Intersex PCs

[Talakeal]

I don't think you understand my position. I don't think that including a field for sex is "controversial". I think that sex is not the most important blank on a character sheet. That is, in fact, the only position I have taken in this entire discussion, and I took it in opposition specifically to someone who claimed it was.
It can be a useful descriptor, but only when combined with others. If all I know about your character is that he's male, I know basically nothing about him except what pronoun to use. Ask me to draw or describe them, and I'll be way off base. Tell me that they're a dwarf, or a barbarian, or that their strength is 18, and I'll get much, much closer to your strong dwarf barbarian guy, because those blanks are more descriptive than the sex field.

The text you are quoting is in response to Psyren, not you.

That being said, I still disagree with everything you are saying here, but I don't really think there is anything objective to argue over at this point.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "Yes, radical feminism is used to justify transphobia." It feels like a decent start to a response, but it's missing something. Like, for instance, how your position is different from the bigots'?

Not sure if I can come up with a good analogy here that doesn't violate the forum rules.

Maybe try looking up the difference between TIRFs and TERFs?

I don't support any sort of discrimination towards trans individuals, and my only real objection to philosophy is the amount of labeling and gate-keeping I get. If you want to go into specifics we can, but I am not really sure if it is an appropriate line of discussion for this thread.

These games.
But even games without classes have other blanks. Shadowrun has races, cyberware, etc, for instance. And they have other more informative blanks. I'd argue that knowing a character is 6'4" or an unusually low Toughness score is more informative than gender.

Do note that most of those are either very old systems or D&D derivatives.

But yeah, I know they have other blanks, which is why I was comparing classes to professions, but then you told me you were exclusively talking about classes.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. "Yes, radical feminism is used to justify transphobia." It feels like a decent start to a response, but it's missing something. Like, for instance, how your position is different from the bigots'?


[url=https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClassAndLevelSystem]1. I never notice a person's face first unless they're close enough that I can pick out details as soon as I see them. If there's any significant distance between us, I'm going to notice their clothes first, because most clothes are bigger than heads. Moreover, I'm going to notice what's unusual about someone first, and most characters (and many people) have more unusual things in their clothing than in their faces.
2. Male and female faces are statistically distinct, but they aren't radically distinct, even if you exclude feminine-looking men and masculine-looking women (who exist). A three-piece suit and a tracksuit, on the other hand, do look radically different, and there aren't any three-piece/tracksuits that look like track/three-piece suits.
3. Outside certain gender-specific clothes like dresses, I'd argue that clothing made for men and women looks pretty similar within any given category. A suit jacket made for women is going to be cut differently than one for men, but you're never going to mistake it for a women's tracksuit jacket. (Assuming tracksuit tops are called jackets.)

In short: I call your bluff.

Not sure what "bluff" you are referring to. I just disagree.