Is there going to be a transgender person later in the story?

[CaDzilla]

I hope that there's a transgender person later in the story

[oppyu]

Do the elves count as non-binary gender?

[Keltest]

Technically, there has already been a transgender person in the story.

[CaDzilla]

Technically, there has already been a transgender person in the story.

Roy? That ogre with the B.G.S?

[Keltest]

Roy? That ogre with the B.G.S?

Ok, two trangenders, if youre willing to count one scene background characters.

but yes, Roy.

edit: Having said that, I think a Wild Mage character would be an amusing addition. All sorts of fun things you could do with one of them.

[Gray Mage]

Do the elves count as non-binary gender?

I don't think so, since most elves we've seen have a definite gender. Even V (probably) has one, it's just no one can tell it.

[t209]

I don't think so, since most elves we've seen have a definite gender. Even V (probably) has one, it's just no one can tell it.
I think you just found the answer to V's gender and the transgender character.
Two bird in one stone.

[CaDzilla]

Ok, two trangenders, if youre willing to count one scene background characters.

but yes, Roy.



That's more of a technical case with Roy

[Themrys]

I don't think so, since most elves we've seen have a definite gender. Even V (probably) has one, it's just no one can tell it.

Vaarsuvius has a sex, but quite probably no gender, since V doesn't seem to be concerned about being misgendered. As Inkyrius is also adressed as "parent" by the children, this indicates that this is a trait shared by all of (this particular) elvish society: Gender is just not a thing that matters, and thus has no representation in language.


There was the ogre woman who dropped the belt Roy used later. She was either transsexual before donning the belt, or after. (Depending on whether this was intentional or not)

[Bulldog Psion]

Pardon me if I'm displaying ignorance, but wouldn't the ogre and Roy count as transsexual, and transgender would be someone having a certain sex but a different gender than was culturally 'expected' to go with that sex?

I mean, as far as I know, "sex" refers to biological formations (such as "perky round eyes," "the trouser titan," and so on), while "gender" refers more to a behavioral construct. I may be talking complete tosh, though.

I'm in favor of either and/or both being represented, it's just that I'm getting (massively) confused by the terminology and exactly what you're looking for. :smallredface:

[Keltest]

That's more of a technical case with Roy

Youll notice I began my sentence with the word "Technically."


Pardon me if I'm displaying ignorance, but wouldn't the ogre and Roy count as transsexual, and transgender would be someone having a certain sex but a different gender than was culturally 'expected' to go with that sex?

I mean, as far as I know, "sex" refers to biological formations (such as "perky round eyes," "the trouser titan," and so on), while "gender" refers more to a behavioral construct. I may be talking complete tosh, though.

I'm in favor of either and/or both being represented, it's just that I'm getting (massively) confused by the terminology and exactly what you're looking for. :smallredface:

Then Roy still might qualify, since he had a decidedly male-expected personality while in the body of a woman. Then, he changed (back) to a male body.

Also, how does one use pronouns for this conversation?!

[Themrys]

Pardon me if I'm displaying ignorance, but wouldn't the ogre and Roy count as transsexual, and transgender would be someone having a certain sex but a different gender than was culturally 'expected' to go with that sex?

I mean, as far as I know, "sex" refers to biological formations (such as "perky round eyes," "the trouser titan," and so on), while "gender" refers more to a behavioral construct. I may be talking complete tosh, though.

I'm in favor of either and/or both being represented, it's just that I'm getting (massively) confused by the terminology and exactly what you're looking for. :smallredface:

People seem to use gender as an euphemism for sex in the sense of female or male, but I use the definition of "gender" as "specific character traits that are considered feminine/masculine" and "sex" as body things.

Therefore, an individual who experiences body dysphoria would be transsexual, i.e. unhappy with the body, while transgender ... no idea, really.

Language is always changing, so other people may use other definitions.


Edit: If Roy had continued to wear the belt long enough to experience serious body dysphoria, he'd have been transsexual that whole time, but since he didn't, that's more a technicality.

[CaDzilla]

Youll notice I began my sentence with the word "Technically."




Exactly, so Roy doesn't really count since it's just a temporary sex change

[brian 333]

An intersex ettin. Because two heads and two genders are better than one.

[Themrys]

An intersex ettin. Because two heads and two genders are better than one.

*nod* That would be interesting.

What about the MitD? Could he be trans? He clearly identifies as male (or at least as not-a-girl), but we don't know what his body looks like, so everything is possible. And in spite of not-being-a-girl he plays games stereotypically associated with girls ("tea party") so there is lots of potential breaking stereotypes there. :smallcool:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I would say that there is certainly time and room to introduce a transgender or transsexual character. I don't think we've really had one yet, though there are a few technical ones, as mentioned above. Although, since the story is wrapping up I think it's unlikely we will see a whole lot of recurring characters introduced.

[Keltest]

I would say that there is certainly time and room to introduce a transgender or transsexual character. I don't think we've really had one yet, though there are a few technical ones, as mentioned above. Although, since the story is wrapping up I think it's unlikely we will see a whole lot of recurring characters introduced.

On that note I think its worth bringing up that legitimate* transgender/sexual/whatever the OP actually wants to know about people are not, to my knowledge, naturally occurring. You have to deliberately and artificially initiate the physical changes. So how would that go about in the OOTS verse? Magic, obviously as we've seen, but how widespread would that be? Are there wizards in towers who make those silly cursed belts to sell to people? Do they have to then avoid ever having a remove curse spell cast on them? Do they sleep with a giant belt on for the rest of their lives? It seems to me that only a relative handful of people would have any sort of knowledge of or access to that sort of magic. Now having said that, Wild Mages!

*I say legitimate because I am peripherally aware of some conditions that superficially appear to be the same thing but actually aren't, biologically.

[Gray Mage]

On that note I think its worth bringing up that legitimate* transgender/sexual/whatever the OP actually wants to know about people are not, to my knowledge, naturally occurring. You have to deliberately and artificially initiate the physical changes. So how would that go about in the OOTS verse? Magic, obviously as we've seen, but how widespread would that be? Are there wizards in towers who make those silly cursed belts to sell to people? Do they have to then avoid ever having a remove curse spell cast on them? Do they sleep with a giant belt on for the rest of their lives? It seems to me that only a relative handful of people would have any sort of knowledge of or access to that sort of magic. Now having said that, Wild Mages!


Well, if one has the gold, there's Polymorph Any Object, available in scroll form, for a permanent duration.

Another question'd be if there is any transpecies in the OotS world.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

On that note I think its worth bringing up that legitimate* transgender/sexual/whatever the OP actually wants to know about people are not, to my knowledge, naturally occurring. You have to deliberately and artificially initiate the physical changes. So how would that go about in the OOTS verse? Magic, obviously as we've seen, but how widespread would that be? Are there wizards in towers who make those silly cursed belts to sell to people? Do they have to then avoid ever having a remove curse spell cast on them? Do they sleep with a giant belt on for the rest of their lives? It seems to me that only a relative handful of people would have any sort of knowledge of or access to that sort of magic. Now having said that, Wild Mages!

*I say legitimate because I am peripherally aware of some conditions that superficially appear to be the same thing but actually aren't, biologically.

I want to preface this by saying that I have very little knowledge in this subject and that if I say anything wrong, feel free to correct me.

The way I frequently see terms like transgender used is when referring to people whose gender doesn't match their assigned sex. It is quite possible for transgender people to exist independent of magic. In the comic, this would be somewhat difficult to show casually, but it is doable.

[Keltest]

Well, if one has the gold, there's Polymorph Any Object, available in scroll form, for a permanent duration.

Another question'd be if there is any transpecies in the OotS world.

Almost certainly. Even discounting the victims of various polymorph spells, I wouldn't bet against Druids that take up an animal form full time for one reason or another, or eccentric Archmages (Elminster style) who regard biology as guidelines rather than hard and fast rules.

[Shining Wrath]

*nod* That would be interesting.

What about the MitD? Could he be trans? He clearly identifies as male (or at least as not-a-girl), but we don't know what his body looks like, so everything is possible. And in spite of not-being-a-girl he plays games stereotypically associated with girls ("tea party") so there is lots of potential breaking stereotypes there. :smallcool:

If, I as sorta-anticipate, MitD plays an important role in defeating Xylon, and the MitD is subsequently revealed to be non-standard in terms of gender and sex, head explosions will be visible from Mars.

[spectralphoenix]

I would bet against it because of all the aforementioned sex-changing magic in D&D. I think it would be difficult to present such a character seriously when V could give them whatever body they wish with a standard action.

[oppyu]

Yeah, I imagine anyone in the Stickverse who feels that they were born with the wrong sex could just pick up a Belt of Gender Changing. Probably much cheaper and easier than gender reassignment and transition and all that.

Plus we have the literal transgender characters. Shapeshifters and such.

[Emanick]

Yeah, I imagine anyone in the Stickverse who feels that they were born with the wrong sex could just pick up a Belt of Gender Changing. Probably much cheaper and easier than gender reassignment and transition and all that.

Plus we have the literal transgender characters. Shapeshifters and such.

Most magic items like the Belt of Gender Changing probably cost thousands of gold pieces. That might be enough to make them permanently out of reach for a trans 1st-level commoner or dirt farmer, who might never have even heard of such a thing.

OOTS isn't a bog-standard medieval world, but it still seems to have its fair share of impoverished peasants. There don't appear be any modern welfare states around that would be willing to cover the cost of sex reassignment magic/surgery (though, naturally, I could be wrong on this).

[littlebum2002]

I don't think so, since most elves we've seen have a definite gender. Even V (probably) has one, it's just no one can tell it.

Everyone "has" a gender, but if you choose not to define yourself as a particular gender, like V, then you would usually go by agender, gender-neutral, or non-binary.


Pardon me if I'm displaying ignorance, but wouldn't the ogre and Roy count as transsexual, and transgender would be someone having a certain sex but a different gender than was culturally 'expected' to go with that sex?


I want to preface this by saying that I have very little knowledge in this subject and that if I say anything wrong, feel free to correct me.

The way I frequently see terms like transgender used is when referring to people whose gender doesn't match their assigned sex. It is quite possible for transgender people to exist independent of magic. In the comic, this would be somewhat difficult to show casually, but it is doable.

Transgender means not identifying with the gender you were assigned at birth. Therefore, anyone who is transsexual, gender-neutral, non-binary, etc. would be transgender.

Transsexual is a subset of transgender, which means you associate with the sex opposite the one you were born at birth.

Considering Roy was born male, and has always identified as male, the fact that he was temporarily female doesn't fit any of OUR definitions of transgender or transsexual, since none of them were written to include magically changed gender. We should have thought of that! :smallbiggrin:




On that note I think its worth bringing up that legitimate* transgender/sexual/whatever the OP actually wants to know about people are not, to my knowledge, naturally occurring. You have to deliberately and artificially initiate the physical changes. So how would that go about in the OOTS verse? Magic, obviously as we've seen, but how widespread would that be? Are there wizards in towers who make those silly cursed belts to sell to people? Do they have to then avoid ever having a remove curse spell cast on them? Do they sleep with a giant belt on for the rest of their lives? It seems to me that only a relative handful of people would have any sort of knowledge of or access to that sort of magic. Now having said that, Wild Mages!

*I say legitimate because I am peripherally aware of some conditions that superficially appear to be the same thing but actually aren't, biologically.


They would probably go about it the same way they do in this universe.

[Chronos]

A belt of gender changing might be expensive, but I think the "curse" remains in effect even if you take it off, so you wouldn't need to buy one, just borrow it.

As to the OP, who's to say we haven't already seen transgender characters? They wouldn't necessarily advertise their status-- In fact, that's exactly what a trans person is generally going to try to avoid doing. Even if they can't use magic to reshape or reimage their body as desired, passing for the desired gender could be just a mundane Disguise check away.

[DaggerPen]

A few terminology clarifications:

Cisgender: You are born a baby. A doctor or nurse or someone looks at your genitals and says "this is a boy/girl." You grow up and say "I sure am!"

Transgender: You are born a baby. A doctor or nurse or someone looks at your genitals and says "this is a boy/girl." You grow up and say "Nah."

Transgendered: Not a word. You're thinking of "transgender," which is already an adjective.

Transsexual: You identify with a different sex than the one you have and desire to change your sex surgically. A subset of "transgender," this is not used too often in my experience because it is less inclusive than the term "transgender."

Transvestite: An old term for a crossdresser, and not really considered polite. Crossdressers are typically cisgender and just like it for whatever reason.

Intersex: Anyone with one of several hundred intersex conditions that leaves them with genitals and/or hormone levels that are different from what one would expect from someone with XX or XY chromosomes, or with sex chromosomes other than XX/XY. Intersex people may be born with vaginas but be XY, have ambiguous genitalia, etc. Intersex people will be assigned a sex at birth, and may identify as transgender or cisgender, depending on many factors.

Assigned Female at Birth (AFAB or FAB): You are born. The doctor looks at your genitals and says "it's a girl!"

Assigned Male at Birth (AMAB or MAB): As above, but for boys.

Coercively Assigned Female at Birth (CAFAB or CFAB): You are born. The doctor looks at your genitals and says "It's probably a girl. Will someone get me my scalpel?" This usually only happens to intersex people, though will be sometimes done after botched circumcisions. This is also rarely a good idea, as it can badly impair genital function later in life and may not match what the baby comes to identify as. Intersex people largely ask that doctors not do this.

Coercively Assigned Male at Birth (CAMAB or CMAB): As above, but with boys and penises. Rarer because it is surgically more difficult. Not generally any better an idea.

Trans Woman: A transgender woman. She was assigned male at birth. Refer to her using "she/her/her" pronouns.

Trans Man: A transgender man. He was assigned female at birth. Refer to him using "he/him/his" pronouns.

Nonbinary: A person of whatever sex who does not feel like they can be described as either a man or a woman. There is currently no standard pronoun usage - just ask what they'd prefer.

Many cultures throughout history have had (and have) third gender categories to fold in intersex, transgender and nonbinary people, such as the "Two-Spirit" identity of many Native American nations. As we have as a culture constructed medical understandings of sex, the terminology has developed, leading to the glossary you see above.

In general, you should use the pronouns that match the gender a person identifies as. So when wearing the sex-changing belt, you should still call Roy "he," for example.

These terms can get somewhat tricky to apply when you bring magic into the equation. Terminology gets very difficult, especially, in the case of a previously cisgender person who gets stuck with sex-changing magic, like Roy. Because they were not raised as a gender they did not identify with, it's not really parallel to most people's experiences, but I know a lot of trans people who like to play around with such characters anyway.

TL; DR: Gender is really complicated, and a lot of our current very strict definitions of sex and gender has only made it more so. In a D&D context where magic can change the body around, there is a tremendous amount of room to play with gender stuff, something the 5th Edition seems to have embraced. It would be really cool to see some of that incorporated into the comic, but I imagine that, due to the prescriptions of the plot, we may see one or more transgender characters, but we probably won't see an in depth exploration of all the options for gender and sex in a magic world.

EDIT: Looks like I've been using "transsexual" wrong all this time. Thanks for the corrections, folks.

[Squark]

A belt of gender changing might be expensive, but I think the "curse" remains in effect even if you take it off, so you wouldn't need to buy one, just borrow it.

As to the OP, who's to say we haven't already seen transgender characters? They wouldn't necessarily advertise their status-- In fact, that's exactly what a trans person is generally going to try to avoid doing. Even if they can't use magic to reshape or reimage their body as desired, passing for the desired gender could be just a mundane Disguise check away.

Cursed items can't be taken off. Don't think about this one too hard, because it gets sort of weird in a lot of cases.

The being said, transsexuality, at least regarding male and female, would probably be less of an issue for people to address in a magical world, since sex changes via magic are relatively painless and fully effective. The social issues would still be there, though.

[Deliverance]

I hope there is a left-handed pygmy pipewelder, who replicates by spontaneous cell division, later in the story.

This is a critically underrepresented (and underappreciated!) segment of the population in fiction, and it would advance the cause of left-handed pygmy pipewelders, who replicated by spontaneous cell division, everywhere, were they to be featured in OOTS, as well as make it appeal to a bigger reader demographic. Not all that much bigger, perhaps, but bigger.

Of course I am not suggesting that the author should shoehorn in a left-handed pygmy pipewelder, who replicates by spontaneous cell division, just to please readers. Nothing such was intended. No, he should continue to focus on the story. But, if when adding a new character, he doesn't already have a well established identity in mind, then it would be nice if he considered making it a left-handed pygmy pipewelder, who replicates by spontaneous cell division. I mean, what possible reason could he have not to?

I'm with V on this one - people spend way too much time discussing or worrying about sex and gender rather than focusing on what is important. Like pygmies! And pipewelders! :smalltongue:

(Not to mention being left-handed. It is amusing that in fiction - especially fantasy fiction - being ambidextrous is much more common than being left-handed, while in the real world ambidexterity is exceptionally rare, while being left-handed is common. It is understandable, of course, because the handedness of people is only important in fiction when it carries a narrative role, but it is still amusing to think of if you like numbers.)

[ellindsey]

Cursed items can't be taken off. Don't think about this one too hard, because it gets sort of weird in a lot of cases.

Actually, by the rules the belt of gender change can be taken off at any time. The gender change itself remains until a Remove Curse spell is used. The comic departs from the rules by linking the belt to the gender change and making the belt itself unable to be removed.

[Dire Moose]

Actually, by the rules the belt of gender change can be taken off at any time. The gender change itself remains until a Remove Curse spell is used. The comic departs from the rules by linking the belt to the gender change and making the belt itself unable to be removed.

Actually, that presents a legitimate use for the belt under RAW. Maybe it was originally designed for trans people in-universe but enough of the belts accidentally wound up in treasure hoards that it was classified as a cursed item?

[littlebum2002]

Cursed items can't be taken off.

Are you sure? I think only some cursed items have that property.

[Keltest]

Are you sure? I think only some cursed items have that property.

Apparently that is how it works in OOTS. Fortunately for Roy

In my 1st edition DM guide, it says that once the belt is buckled on, the magic curse takes effect and the belt loses all of its magical properties, including the ability to curse again. The curse itself can only be undone with a wish spell (50% chance) or divine intervention.

Im curious how it survived the changes to 3.5th edition though.

[Holy_Knight]

Vaarsuvius has a sex, but quite probably no gender, since V doesn't seem to be concerned about being misgendered. As Inkyrius is also adressed as "parent" by the children, this indicates that this is a trait shared by all of (this particular) elvish society: Gender is just not a thing that matters, and thus has no representation in language)

Unless by "this particular society" you mean "Vaarsuvius, Inkyrius, and their children", then no, it doesn't indicate that. The fact that two married characters choose to raise their children in a certain way tells us about them, but doesn't in itself let us conclude anything about the rest of their society.

[Reddish Mage]

I came in this thread thinking this was going to be about someone thinking the Giant is looking to check boxes, but I see that, instead, we apparently have lots of transgendered, transexual, or perhaps even non-gendered characters in the story.

V really does seem to be agendered to some extent. I wouldn't overestimate this extent however, as V is officially has a gender (which will be kept a mystery forever).

So apparently Sabine may be gender fluid (she has no problem switching between male and female forms), however, given she seems to prefer female forms, and her interactions have a feminine tinge, I wouldn't stress that too much.

We don't have enough information about the Ogre in the background for it (notice pronoun) to really be a "character." Elan is apparently curious, and Roy actually did a sexual switch but not a gender one.

The MiTD may have a shapeshifting ability but no one can be sure about that, and he does not seem to have a shifting gender identity. It appears in the end there could be a case for a lot of things, but I'm not sure there is an actual transgender in the entire story (despite myths about Loki and so on).

[oppyu]

A few terminology clarifications:

This was enormously helpful.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

This was enormously helpful.

Yeah, thanks DaggerPen!

[DaggerPen]

This was enormously helpful.


Yeah, thanks DaggerPen!

Thabks, guys! I'm glad it helped - I was worried it might be a bit much of an info dump. :)

[Themrys]

Everyone "has" a gender, but if you choose not to define yourself as a particular gender, like V, then you would usually go by agender, gender-neutral, or non-binary.

Just to clarify, I use "sex" for the thing (almost) everyone has, and "gender" for that which human societies have invented, and which some would call "gender stereotypes".

I assume V to be perfectly happy with the body V has, and not paying attention to sex the norm in elven society, which is why I doubt V would self-define as one of the above. Likely, V considers hirself a completely normal elf for whom no specific description is needed.

[Themrys]

If, I as sorta-anticipate, MitD plays an important role in defeating Xylon, and the MitD is subsequently revealed to be non-standard in terms of gender and sex, head explosions will be visible from Mars.

I would like to watch that. :smallbiggrin:

(As I mentioned, according to some people's standards, MitD would already be considered non-standard for identifying as a boy and playing with (previously alive) dolls. Did he complain about the Hello-Kitty-umbrella, or just about the hiding?)

[littlebum2002]

Just to clarify, I use "sex" for the thing (almost) everyone has, and "gender" for that which human societies have invented, and which some would call "gender stereotypes".

I assume V to be perfectly happy with the body V has, and not paying attention to sex the norm in elven society, which is why I doubt V would self-define as one of the above. Likely, V considers hirself a completely normal elf for whom no specific description is needed.

But since V does not identify with either gender, that would make hir agender, gender-neutral, or non binary. That's literally what the definition for those are, not identifying with either gender.

[Onyavar]

I hope there is a left-handed pygmy pipewelder, who replicates by spontaneous cell division, later in the story.

Ballerinas are also underrepresented in this comic. Everyone knows how important ballerinas are in any story! And don't forget about social pedagogy. Social pedagogy also hasn't been adressed in the story! (Edit: even normal pedagogy has hardly been adressed. Teachers of the Stickworld, unite against this outrage!)

Seriously. I hope there aren't any "interest groups" who get their very own featured character. In the LGBT pool, we have had so far:

- at least two gay characters I can still remember (the CPPD prison guard and Bandana)
- at least two elves who don't easily identify with a gender
- Roy and the belt of TG, where a main character briefly explored the world in the opposite sex, and even got clerical counseling, and got character growth out of it. (plus, the ogre at the beginning, yeah.)
- and Haley, with her latent bi-curiousity, although she never acted on it on screen
- and, um, well, erm, a necrophiliac (who did a female corpse at least once), though she sure wasn't really your average "sympathy character".

So far, Rich has painted a relaxed view on gender (and race) issues. LGBT seems overall tolerated in OotS-World, even if it's not stabbing the reader into the eye repeatedly. Look at Durkon, the stubborn traditionalist, where he counseled Roy on his curse. You see a friend who is genuinely concerned about the deeper sexual identity of his human comrade.
Now, if I remember correctly, Rich has stated himself before that he doesn't want to introduce an important homosexual character because he'd have no idea how to handle him - being a straight man himself, and with the main cast also being straight.

Introducing a decidedly gay character and displaying him as unsympathetic and/or exaggerated cliche would probably evoke a very unfavorable reader response. Won't you think? The same for a TG character, especially since you have to introduce and develop him for a realistic portrayal. The comic (in my opinion) hasn't screen time left for that. Even if, I can already imagine the main cast response towards such a character:

:roy: Oh, interesting. Well, I had my own experience with that, but I'd like to forget it.
:belkar: Blech. Not the Belkster's cup of tea. I'm feuding a vampire dwarf at the moment, so screw you - however you need it. heh.
:haley: Not interested, I'm in a relationship now. And come on, this is lame.
:elan: Oh, sure, that's nice. Do you already know my puppet god?
(vampire) :durkon: ... Biology is disgusting.
:vaarsuvius: And why, praytell, haven't you consulted an experienced colleague of mine with that easily alterable inconvenience?

---

My advice to the OP: If you want to read stories about transgendered, there is a TON out there in the internet. And quite many of these stories are actually of very high quality, I could point you at some. Written by experts or written by actual transgendered or written by people who at least fancy the idea.
Not by an author who seriously shouldn't be expected to write about stuff he has no interest in and who'd need to do a huge amount of research to maybe get it right?

[Bulldog Psion]

Yes, it's a tough one to represent properly, particularly since it basically asks for a long, detailed introspection into the character's inner workings. And a freewheeling adventure comic is a pretty poor venue for a lengthy depiction of one character's inner sexual nuances. Gay is pretty "easy" -- you can just have someone male with a boyfriend/husband or female with a girlfriend/wife.

Transgender requires a lot of mental exploration, however, and as the poster above me points out, it's probably too much to ask of a non-transgender writer to insert something that complex into the last 20% or 25% of a story that is already developing a series of long-time, highly tangled character arcs.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Yes, it's a tough one to represent properly, particularly since it basically asks for a long, detailed introspection into the character's inner workings. And a freewheeling adventure comic is a pretty poor venue for a lengthy depiction of one character's inner sexual nuances. Gay is pretty "easy" -- you can just have someone male with a boyfriend/husband or female with a girlfriend/wife.

Transgender requires a lot of mental exploration, however, and as the poster above me points out, it's probably too much to ask of a non-transgender writer to insert something that complex into the last 20% or 25% of a story that is already developing a series of long-time, highly tangled character arcs.

That is a fairly good point. Especially because by this time in the story, the Giant is probably looking more towards finishing threads than starting new ones.

[CaDzilla]

My advice to the OP: If you want to read stories about transgendered, there is a TON out there in the internet. And quite many of these stories are actually of very high quality, I could point you at some. Written by experts or written by actual transgendered or written by people who at least fancy the idea.


Okay, what are the best ones?

[Honest Tiefling]

In a world of polymorphing and belts of free-whenever-you-want gender reassignment, wouldn't there be a slight issue that a transgender character would be impossible to detect without high levels of magic? We only know that the guard was gay because he was sorta being seduced, and we know Bandana is gay/bi because of a prior relationship. But there's probably others we don't know about because it never was on display. I guess one might reveal themselves by mentioning, oh by the way, when I was a young woman things were different! I would just plain imagine it would be harder to subtly work in that someone is transgendered.

[DaggerPen]

Not to be That Guy, but if I may pick at some grammatical nits here, because I've seen like five people doing this so far-

Transgender. Not transgendered. "Transgender" is already an adjective - the "ed" ending is unnecessary, and implies that "transgender" is a verb, which is just silly.

As for working it casually into the plot - yeah, it's tough. Not undoable, but as someone currently in the midst of a script with a transgender main character who is trying to work it in casually when it's significantly more plot-relevant than it is here, it's a tough one. I'd say the two best ways to do it without making a big deal of it would be to have a convenient flashback to a character that portrays them as a different sex, or someone clearly wearing a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, possibly with a bonus "Did ye want me ta cast Remove Curse on ye?" "Hm? Oh, no, I'm very good with this." exchange.

[oppyu]

Hinjo (at North Pole): Oh, I've had some experience with curses.
(cut to younger Hinjo and High Priest of Azure City)
Priest: It seems clear that the ring was actually a Ring of Gender Changing. I have a scroll of remove curse somewhere around here.
Hinjo: ... I'm good, thanks.

That would work pretty well. Instant transgender character without having to delve into all the drama or gender issues in media that's not really suited for it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Hinjo (at North Pole): Oh, I've had some experience with curses.
(cut to younger Hinjo and High Priest of Azure City)
Priest: It seems clear that the ring was actually a Ring of Gender Changing. I have a scroll of remove curse somewhere around here.
Hinjo: ... I'm good, thanks.

That would work pretty well. Instant transgender character without having to delve into all the drama or gender issues in media that's not really suited for it.

Huh, that would be interesting to see.

[DaggerPen]

Hinjo (at North Pole): Oh, I've had some experience with curses.
(cut to younger Hinjo and High Priest of Azure City)
Priest: It seems clear that the ring was actually a Ring of Gender Changing. I have a scroll of remove curse somewhere around here.
Hinjo: ... I'm good, thanks.

That would work pretty well. Instant transgender character without having to delve into all the drama or gender issues in media that's not really suited for it.

... yup, that'd do it. Nice one. :smallbiggrin:

[Darth Paul]

And yet, it would be sure to begin another endless thread over whether such a character was "neccesary" to the story, or simply "pandering to a demographic"... and it would probably weed out a few more bigots who refuse to buy OOTS books if they have a transgender character in them... For my money, that would be a net gain (-1 for the long futile debate thread, + several thousand for the bigot weeding).

I agree an exchange like the above would be an artful way to do it (although there may be some passing comment in canon establishing Hinjo as a lifelong "male", so another character would have to be used...).

[Akolyte01]

I hope that there's a transgender person later in the story


Why? How could that possibly add to the story in any way more than as a diversity checkmark?

[oppyu]

I'm guessing any such character would be doing more than walking on screen, identifying as trans and wandering off. So they'd add to the story in that fashion, like how Bandana's adding more to the narrative than letting Rich go "HEY! I GOT A LESBIAN IN THE COMIC, YAY FOR DIVERSITY AND REPRESENTATION."

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Why? How could that possibly add to the story in any way more than as a diversity checkmark?

The same way that any other new character adds to the story. This one just happens to be slightly different from the rest is all.

[Darth Paul]

And yet, it would be sure to begin another endless thread over whether such a character was "neccesary" to the story, or simply "pandering to a demographic"...


Why? How could that possibly add to the story in any way more than as a diversity checkmark?

Told you so. And the character's NOT EVEN HERE yet.

[Serpentine]

Transsexual: You have undergone genital reassignment surgery and, usually, hormone replacement therapy, as well as sometimes top surgery to remove breasts, hair removal, etc. Because the process is long and expensive and many doctors will not sign off on it without extensive documentation, plus the fact that many people actually do not want it, most transgender people are not transsexual. Not actually used that much anymore because of those facts, in my experience.Mostly good, but one clarification: Surgery and hormones are not necessary to be transsexual. In fact, generally being diagnosed as transsexual is required to gain legal access to surgery and hormones. Many transsexual people do not get any surgery or, less often, hormones, but they're still transsexual - it's complicated, but according to the LGBTAI thread's own glossary, it is the desire to transition from one sex to the other that makes them transsexual. "Transgender" is a more general term that covers a variety of non-gendernormativity, including transsexuality.

I've sort of started a bit of a habit of assuming one or more characters in things are trans, just cuz, as mentioned, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell either way. I quite like oppyu's way of bringing it up, or possibly having an anti-magic effect and someone suddenly changing shape somewhat (and potentially being quite upset about that). It could be tricky to do without being unintentionally insulting or causing another bad reaction, though.

[littlebum2002]

Not to be That Guy, but if I may pick at some grammatical nits here, because I've seen like five people doing this so far-

Transgender. Not transgendered. "Transgender" is already an adjective - the "ed" ending is unnecessary, and implies that "transgender" is a verb, which is just silly.



LOL. Whenever I hear "transgendered" I think how weird it would be if people used the word "gayed"



Why? How could that possibly add to the story in any way more than as a diversity checkmark?

Realism





Mostly good, but one clarification: Surgery and hormones are not necessary to be transsexual. In fact, generally being diagnosed as transsexual is required to gain legal access to surgery and hormones. Many transsexual people do not get any surgery or, less often, hormones, but they're still transsexual - it's complicated, but according to the LGBTAI thread's own glossary, it is the desire to transition from one sex to the other that makes them transsexual. "Transgender" is a more general term that covers a variety of non-gendernormativity, including transsexuality.

I've sort of started a bit of a habit of assuming one or more characters in things are trans, just cuz, as mentioned, you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell either way. I quite like oppyu's way of bringing it up, or possibly having an anti-magic effect and someone suddenly changing shape somewhat (and potentially being quite upset about that). It could be tricky to do without being unintentionally insulting or causing another bad reaction, though.

I didn't want to say anything, because DaggerPen's post was so otherwise great, but yeah. Transsexual just means you identify with the other sex. No hormones or surgery is needed to be transsexual. That is actually the definition of "post-op transsexual"

Also, that would be a great way to introduce a trans character.

[Honest Tiefling]

Not to be That Guy, but if I may pick at some grammatical nits here, because I've seen like five people doing this so far-

Transgender. Not transgendered. "Transgender" is already an adjective - the "ed" ending is unnecessary, and implies that "transgender" is a verb, which is just silly.

No wonder my spell check didn't like it! Thanks for the tip. Then again, my spelling is always bad.

[DaggerPen]

Mostly good, but one clarification: Surgery and hormones are not necessary to be transsexual. In fact, generally being diagnosed as transsexual is required to gain legal access to surgery and hormones. Many transsexual people do not get any surgery or, less often, hormones, but they're still transsexual - it's complicated, but according to the LGBTAI thread's own glossary, it is the desire to transition from one sex to the other that makes them transsexual. "Transgender" is a more general term that covers a variety of non-gendernormativity, including transsexuality.

Whups! Thanks for the correction, guys - like I said, I mostly just hear people using the umbrella "transgender" term, so I guess I must've picked that one up wrong. I'll amend my post for correctness once I'm off mobile - much obliged.


No wonder my spell check didn't like it! Thanks for the tip. Then again, my spelling is always bad.

Heh, no problem - it's a really common error for some reason, maybe because "gendered" is also an adjective ("gendered clothing," etc.)

English, man. What are you gonna do.

[Cizak]

Why? How could that possibly add to the story in any way more than as a diversity checkmark?

Because you wouldn't be asking why if a new character came along and indentified themselves as hetero.

[Keltest]

Because you wouldn't be asking why if a new character came along and indentified themselves as hetero.

Lets be honest with ourselves here. If a character randomly walked into a scene, announced "Im heterosexual!" and walked out without doing anything else, there would be just as much confusion as if they had said trans. And that's the only situation I can think of where a characters worth to the story is not evidenced by their participation in the story, due to lack of participation.

[veti]

LOL. Whenever I hear "transgendered" I think how weird it would be if people used the word "gayed"

They do. Also "gaying" and "to gay" (usually followed by "... it up"). Citation (https://www.google.com/search?q=gay+it+up).


Realism

Adding different types of people to the story doesn't automatically increase "realism" (whatever that even means, in the context of a fantasy story set in a fantasy world about fantasy characters with fantasy problems in the framework of a fantasy RPG).

You know what I see, every day of my life, a heck of a lot more often than anyone discernably TG? Pacific islanders. The comic has white (human) people, black (human) people and at least two flavours of pseudo-Asians, so why no pseudo-Maori or islanders? Or pseudo-native-Americans? Australian aborigines? Eskimoes?

I don't think adding any of these would make anything "more realistic". Probably they'd raise more questions than they answered, such as "why does the ethnology of the Stickverse have so much in common with our world, when the geography and history that gave rise to it is completely different?" Substitute the word "sociology" for "ethnology", and the same point would apply to a character who identified as "transgendered".

[Miriel]

Personnally, as a trans person, I'm very happy right with just the elvish gender-bending. I don't think a trans character, by itself, would improve the story. It depends how it's done. And if there were one, I'd like them to be trans in the way Bandana is lesbian, or even the policeman in 387 is gay -- we just know about it and move on with the story.

And no, Roy-with-belt has nothing to do with trans issues. It's not positive representation. At best, it shows what dysphoria is for some people, because Roy had a body he didn't like in the same way some trans men do, but it's mostly just a "trans as a joke" incident.


Yes, it's a tough one to represent properly, particularly since it basically asks for a long, detailed introspection into the character's inner workings.
No, it does not.

Quick ideas, in addition to the Hinjo-with-girdle one:
- Bring visions of the past: Flashbacks of a character X pre-transition, or pre-transition pictures (say, parent, parent, child, where the character is the child and appears of the other gender).
- Bandana style: "Hey, do you want this? It's a nice shirt, but I can't wear it since my transition" (Obviously, it's been used already, so yeah.)
- Motivations, i.e. some character needs money for (magical!) transition expenses, or is somewhere unexpected because they left their home to transition.
- You could even use pronoun slips: "Here, meet my sis-, err, my brother."

Yeah, it's tricky, but it's not tricky because you need to know their "inner workings". Just because most trans things are tricky.


Okay, what are the best ones?

I recommend Assigned Male (http://assignedmale.tumblr.com/), a webcomic by a friend of mine :smallsmile:

Otherwise, check the LGBTQAIitp thread in Friendly Banter. There's a list in the first post.


You know what I see, every day of my life, a heck of a lot more often than anyone discernably TG? Pacific islanders. The comic has white (human) people, black (human) people and at least two flavours of pseudo-Asians, so why no pseudo-Maori or islanders? Or pseudo-native-Americans? Australian aborigines? Eskimoes?
The comic informs us of skin tone, not of race categories. And although "white" is pretty much default, Durkon is neither black nor white, but some variety of brown (as the Giant stated... somewhere). So were many people in Sandsedge.

[Themrys]

Lets be honest with ourselves here. If a character randomly walked into a scene, announced "Im heterosexual!" and walked out without doing anything else, there would be just as much confusion as if they had said trans. And that's the only situation I can think of where a characters worth to the story is not evidenced by their participation in the story, due to lack of participation.

Any confusion about the woman who said "nice ass" to Elan in Origin of the PCs? She didn't turn up again, and regardless what Elan believed, she wasn't talking about the ass whose name is Dandelion.

That woman did walk into the scene, announce that she was attracted to Elan - and therefore probably heterosexual, or bi - and then walked out again without doing anything else.

[Keltest]

Any confusion about the woman who said "nice ass" to Elan in Origin of the PCs? She didn't turn up again, and regardless what Elan believed, she wasn't talking about the ass whose name is Dandelion.

That woman did walk into the scene, announce that she was attracted to Elan - and therefore probably heterosexual, or bi - and then walked out again without doing anything else.

Im sorry, I was speaking literally when I described what they said. I don't own Origin of the PCs, but it sounds like she was there for the sake of a joke, which is not the same thing as what I described. To be perfectly clear, I am talking about complete non-sequiturs which have no interaction with the scene at hand in any way.

[oppyu]

You know what I see, every day of my life, a heck of a lot more often than anyone discernably TG? Pacific islanders. The comic has white (human) people, black (human) people and at least two flavours of pseudo-Asians, so why no pseudo-Maori or islanders? Or pseudo-native-Americans? Australian aborigines? Eskimoes?

Hell yes let's get some Pacific Islanders up in here. Me and my fellow Islanders have been underrepresented in media for far too long.

[Deliverance]

Hell yes let's get some Pacific Islanders up in here. Me and my fellow Islanders have been underrepresented in media for far too long.
The Giant already represented Pacific Islanders in the story in an extended sequence... Have you already forgotten the island orcs? :smalltongue:

[Quartz]

I hope that there's a transgender person later in the story

I suggest you try reading the Exiern (www.exiern.com) comic strip. Note that early strips can be NSFW.

[oppyu]

The Giant already represented Pacific Islanders in the story in an extended sequence... Have you already forgotten the island orcs? :smalltongue:
That is offensive and I am going to take this to the most powerful Pacific Islander advocacy groups around. You'll pay for this! You'll all pay!

[Bulldog Psion]

That is offensive and I am going to take this to the most powerful Pacific Islander advocacy groups around. You'll pay for this! You'll all pay!

Us, and our little dogs, too? :smallwink:

Sorry, couldn't resist. Just too good an opportunity.

[Akolyte01]

{ scrubbed }

[oppyu]

{ scrubbed }

[Akolyte01]

{ scrubbed }

[dps]

Therefore, an individual who experiences body dysphoria would be transsexual, i.e. unhappy with the body

I'm pretty sure that you can experience body dysphoria without being trans. You don't have to have any issues with sexual or gender orientation to be dissatisfied with your body. Which, I suppose is good news for plastic surgeons, personal trainers, and people who peddle crack-pot dietary plans.

[littlebum2002]

{ scrubbed }

No, one of those people that get upset when a demographic which has NEVER been represented in media just asks that they get even a small fraction of the representation their demographic represents in the real life.

[Onyavar]

Okay, what are the best ones?
Besides the other webcomics that were already mentioned, there is the finished story of Khaoskomix (http://khaoskomix) (2/4 stories are partly about TGs/TSs). There is also the neverending Misfile. (http://misfile.com)

And if you're not too afraid of the dreaded text format, I can recommend the Ovid (http://www.fictionmania.tv/stories/readtextstory.html?storyID=29749379125277) and the Legacy (http://www.fictionmania.tv/searchdisplay/storycatdisplay.html?word=1057) novellas.


I recommend Assigned Male (http://assignedmale.tumblr.com/), a webcomic by a friend of mine :smallsmile:
Oooh, pretty political. I binged through it just now and liked it.


I suggest you try reading the Exiern (www.exiern.com) comic strip. Note that early strips can be NSFW.
I had mixed feelings about that story, I never knew whether it was too serious or too silly. But some good storylines there.

Now all of this seems like a pretty wide ranged selection to me. So as I stated before, I don't see a pressing need for inclusionism in OotS, be it for ballerinas, pacific islanders, transgendered or left-handed pygmy pipewelders who replicate by spontaneous cell division.

(btw, Deliverance, was that a weird Super Mario reference? Because I couldn't stop cracking up, imagining them like Mario.)

[Gandariel]

My 2 cents:

I wasn't offended or anything by the fact that Bandana is gay, but frankly i don't even see it as a necessary addition to the story. She didn't do anything plot-related or funny (and she could have given Haley the clothes in some other random way eg: an ex pirate).

I assume it will come into play later? Or the giant just wants to inform people that he's ok with gays, while not going out of his way to say so?

Overall, i'd say i don't really care about it. But unless there's a something plot-related or funny about it, i don't see the point of including it.
Same reason why there would be no reason to specify the Mechane is made of Pine rather than Oak wood, unless pine ended up being the one weakness of the Snarl, or Durkon remembering that once a pine tried to murder him with a deadly salve of natural weapons.

So, more or less this would apply to a transgender person.

Tl;Dr: I would not really care that much, but i'd question the motivations of adding it in the first place. If the Giant just wants to say he approves something he can use Twitter.

[brian 333]

Transvestites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Wong_Foo,_Thanks_for_Everything!_Julie_Newmar) are not necessarily transgendered, but the movie is fun, and funny, and shows a very good portrait of people who happen to be different from 'normal' people. Of course, not being a transvestite, I can't say how accurate the film is to life.

[Keltest]

My 2 cents:

I wasn't offended or anything by the fact that Bandana is gay, but frankly i don't even see it as a necessary addition to the story. She didn't do anything plot-related or funny (and she could have given Haley the clothes in some other random way eg: an ex pirate).

I assume it will come into play later? Or the giant just wants to inform people that he's ok with gays, while not going out of his way to say so?

Overall, i'd say i don't really care about it. But unless there's a something plot-related or funny about it, i don't see the point of including it.
Same reason why there would be no reason to specify the Mechane is made of Pine rather than Oak wood, unless pine ended up being the one weakness of the Snarl, or Durkon remembering that once a pine tried to murder him with a deadly salve of natural weapons.

So, more or less this would apply to a transgender person.

Tl;Dr: I would not really care that much, but i'd question the motivations of adding it in the first place. If the Giant just wants to say he approves something he can use Twitter.

The Giant is attempting to (help) normalize the appearance of gay characters within media.

[Sith_Happens]

Actually, by the rules the belt of gender change can be taken off at any time. The gender change itself remains until a Remove Curse spell is used. The comic departs from the rules by linking the belt to the gender change and making the belt itself unable to be removed.

Does anyone here have the 2nd edition source for the belt on-hand to clarify whether it can be physically removed (since it was never officially updated to 3rd)? Because if so I could see it possible to "rent" one at a price that most people could afford with a bit of saving up.


Why? How could that possibly add to the story in any way more than as a diversity checkmark?

Well, the hypothetical Hinjo flashback posted earlier would also be an amusing D&D joke.

[VanFanel]

So as I stated before, I don't see a pressing need for inclusionism in OotS, be it for ballerinas, pacific islanders, transgendered or left-handed pygmy pipewelders who replicate by spontaneous cell division.


As a left-handed person, I must (http://xkcd.com/386/) point out that there is already a ballerina (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html) in OOTS! :)

[Cizak]

I wasn't offended or anything by the fact that Bandana is gay, but frankly i don't even see it as a necessary addition to the story.

Necessary addition for the story, maybe not. Necessary addition for all of literature, definitely.


I assume it will come into play later?

Being gay doesn't have to have a point.


Or the giant just wants to inform people that he's ok with gays, while not going out of his way to say so?

He want to inform people that gay people exist, something literature hasn't been very good at before.


Same reason why there would be no reason to specify the Mechane is made of Pine rather than Oak wood[...]

Comparing apples to oranges. Pine is not sentinent and hasn't been neglected representation for a very long time. LBGT people are and have.

[Serpentine]

I wonder whether SMBC's casual inclusion of LGBT people is ever put under this much unnecessary scrutiny...

(also: approving nod in Cizak's direction)

[Themrys]

I'm pretty sure that you can experience body dysphoria without being trans. You don't have to have any issues with sexual or gender orientation to be dissatisfied with your body. Which, I suppose is good news for plastic surgeons, personal trainers, and people who peddle crack-pot dietary plans.

Of course there are several reasons for dysphoria, but if you don't have it ... a girl who doesn't like pink, likes girls, and/or likes airships, but is perfectly happy with having a female body is not transsexual. She does not need treatment of any sort, and she doesn't need to change her sex - rather the surrouding society that is not okay with her being that way needs treatment.

[littlebum2002]

I wonder whether SMBC's casual inclusion of LGBT people is ever put under this much unnecessary scrutiny...

(also: approving nod in Cizak's direction)

It does. There are people in SMBC's forums who complain about the comic having too many gay people.

[Serpentine]

It does. There are people in SMBC's forums who complain about the comic having too many gay people.Man people like complaining about things that have absolutely no impact on their own lives but make other people's a tiny bit better.

[littlebum2002]

Man people like complaining about things that have absolutely no impact on their own lives but make other people's a tiny bit better.

Well, in the other thread there's already been over 500 posts on whether or not Rich did the right thing by making Bandana gay. I had to stop checking it because I already got one warning and want to avoid getting mad and getting another,

[Onyavar]

As a left-handed person, I must (http://xkcd.com/386/) point out that there is already a ballerina (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0706.html) in OOTS! :)

:smalleek:

Touché.

:smallfrown: I don't like being the guy who is wrong on the internet :smallfrown: Well. Good spot check.

[veti]

Man people like complaining about things that have absolutely no impact on their own lives but make other people's a tiny bit better.

'Impact on their own lives' is for them to identify, not you. Lots of people have strongly held opinions about things that don't seem to affect them. Personally, I'd've put "whether there should be more or less people of gender (whatever) in an online comic strip" firmly in that category, but this thread shows some people feel that does have an impact on their lives, so what do I know.

[Cantalooping]

Man people like complaining about things that have absolutely no impact on their own lives but make other people's a tiny bit better.

Those two things don't work together. If you say it makes some people's life better, you can't claim it can't also have an effect on other people's life.
Granted you can make a point about how to weigh both effects against each other and say that the positive effects outweigh the negative reactions, but it obviously has some "impact" (however small or irrelevant) on their lifes.

[jere7my]

Those two things don't work together. If you say it makes some people's life better, you can't claim it can't also have an effect on other people's life.
Granted you can make a point about how to weigh both effects against each other and say that the positive effects outweigh the negative reactions, but it obviously has some "impact" (however small or irrelevant) on their lifes.

Representation is not zero-sum.

Edit: Let's put it this way. If I smile at a friend, it makes them happy and it makes me happy. There is no corresponding negative effect to account for. Your premise, that anything that affects some people positively must affect others negatively, is flawed.

[Miriel]

Those two things don't work together. If you say it makes some people's life better, you can't claim it can't also have an effect on other people's life.
Granted you can make a point about how to weigh both effects against each other and say that the positive effects outweigh the negative reactions, but it obviously has some "impact" (however small or irrelevant) on their lifes.
Oh, I agree. It does affect other people's lives. It can make bigots less bigotted and more understanding. Or it can make them understand that not everyone agrees with their bigotry, and that, indeed, the author does not -- and start isolating the bigots, not the marginalized.

Either way, the result is a better everything.

[Serpentine]

Those two things don't work together. If you say it makes some people's life better, you can't claim it can't also have an effect on other people's life.
Granted you can make a point about how to weigh both effects against each other and say that the positive effects outweigh the negative reactions, but it obviously has some "impact" (however small or irrelevant) on their lifes.Just because something makes one set of people's lives a bit better, doesn't mean that there isn't another subset of people upon whom the thing has absolutely no impact on. So yeah, if I say that something makes some people's lives better, I can also say it has no effect on other people.
I'll try to break it down a bit more clearly:
Things like having a trans* character can make the lives of trans people a little bit better. It will have absolutely no impact on the lives of non-trans people. But that won't stop the latter complaining about the former until they're blue in the face, even about the mere suggestion of the possibility that maybe it could theoretically happen.


*or gay, or black, or whatever

[Silferdrake]

Personally I very much like a diverse and well represented cast, and I think the Giant has been doing a great job the last few months with Bandana's character and handing the criticism that he seems to have received. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing other orientations represented, but I doubt we'll see very much of that in the future, here's a post by the Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS/page14&p=15055919#post15055919) on the subject (not sure if it has been posted earlier in this thread).

Also, while I do not think it is necessary for someone's sexual orientation to be relevant for the story to merit be mentioned, it's way too early to say that Bandana's sexuality won't become important later on.

[Deliverance]

Now all of this seems like a pretty wide ranged selection to me. So as I stated before, I don't see a pressing need for inclusionism in OotS, be it for ballerinas, pacific islanders, transgendered or left-handed pygmy pipewelders who replicate by spontaneous cell division.

(btw, Deliverance, was that a weird Super Mario reference? Because I couldn't stop cracking up, imagining them like Mario.)
No such cleverness involved, I'm afraid.

It was just a variant of a standard quip of mine whenever somebody brings up some subgroup of humanity and argues that the world would be a better place if they were more represented in stories/movies/the media because [tragically overlooked | interests of fairness | realism]. It is the sort of thinking that leads to Hollywood casting in movies and more generally sloppier storytelling as writers try to fit in disparate elements for little narrative purpose. In all fairness the original post didn't deserve such a response since it merely expressed a hope, but the subsequent discussion did.

[oppyu]

Nope, still not buying the 'diversity somehow leads to worse media' argument. I understand not seeing an inherent benefit to diverse casting, but Random Hollywood Blockbuster would not be horribly sidetracked if the writers had to figure out how to capture the story essence of a leading star with a different chromosomal set.

[littlebum2002]

No such cleverness involved, I'm afraid.

It was just a variant of a standard quip of mine whenever somebody brings up some subgroup of humanity and argues that the world would be a better place if they were more represented in stories/movies/the media because [tragically overlooked | interests of fairness | realism]. It is the sort of thinking that leads to Hollywood casting in movies and more generally sloppier storytelling as writers try to fit in disparate elements for little narrative purpose. In all fairness the original post didn't deserve such a response since it merely expressed a hope, but the subsequent discussion did.

How is it sloppy storytelling?

Man loves woman man, they fall in love, live happily ever after.

It's literally the exact same story.

[Deliverance]

Nope, still not buying the 'diversity somehow leads to worse media' argument.

It doesn't necessarily, and if that's what you take from my post, I must have put it badly.

Diversity of characters is neither good nor bad in stories by itself, it depends on the circumstances and purpose of the story. It is my experience that diversity included for the sake of diversity is frequently less well written than diversity that has narrative purpose in the story. Of course this also greatly depends on the skill of the author.

The point being, a diversity of cast should be used when it enhances the story being told rather than distracts from it, not because of some need to fit it in. And inclusion on the grounds of [overlooked | fairness | realism] is just about as bad an argument for including anybody in a story as it gets, unless the story is about fairness or realism of those particular overlooked or people like them.

OOTS is fairly generous in that regard due to the many one-off jokes ranging from the cringe-worthingly bad over many bound in popular US culture and prejudices to some that are really, really, good* - if one wants to include a character simply to please some readers, there are a ton of ways to do it that doesn't take up a lot of space or distract the readers from the main narrative.

Another example of that would be Simon R. Green's now completed Nightside series - it was so over the top that anything and everything went, and long lists of different types of humanity (and inhumanity) was common. Diversity was the point.



Short version? There are untold numbers* of types of people that are not frequently used in stories. This does not mean that authors should strive to include any or all of them except where it makes narrative sense. It doesn't mean that using any of them is bad either, but unless there is a narrative purpose served in doing so, the story would probably have been better not doing so.


* Err, not saying that those tied up with US popular culture and prejudices can't be good or fun for those immersed in the same culture, but they tend to be hit-and-miss for those of us from other countries.
** if we combine of personal and biological traits this has got to run to at least the millions

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How is it sloppy storytelling?

Man loves woman man, they fall in love, live happily ever after.

It's literally the exact same story.

I wonder how difficult it would be to have a play in which the actors are randomly assigned their roles at the start of each performance (say, by pulling the character names from a hat). Sure, it's trickier for the actors, who have to be able to play all the roles rather than just the one (on the other hand, if they can pull it off, it will look extra nice in their resume), but it would really add interest to even a very basic plot such as a love triangle.

Grey Wolf

[Darth Paul]

I wonder how difficult it would be to have a play in which the actors are randomly assigned their roles at the start of each performance (say, by pulling the character names from a hat). Sure, it's trickier for the actors, who have to be able to play all the roles rather than just the one (on the other hand, if they can pull it off, it will look extra nice in their resume), but it would really add interest to even a very basic plot such as a love triangle.

Grey Wolf

I think that sounds great. It's worked before, too.

Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing attracted controversy; for what reason I can't imagine; when he cast Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, an Italian prince. So what? The man is a great actor. He played the part brilliantly. (Much better than Keanu Reeves, who seemed to be carved from a block of wood for his performance.)

How about Othello with a white Othello (the rest of the cast African-American, or Hispanic; or whatever cast combinations you fancy- because the point about Othello is that he's an outsider)?

[Serpentine]

The point being, a diversity of cast should be used when it enhances the story being told rather than distracts from it, not because of some need to fit it in. And inclusion on the grounds of [overlooked | fairness | realism] is just about as bad an argument for including anybody in a story as it gets, unless the story is about fairness or realism of those particular overlooked or people like them.
...
It doesn't mean that using any of them is bad either, but unless there is a narrative purpose served in doing so, the story would probably have been better not doing so.I disagree with these points entirely. Unless there is a specific reason for a character to be white/male/hetero/cis, then it is no more necessary for that character to be so than for that character to not be so, and if that character is something other than that, it needs absolutely no more justification.
That is, if it is of no particular significance for a particular character whether it is white or some other ethnicity, a man or a woman, heterosexual or non-heterosexual, or cis or trans (and so on), then if that character ends up being black or a woman or gay or trans it should no more have to demonstrate the "necessity" of that character being that way than if it is white etc. A character having some sort of minority characteristic needs serve no more "narrative purpose" than if it is a w/m/h/c character. I find the idea that all else being equal a character "would probably have been better" if it's w/m/h/c pretty telling.

And that "but sometimes inclusivity is done badly therefore it shouldn't be done" argument seriously doesn't fly. You may as well argue that since books like Twilight can be written no one should ever write a novel again.
If a "diverse" character is done badly, by all means critique it - the people in favour of diversity in media will probably be tearing it into far smaller pieces than you ever do - but don't try to use it to make a case that the mere act of attempting to include a non-w/m/h/c character is a Bad Idea.

tl;dr: The question should not be, "why make this character a member of a minority?" but "why not make this character a member of a minority?" and/or if it is necessary to ask "why is it necessary for this character to be a member of this minority?", it is equally as necessary to ask "why is it necessary for this character to be a non-minority?"
Don't worry, there will always be w/m/h/c characters. It's just maybe someday people won't freak out at the very idea of a non-w/m/h/c character in a story that isn't explicitly about them being a minority.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

(Much better than Keanu Reeves, who seemed to be carved from a block of wood for his performance.)
Yep, that sounds like Keanu to me.


How about Othello with a white Othello (the rest of the cast African-American, or Hispanic; or whatever cast combinations you fancy- because the point about Othello is that he's an outsider)?

I used to attend theatre performances of Shakespeare's plays in which the characters in different factions spoke different languages (e.g., in the Tempest, islanders spoke my native language, foreigners spoke English, and the wizard guy and his daughter spoke both).

Grey Wolf

[Darth Paul]

Yep, that sounds like Keanu to me.



Well, he was pretty good in Speed, The Matrix and The Replacements...

There was a cameo bit in Family Guy (the Hollywood episode) when Keanu Reeves, at a party, had a woodpecker land on his shoulder. Brian called his attention to it. Keanu's response was, "Yeah, he comes and goes." A commentary on his inconsistently wooden performances, I presumed.

Back to the topic...

I, too, am glad we no longer take "Caucasian, Male, Hetero" as the unspoken definition of "Normal". Well... I don't. Pretty sure Rush Limbaugh does, though.

A good working definition of most things is "Would Rush approve of this?" And is the answer is, "NO!!!", then I automatically like it.

[littlebum2002]

The point being, a diversity of cast should be used when it enhances the story being told rather than distracts from it, not because of some need to fit it in. And inclusion on the grounds of [overlooked | fairness | realism] is just about as bad an argument for including anybody in a story as it gets, unless the story is about fairness or realism of those particular overlooked or people like them.




I agree completely. All casts should be made up entirely of dark skinned homosexual characters. White, straight characters should only be used when the plot requires diversity.


See what I did there? If you don't want a work of fiction to represent the real world, then your only option is to picka nationally and orientation and make all your characters fit it. Then the question becomes "what nationality and orientation" to which the answer is always "well, straight white men of course" because your mind has been programed to believe that straight white men are somehow more NORMAL than everyone else.


Am I wrong? Correct me if I am, please. When you said casts shouldn't be diverse unless that furthers the plot, I would LOVE to know what the alternative you had planned was.

[aaronwp]

I agree completely. All casts should be made up entirely of dark skinned homosexual characters. White, straight characters should only be used when the plot requires diversity.


See what I did there?

3edgy5me

These conversations seem to mostly be restricted to people on the sidelines, and that's what bothers me the most. Everyone is eager to glom on to other people's art and tell them how to tell their stories and who to cast.

The internet is the biggest Democracy in the history of ever. If you want to see diverse casts which represent your ideals, whatever they may be, then the answer is to make your own art and feature those characters. If it's good, completely apart from your politics, if you're making good art then your ideas will catch and spread. There is a market for everything.

It doesn't matter what sort of character we're discussing, what race or gender or identity, the wrong answer is to tell a successful artist that they should align to your politics and change their story. It's always wrong when people do that.

I'm pretty sure that Giant is on the right side of trans issues just like he is gay issues, but I'd sure hate for him to include a trans character just because other people wanted him to.

That wasn't all aimed at littlebum, just my general thoughts.

[Deliverance]

I disagree with these points entirely. Unless there is a specific reason for a character to be white/male/hetero/cis, then it is no more necessary for that character to be so than for that character to not be so, and if that character is something other than that, it needs absolutely no more justification.
That is, if it is of no particular significance for a particular character whether it is white or some other ethnicity, a man or a woman, heterosexual or non-heterosexual, or cis or trans (and so on), then if that character ends up being black or a woman or gay or trans it should no more have to demonstrate the "necessity" of that character being that way than if it is white etc. A character having some sort of minority characteristic needs serve no more "narrative purpose" than if it is a w/m/h/c character. I find the idea that all else being equal a character "would probably have been better" if it's w/m/h/c pretty telling.

Why the hell do you think I want characters to be white, male, and heterosexual?

If the setting is one in which most people are white, I expect most people encountered to be white or for there to be a good reason why it isn't the case. Likewise if they are black, yellow, green, or blue. If the setting is one in which most people are supposed to be Swedes, I expect most people encountered to be Swedes or for there to be a good reason that it is not the case. If the setting is one in which there are a lot of women and men, I'd expect a lot of women and men to be featured unless there was a good reason explained to the reader, for why it was not the case in the story. In any area where there is a majority and a minority in the story's setting, I expect the majority to be represented as the majority in the story unless there's a good reason not to in the story.

Most especially, I expect the author NOT to waste my time on specifying personal characteristics that are not important to the story they are telling. As an example, for the vast majority of people in a story (bystanders and minor characters), their sexual preferences are usually completely irrelevant and should not be examined at all, just like we don't need to be told about their medical status, their intelligence, or their hopes and dreams unless it is important.

OOTS has been presented as world where most people that are human, dwarves, or elves in the regions explored are whitish, so I expect most people encountered to be whitish. It has been shown as a world where men and women are in typical D&D fashion equal at everything, so I expect to see men and women in most roles, and if there's ever an area or a story arc where this isn't the case, I'll expect it to serve some narrative purpose, that will be explained.





And that "but sometimes inclusivity is done badly therefore it shouldn't be done" argument seriously doesn't fly.

Which is why I don't argue that.


---



I agree completely. All casts should be made up entirely of dark skinned homosexual characters. White, straight characters should only be used when the plot requires diversity.


See what I did there?
Misunderstood my post entirely? As far as I can see, that's what you did there.

If a setting consists mainly of dark skinned people, then it is expected that characters mainly have dark skin, and for there to be an explanation if this is not the case. If white, white. If green, green. And so on. If the setting consists of people of lots of colours, it is expected that some sort of mix is observed, generally slanted in favour of whichever colours are supposed to be the majority, and for there to be an explanation if this is not a case. If it is unimportant to the story which colour skin people have, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

(In stories told in a visual medium they will have a colour, of course, but unless it is important to the setting or the story, no special attention should be paid to it. A good example of this done right is Branagh's version of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, which features Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, the prince of Aragon. Colour is utterly irrelevant to story, so it is treated as such.)

If a setting has mainly homosexuals, then it is expected that most characters are homosexuals. If hetereosexuals, likewise. In both cases, and in any other case of sex or gender you can think of, it shouldn't be mentioned unless there was a narrative purpose served by doing so.

As an example, we don't know how O-Chul or Lien self identifies sexually because it hasn't been important to the story so far. If at some time in the future it becomes of narrative importance or usefulness, either in itself or as a way of carrying forward the story, we'll undoubtedly be told, just like was the case with Bandana. If it never becomes important, then we'll hopefully go all the way to the end of the story without the mystery of those two heroic sidekicks' sexuality being resolved because it isn't important to the narrative.

I also don't know if ANY of the hundreds of characters we've observed in OOTS until now are good mathematicians. They may have been, they may not. Mathematicians are a chronically misrepresented minority in fiction, but unless there's a narrative purpose served by telling me about people's mathematical skills (as e.g. showing Elan's poor skills to reinforce the idea that he's not the sharpest knife around), those skills or lack of same shouldn't be mentioned at all.

This goes for ALL types of characterization of characters you care to think of. Unless it serves a narrative purpose (whatever it might be, usually it is adding depth to a character or setting the character up to advance the story), don't include it.

[hamishspence]

If the setting is one in which most people are white, I expect most people encountered to be white or for there to be a good reason why it isn't the case.

...

OOTS has been presented as world where most people that are human, dwarves, or elves in the regions explored are whitish, so I expect most people encountered to be whitish.

Thing is though, we've seen so little of the OOTS world, that we cannot say for sure that it is that kind of setting.

What little we've seen of dwarven lands (Durkon's memories), suggest that they are in fact pretty diverse.

[Deliverance]

Thing is though, we've seen so little of the OOTS world, that we cannot say for sure that it is that kind of setting.

What little we've seen of dwarven lands (Durkon's memories), suggest that they are in fact pretty diverse.
Completely agree on both points. Our expectations at any given point are informed by the information we've been provided until then and are up for revision given new information. :smallsmile:

[littlebum2002]

Why the hell do you think I want characters to be white, male, and heterosexual?

If the setting is one in which most people are white, I expect most people encountered to be white or for there to be a good reason why it isn't the case. Likewise if they are black, yellow, green, or blue. If the setting is one in which most people are supposed to be Swedes, I expect most people encountered to be Swedes or for there to be a good reason that it is not the case. If the setting is one in which there are a lot of women and men, I'd expect a lot of women and men to be featured unless there was a good reason explained to the reader, for why it was not the case in the story. In any area where there is a majority and a minority in the story's setting, I expect the majority to be represented as the majority in the story unless there's a good reason not to in the story.

Most especially, I expect the author NOT to waste my time on specifying personal characteristics that are not important to the story they are telling. As an example, for the vast majority of people in a story (bystanders and minor characters), their sexual preferences are usually completely irrelevant and should not be examined at all, just like we don't need to be told about their medical status, their intelligence, or their hopes and dreams unless it is important.

OOTS has been presented as world where most people that are human, dwarves, or elves in the regions explored are whitish, so I expect most people encountered to be whitish. It has been shown as a world where men and women are in typical D&D fashion equal at everything, so I expect to see men and women in most roles, and if there's ever an area or a story arc where this isn't the case, I'll expect it to serve some narrative purpose, that will be explained.




Which is why I don't argue that.


---



Misunderstood my post entirely? As far as I can see, that's what you did there.

If a setting consists mainly of dark skinned people, then it is expected that characters mainly have dark skin, and for there to be an explanation if this is not the case. If white, white. If green, green. And so on. If the setting consists of people of lots of colours, it is expected that some sort of mix is observed, generally slanted in favour of whichever colours are supposed to be the majority, and for there to be an explanation if this is not a case. If it is unimportant to the story which colour skin people have, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all.

(In stories told in a visual medium they will have a colour, of course, but unless it is important to the setting or the story, no special attention should be paid to it. A good example of this done right is Branagh's version of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing, which features Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, the prince of Aragon. Colour is utterly irrelevant to story, so it is treated as such.)

If a setting has mainly homosexuals, then it is expected that most characters are homosexuals. If hetereosexuals, likewise. In both cases, and in any other case of sex or gender you can think of, it shouldn't be mentioned unless there was a narrative purpose served by doing so.

As an example, we don't know how O-Chul or Lien self identifies sexually because it hasn't been important to the story so far. If at some time in the future it becomes of narrative importance or usefulness, either in itself or as a way of carrying forward the story, we'll undoubtedly be told, just like was the case with Bandana. If it never becomes important, then we'll hopefully go all the way to the end of the story without the mystery of those two heroic sidekicks' sexuality being resolved because it isn't important to the narrative.

I also don't know if ANY of the hundreds of characters we've observed in OOTS until now are good mathematicians. They may have been, they may not. Mathematicians are a chronically misrepresented minority in fiction, but unless there's a narrative purpose served by telling me about people's mathematical skills (as e.g. showing Elan's poor skills to reinforce the idea that he's not the sharpest knife around), those skills or lack of same shouldn't be mentioned at all.

This goes for ALL types of characterization of characters you care to think of. Unless it serves a narrative purpose (whatever it might be, usually it is adding depth to a character or setting the character up to advance the story), don't include it.

Ok then let's have the "default" racial makeup be similar to our world. 50% Asian ethnicity, 20% European, 20% African, and 10% "other". With 10% identifying as gay or bisexual and 2% identifying as transgender

Except this means diversity, and your previous post SPECIFICALLY said that works of fiction shouldn't have diversity unless it contributes to the work. So the question remains, if you don't want diversity, and it's irrelevant to the plot, what should the "default" be?

[brian 333]

...
The internet is the biggest Democracy in the history of ever. If you want to see diverse casts which represent your ideals, whatever they may be, then the answer is to make your own art and feature those characters. If it's good, completely apart from your politics, if you're making good art then your ideas will catch and spread. There is a market for everything.

It doesn't matter what sort of character we're discussing, what race or gender or identity, the wrong answer is to tell a successful artist that they should align to your politics and change their story. It's always wrong when people do that.
...

I wish I had said this. +1 to you good sir/madam/other


Ok then let's have the "default" racial makeup be similar to our world. 50% Asian ethnicity, 20% European, 20% African, and 10% "other". With 10% identifying as gay or bisexual and 2% identifying as transgender

Except this means diversity, and your previous post SPECIFICALLY said that works of fiction shouldn't have diversity unless it contributes to the work. So the question remains, if you don't want diversity, and it's irrelevant to the plot, what should the "default" be?

You know, I read his comments and didn't reach the same conclusion. I don't recall anywhere that he specifically said there should not be diversity, and I think it's a bit of reductio ad absurdum on your part to present his argument this way. He is not taking an extreme position of prohibition of diversity, he is taking a middle ground of common sense, in which diversity exists but is brought to the forefront of the story only when it serves the story.

In his argument, there are people of various races, genders, and sexual orientations in the story. When these traits are important they are mentioned; otherwise, it is a waste of author's time. For example:

"There were twelve people in line ahead of me."
If this serves the story's purpose, this is adequate.

"In the line ahead of me there were two white men and a white woman, three Latinas, an African American man,( who I presumed was American though he may have been Kenyan, as I never heard him speak and he wore no American Flag pin in his jacket lapel,) and five Orientals, two men and three women, (though I may have mistaken a male/female couple who could have been Native American, but who were definitely a couple as I saw them holding hands and flirting as the line moved up.)"
This is a case of reductio ad absurdum. No author would write this. There is a reason no author would write this. It has nothing to do with the story, unless the story is about polyculturalism.

In the first example the reader will insert his own ideas of who those twelve people are. If the story is set in Sweden, they will assume the twelve people are typically Swedish. If the story is set in Italy, then presumably the Blond Giants will be replaced by vertically challenged people with olive colored skin. In either case the writer is not being exclusive and limiting who can be in his story, he is spending his writing efforts on the main point of the story rather than on details which are not helpful to the reader. In a drawn media or in film these characters will have color, but I'm willing to be they have no spoken lines. They are extras, and they can be anybody. They do not have to be by default straight white males.

And this seems to be the crux of your position: if they are not specifically mentioned as something else, it is presumed they are straight white males. They cannot be assumed to be any other kind of person. If this is your position you're going to be highly disappointed in literature.

[Darth Paul]

I swear to whomever an atheist can swear to that this comment is not aimed at anybody; which is, I suppose, sort of the point of the comment.

And, to keep this thread at a decent length, I'm going to put my comment into this spoiler.


I cannot know how it feels to be part of an excluded minority (much: see "atheist", above) because, as a white hetero American male in my very late '40s, I grew up in a world that portrayed my color, gender, and preference as very very much "normal". So I apologize when I am going to get this wrong.

I have tried very hard to realize that I and people like me are not the "average" or the "norm", not really even in America any more. For one thing, "female" is the majority gender if I recall correctly. And I have succeeded against much of my upbringing in becoming colorblind. And your private life is really your own business; who you love is your choice (based on your in-born predisposition).

So this issue doesn't upset me one way or the other, because, to me, it's already settled. I know and I accept that black, white, yellow, brown, red, gay, transgender, bi, lesbian, I'm sure I left someone out but I didin't mean to, are all equal parts of the human race, and I am not surprised or shocked if they turn up in the media because I know they exist as human beings in real life.

But there are some who want to deny that those who are different from them (pick a group) exist in real life, and seeing them portrayed in the media makes that harder for them to do; and it upsets them.

There are also those who belong to any (or more than one) of these groups, who have felt excluded from the larger culture for exactly the reason above; and seeing their group portrayed positively in the media is an affirmation of their right to be in the culture at long last. At least, that's how it seems to me, looking at the issue from over here, and probably getting it wrong.

So, it won't really rattle my cage either way if there is or is not a transgender character in OOTS, just like I didn't see what the big deal was that Bandana had an ex who was Haley's size. I enjoyed the comic. I plan to keep enjoying it.

[Serpentine]

Why the hell do you think I want characters to be white, male, and heterosexual?

Mostly, I would have to say, because of the things you said and the way you said them. You explicitly said that there shouldn't be any diversity in a story unless there is a specific reason for it. If you're altering your stance or didn't express yourself properly, well, that's good to know.


Which is why I don't argue that.

That part wasn't especially directed at you, but I just had a quick squiz upthread and you did actually argue that earlier when you claimed that the mere existence of diversity in a story not explicitly serving a specific narrative purpose is, and I paraphrase since being on my mobile makes checking your exact wording a real pain, the reason why Hollywood movies suck. Which is kind of a weird thing to say, since Hollywood is the great bastion of bland sameness.


For the record, I'm not especially "for" the appearance of a trans character in OOTS. As per my previous post, there are a number of reasons why such a character should not be introduced or revealed - difficulty of doing it at all or doing it well or doing it sensitively, the risk of making it a one-off joke and the inconvenience of making it a longer-term plot point, and so on. But if the Giant does it and does it well or even just neutrally, sweet. No dramas (aside from the one that will no doubt explode in the forum), no skin off my nose nor anyone else's no matter how much they whinge about it.

[Rogar Demonblud]

As an example, we don't know how O-Chul or Lien self identifies sexually because it hasn't been important to the story so far.

Actually, we know Lien is hetero, with a preference for muscular dockworkers. I would've said blue collar, but let's face it, that covers just about every Azurite.

[oppyu]

I swear to whomever an atheist can swear to that this comment is not aimed at anybody; which is, I suppose, sort of the point of the comment.

And, to keep this thread at a decent length, I'm going to put my comment into this spoiler.


I cannot know how it feels to be part of an excluded minority (much: see "atheist", above) because, as a white hetero American male in my very late '40s, I grew up in a world that portrayed my color, gender, and preference as very very much "normal". So I apologize when I am going to get this wrong.

I have tried very hard to realize that I and people like me are not the "average" or the "norm", not really even in America any more. For one thing, "female" is the majority gender if I recall correctly. And I have succeeded against much of my upbringing in becoming colorblind. And your private life is really your own business; who you love is your choice (based on your in-born predisposition).

So this issue doesn't upset me one way or the other, because, to me, it's already settled. I know and I accept that black, white, yellow, brown, red, gay, transgender, bi, lesbian, I'm sure I left someone out but I didin't mean to, are all equal parts of the human race, and I am not surprised or shocked if they turn up in the media because I know they exist as human beings in real life.

But there are some who want to deny that those who are different from them (pick a group) exist in real life, and seeing them portrayed in the media makes that harder for them to do; and it upsets them.

There are also those who belong to any (or more than one) of these groups, who have felt excluded from the larger culture for exactly the reason above; and seeing their group portrayed positively in the media is an affirmation of their right to be in the culture at long last. At least, that's how it seems to me, looking at the issue from over here, and probably getting it wrong.

So, it won't really rattle my cage either way if there is or is not a transgender character in OOTS, just like I didn't see what the big deal was that Bandana had an ex who was Haley's size. I enjoyed the comic. I plan to keep enjoying it.

Seems like you got this. Hell yeah for Team Diversity Is Good But We're Not Losing Sleep Over It Or Anything.

[elros]

Here is my two cents: I like to read stories with characters that seem authentic. Yes, fantasy characters don't exist in real life, but writers can present them in a believable way, especially if they are presented in a consistent manner that makes them distinct. If an author wants to incorporate "real world" characteristics into a story, it should make sense and seem natural. I think the Giant does a very good job of that. Too often, the results are just not believable (http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Token_Black).
Another way I think of it is that I don't want parts of a story to become a distraction. If it seems like the author is forcing a type of character into a scene, it comes off like a product placement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement), which can sometimes work, but can be downright ridiculous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lgLYGBbDNs)!
So if an author can incorporate a trans character in a way that works, great. If they do not feel comfortable doing that, then they shouldn't force it. Nothing is worse than when someone tries to write about a group of people that they know nothing about.
That's why it's important for authors to meet a lot of different people and have a lot of different experiences.

[Bulldog Psion]

There's one thing about the whole transgender concept that perplexes me deeply, because I can't understand it.

The idea behind transgender, as far as I understand at the moment, is that people have a body of one sex but a mind of the opposite gender. They have, say, a masculine body and a feminine outlook. And it causes dysphoria.

Okay -- so far so good.

But how on earth does a body get gendered?

The "masculine" and "feminine" genders don't objectively exist. A male body does not create some kind of objective masculine gender identity. If it did, then all the old sexist stuff about gender roles would actually be correct.

There is no "masculine" gender, for example. There is a sexually male body with certain physical characteristics. There may be a cultural construct of supposedly "masculine" traits which is arbitrarily put together and assigned, equally arbitrarily, to that sex by culture.

However, there is actually nothing in the sex of a person that determines their "gender." If modern gender ideas are correct, and I at least believe they are, the fact that I like hunting, fishing, shooting ranges, military history, adventure fiction, and action movies has nothing to do with the fact that I have a certain set of reproductive organs. I would like these things regardless of sex, because sex does not equal gender.

And gender is basically a construct used by one sex as an excuse for putting the other sex at a societal disadvantage.

So -- I don't get transgender because gender and sex are not linked, and gender is not objectively real.

Unless we're accepting that biologically deterministic gender roles are a reality, how does transgender even work?

Once the whole "gender role" idea is finally tossed out, since it is essentially the same as racism, homophobia, etc., does that mean that transgender will cease to exist also?

There are no male activities. There are no female activities. There are no male or female personality traits. There are no male or female -- anything, really, other than reproductive structures.

So, is transgender actually cognitive dissonance caused by existing gender role perceptions, and not the physical body at all? Because changing your sex to match your gender doesn't make a lick of logical sense to me, because sex and gender are totally independent attributes.

I am very confused.

[Jasdoif]

The "masculine" and "feminine" genders don't objectively exist. A male body does not create some kind of objective masculine gender identity. If it did, then all the old sexist stuff about gender roles would actually be correct.

There is no "masculine" gender, for example. There is a sexually male body with certain physical characteristics. There may be a cultural construct of supposedly "masculine" traits which is arbitrarily put together and assigned, equally arbitrarily, to that sex by culture.Cultural constructs (like gender roles) exist, just as much as cultures exist. They aren't innate/objective, and aren't static/universal, but they certainly exist.


And gender is basically a construct used by one sex as an excuse for putting the other sex at a societal disadvantage.That's an interesting claim...I'm far more familiar with examples of gender roles being used to promote/coerce conformance within the same sex.

[Bulldog Psion]

Cultural constructs (like gender roles) exist, just as much as cultures exist. They aren't innate/objective, and aren't static/universal, but they certainly exist.

Well, they exist in the same sense that superstitions exist, as a belief in the human mind. The breaking of a mirror cannot, objectively, cause seven years of bad luck. However, some people react to the breaking of a mirror as if it were a disaster, even though there is actually nothing there except a broken piece of reflective material, and "luck" does not objectively exist.

So, transgender means someone who believes they should act according to a certain cultural gender construct because that construct is associated with their sex, but would actually prefer to act in a different manner, causing cognitive dissonance?

That makes sense to me. Thank you, your observation actually helped clarify it for me.

It also points up the fact that transgender would not exist in a culture without strong gender constructs, like the elves in OotS, say.

Transgender can only exist in a society where strong gender roles are still infecting the cultural mindset.

Note that I have nothing against transgender people; it just seems to me that their dysphoria is caused mostly by going against cultural pressures to conform to an artificial sex/gender association, and that absent such arbitrary cultural elements, they would neither experience dysphoria nor identify as transgender.


That's an interesting claim...I'm far more familiar with examples of gender roles being used to promote/coerce conformance within the same sex.

Well, that's an interesting view. Considering the history of gender roles, though, don't they usually consist of associating aggression, initiative, and decision-making with the male sex, while promoting infantilization, passivity, and submission in the female sex?

In other words, gender roles appear to me to be designed to give men a cultural excuse to order women around, far more than they're meant to keep members of the same sex "in line." Which is why their removal is a result that should be sought by any humanist society.

[Themrys]

There's one thing about the whole transgender concept that perplexes me deeply, because I can't understand it.

The idea behind transgender, as far as I understand at the moment, is that people have a body of one sex but a mind of the opposite gender. They have, say, a masculine body and a feminine outlook. And it causes dysphoria.

Okay -- so far so good.

But how on earth does a body get gendered?


I don't understand that concept, either. I'll believe people that the brain part that tells them how their bodies look somehow got the wrong hormones and thus tells them that they have the wrong bits, which then leads to dysphoria, but I call that transsexual. (I actually know a ftm - transperson, and she wants to be a gender-nonconforming male after getting surgery, so I guess it is really about the body. Could still be about the fact that being a woman is not fun in patriarchy, but research on this is impossible as everywhere is a patriarchy, so, no control-group)

Transgender I don't see as something that should be treated by surgery. Rather psychotherapy. (One could argue that all women are transgender ... I for one do not like the female gender role, and I do not think I need surgery, I think the world needs changing)

@Jasdoif: Where do you live? On the moon? Men have oppressed women for thousands of years, and women only recently got the vote, yet you know nothing about it?

[Jasdoif]

@Jasdoif: Where do you live? On the moon? Men have oppressed women for thousands of years, and women only recently got the vote, yet you know nothing about it?I have a much greater degree of familiarity with things I've witnessed first-hand than I have with historical data, if that's what you're asking.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Men have oppressed women for thousands of years, and women only recently got the vote, yet you know nothing about it?

This is, of course, absolutely true, but the question was not who is oppressing whom but who imposes gender roles ("I'm far more familiar with examples of gender roles being used to promote/coerce conformance within the same sex. "). Surprisingly, it is far more gender-centric than you'd think at first glance. I.e. it is men that tell other men what "manly" and "manly activities" are, and it is women that judge other women for not being "feminine" enough, regardless of how much political power each gender holds. It also happens across genders, of course, and I can't imagine how you could measure which one is the larger effect, but gender roles are definitely imposed intra-gender.

Grey Wolf

[Lycunadari]

Being transgender has nothing (or very little) to do with gender roles. And gender roles are not the same as gender. Let's imagine a woman who's a soldier, likes big cars, football and never would wear skirts or dresses. Nothing of that changes anything about her being a woman, it just means that she doesn't conform to the present gender roles because all of these activities and interests are strongly male coded (at least in western societies.) Nothing in that description makes her trans. But if she was male assigned at birth, but identifies as a woman now (regardless of her interests), then she's trans.
In the same way you can have someone who was female assigned at birth, always played with dolls as a child, likes to wear dresses and uses makeup and still not identify as a woman but as a man or some non-binary gender. This person is also trans.
Both of them may or may not experience dysphoria but that doesn't make or not make them trans. All that's important is how they see themselves in relation to the gender they were assigned at birth.

So even if there was a society where all gender roles were reversed or completely absent, there would still be trans people, because gender identity is something that's just there (or, in the case of agender people, absent), it's independent from gender roles. A society without gender roles would make some things easier for trans people, though - it would be much easier for people to experiment what feels right for them if there weren't taboos for things like wearing skirts as a male assigned person, and there would be less gate keeping and stereotyping in the form of "you're wearing pants, you can't be a real trans woman" or "why do still like sewing, I thought you're a man now" or "you aren't really non-binary unless you (try to) look completely androgynous".

[aaronwp]

I don't understand that concept, either. I'll believe people that the brain part that tells them how their bodies look somehow got the wrong hormones and thus tells them that they have the wrong bits, which then leads to dysphoria, but I call that transsexual. (I actually know a ftm - transperson, and she wants to be a gender-nonconforming male after getting surgery, so I guess it is really about the body. Could still be about the fact that being a woman is not fun in patriarchy, but research on this is impossible as everywhere is a patriarchy, so, no control-group)

Transgender I don't see as something that should be treated by surgery. Rather psychotherapy.

I like your post because it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to tell an artist how to art, and instead it deals with issues that have real, actual answers.

The reason that this particular form of dysphoria is treated with surgery and hormones is because it gives the best results. Therapy is included in the package too, but when a person suffering from gender dysphoria, which is the underlying mental illness that most trans people have, is given hormones and surgery they're less likely to kill themselves. That sounds blunt, but it's true. If someone invented a pill that cured gender dysphoria tomorrow, then most of the medical world would stop recommending hormones and surgery, but so far this is the best course of treatment for gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria causes a lot of self-loathing and a compulsion to change gender. It literally wouldn't matter if a trans person lived in a society where the opposite gender were all slaves or prisoners. The illness would cause a compulsion to become the other gender regardless of disadvantages.

That's why it's a mental illness and not just people being quirky and queer. Gender constructs and disadvantages and society aside, a person could live their whole lives on a desert island with no concept of gender roles at all, and if they suffered from gender dysphoria, they'd still feel that something is wrong with them even if it couldn't be articulated.

[Themrys]

This is, of course, absolutely true, but the question was not who is oppressing whom but who imposes gender roles ("I'm far more familiar with examples of gender roles being used to promote/coerce conformance within the same sex. "). Surprisingly, it is far more gender-centric than you'd think at first glance. I.e. it is men that tell other men what "manly" and "manly activities" are, and it is women that judge other women for not being "feminine" enough, regardless of how much political power each gender holds. It also happens across genders, of course, and I can't imagine how you could measure which one is the larger effect, but gender roles are definitely imposed intra-gender.

Grey Wolf

My experience is that boys will impose gender roles on girls far more often than the other way round. I have, as a child and teen, been gender-policed thrice by boys (The times I can remember), and never by girls, and I certainly never told boys what they can or cannot do, nor have I ever witnessed other girls doing so. We can safely assume that gender roles are mostly imposed by men, as they profit from imposing them, while women don't.

@aaronwp: That is just assumptions - we do not have a society without gender stereotypes to carry out research in, and children are not commonly raised on lonely islands. One could, however, compare how many people are transgender in societies with more strictly enforced gender roles versus not so strictly enforced gender roles. I don't know whether research on this exists.

[Astrella]

Being trans has nothing to do with gender roles. And can we stop doing the "just do therapy" thing, has been tried, for ages and often in violent ways up to the point of literally lobotomizing trans people, and it *doesn't help*. A little bit of research easily shows that transitioning is not only the only thing that works, but also really successful on top of that.

My transitioning has to do with my body; hormones have cleared up my mental space a lot, removed all of the static essentially and made me feel so much less detached from myself. The physical changes make me more comfortable with my body.

I identify as a woman because it's a) the label I feel most comfortable with and b) it bests describes my position in society. I'm seen as a woman and treated as such. Messages aimed at women affect me, etc... In a hypothetical genderless society I wouldn't care about putting on a label, but we don't live in a society like that.


My experience is that boys will impose gender roles on girls far more often than the other way round. I have, as a child and teen, been gender-policed thrice by boys (The times I can remember), and never by girls, and I certainly never told boys what they can or cannot do, nor have I ever witnessed other girls doing so. We can safely assume that gender roles are mostly imposed by men, as they profit from imposing them, while women don't.

Women do benefit from policing less privileged women and it does happen all the time, e.g. lesbians, trans women, black women, etc...

[brian 333]

Give a year and a half old kid a toy truck. A boy will begin to crash it into things while a girl will make it talk.

By the time they are teens you can argue that gender roles have been acquired, but boys and girls act differently in patterns that cross cultures. Whole books have been written about this. There are male and female characteristics. For example, girls rarely fistfight compared to boys, and when they do they hate the other girl forever, while boys fight one day and are best friends the next. There is a completely different mindset at work here and it is clearly based on gender differentiation.

One such difference is in the way boys and girls compete. Boys compete physically and girls compete socially. Boys need no excuse to turn anything into a race. They often compete in running, throwing, lifting, or in any task to which they are set. Boy games are games with a winner and losers. Girls, on the other hand, will slow down to let the slower girls catch up rather than race, and I've seen young girls divide things so that every girl gets the same amount, (something boys seldom do, and usually only under direct supervision!) But girls will 'exclude' one of their group in punishment or as a power play.

Nobody has to teach children to do this. And it's done in every culture. Boys and girls are naturally different

There are people who do not conform to the standards, but this does not negate the fact of the standards. It is true that some male/female characteristics are culturally acquired, but some mental patterns are derived from biology.

Modern PC Police will tell you that boys and girls are exactly the same. Well, since about 1990 or so it's been completely legal for girls to play 'boy' sports in Louisiana. Aside from one kicker the year of the ruling, I know of no other girls who have taken advantage of the rules change. Girls and boys are not the same, biologically, or psychologically, and not all differences between the attitudes of the sexes can be attributed to cultural conditioning.

[Keltest]

I just spent 20 minutes typing up a densely reasoned argument on a viewpoint midway between "gender roles are natural" and "only men benefit from them."

However, the forum imps destroyed it as I attempted to post it.

It was highly polished. It was beautifully worded. It disappeared with such finality that I am now too frustrated and disgusted to try to put it back together again right now. :smallfurious:

So, I'll just say -- good points, all, and thanks for the interesting discussion.

Wait, the autosave didn't keep it alive? That sounds like an actual issue that the administrators would be interested in hearing about.

[Serpentine]

Bulldog: This really isn't the appropriate place for this - in fact, there is a very explicit appropriate place way up in Friendly Banter - so I'll send my response by PM in a bit.

Protip: any argument that starts "boys do X, girls do Y" is just begging to be proven wrong. The most you can say is that science has observed that boys are *more likely* to do X, or that more girls *have a tendency* to do Y. You may make the observation that 40% of boys play some sort of contact sport as opposed to 20% of girls, and that that is a significant difference, but that is not any basis to judge any individual boy or girl on that generalisation. It is also extremely difficult to separate nature from nurture - you may talk about teenagers being influenced, but studies have found clear differences in the way boys and girls are treated from the moment they're born - talking about how big and strong a baby boy is as opposed to how pretty and sweet a girl baby is, for instance, or the fact that adults are far quicker to call back a little girl from climbing or doing something active than a little boy. These things add up.
Now, I do believe that there are some trends and tendencies that can be observed in the sexes. But these are statistical, not determinative, and are far, FAR from universal. For example, I believe that all things being perfectly equal, in some imaginary utopia where the sexes are treated equally and there are no gender-based expectations or enforcement, you would probably still have more male soldiers than female and more female nurses than male. But I also believe that the difference would be far, far less than it is now - more like 40/60 than 10/90 - and that we shouldn't confuse "more likely to" with "will" or "must".

[martianmister]

Give a year and a half old kid a toy truck. A boy will begin to crash it into things while a girl will make it talk.

Aren't this the most precious thing...

[Koo Rehtorb]

Surely people who have been alive for 18 months are completely blank slates.

[Zmeoaice]

We can safely assume that gender roles are mostly imposed by men, as they profit from imposing them, while women don't.

Women benefited from gender roles far more than men, since they are being kept safe, secure and their well being is taken into consideration more, while men are/were obligated to keep women safe and do the hardest jobs to provide for the family.

[oppyu]

Well this thread is clearly headed to a very dark place. Do the forum staff do preemptive locks?

[Keltest]

Well this thread is clearly headed to a very dark place. Do the forum staff do preemptive locks?

I believe someone usually lights up the Sherriff Signal and Roland comes down with his mighty glower of moderation until the thread gets cleaned up.

[CaDzilla]

Women benefited from gender roles far more than men, since they are being kept safe, secure and their well being is taken into consideration more, while men are/were obligated to keep women safe and do the hardest jobs to provide for the family.

That's the exact same argument the totalitarian government in the Handmaid's Tale used to oppress women

[jere7my]

That's the exact same argument the totalitarian government in the Handmaid's Tale used to oppress women

So you're saying it's stood the test of time.

[Synar]

Not touching the present discussion with a one kilometer pole,
but just dropping to say that The Giant already expressed that there propably will not be any because that is not an issue he is knowledgeable about (at least at the time).