy, and will and grace?
I don't know if you're being snarky here, but yes, that's a big part of it. Being in the open, and showing clearly and explicitly that LGBT folks are a part of society, exactly like what captpike is lamenting in this thread.

[Sartharina]

I'm of two minds of this.

On one hand, somewhat glad that it acknowledges sexuality and non-heteronormative ideals.
On the other... well, I'll keep my opinion of social justice to myself.
On the pervhat, though... While I think I understand the intent of the paragraph, I am validation of the fears of "Dungeons+Perverts". The paragraph pretty much says it's MY choice to play a hermaphrodite elf that probably makes everyone else uncomfortable with his/her opinion on the expression of sexuality, which can be a bit... extreme.

[CyberThread]

I should introduce you folks to a program called Second Life, and all its ... perverted glory...


An yes it was a bit of a sassy comment.

[Sartharina]

I should introduce you folks to a program called Second Life, and all its ... perverted glory...


An yes it was a bit of a sassy comment.

Second life is nothing compared to where I'm from. :smallamused:

Last time I played a character with my opinion on the issues, she got tazered about a hundred thousand times and locked into a baggy jumpsuit.

[da_chicken]

You had me until there. Let's not bring real world politics into this despite you being wrong on which American political party is the one that's obsessed about identities.

I'm just calling it like I see it. (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Civil_Rights.htm)

[Lokiare]

Anything I post to this thread would earn me a permaban, but if anyone wants to learn the truth of the matter feel free to pm me. Also for a game that purports to be suitable for minors having this in here should push its rating up to pg13 at the least.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Could you take that down, I would hate to see you baned or whatever...

[Friv]

becuase you dont have 10 pages to do it, and you would to decide the different between groups that have been treated badly and ones that only say they have.

also how far back do you go? 10 years? 100 years?

I guess the reason this annoys me is that they are getting praise for nothing, like when you see someone come out of the closet today, and people say they are "brave"..they are not. 50 years ago they would have been brave. today they are getting free PR.

If only there were an example, in this very thread, of discrimination against gay and transgendered people being an ongoing significant concern. But surely that will never...


Anything I post to this thread would earn me a permaban, but if anyone wants to learn the truth of the matter feel free to pm me. Also for a game that purports to be suitable for minors having this in here should push its rating up to pg13 at the least.

Oh, there it is! Thanks, man, you really helped me out.

[obryn]

The comments on any article about (sexism/homophobia/etc.) do, indeed, justify the article.

It's like clockwork.

[Sartharina]

Anything I post to this thread would earn me a permaban, but if anyone wants to learn the truth of the matter feel free to pm me. Also for a game that purports to be suitable for minors having this in here should push its rating up to pg13 at the least.And I find the idea that such content is somehow unsuitable for minors to be indicative of an unhealthy social view of sexuality.

[Envyus]

Anything I post to this thread would earn me a permaban, but if anyone wants to learn the truth of the matter feel free to pm me. Also for a game that purports to be suitable for minors having this in here should push its rating up to pg13 at the least.

Ok I feel like your are trying to present yourself as unlikable at this point.

[archaeo]

You may not believe me, but no. We tend to fight demons and evil gods and undead and rampaging orcs. Some of us occasionally play female characters or visit a brothel for an "I blow the reward on ale and whores" moment, but, no, gender is not a relevant component of our D&D games.


Hmm... none of my characters ever had a love interest in the story, and when we have to rescue people, it's usually random villagers of all types - Bakers, Bankers, Tradesmen, Tradeswomen, Princes, Princesses, etc. Gender roles may be in there, but unless I'm playing in one of my special campaigns with my special friends, sexuality never comes into it.

I def. wasn't trying to come across in a way that made anyone feel like they needed to defend their at-the-table stories; if that's how it seemed, then before the thread gets locked, sorry dudes.

Otherwise I'm pretty sure I have nothing further to say to the people who are in this thread to argue over an unambiguously positive thing.

[Sartharina]

I def. wasn't trying to come across in a way that made anyone feel like they needed to defend their at-the-table stories; if that's how it seemed, then before the thread gets locked, sorry dudes.

Otherwise I'm pretty sure I have nothing further to say to the people who are in this thread to argue over an unambiguously positive thing.

Well... I hope it's an unambiguously positive thing for those who don't spend most of their time with their minds in the gutter (Read: People that Aren't Me). While I may have dismissed Lokaire's point, I also kinda validate it.

I see a lot of people saying "Comments on articles about [social justice issue X] validate the issue" - and while I tend to be one to agree, I start to wonder if "Opinions expressed in [social justice issue X] validate the comments" is true as well. I could spout the "[Very angry comments indicated extreme discomfort with the issue] on my posts about [Personal beliefs about how society should work] Validate my stance" as well, and it would just leave everyone wierded out, uncomfortable, and probably highly offended and disgusted that anyone can think the way I do.

[da_chicken]

I def. wasn't trying to come across in a way that made anyone feel like they needed to defend their at-the-table stories; if that's how it seemed, then before the thread gets locked, sorry dudes.

Otherwise I'm pretty sure I have nothing further to say to the people who are in this thread to argue over an unambiguously positive thing.

No harm done. :smallsmile: Everyone's table is different. Gender identity is complicated, and some people want or value that context in their games. I'm happy to hear that what I think is unnecessary because of course nobody would have a problem with is actually really important and appreciated by some and really challenges others. If I came across as defensive, I apologize. I was just describing my play experiences and environment, not defending them.

[Particle_Man]

it worthless and a waste of time effort and paper

On the contrary, I bet it will prevent a young trans player from committing suicide, because they and their gaming group read that paragraph. It is that important.

Kudos to Wotc for that paragraph!

And I find it rather odd that there is a controversy over the paragraph in these message boards of all places, given that one of the main characters in the web comic The Order of the Stick is Varsuvius the Elf, whose gender has deliberately remained unspoken through the entire comic's run, even to the point of being lamp-shaded in the comic itself.

[Sartharina]

And I find it rather odd that there is a controversy over the paragraph in these message boards of all places, given that one of the main characters in the web comic The Order of the Stick is Varsuvius the Elf, whose gender has deliberately remained unspoken through the entire comic's run, even to the point of being lamp-shaded in the comic itself.

That's because V is "Unconfirmed", and what little is confirmed still conforms to typical social structure - monamorous, nuclear family with one caregiver (Who's also a monetary/stability breadwinner while the other's a fame/glory/achievement hunter), and nothing denying that it's not heteronormative. The comic (And V) would probably be MUCH differently received and discussed if V were instead a Pansexual Transexual Polyamorous Functional(Mythical) Hermaphrodite fighting against "Oppressive Gender roles" (Such as, for example, the 'need' for a female to keep her chest covered in public while males can go shirtless.) - which is something that paragraph can be taken to read as saying is A-OK for a player to thrust onto any D&D game.

[pwykersotz]

On the contrary, I bet it will prevent a young trans player from committing suicide, because they and their gaming group read that paragraph. It is that important.

Kudos to Wotc for that paragraph!

And I find it rather odd that there is a controversy over the paragraph in these message boards of all places, given that one of the main characters in the web comic The Order of the Stick is Varsuvius the Elf, whose gender has deliberately remained unspoken through the entire comic's run, even to the point of being lamp-shaded in the comic itself.

You have to remember, dispute over whether this is stated in the rules is not necessarily an indication of a person's level of acceptance/tolerance/progressive attitude. In my case, for example, I have an knee-jerk dislike of its inclusion only because it makes a possible issue of something that wasn't an issue before. My first campaign, my GM included a race of exclusively gay dwarves known as Heudorians. His major city is ruled by two queens. Sexual ambiguity and the defiance of tradition in that regard runs rampant throughout his campaign. It's never been an issue for anyone.

With the inclusion of this paragraph though, I'm probably going to be required to have the very conversation that this thread has illustrated with all new players at some point. Whether they believe the issue the paragraph details should or should not be there, whether it was inclusive enough, or even just self-congratulatory handshaking about how far society has come. Similar to the "why are evil elves dark skinned?" discussion that comes up. I'd rather let my game world speak for itself in that regard, because once a single person has had those conversations enough time, they grow very tiring.

I understand some people take this as a truly heartening sign of progression in society. That's cool, I don't begrudge them that...but I also don't have to enjoy it. Much to the probable chagrin of The Giant (based on a quote of his someone sigged), I play D&D mostly for petty escapism. I deal with enough serious social matters in my day-to-day.

[Particle_Man]

What conversation? You tell them to read page 33 and you stare them down until they are cowed by your cobra stare. :smallbiggrin:

Besides, you think you would have to have a conversation with New Ignorant Player based on them reading page 33 and would *not* have to have the same conversation as soon as New Ignorant Player learned about (through hearing of it or through encountering it) a game's gay dwarf society? Something tells me that NIP would need that conversation either way. :smallsmile:

[CyberThread]

hmm....intresting, to see how diverse this forum is :)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

hmm....intresting, to see how diverse this forum is :)

I've found that most D&D players come down to two main sides on issues like this.

+ Pro-Sexuality Choice.
+ I don't care, shut up and let's roll them up (not apathetic but it just isn't a major issue with them within the game).

Of course I used to game with some Log Cabin Republicans and some self proclaimed hippies (same gaming group) so I've had some weird groups in my day.

[Darkweave31]

While it's great that they are specifically stating it out now... gender and sex have had no bearing on game mechanics since 3rd IIRC. I mean, I don't recall any rules against it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While it's great that they are specifically stating it out now... gender and sex have had no bearing on game mechanics since 3rd IIRC. I mean, I don't recall any rules against it.

Sometimes you have to go beyond game mechanics in a roleplaying game. You get way to many DMs who freak out and believe that if it isn't specifically stated in the rules then you are just messing with the game.

Also, does anyone know Hasbro's stance on all this... I can't help but feel that this may be their way to test the water on being really outspoken about this topic.

[cobaltstarfire]

While it's great that they are specifically stating it out now... gender and sex have had no bearing on game mechanics since 3rd IIRC. I mean, I don't recall any rules against it.

It's about validation, certain minority groups have been told in may ways that they don't belong, that they can't do particular things, or that they aren't welcome. The gender binary is a given to most people, and by pointing out that no it actually isn't is a good thing to do. (It also saves some transgendered a lot of mental pain by being put in there the way it is).


I thought it was a nice touch personally when I saw it, it validates several groups of people, and it opens the possibilities for more story and character types that most people would have never considered, not out of spite or anything else but simply because it didn't occur to those players to include those sorts of things.

[Lokiare]

If only there were an example, in this very thread, of discrimination against gay and transgendered people being an ongoing significant concern. But surely that will never...



Oh, there it is! Thanks, man, you really helped me out.
Ah yes, so now having a fact based opinion (I've studied the subject in details) that differs from the popular one of the day is now discrimination?

That's exactly why I can't post my opinions or the facts that back them up without reprisal. So I'm actually the one being discriminated against.

On the contrary, I bet it will prevent a young trans player from committing suicide, because they and their gaming group read that paragraph. It is that important.

Kudos to Wotc for that paragraph!

And I find it rather odd that there is a controversy over the paragraph in these message boards of all places, given that one of the main characters in the web comic The Order of the Stick is Varsuvius the Elf, whose gender has deliberately remained unspoken through the entire comic's run, even to the point of being lamp-shaded in the comic itself.

If a young trans player was on the verge of suicide and a few sentences in a game book saves their life then they have much deeper problems and need to get some mental help.

[Mrc.]

Ok guys keep suicide out of this. Even if it does sometimes end up as the sad end to these issues it is definitely a trigger subject for many people and has nothing really to do with 5E.

Back on topic, who here would have complained had they left that sentence out but had included it in the playtests? By this I mean, they had considered it and presented it to the playtesters but had taken it out at the last minute.

[captpike]

On the contrary, I bet it will prevent a young trans player from committing suicide, because they and their gaming group read that paragraph. It is that important.

Kudos to Wotc for that paragraph!

And I find it rather odd that there is a controversy over the paragraph in these message boards of all places, given that one of the main characters in the web comic The Order of the Stick is Varsuvius the Elf, whose gender has deliberately remained unspoken through the entire comic's run, even to the point of being lamp-shaded in the comic itself.

that is a person with a gender, you just don't know what it is. hardly the same as someone who has been made to apear as a different gender (trans) or anything else mentioned.

[Sartharina]

that is a person with a gender, you just don't know what it is. hardly the same as someone who has been made to apear as a different gender (trans) or anything else mentioned.Actually, V may not have a gender (Or may)

Also... that is not what Trans is (Assuming you mean transexual. Transvestite is different). Trans is someone who, through a quirk of genetic diversity and sexual dimorphism, the sexual dimorphism of a person's brain is closer to that of the opposite sex of the sexual dimorphism of the body.

[captpike]

Actually, V may not have a gender (Or may)

Also... that is not what Trans is (Assuming you mean transexual. Transvestite is different). Trans is someone who, through a quirk of genetic diversity and sexual dimorphism, the sexual dimorphism of a person's brain is closer to that of the opposite sex of the sexual dimorphism of the body.

I meant someone who is a certain gender, as defined by their DNA and what organs they were born with. then had some surgery to make it look like they were the other.

[Kalmageddon]

This is quoted from the rules


You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide.


I am sorta happy, that they thought of this and made the game more inclusive even if by a default.

All very good, except the bolded part.

Because to me, it seems to imply that elves that are not hermaphrodites are somehow less "elven" than those that are. After all, being made in the image of your god seems like a pretty big deal, expecially in a world where the existance of said god has been aboundantly proved.
Basically, this is really poor wording and/or poor world building. Why would Corellon make only what is presumed to be a minority of elves in its image? What is the point in making a race of hermaphrodites only to then also make the same race available in binary sexes? Once you have a functional hermaphrodite, there is no point in having separate sexes anymore, from a practical point of view. And if you are a god and you choose to make only a few of your children in your image, aren't you basically saying "look, those are better than the rest of you"? Wouldn't these elves automatically gain better social standing, thus potentially promoting sexism?

I'm just saying, WotC wanted to be all progressive and stuff, but that part raises so many questions and unfortunate implications... :smallconfused:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I meant someone who is a certain gender, as defined by their DNA and what organs they were born with. then had some surgery to make it look like they were the other.

I think you mean Sex, there is a huge difference between someone's Sex and someone's Gender.

Please educate yourself.

[Sartharina]

I meant someone who is a certain gender, as defined by their DNA and what organs they were born with. then had some surgery to make it look like they were the other.Even though you do mean sex here - the problem is that genetics are so diverse (There are full females with XY chromosomes, and full males with XX chromosomes. And people with XXY, XYY, Y, and X chromosome configurations as well) that the 'organs' they are born with aren't always entirely male or female. Studies have found most transexuals have brains (As in the shape and neurochemical composition) of the sex opposite their primary sexual characteristics.

Yes, only one in thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions (Depending on the particular aberrant development) of people have such abnormalities - but in a population of billions, those people add up, and are no less human than anyone else.
I think you mean Sex, there is a huge difference between someone's Sex and someone's Gender.

Please educate yourself.Actually, language has shifted so that Gender can be used to mean physical Sex (Which is redefined to strictly refer to intercourse).

[captpike]

I think you mean Sex, there is a huge difference between someone's Sex and someone's Gender.

Please educate yourself.

not in English there is not. those words may someday change meaning but as of yet they have not, and they will not unless and until a very large amount of people speaking English have incorporated it into their understanding of those words.


EDIT: unless you mean that sex can refer to the act of sex, as well as someone's gender, that is the only difference


Even though you do mean sex here - the problem is that genetics are so diverse (There are full females with XY chromosomes, and full males with XX chromosomes. And people with XXY, XYY, Y, and X chromosome configurations as well) that the 'organs' they are born with aren't always entirely male or female. Studies have found most transexuals have brains (As in the shape and neurochemical composition) of the sex opposite their primary sexual characteristics.

Yes, only one in thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions (Depending on the particular aberrant development) of people have such abnormalities - but in a population of billions, those people add up, and are no less human than anyone else.Actually, language has shifted so that Gender can be used to mean physical Sex (Which is redefined to strictly refer to intercourse).

yes there are outliers, but in 99% of everyone its very simple to determine a person gender. and its not something a few snips can change, anymore then me putting on a dress would make a women.

[Sartharina]

not in English there is not. those words may someday change meaning but as of yet they have not, and they will not unless and until a very large amount of people speaking English have incorporated it into their understanding of those words.

The proper answer is "People don't actually have gender, because we're creatures, not words".

[captpike]

The proper answer is "People don't actually have gender, because we're creatures, not words".

not really, how many people would be confused if you ask them their gender? or would be insulted by it?

in a language where you have to give objects a gender that tends to be true but that is not how english works.

[Kalmageddon]

not in English there is not. those words may someday change meaning but as of yet they have not, and they will not unless and until a very large amount of people speaking English have incorporated it into their understanding of those words.


EDIT: unless you mean that sex can refer to the act of sex, as well as someone's gender, that is the only difference



yes there are outliers, but in 99% of everyone its very simple to determine a person gender. and its not something a few snips can change, anymore then me putting on a dress would make a women.

Dude, you really don't want to go there, trust me. There's a ****storm building up at the horizon right now, and it's headed your way.

[captpike]

Dude, you really don't want to go there, trust me. There's a ****storm building up at the horizon right now, and it's headed your way.

I know a great many people disagree, the numbers do not make them less wrong or me less right.

what would be wrong would be to let it pass, truth is more important then their feelings.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The proper answer is "People don't actually have gender, because we're creatures, not words".

What's really cool is that human races don't actually exist. It is just categories that we place each other in because we like to do stupid stuff like that.

Group race A and group race B.

There will be a bigger difference between the genetics of two men from group A (compared to each other) than there would be from two men compared from group A and B.

Gender is a lot like this. Gender is a catagory for the sake of having catagories and can be argued that gender doesn't exist at all except because we decided at one point it does and that we study it!

It is quite fascinating.

Sex however (male or female parts) do exist and do have different effects on the person that have them ... Err attached due to chemicals and such. We still catorgorize male and female into separate things because it is just something our species just loves to do.

I'm not saying we need to decatorgorize male/female, this category actually is needed in a lot of parts of our society (such as drug testing on mice, yeah weird but true).

[Callin]

Personally it does not impact me one way or another with the way they outlay picking Gender and or Sex (however you wish to define said words haha). Im am a pretty openminded Conservative so I feel its better to be INCLUSIVE in this case than EXCLUSIVE. Specially from a business point of view. (This is my stance on other things as well)(I do have other "issues" with this subject but this forum is not the place for said discussion)

But coming down to the brass tacks it dont effect me, so I wont let it bother me.

[Friv]

I'm just going to ignore Lokiare and captpike because of course I am, and address an interesting point brought up elsewhere.


All very good, except the bolded part.

Because to me, it seems to imply that elves that are not hermaphrodites are somehow less "elven" than those that are. After all, being made in the image of your god seems like a pretty big deal, expecially in a world where the existance of said god has been aboundantly proved.
Basically, this is really poor wording and/or poor world building. Why would Corellon make only what is presumed to be a minority of elves in its image? What is the point in making a race of hermaphrodites only to then also make the same race available in binary sexes? Once you have a functional hermaphrodite, there is no point in having separate sexes anymore, from a practical point of view. And if you are a god and you choose to make only a few of your children in your image, aren't you basically saying "look, those are better than the rest of you"? Wouldn't these elves automatically gain better social standing, thus potentially promoting sexism?

I'm just saying, WotC wanted to be all progressive and stuff, but that part raises so many questions and unfortunate implications... :smallconfused:

I believe that this is actually a reference to a number of real-world cultures, in which people who were transsexual or intersex were viewed as having been touched by the divine, as their bodies or minds were touching on two states at once. It was particularly common in various midwestern Native American tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit). Given the way that elves often kind of co-opt native iconography as part of their 'living in touch with nature' themes, I suspect that's deliberate.

[Kalmageddon]

I'm just going to ignore Lokiare and captpike because of course I am, and address an interesting point brought up elsewhere.



I believe that this is actually a reference to a number of real-world cultures, in which people who were transsexual or intersex were viewed as having been touched by the divine, as their bodies or minds were touching on two states at once. It was particularly common in various midwestern Native American tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit). Given the way that elves often kind of co-opt native iconography as part of their 'living in touch with nature' themes, I suspect that's deliberate.

Now, if that were the case, it would be fine. It certanly would lend itself to some pretty interesting roleplaying, that's for sure. And I absolutely love it when a fantasy culture contains obscure references to past history and traditions.

But that introduction doesn't seem to be about flashing out the setting, it seems more about shouting "LOOK HOW PROGRESSIVE AND INCLUSIVE WE ARE!", which is why I have a problem with dropping the hermaphrodites elves in there.
Hermaphrodite elves made in the image of Corellon is not inclusive or progressive, it's just an element of the setting. It could be horribly sexist, as I've mentioned above, or it could be a mystical thing, or whatever. But it doesn't have anything to do with the tone of the article.

[Sartharina]

yes there are outliers, but in 99% of everyone its very simple to determine a person gender. and its not something a few snips can change, anymore then me putting on a dress would make a women.
The people getting the "Few snips" aren't the 99% of everyone who are very simple to determine the gender. You're treating "99%" as though it's inclusive of everyone, even though there are many, many parts about your own body and identity that are common to less than a fraction of a percentage of the population.

With even only 1% outliers, in populations of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and billions, we're still dealing with a LOT of outlier people. With your 1% figure... that means there are over 460,000,000 people in the world who's sex you cannot simply determine.

I'm not getting angry with you - I used to think along similar lines as you until I found the studies and did the research on the issue.

[da_chicken]

All very good, except the bolded part.

Because to me, it seems to imply that elves that are not hermaphrodites are somehow less "elven" than those that are. After all, being made in the image of your god seems like a pretty big deal, expecially in a world where the existance of said god has been aboundantly proved.
Basically, this is really poor wording and/or poor world building. Why would Corellon make only what is presumed to be a minority of elves in its image? What is the point in making a race of hermaphrodites only to then also make the same race available in binary sexes? Once you have a functional hermaphrodite, there is no point in having separate sexes anymore, from a practical point of view. And if you are a god and you choose to make only a few of your children in your image, aren't you basically saying "look, those are better than the rest of you"? Wouldn't these elves automatically gain better social standing, thus potentially promoting sexism?

I'm just saying, WotC wanted to be all progressive and stuff, but that part raises so many questions and unfortunate implications... :smallconfused:

It's important to note that Corellon has always been presented as androgynous and hermaphroditic. He (their pronoun not mine) is described as such in the 1e Deities and Demigods. Elves also already are the most androgynous race, with both males and females possessing diminished or outright lacking sex characteristics (males are slender and lack facial hair, females are less curvy).

As for why elves are sexed, who knows? Perhaps it was the influence of the other Elven gods. I think it's important to note that hermaphroditism as a reproductive survival strategy is largely restricted to invertebrates and species that fertilize offspring outside their bodies. AFAIK, there has never been a case of human hermaphroditism where both sets of organs were fully functional from a reproductive standpoint. A god doesn't need to reproduce, but his children do. Hermaphroditism, even sequential hermaphroditism, seems like an extremely expensive survival strategy, then.


Dude, you really don't want to go there, trust me. There's a ****storm building up at the horizon right now, and it's headed your way.

See, I think you need to be careful with that, because technically he's right (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender). The word "gender" is still defined in English as a synonym for "sex."

Now, there's a difference between English and the language of social sciences and gender politics. This is not unusual, as most complex topics have their own lexicon. "Window" for example, has a totally different meaning in the context of computing that English didn't consider a definition for many years. 8 to 10 years ago, the terms used were "gender identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity)" and "sexual identity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity)". In those fields, however, the terms have more recently changed to just be "gender" and "sex". The English language as a whole has not and will not catch up for probably another 10 to 20 years. Even then, it will likely take another 50-100 years for the synonymous nature of "sex" and "gender" to be described as archaic. When you're talking with people who are laypersons, you have to remember that. Yelling at them for using English instead of your lexicon is both insulting to them and damaging to the cause of acceptance.

And I'm saying this to you because you're likely to hear me, captpike is not.

[Kalmageddon]

And I'm saying this to you because you're likely to hear me, captpike is not.

Right, my intention wasn't to yell at captpike though. I don't care if someone uses "gender" or "sex", I usually understand from context what they are referring to exactly. It's just that he went a little bit beyond arguing the use of a word.
Point being, people are really, really sensitive about those issues on this forum, in no small part due to the unusually high concentration of transgender users.
I was just warning him to avoid a flame war.

[da_chicken]

Right, my intention wasn't to yell at captpike though. I don't care if someone uses "gender" or "sex", I usually understand from context what they are referring to exactly. It's just that he went a little bit beyond arguing the use of a word.
Point being, people are really, really sensitive about those issues on this forum, in no small part due to the unusually high concentration of transgender users.
I was just warning him to avoid a flame war.

Fair enough. Cheers! :smallsmile:

[cobaltstarfire]

All very good, except the bolded part.

Because to me, it seems to imply that elves that are not hermaphrodites are somehow less "elven" than those that are. After all, being made in the image of your god seems like a pretty big deal, expecially in a world where the existance of said god has been aboundantly proved.
Basically, this is really poor wording and/or poor world building. Why would Corellon make only what is presumed to be a minority of elves in its image? What is the point in making a race of hermaphrodites only to then also make the same race available in binary sexes? Once you have a functional hermaphrodite, there is no point in having separate sexes anymore, from a practical point of view. And if you are a god and you choose to make only a few of your children in your image, aren't you basically saying "look, those are better than the rest of you"? Wouldn't these elves automatically gain better social standing, thus potentially promoting sexism?



Not really poor wording/world building we have at least one culture that operates like that.

Somewhere in the pacific islands (or the Indian ocean I forget..) The particular culture has 5 "genders" Male, Female, Male in Female Body, Female in Male body, and then the rare few who encompass all (hermaphrodite), they are always holy people and looked upon with reverence.

There are quite a few cultures that have more than just binary genders built into them.

[GPuzzle]

My two CP:

I sort of agree with you all. Even captpike.

Why? Well, it's simple:

I think the best way to talk about prejudice?

Stop talking about it. No, not ignore it. Prejudice, in any way, shape, form, directed at anyone by anyone, anywhere, is an awful thing. Much like oppression, and restriction of liberty. It should be opposed to. But not repeatdly mentioned and blaming people. That just cause a He/She/It Who Fights Monsters, and snowballs into more hate. Does "MRA bullcrap" ring some bells here? This is just as much prejudice as "God hates ****" (Christian here, just a quick reminder, I disagree with anything like that).

Honestly, it's less of a "WotC is moving to a better era" to me and more of a "this shouldn't have to be mentioned". We're all people. I loathe Feminist and MRA equally. I'm an equalitarian. We're all humans - we all deserve the same rights. We shouldn't blame eachother for anything. This is proof that we still aren't in a better era. That this is no "modern era".

Personally, we'll know we'll be in an equal place when we won't need to mention that. And from LGBT friends, even they can't take the LGBT community seriously - if the people from that same community can't take themselves seriously, how can others?

Also, to that person who tried to use V as an example of trans or whatever you're using, just let me be clear, I hate Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory. Not everything is a metaphor for something.

[Kalmageddon]

Not really poor wording/world building we have at least one culture that operates like that.

Somewhere in the pacific islands (or the Indian ocean I forget..) The particular culture has 5 "genders" Male, Female, Male in Female Body, Female in Male body, and then the rare few who encompass all (hermaphrodite), they are always holy people and looked upon with reverence.

There are quite a few cultures that have more than just binary genders built into them.

Again, refer to my previous posts.
My point is that the messeage was "look how inclusive we are", but the implications where that somehow Corellon only made a few elves in his image. If that was meant to be received as a proof that the standard 5th ed. setting was "free of prejudice", it failed in my opinion.

It can certanly be varied, as I said if the implications of a hermaphrodite minority of elves is actually elaborated upon and it's not there only to provide "inclusiveness", it can be good. If it's meant to be taken without questions just for variety and inclusiveness sake, I have a problem with that.
It's basically going meta and trying to portray the setting as having modern day open mindness just to appeal to a wider audience. It's more of a matter of principles, you might say. You don't put something in a setting just to appeal to modern day morality, you put it in because it provides good material to roleplay upon.
Can you do both? Of course. But I fear that hermaphrodite elves are being shoved into the mix just to keep up the trend of inclusiveness that transpires from what the OP quoted.

Now, transgender issues and homosexuality don't really need to be elaborated upon all that much, they exist in the real world and you certanly don't want to say "a god/wizard did it", but an hermaphrodite minority of elves made that way by Corellon himself? That just seems something that shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as the above mentioned issues.
Don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[pwykersotz]

Don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

A lot of us probably are, myself included. Looking at both this thread and the one on the WotC forums, enough people are over the moon about this part that it seems to be a good inclusion overall. Like SpawnOfMorbo said earlier, I'm only seeing the perspectives of "Yay" or "I don't think it needs to be said". I haven't seen a single dissenter saying "Boo". When all the opinions weigh in on neutral or good, it's probably solid.

[nyjastul69]

Again, refer to my previous posts.
My point is that the messeage was "look how inclusive we are", but the implications where that somehow Corellon only made a few elves in his image. If that was meant to be received as a proof that the standard 5th ed. setting was "free of prejudice", it failed in my opinion.

It can certanly be varied, as I said if the implications of a hermaphrodite minority of elves is actually elaborated upon and it's not there only to provide "inclusiveness", it can be good. If it's meant to be taken without questions just for variety and inclusiveness sake, I have a problem with that.
It's basically going meta and trying to portray the setting as having modern day open mindness just to appeal to a wider audience. It's more of a matter of principles, you might say. You don't put something in a setting just to appeal to modern day morality, you put it in because it provides good material to roleplay upon.
Can you do both? Of course. But I fear that hermaphrodite elves are being shoved into the mix just to keep up the trend of inclusiveness that transpires from what the OP quoted.

Now, transgender issues and homosexuality don't really need to be elaborated upon all that much, they exist in the real world and you certanly don't want to say "a god/wizard did it", but an hermaphrodite minority of elves made that way by Corellon himself? That just seems something that shouldn't be mentioned in the same context as the above mentioned issues.
Don't know, maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I think you're reading too much into it. I don't think most people have a working definition of the the difference between a transexual, transvestite or hermaphrodite.

ETA: Whether this additional statement is going to sway anyone in any direction regarding how the game is played is unlikely IMO. It's probably there to mollify the Politically Correct Police.

[Particle_Man]

I think the best way to talk about prejudice?

Stop talking about it.

That never works.


No, not ignore it. Prejudice, in any way, shape, form, directed at anyone by anyone, anywhere, is an awful thing.

Trouble is, "not talking about it" and "ignoring it" look functionally the same, and allow prejudice to continue.


But not repeatdly mentioned and blaming people. That just cause a He/She/It Who Fights Monsters, and snowballs into more hate. Does "MRA bullcrap" ring some bells here? This is just as much prejudice as "God hates ****" (Christian here, just a quick reminder, I disagree with anything like that).

Trouble is, if prejudice exists, one may have to point it out repeatedly to get it to stop. As a tactic, I agree that calling people out on what they specifically did "what you said was bigotted" rather than saying "you are a bigot" could be more effective, as it is more likely to get people to listen.


Honestly, it's less of a "WotC is moving to a better era" to me and more of a "this shouldn't have to be mentioned".

But since we live in a world in which gay people are sentenced to death in some places, go to jail for being gay in some places, and cannot legally marry the person they love in some places, and in which trans people cannot get legal recognition of their gender in many places, obviously we are not in the enlightened era you envision yet and so this still does have to be mentioned.


We're all people. I loathe Feminist and MRA equally.

Feminist is a broad term and many very good people proudly have called themselves feminists. I assume you are cool with allowing women to vote, allowing women to own property, allowing women to apply for jobs, ensuring that women are not paid less at their jobs than men in equivalent jobs, etc.? Because all of that falls under "feminism" and so you would be a feminist. Similarly, by saying that you hate feminists, many people may gain the impression that you oppose women voting, women owning property, women being allowed to apply for jobs that men can apply for, and women getting equal pay for equal work. I would suggest you find a more exact term for what you oppose than "feminism".


I'm an equalitarian. We're all humans - we all deserve the same rights. We shouldn't blame each other for anything.

The latter does not follow from the former. Presumably you agree that we should blame bank robbery, even in a society where everyone deserves equal rights? We can simultaneously want equality of rights and still blame (and in some cases legally penalize the people performing) bad actions.


This is proof that we still aren't in a better era. That this is no "modern era".

If we are not in a better era, than we need the paragraph all the more. But "modern" can be a relative term. We are more modern than an era in which people working for a gaming company would be too prejudiced, or too afraid, to put the paragraph in, and less modern than an era in which there is no prejudice at all, anywhere in the world, among the potential readership (or the people the readers will encounter).


Personally, we'll know we'll be in an equal place when we won't need to mention that.

Pro-tip: We are not in an equal place. We really do need to mention things like that paragraph.


And from LGBT friends, even they can't take the LGBT community seriously - if the people from that same community can't take themselves seriously, how can others?

Not sure what you are even talking about, here. But note that the LGBT community is not some monolithic block. That said, many LGBT people like that paragraph (some complain that it doesn't go quite far enough, but are overall happy with it).


Also, to that person who tried to use V as an example of trans or whatever you're using, just let me be clear, I hate Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory. Not everything is a metaphor for something.

You are not clear. I don't know what "Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory" means. But you are aware that V's gender, and that of the other-parent of V's children, is left undefined in the web comic, right? It is even lamp-shaded in "The origin of the PCs" when Roy is hiring V and is deciding how to tick off the "male or female" box. Having an undefined gender a rare event in Western society even today, in which one of the very first questions people get asked upon announcing they have a baby is "Is it a boy or a girl?". Now that is not a statement of transsexuality, you are correct. It is, however, different from the binary gendered social structure most of us encounter IRL (and in many works of fantasy). That said, it is of note that the paragraph specifically calls out the leader of the god of the elves as androgynous, which is V's status. Anyhow, a statement supporting having an undefined gender is also welcome, in a society in which boys that look too girly can get beaten up, and women that look too manly can be denied jobs because of their not fitting a feminine enough look.

[obryn]

My two CP:

I sort of agree with you all. Even captpike.

Why? Well, it's simple:

I think the best way to talk about prejudice?

Stop talking about it. No, not ignore it. Prejudice, in any way, shape, form, directed at anyone by anyone, anywhere, is an awful thing. Much like oppression, and restriction of liberty. It should be opposed to. But not repeatdly mentioned and blaming people. That just cause a He/She/It Who Fights Monsters, and snowballs into more hate. Does "MRA bullcrap" ring some bells here? This is just as much prejudice as "God hates ****" (Christian here, just a quick reminder, I disagree with anything like that).

Honestly, it's less of a "WotC is moving to a better era" to me and more of a "this shouldn't have to be mentioned". We're all people. I loathe Feminist and MRA equally. I'm an equalitarian. We're all humans - we all deserve the same rights. We shouldn't blame eachother for anything. This is proof that we still aren't in a better era. That this is no "modern era".

Personally, we'll know we'll be in an equal place when we won't need to mention that. And from LGBT friends, even they can't take the LGBT community seriously - if the people from that same community can't take themselves seriously, how can others?

Also, to that person who tried to use V as an example of trans or whatever you're using, just let me be clear, I hate Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory. Not everything is a metaphor for something.
No.

By saying "prejudice and bigotry shouldn't be talked about," you are making a de facto argument in favor of the status quo. It's a position that's more concerned with comfort than justice. By avoiding the "blame game" you're giving a free pass to bigots.

There is also an inherent problem in treating feminist and misogynist stances as somehow equal, just as there is with treating gay rights and anti-gay positions as equal.

You do not increase liberty by giving it equal status with bigotry, pure and simple.

But this has gone very far afield from elf games, I'm afraid.

[Zale]

I think it's a good step to finally make. It would have been nice if they had not waited until 2014 to make this step, but better late than never.

[Southern Cross]

Here's my definitions:
Transsexual: A person who has actually changed gender.
Transvestite: A person who wears clothes normally worn by the opposite gender.
Hemaphrodite: Somebody with both male and female genitals.

[Sartharina]

Here's my definitions:
Transsexual: A person who has actually changed gender.
I have an issue with this definition, given that most transexuals are not able to get HRT or SRS, yet the parts that actually makes a transexual a transexual (Namely - the bits in the nervous system don't correspond with the bits in the rest of the systems - and the Nervous system is the one that defines a person as who they are) are still there.

[archaeo]

Here's my definitions:
Transsexual: A person who has actually changed gender.
Transvestite: A person who wears clothes normally worn by the opposite gender.
Hemaphrodite: Somebody with both male and female genitals.

For what it's worth:


The word intersex has come into preferred usage for humans, since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be misleading and stigmatizing, as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic".

and


According to some sources, the term transvestite today is considered outdated and derogatory.

With the latter group generally preferring "cross-dressing."

I'm not sure why WotC chose "hermaphrodite" rather than "intersex," though I think it's fairly clear from the paragraph that their intent was inclusive; perhaps there wasn't anyone on staff with knowledge of the distinction. It's also worth pointing out that the word is derived from the Greek god Hermaphroditos, so perhaps they were attempting to contextualize these issues in D&D's divinity, though through a roundabout way.

Suffice it to say that language is constantly changing, and as various marginalized groups aim to retake the language surrounding their lives, it behoves everyone involved to have patience. Naturally, these two examples don't cover everyone, as there are people who prefer the labels you've outlined above.

[Dr.Starky]

The problem with saying that "we shouldn't talk about prejudice" is that prejudice can be so deeply ingrained in our culture, it can be hard to notice if we don't talk about it.

[da_chicken]

The problem with saying that "we shouldn't talk about prejudice" is that prejudice can be so deeply ingrained in our culture, it can be hard to notice if we don't talk about it.

I think the problem with it is that it says, "My discomfort is more important than your rights."

[GPuzzle]

Everyone is Jesus in Purgatory is a trope. It means "trying to find second, deeper meanings when they don't exist". Guys/Gals/Whatever, V's gender is played for laughs. Not a philosophical statement. Not "supporting a different type of gender". It's a running gag.

Second, I have the problem of choosing bad examples. Something I still need to fix.

Third, I agree that protests for basic rights were taken by feminists, but those did need that. I loath the feminists who insert freaking crosses in their vaginas. Personally, when the scales are off, I agree that we need it (both ways). But we now aren't. At least not in the West. C'mon, the wage gap is a self-defeating myth. If enterprises pay women less, why the hell haven't they fired all men and hired only women, because that'd be cheaper, and since every director is a capitalist *******, that'd be the logical thing to do.

Fourth, wrong word, again. This is punishment, control - and it is to an extent, necessary. But saying that it's MRA's or feminist's fault, that's horsecrap. Killing, robbing - I'm not "blaming" someone for it. I'm making them pay for breaking basic... Not rights, commandments? I don't know the word in English.

Fifth, in those places where gay people are sent to jail, I highly doubt that D&D would be sold there. Still, this shouldn't need to be mentioned. And it's not a freaking RPG company that will change it.

Sixth, this will only open for more jokes towards elves, and them being "openly fey". It might harm where it was supposed to help.

Last but not least (actually, the most important): you can consider yourself a freaking slug. I won't care. I'll consider you for who you are - and if you are an *******, I don't care whether or not you share the same ideas as I do - treat others like crap, and you lose all of my respect.

Also, people forget the other part of a Constitution. There's rights. These are things that the Constitution nearly guarantees you have. This is what people want.

The other part is what no one wants. To pay in the divorce (women don't, even when it's the man who called it). To have to join the army (women don't). To be able to stop working at 65 (women can do that at 60). At least here in Brazil.

This is not equal.

Balance is off favoring men? Give women men's rights.

Balance is off favoring women? Give men women's right.

If everyone is equal, no one deserves an advantage or disadvantage for being different. And this applies to everyone.

[Sartharina]

I think the problem with it is that it says, "My discomfort is more important than your rights."Which rights are we talking about? The entire purpose of society is to create a social contract where people sign away rights they have for the comfort of everyone else, starting with rights that conflict when you have more than one person exercising them, and expanding outward. (Such as signing away our rights to swing our fists around to make people not feel threatened by flying blows. Or my right to forego clothes and sense of what is apparently considered common decency or flaunt my sexuality (especially toward people below or above a certain age) because apparently everyone else is uncomfortable with seeing, hearing, and experiencing that sort of stuff) - Every 'crime' is a right that we've signed away for a more comfortable environment and society.

[Psyren]

@ the "what is trans" question, this is the best definition I've found so far:

http://www.presenttensejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/tumblr_mx3a40uWuE1rfwfq9o1_1280.jpg

Even this isn't complete (gender identity is complicated and basing a definition on society's definition of something will naturally change as society itself evolves) but I find it's a good starting point.

I myself am a cisgendered male - this means I am outside this umbrella (top-right) and fully identify with my assignment as male at birth. I know many people who weren't as lucky and struggle to accept themselves daily in the face of casual indifference, outright hatred and everything in between, intentional or not. A paragraph like this in a relatively mainstream product (however niche it ends up being) is a good thing.



Pro-tip: We are not in an equal place. We really do need to mention things like that paragraph.

Indeed, and kudos.


Which rights are we talking about? The entire purpose of society is to create a social contract where people sign away rights they have for the comfort of everyone else, starting with rights that conflict when you have more than one person exercising them, and expanding outward. (Such as signing away our rights to swing our fists around to make people not feel threatened by flying blows. Or my right to forego clothes and sense of what is apparently considered common decency or flaunt my sexuality (especially toward people below or above a certain age) because apparently everyone else is uncomfortable with seeing, hearing, and experiencing that sort of stuff) - Every 'crime' is a right that we've signed away for a more comfortable environment and society.

Frankly, someone just being who they are - or even being happy that a company has chosen to acknowledge them in one paragraph of a roleplaying game - should not affect you as much as someone who is swinging their fists. If you truly do see those two as equivalent, the problem lies with you, not the other person.

[HeadlessMermaid]

C'mon, the wage gap is a self-defeating myth.
Gender pay gap in OECD countries (http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm), as calculated by the OECD.
Gerder pay gap in EU countries (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/situation-europe/index_en.htm), as calculated by Eurostat. (more data (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2016516%202010%20ADD%202))
A Wage Indicator report (http://www.wageindicator.org/main/Wageindicatorfoundation/wageindicatorcountries/country-report-brazil) calculating the average gender pay gap in Brazil (years 2007-2008) at 38.5%.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_gap) on gender pay gap.

I believe that you have been heavily misinformed (on gender pay gap and many other things), which may or may not have influenced your opinions.

[Dr.Starky]

Using "hermaphroditic" to refer to an elf is a little transphobic (they should use "intersex" when talking about human equivalent.)

But sheer amount of butthurt over the mere acknowledgement of other gender identities and sexualities shows exactly why a paragraph like this is needed.

[Sartharina]

Frankly, someone just being who they are - or even being happy that a company has chosen to acknowledge them in one paragraph of a roleplaying game - should not affect you as much as someone who is swinging their fists. If you truly do see those two as equivalent, the problem lies with you, not the other person.Except "Who they are" includes a number of options that can make people extremely uncomfortable and revolted. I shirt because society demands it.

@Dr. Starky - I fail to see how using the term "Hermaphroditic" is transphobic, when "Intersex" is overwhelmingly broad, ranging from full females or full males with slight differences from 'normal' dimorphism.

[GPuzzle]

It's less butthurt and more "two groups that heavily disagree with eachother on very touchy subjects".

Also, on the wage gap, what the actual f***. I'm confused as heck. At least it does give me an argument to support capitalism and the fact that it is not heartless (welcome to Brazil - women have the same rights as men and less... What's the word... Stuff they have to do - and people still want more and more governmental intervention on EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING).

Also, from what I've read, the people who create the wage gap are... Women. Apparently they do not negotiate their starting wages like men do. Get women to do what men do naturally because they're used to doing it, and you'll solve it. It's more of a "someone aren't used to doing what someone else have mastered throughout the years and no one cared about it" situation and less of a "OTHERS ARE EVIL".

Multiple sources, by the way.

[obryn]

Which rights are we talking about? The entire purpose of society is to create a social contract where people sign away rights they have for the comfort of everyone else, starting with rights that conflict when you have more than one person exercising them, and expanding outward. (Such as signing away our rights to swing our fists around to make people not feel threatened by flying blows. Or my right to forego clothes and sense of what is apparently considered common decency or flaunt my sexuality (especially toward people below or above a certain age) because apparently everyone else is uncomfortable with seeing, hearing, and experiencing that sort of stuff) - Every 'crime' is a right that we've signed away for a more comfortable environment and society.
You're overreaching with the social contract, and overstating the right to be comfortable. By this logic, the social contract of the pro-slavery South and the social contact of modern day Uganda towards homosexuality are just dandy. Because at least the folks in charge are comfortable with it that way, and heaven forbid anything make them uncomfortable, eh? That's just the social contract working how it's intended!

There's rights and privileges. I'm afraid you're conflating the two.

Two men kissing in public, no matter how icky it makes someone feel, is not in any way on the same scale as punching a dude.

[da_chicken]

Gender pay gap in OECD countries (http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm), as calculated by the OECD.
Gerder pay gap in EU countries (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/situation-europe/index_en.htm), as calculated by Eurostat. (more data (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2016516%202010%20ADD%202))
A Wage Indicator report (http://www.wageindicator.org/main/Wageindicatorfoundation/wageindicatorcountries/country-report-brazil) calculating the average gender pay gap in Brazil (years 2007-2008) at 38.5%.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_gap) on gender pay gap.

I believe that you have been heavily misinformed, which may or may not influence your opinions.

The problem I have with these studies is that they don't account for the different work patterns that women have. Both the OECD and especially the EU studies make that clear. The former is straight median division and the latter calls out the issue. Many women quit the workforce by choice to raise children. If the median male salary reflects a more experienced worker, then there should be a gender wage gap. Aggregate studies like this are so useless because they don't account for how or where women are working.

I work on a finance system for 800 people for a school district. We have no gender bias for salary. If you're in position X for Y years you get $Z. Yes, the majority of mechanics in the bus garage and carpenters are male. Yes, all the of AAs are female. Looking at the HR records, that's who applies. Yes, the men earn much more... because their skill is in higher demand. Both of them make less than teachers. Our assistant supers, principals, and assistant principals are about 75% female. Last I looked the only one of them paid extra was a man doing the work of two positions for about 30% more salary, and a woman under him getting a similar amount extra... for a reason I'm not sure about. The only real sexism I've seen is that the Superintendent has always been a man (we've had 5 in the past 30 years), and the Board of Education (which is elected) is consistently more women than men, but the chair is always a man (However, I think that goes by seniority, and this guy has been reelected for 30+ years).

[Dr.Starky]

Currently, the term Hermaphrodite is reserved for things like invertebrates and such. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite)


Historically, the term hermaphrodite has also been used to describe ambiguous genitalia and gonadal mosaicism in individuals of gonochoristic species, especially human beings. The word intersex has come into preferred usage for humans, since the word hermaphrodite is considered to be misleading and stigmatizing, as well as "scientifically specious and clinically problematic".

[RedWarlock]

I would say the use of 'hermaphoditic' here vs 'intersex' is still valid, because we're not talking about real-world sexual biology, but fantastic biology, where they really would have the fully viable organ setup for BOTH sexes, as with the invertebrate usage, not just what we are known to have in real life.

All that said, nice to see the general paragraphs in question.

[obryn]

Currently, the term Hermaphrodite is reserved for things like invertebrates and such. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite)
Yeah, but I give WotC some credit here. They might have done better to consult some folks for cleaner wording, but it's clear their hearts were in the right place.

[Sartharina]

You're overreaching with the social contract, and overstating the right to be comfortable. By this logic, the social contract of the pro-slavery South and the social contact of modern day Uganda towards homosexuality are just dandy. Because at least the folks in charge are comfortable with it that way, and heaven forbid anything make them uncomfortable, eh? That's just the social contract working how it's intended!

There's rights and privileges. I'm afraid you're conflating the two.

Two men kissing in public, no matter how icky it makes someone feel, is not in any way on the same scale as punching a dude.

On the contrary, the social contract of the pro-Slavery South WASN'T dandy because it made the Negro (Both slave and free) and North U.S. people extremely uncomfortable that the rights of the folks 'in charge' to trample the comforts and rights of those they purchased. The social contract in Uganda is likewise considered problematic because while the people 'in charge' might be comfortable with it, a large number of others aren't.

You use two men kissing in public making people feel icky not being worthy of getting riled over. But what about a couple expressing their affection/intimacy by more than merely hugging/kissing (Especially if minors are around)? Would the revulsion against that be worth punishing to prevent?
Currently, the term Hermaphrodite is reserved for things like invertebrates and such. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite)

But what if we're dealing with a race (Possibly such as Elves) that actually do naturally possess both sets of fully-functional reproductive organs (For whatever mystical reason)?

[Dr.Starky]

we're not talking about real-world sexual biology, but fantastic biology, where they really would have the fully viable organ setup for BOTH sexes, as with the invertebrate usage, not just what we are known to have in real life.But if the purpose of paragraph is to be inclusive to real word people, why not use term that real people apply to themselves?


Yeah, but I give WotC some credit here. They might have done better to consult some folks for cleaner wording, but it's clear their hearts were in the right place.Absolutely. It's not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good.

[da_chicken]

@Dr. Starky - I fail to see how using the term "Hermaphroditic" is transphobic, when "Intersex" is overwhelmingly broad, ranging from full females or full males with slight differences from 'normal' dimorphism.

Hermaphrodite indicates a being capable of full male or full female function (reproductively speaking). Intersex means... well, a lot of things, but the organs do not both function reproductively.

Here, I believe "hermaphrodite" is probably more correct, since the god can be either fully male or fully female (or both or neither). A Human or Elf, however, is more likely to be intersexed. However, since "hermaphrodite" now has derogatory connotations when applied to real life humans, it's probably a good idea to avoid using it entirely when trying to be open.

[da_chicken]

Absolutely. It's not perfect, but perfect is the enemy of good.

And the enemy of progress.

Let me never believe I am perfect, for then I shall no longer strive to better myself.

[Sartharina]

Hermaphrodite indicates a being capable of full male or full female function (reproductively speaking). Intersex means... well, a lot of things, but the organs do not both function reproductively.

Here, I believe "hermaphrodite" is probably more correct, since the god can be either fully male or fully female (or both or neither). A Human or Elf, however, is more likely to be intersexed. However, since "hermaphrodite" now has derogatory connotations when applied to real life humans, it's probably a good idea to avoid using it entirely when trying to be open.

Unless the elf is made in the image of one of the phases of it's deity... which would explain why elves would have males, females, and functional hermaphrodites, if the deity him/herself is that genderfluid, but his/her creations are 'blessed' with only an aspect of that fluidity, instead of possessing full shifting ability.

[obryn]

On the contrary, the social contract of the pro-Slavery South WASN'T dandy because it made the Negro (Both slave and free) and North U.S. people extremely uncomfortable that the rights of the folks 'in charge' to trample the comforts and rights of those they purchased. The social contract in Uganda is likewise considered problematic because while the people 'in charge' might be comfortable with it, a large number of others aren't.

You use two men kissing in public making people feel icky not being worthy of getting riled over. But what about a couple expressing their affection/intimacy by more than merely hugging/kissing (Especially if minors are around)? Would the revulsion against that be worth punishing to prevent
For the first paragraph, you're really stretching and I think you know it. You've settled on this "comfort" language, which basically denies the existence of human rights except maybe the right not to have to see something the folks in power find icky. It's a terrible measure that can be used to justify any social evil or oppression you twist to it.

For the second. Public decency laws are an awful tangle. They're made even more problematic because so often "decency" is used as a tool for oppression by the empowered towards the disempowered. Usually against women, actually, including right now in the middle east and Africa.

I'm not saying that two people stripping down in public doing the nasty should be allowed. I am, however, saying decency laws are a terribly complicated subject that are far beyond this scope.

[Psyren]

Except "Who they are" includes a number of options that can make people extremely uncomfortable and revolted. I shirt because society demands it.

Gender is not one of them. Again you are equating things that have vastly differing severities.

A transgender person walking down the street in decent clothing is not hurting anyone.

[da_chicken]

Unless the elf is made in the image of one of the phases of it's deity... which would explain why elves would have males, females, and functional hermaphrodites, if the deity him/herself is that genderfluid, but his/her creations are 'blessed' with only an aspect of that fluidity, instead of possessing full shifting ability.

I wouldn't have a problem with a sequential hermaphrodite -- although, I would expect the change to take several years for a creature as complex as an Elf -- but a hermaphrodite with simultaneously functional sets or organs? The biology of that with life as we know it for mammals is too complex for that. Sure, you can hand wave it as magic, but the reality is that the most complicated animals that do this are slugs and worms, and they're all simultaneous. Hormone function alone for a race that would support male and female and both would be... not feasible. I mean, look what we do with hormone therapy now. And then to still be human compatible? Sorry, I think this one breaks my suspension of disbelief.

[Lokiare]

A lot of us probably are, myself included. Looking at both this thread and the one on the WotC forums, enough people are over the moon about this part that it seems to be a good inclusion overall. Like SpawnOfMorbo said earlier, I'm only seeing the perspectives of "Yay" or "I don't think it needs to be said". I haven't seen a single dissenter saying "Boo". When all the opinions weigh in on neutral or good, it's probably solid.

It helps if you block dissenting posters to get that impression.

[TheOOB]

A bit to the side, this reminds me of some old Shadowrun talk, where elves were actually really androgynous, and many non-elves had difficulty telling what gender a given elf was, to the point where it wasn't unusual for female elves to get some work done to better fix the image of the buxom elf that humans had in their mind.

I've always seen elves as androdynous, and much more permissive in general

[HeadlessMermaid]

Aggregate studies like this are so useless because they don't account for how or where women are working.

Aggregate studies produce aggregate results (not the best term, but you get my drift :smallsmile:). The indisputable fact is that women end up with less income than men. The reasons vary, but almost all reasons ultimately stem from bias and inequality.

"Many women quit the workforce by choice to raise children." But WHY? Why should more women than men choose to do that? Is it perhaps because society, in subtle or obvious ways, cultural or economic, pushes men to focus on money and women to focus on babies?

Let's take a look at the economic reasons. First, not all countries are advanced enough to offer a maternity leave even for the basics (late pregnancy, labour and breastfeeding). Second, few countries are advanced enough to offer a long parental leave to both parents. Third, many countries have no childcare worth a damn, so parents can only rely on relatives or paid services to look after their kids when they're at work. What happens when relatives and paid services aren't available/affordable? Somebody gets left behind, and out of the workforce. The poor more than the rich, and the women more than the men. And if parental leave isn't available, returning to the workforce after a long absence is rarely easy, very often on worse terms, and occasionally impossible.

You are greatly misleading yourself if you label such people as out of work "by choice". And trust me, this happens WAY more often than a straight "I could do either with no consequences, but I preferred to stay at home and raise children". And even when it IS a free choice, the cultural pressure is obvious here. Being a stay-at-home parent is considered optional but normal for women, and definitely abnormal for men. Once we're past the breastfeeding stage, there's no reason for this to happen, other than pure bias.

"The men earn more because their skills are in higher demand." But why? Why do men end up with these skills more often than women? Are women intrinsically less skilled, you suppose? Or are there cultural and economic reasons for this discrepancy? I've already been quite verbose, so I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader.

[RogueDM]

My world is a little darker and sadder for having read the first and last page of this thread. This really shouldn't have been able to last longer than one page.

1: "I think it was nice that WotC specifically included transgender characters into their lore."

2: "I don't think that sort of thing should be a big deal anymore."

1: "Why no, it shouldn't. But since there are many places in The States where transgender people cannot walk the streets without a reasonable expectation of not being harassed or assaulted apparently it still is."

2: "That is shameful and sad."

1: "Yes, yes it is."

[Sartharina]

Aggregate studies produce aggregate results (not the best term, but you get my drift :smallsmile:). The indisputable fact is that women end up with less income than men. The reasons vary, but almost all reasons ultimately stem from bias and inequality.

"Many women quit the workforce by choice to raise children." But WHY? Why should more women than men choose to do that? Is it perhaps because society, in subtle or obvious ways, cultural or economic, pushes men to focus on money and women to focus on babies?

Let's take a look at the economic reasons. First, not all countries are advanced enough to offer a maternity leave even for the basics (late pregnancy, labour and breastfeeding). Second, few countries are advanced enough to offer a long parental leave to both parents. Third, many countries have no childcare worth a damn, so parents can only rely on relatives or paid services to look after their kids when they're at work. What happens when relatives and paid services aren't available/affordable? Somebody gets left behind, and out of the workforce. The poor more than the rich, and the women more than the men. And if parental leave isn't available, returning to the workforce after a long absence is rarely easy, very often on worse terms, and occasionally impossible.

You are greatly misleading yourself if you label such people as out of work "by choice". And trust me, this happens WAY more often than a straight "I could do either with no consequences, but I preferred to stay at home and raise children". And even when it IS a free choice, the cultural pressure is obvious here. Being a stay-at-home parent is considered optional but normal for women, and definitely abnormal for men. Once we're past the breastfeeding stage, there's no reason for this to happen, other than pure bias.

"The men earn more because their skills are in higher demand." But why? Why do men end up with these skills more often than women? Are women intrinsically less skilled, you suppose? Or are there cultural and economic reasons for this discrepancy? I've already been quite verbose, so I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader.
You forgot a big one
Women aren't working because their husbands are making enough for both of them - why work for money when you don't need to? A traditional marriage can get a lot done, better than two independent people. I keep the house locked down so he can focus on making money during the day and pursuing lucrative endeavors, and we can both enjoy evenings of fun in an environment less-stressful than (And growing up, life would have been MUCH harsher for me if my mother wasn't a stay-at-home mother, and father the 'breadwinner'.) And, I can make cash on the side, or save significantly more money with my time than I'd otherwise would trying to earn it (even at a rate comparable to a guy's).

And, you seem to completely ignore the possibility of internal biological factors driving women out of the workforce as well. You can say there aren't differences between men and women, mentally... but I know too many people to be able to take that claim seriously. And you can say social pressures do it. And given how Savant Syndrome seems to be able to pop up in anyone... skills may be more inherent to a person than we can accept.

Humans are animals, and trying to ignore that fact to instead treat us like logical disembodied thought-machines is a tremendous disservice to that.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

A bit to the side, this reminds me of some old Shadowrun talk, where elves were actually really androgynous, and many non-elves had difficulty telling what gender a given elf was, to the point where it wasn't unusual for female elves to get some work done to better fix the image of the buxom elf that humans had in their mind.

I've always seen elves as androdynous, and much more permissive in general

Same here...

This, I guess, also explains 4e female dragonborn with bewbs...

Implants like the lizardfolk chick from this comic.

[Particle_Man]

You forgot a big one
Women aren't working because their husbands are making enough for both of them

As a man, I would love it if my wife gets a career that not only makes more than me, but makes enough for both of us.

Why don't we have a society in which a woman can make enough for a two adult household as often as a man can make enough for a two adult household?

[Particle_Man]

Also, on the wage gap, what the actual f***. I'm confused as heck. At least it does give me an argument to support capitalism and the fact that it is not heartless.


I am not sure that the idea that capitalists are so sexist that their sexism overcomes even their monetary greed will convince people that capitalism is not heartless.

[Particle_Man]

@ the "what is trans" question, this is the best definition I've found so far:

http://www.presenttensejournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/tumblr_mx3a40uWuE1rfwfq9o1_1280.jpg.

What does HIJRA mean?

[CyberThread]

This is so far friggen off topic now, and proably against a bunch of forum rules .

[pwykersotz]

It helps if you block dissenting posters to get that impression.

My blocklist is clear on all forums. Your earlier post was so ambiguous I didn't assign a value to it. It might also be that I was flash-reading while at work, I miss some nuance when I do that. Sorry about that.

[Particle_Man]

Getting back on topic, I am not only impressed with the paragraph on p. 33.

I also like the dwarven description of humans on p. 12, where they talk about "Just when you get to know a human, she dies on you. Hopefully her daughter or granddaughter will have some of her good character traits". Nice use of the female pronoun as default there, rather than the male pronoun as default.

[HeadlessMermaid]

You forgot a big one

First, are you mad at me? I get the impression you are, maybe I'm mistaken. Did I, perhaps, give the impression that I dislike stay-at-home parents? If that's the case, let me clarify: I don't. At all.

Second, I didn't "forget" a reason, because I never actually tried to list them. I wouldn't dream of it, the list is huge. I just gave a couple of examples, quoting da_chicken's post. The bold parts are his words.

Third, I'm pretty sure that the reason you gave ("I can afford it, so why not") is not particularly common in our planet of 7 billion people. If you're interested in some specific country or group thereof, say it, and we'll look it up. But I'll venture a guess that whatever country you pick, you'll still be talking about a very small minority. Countries where most families are able to live affluently with only one income have -usually and logically- both high GDP (for enough money to go around) and high Gini coefficient (for enough people to get a sizeable slice of all that money). Basically, that's Germany, Switzerland, and Scandinavian countries. All of which have a culture that strongly encourages women to work (not to mention childcare and long parental leaves).

Fourth, I ignore biological factors until evidence proves otherwise. I do not preclude them. However, I do NOT accept anecdotal evidence, or bogus arguments such as "there are so fewer female mathematicians, ergo women suck at math". On the other hand, I know first hand how social pressure can affect you. Yes, humans are animals. Very social, and very diverse animals. Whose behaviours and societies are so varied today and have changed so much during the last few thousand years, that I can't imagine what this could possibly prove.


BACK ON TOPIC.

About "androgynous or hermaphroditic" elves, here's an illustration for the new edition:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/135/7/c/bard___dungeons_and_dragons_by_clintcearley-d7ihcek.jpg
The artist, Clint Cearley, says (http://clintcearley.deviantart.com/art/Bard-Dungeons-and-Dragons-454305548):


The style guide outlined the looks for the humans, elves and bard class so it was my job to blend the elements and make something new out of it. [...] The race of elves he's from are rather androgynous, something I was interested in conveying.

So it seems that this trait will be specific to one or more elf subraces, rather than random individuals in the general elven population. I'd prefer the latter, but let's not forget that the elves are mentioned only as an example. [The passage is in the "Personality and background" chapter, not "Races".] It's still explicitly stated that players can choose any combination of sex/gender/sexual orientation they please, which is the important part.

[Psyren]

What does HIJRA mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)


Getting back on topic, I am not only impressed with the paragraph on p. 33.

I also like the dwarven description of humans on p. 12, where they talk about "Just when you get to know a human, she dies on you. Hopefully her daughter or granddaughter will have some of her good character traits". Nice use of the female pronoun as default there, rather than the male pronoun as default.

3e and 4e did this too. Some classes were referred to as male and some as femlae IIRC, in order to add variety and keep them from using the same pronouns in every entry when describing class features.

[Dhavaer]

[url]3e and 4e did this too. Some classes were referred to as male and some as femlae IIRC, in order to add variety and keep them from using the same pronouns in every entry when describing class features.

3.X used the gender of the relevant iconic, right?

Also, might as well add my voice to those saying that this is nice to see.

[HeadlessMermaid]

3.X used the gender of the relevant iconic, right?
Yes, and so did Pathfinder.

[SiuiS]

what? this is like saying "in your world, the sky can be green or orange or any color you like" its stating something already known in the hopes some people will like it.

it worthless and a waste of time effort and paper

Actually, no. It's a psychology thing.



"Traumas can turn people to extreme types of Paraphilia"
=/=
"all 'abnormal' thoughts are caused by trauma"

It's a quirk of the human psyche to default to apophatic logic; if the default is that trauma is a cause of paraphilia, it is assumed the default is trauma is the cause of paraphilia, and that all paraphilia has a cause, this being established as trauma.

Doesn't matter if it's true or even logical. It's what people will unconsciously process unless there is more evidence. This is why we have to specifically spell out that all paraphilia is not caused by trauma, and that paraphilia may not be caused by anything at all, really. Nothing personal, it's just literally necessary to establish this. Humans assume any information given is complete information unless they hit a snag in processing.

The same process applies here.



nor even if that were true would it matter, what matters is how they are today, not last century.


Socialization requires being informed by the past. There is no such thing as "only right now", because wvryone here right now is informed by the last fifty years of their history directly, and by the memetic practices passed on in code from decades or even centuries before that.



because its inclusion implies that it is needed when it is not. because its worthless text that when it goes to the printers will push out needed information. because it supports the incorrect notion that women are persecuted when they are not.

No, it supports the factually based notion that transsexual people, gender non-conforming people, and non-heterosexual people are persecuted when they are and should not be. This isn't about the silly women attacking the men again, it's about recognizing that there is more to life than the womenses and the menses at all, which many people – as your responses show – do not grok. You simply didn't even process the possibility.

It is a provable fact that representation matters, for sex, for color and for orientation. Getting mad that people are taking that into account is silly. How are you harmed by inclusion? How does acknowledging that these people are normal and not aberrant cause you direct grief?



I am supported by the facts, and by logic what are you support by? a gut feeling?


No you're not?

For example, the bollocks "99.9999% of combat deaths" one has no context. How many women in combat directly die? What's the percentage per capita? How many male soldiers are killed or victimized by their own fellows instead of the enemy? I guarantee that a higher percentage if women will suffer than men, because evenif it's only ten victims on a side, it's disproportianate because ten individuals is a bigger chunk of the female armed forces than it is the male armed forces.

Men get flak too, but this isn't a pissing contest. Is not an either/or position. It is fully possible for everyone to win. All you have to do is stop worrying about how other people could dare to want to better themselves when you haven't been bettered yet. This seems like the same sort of bullying issues you get with generational traits; the current generation will continue to bully the next because if they don't they experience cognitive dissonance over they themselves suffering and being told to stop complaining, it was normal.

If men die disproportionately in combat, the answer isn't to hate women, it's to let us fight too so you're not in the cross hairs as much! We are here to help, if you'll let it happen. It's just sad that the prevailing doctrine is "the kitchen is that way, miss", which just reinforces the problem by purposefully skewing statistics to prove how hurt you are by hurting yourself.




Also, quick scroll: a single person making enough for a two-adult household? Where did that happen at? I would like to see it and learn their secrets.


My world is a little darker and sadder for having read the first and last page of this thread. This really shouldn't have been able to last longer than one page.

1: "I think it was nice that WotC specifically included transgender characters into their lore."

2: "I don't think that sort of thing should be a big deal anymore."

1: "Why no, it shouldn't. But since there are many places in The States where transgender people cannot walk the streets without a reasonable expectation of not being harassed or assaulted apparently it still is."

2: "That is shameful and sad."

1: "Yes, yes it is."

If only. :smallbiggrin:


You forgot a big one
Women aren't working because their husbands are making enough for both of them - why work for money when you don't need to?

Counterpoint: men actively dislike having spouses, girlfriends, lovers or whathaveyou that make more than them. They actively shame and cause social pressure to force women to quit, and accept that the male will be taking care of her but that the reverse is Not Okay.

Why are husbands supporting wives but wives aren't supporting husbands, ties right back into bigotry and prejudice. Women aren't supposed to because reasons. Men are because reasons. Appealing to animal nature is drastically flawed as well; common understanding of animal nature is based on misapplying the sexual dynamics of fruit flies to support a hypothesis and discarding valid but contradicting data – skewed science, lies. Actual study of closer relatives with similar social structures shows some very interesting things. My favorite is that the only reason Alpha Male chicanery exists is because one jerk can ruin a bunch of children, but it's clearly not inherent to the species in any way.



About "androgynous or hermaphroditic" elves, here's an illustration for the new edition:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/135/7/c/bard___dungeons_and_dragons_by_clintcearley-d7ihcek.jpg


That's really cool, but all I can think is "how do you physics that hand?" XD

[Callin]

As a man, I would love it if my wife gets a career that not only makes more than me, but makes enough for both of us.

Why don't we have a society in which a woman can make enough for a two adult household as often as a man can make enough for a two adult household?

Just saying my wife makes enough to support a family of 5. I have not worked in 9 years so I could take care of the kids

[captpike]

Gender pay gap in OECD countries (http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm), as calculated by the OECD.
Gerder pay gap in EU countries (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/gender-pay-gap/situation-europe/index_en.htm), as calculated by Eurostat. (more data (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%2016516%202010%20ADD%202))
A Wage Indicator report (http://www.wageindicator.org/main/Wageindicatorfoundation/wageindicatorcountries/country-report-brazil) calculating the average gender pay gap in Brazil (years 2007-2008) at 38.5%.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_gap) on gender pay gap.

I believe that you have been heavily misinformed (on gender pay gap and many other things), which may or may not have influenced your opinions.

sure if you just look at average pay for men V women but that is a useless way of looking at it because men and women have different tendencies and different things they are good at.

once you cancel out everything else, hours worked per week, experience, education ect. when you have nothing left but gender and your comparing the pay its so close to even what is left is just noise.

evidence (http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/gender-pay-gap-between-numbers-and-propaganda/)

[StabbityRabbit]

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/135/7/c/bard___dungeons_and_dragons_by_clintcearley-d7ihcek.jpg
The artist, Clint Cearley, says (http://clintcearley.deviantart.com/art/Bard-Dungeons-and-Dragons-454305548):




This has to be my favorite picture of a bard that I've ever seen.

[Palegreenpants]

This has to be my favorite picture of a bard that I've ever seen.

I am loving this art.
Except for the huge ears, but I'm picky.

[da_chicken]

I am loving this art.
Except for the huge ears, but I'm picky.

The ears seem excessing for a half-elf, but yeah that's very cool.

[Palegreenpants]

The ears seem excessing for a half-elf, but yeah that's very cool.

Yeah, this artist generally does MTG art, so I guess his elves are a bit long-eared.

[StabbityRabbit]

I am loving this art.
Except for the huge ears, but I'm picky.

The ears would bother me, but the rest of the picture makes him look strictly human (albeit an androgynous one) so the ears are kind of necessary.

[Psyren]

I'm loving the art too. Hopefully we get more pieces like this and less recycling.

I'm actually fine with the ears. In PF, elf ears tend to go just above the head.

[da_chicken]

Yeah, this artist generally does MTG art, so I guess his elves are a bit long-eared.

That makes sense. I just expect Half-Elves to look Vulcan.

[Sartharina]

sure if you just look at average pay for men V women but that is a useless way of looking at it because men and women have different tendencies and different things they are good at.

once you cancel out everything else, hours worked per week, experience, education ect. when you have nothing left but gender and your comparing the pay its so close to even what is left is just noise.

evidence (http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/gender-pay-gap-between-numbers-and-propaganda/)Umm... you really need to learn to verify and independently confirm sources. I'm not saying that the source you're using is inherently factually incorrect, but the source is so heavily biased that without independent verification, the data provided is corrupted by political motivation, confirmation bias, other cognitive discrepencies... and without more neutral sources corroborating with that data, there's also no proof that the data provided there is 100% Malarky and Road Apples.


Also, quick scroll: a single person making enough for a two-adult household? Where did that happen at? I would like to see it and learn their secrets.Well... I have my extended family as a model. Apparently, the secret is to marry into a Catholic Irish Clan, or something like that. I see 'clannish' attitudes get villified a lot by social progress preachers, yet clan unity managed to bring a family that started with a stowaway on a banana boat with just the clothes on his back to a massive family owning vast tracts of land all across the Eastern U.S. (In Florida, Georgia, New England, and Ohio, and more places I don't even know! Used to have some in Texas before we re-consolidated with my other clan in Ohio.) Faith, Family, and Community make a huge difference.



Counterpoint: men actively dislike having spouses, girlfriends, lovers or whathaveyou that make more than them. They actively shame and cause social pressure to force women to quit, and accept that the male will be taking care of her but that the reverse is Not Okay.

Why are husbands supporting wives but wives aren't supporting husbands, ties right back into bigotry and prejudice. Women aren't supposed to because reasons. Men are because reasons. Appealing to animal nature is drastically flawed as well; common understanding of animal nature is based on misapplying the sexual dynamics of fruit flies to support a hypothesis and discarding valid but contradicting data – skewed science, lies. Actual study of closer relatives with similar social structures shows some very interesting things. My favorite is that the only reason Alpha Male chicanery exists is because one jerk can ruin a bunch of children, but it's clearly not inherent to the species in any way.I've not seen wives not supporting husbands, though traditional gender roles have them supporting husbands in different ways than husbands supporting wives (If "A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned", my mother has been earning more than my father without any income at all through extensive research and thriftiness to get real bargains and savings, as opposed to the 'announced as savings' corporate markups try tossing at us.) Maybe conforming to gender roles is unfair - but they've been refined for so long that those who put their effort into succeeding by playing by the rules of the game (Or know them well enough to effectively flaunt and defy them) get ahead much easier than those who spend/waste their effort and energy on complaining about how unfair the game is.

I don't really feel qualified to complain too much about all aspects of Social Progress, though, even when I disagree with it - Ultimately, Might makes Right (But there are so many ways to achieve the might that makes right!), and if they can achieve the social might and pressure to achieve their goals, then they've earned it. And, if I can be swayed to that side and join the cause, then I earn such a victory as well. I don't know if Life is fair or not - it can certainly seem unfair... but everything is earned one way or another by decisions made and events that have previously transpired... and now I'm getting philosophical and existentialist.

[Palegreenpants]

On another Elvish note, I've never really thrown my lot in with the androgyny thing. It always felt like it was thrown in as a lore element meant to separate D&D from Tolkien.
Then again, I tend to ignore core-D&D lore and favor fairy-stories instead.

[SiuiS]

Just saying my wife makes enough to support a family of 5. I have not worked in 9 years so I could take care of the kids

Cool~!


sure if you just look at average pay for men V women but that is a useless way of looking at it because men and women have different tendencies and different things they are good at.

Can you support this as anything other than prejudice? Yes, individuals have different values and capacities, but that's just as true for two men as for a man and a woman. Can you actually prove that the two sexes have different skill sets in a way that accounts for socialization and pressure?

"Women pick lower paying jobs because they are good at them" is a terrible fiction.


That makes sense. I just expect Half-Elves to look Vulcan.

You know, I used to think the same, but now I want consistency. The idea that full elves are long-pronged anime antenna havers and half elves are more 'real' looking doesn't for for me any more.



Well... I have my extended family as a model. Apparently, the secret is to marry into a Catholic Irish Clan, or something like that. I see 'clannish' attitudes get villified a lot by social progress preachers, yet clan unity managed to bring a family that started with a stowaway on a banana boat with just the clothes on his back to a massive family owning vast tracts of land all across the Eastern U.S. (In Florida, Georgia, New England, and Ohio, and more places I don't even know! Used to have some in Texas before we re-consolidated with my other clan in Ohio.) Faith, Family, and Community make a huge difference.


Oh, in all for clannish closeness. I just don't like when that same switch clicks and "love thy brother" becomes "fear everything else and antagonize it". Y'know?


I've not seen wives not supporting husbands, though traditional gender roles have them supporting husbands in different ways than husbands supporting wives (If "A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned", my mother has been earning more than my father without any income at all through extensive research and thriftiness to get real bargains and savings, as opposed to the 'announced as savings' corporate markups try tossing at us.) Maybe conforming to gender roles is unfair - but they've been refined for so long that those who put their effort into succeeding by playing by the rules of the game (Or know them well enough to effectively flaunt and defy them) get ahead much easier than those who spend/waste their effort and energy on complaining about how unfair the game is.


Specifically, many men feel emotionally upset when their SO outperforms them at work, feeling that it diminishes their own value and that the woman is actively attacking them. They actively pressure successful SOs into not having those jobs; sabotaging the end-fiscal gain for personal aggrandizement.



I don't really feel qualified to complain too much about all aspects of Social Progress, though, even when I disagree with it - Ultimately, Might makes Right (But there are so many ways to achieve the might that makes right!), and if they can achieve the social might and pressure to achieve their goals, then they've earned it. And, if I can be swayed to that side and join the cause, then I earn such a victory as well. I don't know if Life is fair or not - it can certainly seem unfair... but everything is earned one way or another by decisions made and events that have previously transpired... and now I'm getting philosophical and existentialist.

Yeah. End of the day, this is all just differing concepts fighting for primacy. What will happen will happen. If you have interest you can guide the ideals, or try, but it's still memetic conflict.


On another Elvish note, I've never really thrown my lot in with the androgyny thing. It always felt like it was thrown in as a lore element meant to separate D&D from Tolkien.
Then again, I tend to ignore core-D&D lore and favor fairy-stories instead.

It fits what I know of elves from some areas, actually. Although aye, I don't see the alfar being anything less than gender-pinnacle for their culture.

[Psyren]

Oh, in all for clannish closeness. I just don't like when that same switch clicks and "love thy brother" becomes "fear everything else and antagonize it". Y'know?


This. By all means celebrate your traditional family, values, expression of identity etc. And respect it when others do something different with their own families and expression of identity.

[Dr.Starky]

Why are we even arguing over weather women are disadvantaged in society? Even if you think that women don't suffer institutionalized sexism (which they do), it's really doesn't have anything to do with the paragraph. It's talking about including gender identities and sexualities, not women in particular.

This whole thing started out with catpike saying something to the tune of "Women weren't oppressed" in response to this statement.


The sky did not undergo decades of oppression and being forced into the closet by a puritanical majority. Terribad analogy is terribad.But that statement wasn't even talking about women, it was talking LGBT people. Ignoring how ignorant catpike's statement was, it was also totally off-topic.

[Sartharina]

Oh, in all for clannish closeness. I just don't like when that same switch clicks and "love thy brother" becomes "fear everything else and antagonize it". Y'know?Competition and scarcity, probably. There's a point people have to let others go for their own (Or their friend's) benefits because there's not enough room for all of us to do what we want, such as Take Over The World, or Establish a New World Order, or Make The Best Pizzas.


Specifically, many men feel emotionally upset when their SO outperforms them at work, feeling that it diminishes their own value and that the woman is actively attacking them. They actively pressure successful SOs into not having those jobs; sabotaging the end-fiscal gain for personal aggrandizement.I hear Fighters in 3.5 get really annoyed when Clerics outfight them as well. Guys make more money because that's what they're trained/specialized to do. The whole employment and most of the economic model is a game made for and by guys. Where they got the power to be so dominant in the public/social sphere is beyond me, but they managed to achieve it... somehow. And the superior athleticism can't explain it all (Unless it does... and that's a fault of our ancestor's ancestor's.) Frankly, I think human bodies need to be completely re-engineered and restructured. Clothing should not be mandatory for basic structural support, and we shouldn't have to rub chemicals in our skin to enjoy a summer day, and our biological cycles should interlock with biological cycles, not be tied to the goddamn phases of the moon!


This. By all means celebrate your traditional family, values, expression of identity etc. And respect it when others do something different with their own families and expression of identity.Don't complain when your individual attempts at new values, expression of identity, etc. don't get met with the same degrees of success as the traditionally-refined ones.


...Anyway - on the subject of androgynous/hermaphrodite(As opposed to intersex) elves and nondimorphic dwarves, I wonder if it's included to allow for games to take nonstandard sexual dimorphisms as a standard part of the worldbuilding systems, even if my mind, upon first reading about them, did go to entirely the wrong place when it comes to elves. Then I remembered what elves were, preventing me from trying to repeat my last attempt at going outside social norms regarding sexual identity and orientation.

[Psyren]

Don't complain when your individual attempts at new values, expression of identity, etc. don't get met with the same degrees of success as the traditionally-refined ones.

How do you even define "degree of success?" Is this a contest? Are there medals? A grading scale of some kind?

For me, "success" would be a gay couple able to hold hands at a sporting event or a high-profile transgendered person (an actor/actress or fashion model, e.g.) enjoying mainstream fame. Simple things that the majority have enjoyed for centuries. We're getting small amounts of that now, but it's rather limited, and still tends to provoke too much commentary along the lines of... well, this thread.

The steps to get there are baby steps - steps like being acknowledged in one paragraph of a roleplaying game's rules.



...Anyway - on the subject of androgynous/hermaphrodite(As opposed to intersex) elves and nondimorphic dwarves, I wonder if it's included to allow for games to take nonstandard sexual dimorphisms as a standard part of the worldbuilding systems, even if my mind, upon first reading about them, did go to entirely the wrong place when it comes to elves.

I'd say it's there for a few reasons:

1) Let the minority know they are being actively considered/included.
2) Get the majority thinking and talking about these sorts of issues.
3) Help those individuals who might be hiding their true selves from their friends/playgroup find the courage to speak up.
4) From a purely in-game context, clue cisgendered players into a roleplaying concept they may not have considered before (that no longer requires a cursed belt in order to try out.)

[Chambers]

There is value in openly stating something that was only implied before, so definite kudos to them.


It's funny how every effort to be inclusive and non-discriminating is immediately justified and proved necessary by the reactions and comments to it.

+1, This, etc...

It's always amusing to me how people get upset about something that doesn't cost them anything and helps someone else feel better.

People that are upset about the paragraph in the rules: Take a moment and realize that encouraging other people to feel safe and welcomed in this hobby does nothing to prevent you from playing the game.

[Particle_Man]

Can you support this as anything other than prejudice? Yes, individuals have different values and capacities, but that's just as true for two men as for a man and a woman. Can you actually prove that the two sexes have different skill sets in a way that accounts for socialization and pressure?

"Women pick lower paying jobs because they are good at them" is a terrible fiction.

Agreed. Much more likely is "Jobs peopled mostly by women get paid less because of sexism".

[Flickerdart]

Corellon being hermaphroditic isn't news. We've known for years that "elves have tiny penises, especially the women" (http://youtu.be/HNrLMob39qI?t=1m49s).

[SiuiS]

Competition and scarcity, probably. There's a point people have to let others go for their own (Or their friend's) benefits because there's not enough room for all of us to do what we want, such as Take Over The World, or Establish a New World Order, or Make The Best Pizzas.

That's a fair point, and there is a very real level where caring about your own over caring about others is not only acceptable but preferable, so we don't have to establish that. But when the base zero is being sure to screw over outsiders on the off-chance they will be in competition with you maybe, that's bad.

I explain it most simply as whether the clan serves it's members or whether members serve the clan. When maintaining face and tradition is more important than the well being of any of the component members, you start to lose out. You get organizations that are more interested in saying the right thing than doing the right thing.


I hear Fighters in 3.5 get really annoyed when Clerics outfight them as well.

Clerics are not socially prohibited from fighting, not explicitly kicked out of parties and towns for wanting to fight even as support, and aren't hit with a campaign to keep them as heal it's and tell them to get back in the apothecary and churn out potions, so it's not a valid comparison.

Both men and women can be trained as fighters, or as clerics. There is no systemic oppression when one multi classes into the other. There is not actual physical violence against a cleric of Kord for taking a level of fighter. A fighter isn't ostracized and punished for being interested in theology.


Guys make more money because that's what they're trained/specialized to do.

No, men make more money because people give men a certain wage and then decide that women must get less because they aren't as good. Men are not trained as money makers; people are trained as money makers. Anyone who trains in a profession and meets the benchmarks is a money maker. Training as a money maker is literally open to anyone and everyone.

Women still get less in those moneymaking fields. They are equally trained. Training does not explain it.


The whole employment and most of the economic model is a game made for and by guys. Where they got the power to be so dominant in the public/social sphere is beyond me, but they managed to achieve it... somehow. And the superior athleticism can't explain it all (Unless it does... and that's a fault of our ancestor's ancestor's.) Frankly, I think human bodies need to be completely re-engineered and restructured. Clothing should not be mandatory for basic structural support, and we shouldn't have to rub chemicals in our skin to enjoy a summer day, and our biological cycles should interlock with biological cycles, not be tied to the goddamn phases of the moon!


Athleticism doesn't explain it, not capacity wise anyway. Female muscle tissue has a faster recovery period, a higher fat content allows for more energy availability and they have a higher pain tolerance (when it's exercised). It's that women are told that walking briskly with a kilo in each hand for a few hours is more than enough exercise, and anything actually useful will make you look like a body builder.

And while you're mucking about in there gimme some talons, would you kindly? I would love to have a nice set of talons. Nothing too garish, just an elegant swoop of lethal sharpness at the end of each finger, maybe - little over an inch counting the cuticle.
Hormone cycles exist but aren't actually affected by lunar phase they just happen to be of similar duration.


Corellon being hermaphroditic isn't news. We've known for years that "elves have tiny penises, especially the women" (http://youtu.be/HNrLMob39qI?t=1m49s).

Lies and slander! That dwarf wouldn't know a cloaca from a hole in the ground, he is not a valid source for existence of or size of elf penis. They may be even normal sized and just seem off to dwarven proportions!

[captpike]

Cool~!
Can you support this as anything other than prejudice? Yes, individuals have different values and capacities, but that's just as true for two men as for a man and a woman. Can you actually prove that the two sexes have different skill sets in a way that accounts for socialization and pressure?

"Women pick lower paying jobs because they are good at them" is a terrible fiction.

how could you possible say that was prejudice? I just said the two genders are good at different things? unless you think men and women are exactly the same in the way they think and act.

the biggest skillset difference would be math, on average men are better at math then women. women can be good at math of course, just as men can be bad. but on average men are better. just as women are better understanding how people act on an intuitive level, its why women dominate PR firms and most professions that require that kind of thinking.

on average women work less hours, and value convenience more so would be more willing to get a worse job that is close to home.

also again, once you cancel out everything but gender it comes out even. unless your point is that female dominated fields pay less to punish women even though the men in such fields also get payed less.

I guess that is possible, but it seams kinda pointless unless there is some conspiracy to punish men who go into women dominated fields.

relink (http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/gender-pay-gap-between-numbers-and-propaganda/)


Umm... you really need to learn to verify and independently confirm sources. I'm not saying that the source you're using is inherently factually incorrect, but the source is so heavily biased that without independent verification, the data provided is corrupted by political motivation, confirmation bias, other cognitive discrepencies... and without more neutral sources corroborating with that data, there's also no proof that the data provided there is 100% Malarky and Road Apples.

Well... I have my extended family as a model. Apparently, the secret is to marry into a Catholic Irish Clan, or something like that. I see 'clannish' attitudes get villified a lot by social progress preachers, yet clan unity managed to bring a family that started with a stowaway on a banana boat with just the clothes on his back to a massive family owning vast tracts of land all across the Eastern U.S. (In Florida, Georgia, New England, and Ohio, and more places I don't even know! Used to have some in Texas before we re-consolidated with my other clan in Ohio.) Faith, Family, and Community make a huge difference.



I have found AVFM to be very accurate. however that is not why I linked them, I linked them because they also are very good about not only citing sources, but using ones with good data.

relink (http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/gender-pay-gap-between-numbers-and-propaganda/)

[Sartharina]

how could you possible say that was prejudice? I just said the two genders are good at different things? unless you think men and women are exactly the same in the way they think and act.

the biggest skillset difference would be math, on average men are better at math then women. women can be good at math of course, just as men can be bad. but on average men are better. just as women are better understanding how people act on an intuitive level, its why women dominate PR firms and most professions that require that kind of thinking.

on average women work less hours, and value convenience more so would be more willing to get a worse job that is close to home.

also again, once you cancel out everything but gender it comes out even. unless your point is that female dominated fields pay less to punish women even though the men in such fields also get payed less.

I guess that is possible, but it seams kinda pointless unless there is some conspiracy to punish men who go into women dominated fields....you do know that some of the greatest (often undercredited) mathematicians in the world were and are women, right? And the reason I think most women have some representation in PR firms (They DON'T dominate them - most are extremely male-dominated - something noticed is that our culture doesn't take women's advice seriously.) is possibly because people do find women's voices more pleasant to listen to (Especially digitized) - but again, they tend to not take it seriously, or ignore it. (Note: I'm talking about U.S. culture. European culture may very well be different and more egalitarian. I hear they let women take their shirts off \o/)

And there is something similar to a conspiracy to punish men who go into women-dominated fields: "Machismo" (Although REAL macho men don't care what others think about what they do - they just rock on.)

How do you even define "degree of success?" Is this a contest? Are there medals? A grading scale of some kind?

For me, "success" would be a gay couple able to hold hands at a sporting event or a high-profile transgendered person (an actor/actress or fashion model, e.g.) enjoying mainstream fame. Simple things that the majority have enjoyed for centuries. We're getting small amounts of that now, but it's rather limited, and still tends to provoke too much commentary along the lines of... well, this thread. GOod luck with that! I fully support this! But, this sort of issue comes loaded with all sorts of other lifestyle choices that people living them don't want to deal with, that come from natural/economic forces rather than social prejudices.

Anyway... enough of this subject, and back to the original

I'd say it's there for a few reasons:

1) Let the minority know they are being actively considered/included.
2) Get the majority thinking and talking about these sorts of issues.
3) Help those individuals who might be hiding their true selves from their friends/playgroup find the courage to speak up.
4) From a purely in-game context, clue cisgendered players into a roleplaying concept they may not have considered before (that no longer requires a cursed belt in order to try out.)
These are all great reasons. I need to stop thinking so much.

However... I think there are two camps that oppose the paragraph:
1. Those that don't know about the nature of the issues and consider it weird/unnatural/"What the heck are you talking about?".
2. Like the first, but are aware of the nature of the issues, and have a moral stance against it (Probably bigotry, but issues of faith are hard to fight against)
3. Those that don't know what it's actually addressing, and instead see it as a legitimization of sexual fantasies at the table (Wait... this allows guys to play bisexual nymphomaniac females and we're not allowed to complain? Wait... hermaphrodite elfs? This is supposed to be D&D, not the other CoC!). This was my initial reaction to the paragraph (At least it's not as bad as my first reaction to a game that had a bit greater exploration of sexuality and a race that could modify itself to appear as anything. I got banned from that group :smalltongue:)

[captpike]

...you do know that some of the greatest (often undercredited) mathematicians in the world were and are women, right?

yes, like I said on average. there are men who are bad at math just as there are women who are good at it. its just that the numbers are not the same. on average men are better at math then women, it has to do with how the two genders think (and probably a small amount of feedback of that from that expectation) women should not be discouraged by any means, but the existence of some outliers is not evidence that women on average and as a group are as good at math as men.



And the reason I think most women have some representation in PR firms (They DON'T dominate them - most are extremely male-dominated - something noticed is that our culture doesn't take women's advice seriously.) is possibly because people do find women's voices more pleasant to listen to (Especially digitized) - but again, they tend to not take it seriously, or ignore it. (Note: I'm talking about U.S. culture. European culture may very well be different and more egalitarian. I hear they let women take their shirts off \o/)

do you mean they don't dominate the upper levels or don't dominate most positions? once you get into very high stress jobs you get into the kind of area women tend to shy away from and men do not. again on average.

on average as a group men are more likely to be willing to work more hours and do higher stress jobs. in short men tend to put the job first, and women everything else. there are exceptions otherwise there would be no women CEOs.

[StabbityRabbit]

With how off topic, and against the rules this thread is; It is truly fascinating how it hasn't been locked yet.

Seriously, I thought this thread would've gotten locked ages ago.

[Dr.Starky]

Catpike, you need to stop. Seriously.

No one claimed women were disadvantaged by society in this thread until you claimed otherwise.

You are dragging the thread waaay off-topic with your MRA bullcrap and you should stop.

[Psyren]

GOod luck with that! I fully support this! But, this sort of issue comes loaded with all sorts of other lifestyle choices that people living them don't want to deal with, that come from natural/economic forces rather than social prejudices.

Eh, society is what we choose to make of it, and the economy even moreso. Hiding behind the current status quo and presenting it as some immutable "natural force" is institutional cowardice at best.



Anyway... enough of this subject, and back to the original

These are all great reasons. I need to stop thinking so much.

However... I think there are two camps that oppose the paragraph:
1. Those that don't know about the nature of the issues and consider it weird/unnatural/"What the heck are you talking about?".
2. Like the first, but are aware of the nature of the issues, and have a moral stance against it (Probably bigotry, but issues of faith are hard to fight against)
3. Those that don't know what it's actually addressing, and instead see it as a legitimization of sexual fantasies at the table (Wait... this allows guys to play bisexual nymphomaniac females and we're not allowed to complain? Wait... hermaphrodite elfs? This is supposed to be D&D, not the other CoC!). This was my initial reaction to the paragraph (At least it's not as bad as my first reaction to a game that had a bit greater exploration of sexuality and a race that could modify itself to appear as anything. I got banned from that group :smalltongue:)

Suffice to say I consider all three of these viewpoints to be archaic beachfronts long overdue for some erosion by the winds and waves of progress. I understand why they currently exist but don't believe they need to continue existing.

I do appreciate your stance regarding the reasons I posted however.

[SiuiS]

how could you possible say that was prejudice? I just said the two genders are good at different things? unless you think men and women are exactly the same in the way they think and act.

I can say it is bias because it is. There is nothing inherent to Female that women are just better at than men, and vise versa. You cannot even say that women are better at being women than men are. You could say math, but I could show you teams of data proving it is socialization; it's not [female] that makes women "bad" at math, it's decades of erosion about how women are bad at math, how manly of you, look a t you keeping up with the boys, until the subtext (you're not being womanly) sinks in and they stop. I can show you teachers who don't teach female students as well as male students because they think females are bad at math. I can show you people causing a problem, which invalidates that problem as proof for itself.

The same thing happens with race, too. Using pre-written test papers, with only the names changed, editors found more mistakes in papers written by black people. Editors looked harder to find fault in the papers of people of African descent, because they're black, they must have messed up somewhere!

Socialization. Not genetics. Not inherent. Not a difference. Enforced bias.



on average women work less hours, and value convenience more so would be more willing to get a worse job that is close to home.


You keep listing symptoms as causes.



I guess that is possible, but it seams kinda pointless unless there is some conspiracy to punish men who go into women dominated fields.

There sort of is.


With how off topic, and against the rules this thread is; It is truly fascinating how it hasn't been locked yet.

Seriously, I thought this thread would've gotten locked ages ago.

What is against forum rules about it? I haven't seen anything actually against the rules since "you obviously didn't read up on the facts" a good while ago. Just a discussion that's actually relevant within two degrees. The topic is a company finally modernizing (meaning becoming accepting of non-cissexual non-heterosexual non-binary individuals), the discussion is about the need for such treatment and whether it has an actual basis.

[captpike]

I can say it is bias because it is. There is nothing inherent to Female that women are just better at than men, and vise versa. You cannot even say that women are better at being women than men are. You could say math, but I could show you teams of data proving it is socialization; it's not [female] that makes women "bad" at math, it's decades of erosion about how women are bad at math, how manly of you, look a t you keeping up with the boys, until the subtext (you're not being womanly) sinks in and they stop. I can show you teachers who don't teach female students as well as male students because they think females are bad at math. I can show you people causing a problem, which invalidates that problem as proof for itself.

The same thing happens with race, too. Using pre-written test papers, with only the names changed, editors found more mistakes in papers written by black people. Editors looked harder to find fault in the papers of people of African descent, because they're black, they must have messed up somewhere!

Socialization. Not genetics. Not inherent. Not a difference. Enforced bias.

this might be the case were we only talking about one society, or one part of one society, but that is hardly the case. as tests have shown this to span societies, and time too much.



You keep listing symptoms as causes.

what? where I come from if you work less hours you get less pay. do you think it works differently?



There sort of is.

I am going to have to see some evidence of this conspiracy that spans nations, and industries, yet has no obvious sign of its existence. who leads it? who decides how much women should be payed?



---
also if women and men are exactly alike mentally, then that would mean that every single job (besides the ones that require brute force only men have like infantry) that is not 50/50 has a large segment that tries to push out one gender or the other.

so elementary schools are trying to push out men, nursing schools are trying to push out men ect.

it also means most businessmen act against their own interest by either hiring men to do the same job they could get a women to do, but at most pay. if you really could hire a women to do the same work as a man, but at 80% or 90% the pay then you should ONLY hire women, anything else would just be wasteful.

instead of having dozens of conspiracies that hurt everyone who is apart of them is it not more logical that men and women are different and as such gravitate to different professions on average. such that the most extreme have something like 1/7 of one gender (young child care or high stress CEO) while most are closer to 60/40.

[Sartharina]

I can say it is bias because it is. There is nothing inherent to Female that women are just better at than men, and vise versa. You cannot even say that women are better at being women than men are. You could say math, but I could show you teams of data proving it is socialization; it's not [female] that makes women "bad" at math, it's decades of erosion about how women are bad at math, how manly of you, look a t you keeping up with the boys, until the subtext (you're not being womanly) sinks in and they stop. I can show you teachers who don't teach female students as well as male students because they think females are bad at math. I can show you people causing a problem, which invalidates that problem as proof for itself.Actually, there are some inherent qualities that lead to distinct discrepencies in ability, at least post-puberty. The masculine hip structure, 50% greater muscle mass, and reduced fascia mean the average male will athletically outperform the average female, and it's hardly even a contest in high-end athletics that males outperform females.

Mentally, there are definite differences in psyches especially involving interaction with mixed sexes (Guy's brains all but shut down when confronted with an attractive female), but there aren't any quantifiable differences when it comes to mental skills or higher brain functions. There are vast differences in more animalistic brain functions, though (But those tend to not affect the skills we bother to measure).

Humans are sexually dimorphic physically and mentally (But not to any notable degree in the higher brain functions), and it does lead to inherent, quantifiable differences between the sexes. Some have greater expressions of that dimorphism than others, however.

[Sartharina]

I am going to have to see some evidence of this conspiracy that spans nations, and industries, yet has no obvious sign of its existence. who leads it? who decides how much women should be payed?There are plenty of signs of its existence. It's not


also if women and men are exactly alike mentally, then that would mean that every single job (besides the ones that require brute force only men have like infantry) that is not 50/50 has a large segment that tries to push out one gender or the other.

so elementary schools are trying to push out men, nursing schools are trying to push out men ect. Yes, yes, they do. Every man is considered a sex criminal waiting to happen, and thus discouraged from being in jobs interacting with small children (never mind that most paedophilia cases actually have a female aggressor). Nursing is female-dominated because of its roots (It's one of the few careers developed and founded by women)


it also means most businessmen act against their own interest by either hiring men to do the same job they could get a women to do, but at most pay. if you really could hire a women to do the same work as a man, but at 80% or 90% the pay then you should ONLY hire women, anything else would just be wasteful. Businessmen are not rational creatures, nor is any human. They are usually male, and assume females are less competent than they are (Especially if they're attractive. Male brains shut down in the presence of an attractive woman) - It's been observed "A woman has to do a job twice as good as a male to be recognized as half as good" (With the other part of that quote being snark - "Fortunately, that is not hard")


instead of having dozens of conspiracies that hurt everyone who is apart of them is it not more logical that men and women are different and as such gravitate to different professions on average. such that the most extreme have something like 1/7 of one gender (young child care or high stress CEO) while most are closer to 60/40.I can agree there are differences, but it's mostly in perception and interaction with the other sex, instead of actual skill proficiency. And society's gender roles (Which I don't think are actually inherently bad - they allow society to get people moving on general paths critical for the functioning of society before they're old enough to be able to make a choice for themselves. If we don't have that early push in a direction, we end up with less overall competence. Unfortunately, it causes problems when one decides they've been mis-assigned)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok so we found out that captpike is pretty off the wall. Can we stop giving him what he wants, attention?

His comments are pretty sickening. Either he (or she, who knows who is on the other side) is an extremely sexist person or is just ignorant on the world.

Can we stop giving captpike attention?

(I know I'm doing it now, bad me)

[obryn]

Can we stop giving captpike attention?
Oh, already done! This marks the first forum where I've ever used that feature, and I've gone and done it twice.

[Dr.Starky]

^
^Yes, please. Arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall and this whole tangent was off topic ever since he brought it up.

[Palegreenpants]

Guys, can we just agree that everything is relative, including the respective abilitys and traits of the sexes?

[captpike]

I would have thought that when you come to a forum you do so to discuss things, the fact there are people who feel differently form you is a good thing, otherwise its a waste of time.

when you just ignore people who disagree you are not only showing you lack the willingness to think critically, you also are showing you like to waste your time.

in short if you think I am wrong, say why, don't just belittle me because I have a different point of view, or insult me without just cause (calling me sexist).

have we go so far that calling the two genders different is sickening or sexist?

[HeadlessMermaid]

Guy's brains all but shut down when confronted with an attractive female


Every man is considered a sex criminal waiting to happen

Yeah, sorry, I can't let this go unanswered. Men are NOT robots physically programmed to lose all reason when they glimpse a boob. Implying they are is not only insulting for them, it's tremendously dangerous for all. And I want to make that clear to anyone reading: the excuse "I'm a guy, I can't help it" is preposterous and unacceptable. "I'm a guy, I expect to get away with it" is another matter, and has nothing to do with inherent traits.

Sorry for the derail, but some unsupported claims are just too harmful to let them pass unchallenged.

[Envyus]

I would have thought that when you come to a forum you do so to discuss things, the fact there are people who feel differently form you is a good thing, otherwise its a waste of time.

People do not come on to forums to argue with people. Well some do but they tend to not be well liked. (You for example)

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.