Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

[Marcelinari]

Note that on the second question, I didn't say "culture", I said "species".

Ah, my apologies, I misread. I think the general point still holds, though - if that species has individuality and cultural norms, you will find individuals transgressing those norms. If the species recognizes only one gender, or no genders, then some individuals will eventually adopt a gender from outside their native species. If the species has two or more genders, different individuals may identify as a gender that their society does not ascribe to them, or to no gender at all. I don’t think there’s a configuration of ‘has a culture with cultural norms’ and ‘possesses individuality’ that results in a species without LGBTQ+ individuals.

[Lacco]

Would a setting where some people commit murder be a bad setting?

Settings are supposed to be a stage to tell interesting stories. If they are perfect happy utopias where everyone is completely happy, then there's no story.

Of course, unless the story is "How fast would group of characters controlled by players from not-so-perfect world completely wreck the utopia?"

But I understand the underlying statement - there is no story without conflict. Only that which players bring with them.

I'd say this could be viewed as the ultimate sandbox: bring/create your own trouble, or get bored to tears.

[warty goblin]

Ah, my apologies, I misread. I think the general point still holds, though - if that species has individuality and cultural norms, you will find individuals transgressing those norms. If the species recognizes only one gender, or no genders, then some individuals will eventually adopt a gender from outside their native species. If the species has two or more genders, different individuals may identify as a gender that their society does not ascribe to them, or to no gender at all. I don’t think there’s a configuration of ‘has a culture with cultural norms’ and ‘possesses individuality’ that results in a species without LGBTQ+ individuals.

Within the usual set of fantasy races, which are basically humans plus or minus a few pounds, limbs and with some extra palate options, I think you're absolutely right. But it seems to me that human sexuality and gender is almost certainly greatly shaped by how sex exists in humans a biological reality; namely it's a part of life one actively engages with, it happens with specific individuals, it's (hopefully!) pleasurable, people have the capability to have a lot of sex across their lifetimes and are generally capable of having sex most of the time. We don't really question this very much in fantasy, mostly because doing is is a lot of work, and it's fun thinking about hot sexy elves or whatever. But there's a huge variance in how sex exists across animal species, so with a bit of work one can imagine any number of intelligent fantasy species for which human notions of sex and gender make very little sense.

As an exercise, here's a bit of worldbuilding for some extremely non-human species.

First up: ants. Suppose a fully eusocial species of sapient ants. Most individuals are sterile workers, a very few are reproductive queens, and males mature, mate and then die immediately afterwards. For the vast majority of the population, sex simply doesn't exist. Not as 'this is a thing I don't find appealing or want to do' but in sort of the same way you and I have no notions of shedding our exoskeletons; it's simply entirely out of the realm of experiential possibility. For the fertile female queens sex exists, but for a very brief period of time at the very beginning of their adult lives. Sex only really exists as a thing the next generation of queens and males do, which suggests perhaps a sort of external sexuality, where all the energy we focus on getting laid gets devoted to the success of that next mating flight.

For another extreme, suppose an entirely female species that reproduces through parthenogenesis, some lizards (among others) do this. The most extreme case of this (from a human perspective) would be a species that has lost any notion of sexual activity at all. There's only one sex, it doesn't matter in how you relate to others, there's no idea of sexual attraction, and reproduction is just a thing one does on one's own whenever it makes sense. Among other things, this would make like 95% of human pop culture completely incomprehensible to our lizards; one can only imagine that whatever they put in its place would equally opaque to us. Perhaps scent-poems about the psychological effects of different levels of body temperature?

[Yora]

Of course, unless the story is "How fast would group of characters controlled by players from not-so-perfect world completely wreck the utopia?"

But I understand the underlying statement - there is no story without conflict. Only that which players bring with them.

I'd say this could be viewed as the ultimate sandbox: bring/create your own trouble, or get bored to tears.

I often find it somewhat disturbing how I often come across discussions about how reprehensible it is for games and other fiction to have cases of marginalization and lacking equality, while completely ignoring that the respective genres being discussed are based on being filled to the brim with conquest, raiding, and genocide.

As a creator, and that includes GMs and player groups, you can absolutely chose to have some forms of hostility to play a central role while others are completely absent. But as a society we really don't have any kind of consensus that murder in fiction is fine, but prejudiced insults are crossing an unacceptable line. Nobody ever asks "do you think this would be hurtful to people who have survived actual wars?"

If fictional murder by fictional villains is acceptable, then fictional discrimination by fictional villains also has to be accepted as a permitted option for storytelling. Of course you can do fictional discrimination very badly in really dumb ways. But you can also do that with violence, and nobody ever really complains about that. (Unless it's a case where the victim of violence is also a victim of discrimination.)

Almost all forms of (high) fantasy draw heavy inspirations from a wide range of historic cultures, and this form of fiction remains popular because we find those cultures that serve as references interesting. And all cultures everywhere had their own prejudices and other shortcomings. To me, playing in a setting inspired by fascinating cultures is intriguing because of the conflicts and frictions of those societies. Completely ignoring those things and making all fantasy cultures something that we wish we could maybe have in 2050 kind of defeats the purpose.
I can understand when individual people think "I have to put up with this kind of discrimination enough, I don't want to deal with it in my game". That's a choice, and there are options. But when I think about the idea of playing a warrior woman in a Scandinavian inspired culture, I find that idea intriguing because that culture treats women different from men and a warrior woman would have a different experience from a warrior man. I see little of value in playing the proverbial "man with boobs". Again, that's a choice, and there are options.

Worldbuilding choices for settings can only be right or wrong in the context of what works and what doesn't for the concept of the fiction and the kind of things it's intended to provide for the intended target audience. There is no universal standard of what's okay or appropriate. (Which is why you should never use Warhammer 40k as an example in any discussions like this. That setting is intended to be absurd and make fun of the offensive nonsense. Talking about the reception by fan audience would be a different discussion, though.)

[Lord Raziere]

I often find it somewhat disturbing how I often come across discussions about how reprehensible it is for games and other fiction to have cases of marginalization and lacking equality, while completely ignoring that the respective genres being discussed are based on being filled to the brim with conquest, raiding, and genocide.

Its a matter of mental distance.

conquest and fighting and whatnot, especially the kind that fantasy and such engage in are distant issues that most people today have never experienced. they're abstract to us in a sense.

but marginalization and lacking equality are more personal. therefore we care more about it because it hits closer to home.

[Cluedrew]

You wanna know how Unbeatable Squirrel Girl addressed trans inclusiveness? [...] By not addressing it.

I generally think that's the best way to handle this and similar issues.

I think context is important because things can really effect how much attention it "should" get (and this is of course assuming that the point/main plot of the story is something else). For instance, does the character transition while the plot is ongoing? Then yes it probably is going to need a bit more screen time/attention then not being addressed.

I often find it somewhat disturbing how I often come across discussions about how reprehensible it is for games and other fiction to have cases of marginalization and lacking equality, while completely ignoring that the respective genres being discussed are based on being filled to the brim with conquest, raiding, and genocide.

This is the real reason it is hard to role-play during combat: then you are role-playing a serial killer. This is one of the reasons I find war game and role-playing game are two flavours that don't go together. I'm sure they are ways to do it, for instance: you are a soldier in a war. Or maybe its the other way around and people notice less because it is in the gamiest parts of- oh you were talking about fiction in general. OK there goes that theory, but in the context of role-playing games that might be part of it.

[Max_Killjoy]

Personally, I enjoy RPing during combat.

Whether a character is a serial-killer is about motivation and context.

[Satinavian]

This is the real reason it is hard to role-play during combat: then you are role-playing a serial killer. This is one of the reasons I find war game and role-playing game are two flavours that don't go together. I'm sure they are ways to do it, for instance: you are a soldier in a war. Or maybe its the other way around and people notice less because it is in the gamiest parts of- oh you were talking about fiction in general. OK there goes that theory, but in the context of role-playing games that might be part of it.

That is indeed one of my problems with D&D in its newer incarnations and its idea about every class contributing meaningfull to combat.

I do prefer systems where i can actually build a soldier or a mercenary or a real noncombatant who can't do anything noteworthy in combat. I mean, yes, the boundaries are not that clear for faux-medieval societies because the idea of a monopoly on violence came a couple hundred years later and free people were expected to defend themselves and their allies, but still the vast majority of possible characters should not be accustomed to real combat at all.

[Max_Killjoy]

That is indeed one of my problems with D&D in its newer incarnations and its idea about every class contributing meaningfull to combat.

I do prefer systems where i can actually build a soldier or a mercenary or a real noncombatant who can't do anything noteworthy in combat. I mean, yes, the boundaries are not that clear for faux-medieval societies because the idea of a monopoly on violence came a couple hundred years later and free people were expected to defend themselves and their allies, but still the vast majority of possible characters should not be accustomed to real combat at all.

The vast majority of people, sure, agreed.

The vast majority of player characters? No so sure.

I've been in campaigns where it was clear we'd be dealing with combat, and not only did one player insist on making a non-combat PC, they insisted on the PC never learning to fight no matter how many times the PC almost died because they couldn't even manage a basic "self-defense" level of combat. Not because the PC was a pacifist, or anything else... because learning to fight would "violate the concept".

[Mutazoia]

[QUOTE=Max_Killjoy;25022294I've been in campaigns where it was clear we'd be dealing with combat, and not only did one player insist on making a non-combat PC, they insisted on the PC never learning to fight no matter how many times the PC almost died because they couldn't even manage a basic "self-defense" level of combat. Not because the PC was a pacifist, or anything else... because learning to fight would "violate the concept".[/QUOTE]

So the question must be asked: Why was the party adventuring with that person in the first place? After the second time in combat, sane PCs would have kicked that character to the curb for being essentially useless and in a position to get them killed.

But that's a topic for another thread.

[Batcathat]

So the question must be asked: Why was the party adventuring with that person in the first place? After the second time in combat, sane PCs would have kicked that character to the curb for being essentially useless and in a position to get them killed.

Unless the campaign was literally nothing but combat, I imagine the non-combat PC could have made themselves useful in other ways. While D&D is pretty combat focused, there are quite a few games where some classes (or equivalent) are fairly unsuited for combat, so it's not like the concept is unheard of. Seems like something the player should make sure to run by the rest of the party before using, though.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ah, my apologies, I misread. I think the general point still holds, though - if that species has individuality and cultural norms, you will find individuals transgressing those norms. If the species recognizes only one gender, or no genders, then some individuals will eventually adopt a gender from outside their native species. If the species has two or more genders, different individuals may identify as a gender that their society does not ascribe to them, or to no gender at all. I don’t think there’s a configuration of ‘has a culture with cultural norms’ and ‘possesses individuality’ that results in a species without LGBTQ+ individuals.

I wasn't talking about cultural norms, I was talking about the inherent variation or lack thereof within the species.

[Calthropstu]

Cal, I am the OP.

I am specifically referring to your comments about how a game which talks about gender queer issues is destined to be a joke game for immature people that inevitably loses money, and wondering how you can square that with said excerpt from the PHB.

I am not talking about rules for gender. To be concise, I am asking two things:

1: How to present trans issues in a world with sex changing magic (which is something D&D fails to address despite having mention of sex changing magic and people trapped in the wrong body in the same book).
2: How to present queer NPCs without it appearing to be token diversity.

For the record, this is the sum of rules about gender in my book:

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness Excerpt

Show

Gender:Player’s can choose to be male, female, or anything in-between. This decision has no effect on scores or abilities.

Switch Gender
Transmutation Enchantment Difficulty:20
Switch gender changes the subject’s sex. The subject's body retains a similar appearance, albeit altered to match their new gender, and has the same scores, traits, and abilities.The subject undergoes no real mental alterations, but hormonal changes may have mild effects on the subject’s behavior.
Empowering this spell allows for the creation of hermaphroditic or androgynous forms or can assign a male or female gender to a species which normally lacks such distinctions.

As well as a few numerical differences for inhuman species with strong sexual dimorphism, primarily giant insects.

The discussion about just how much setting information should be in the core book is an interesting one, but not really what I created the thread for or what I was asking you for clarification about. For the record, this is what my book says on setting issues about gender queer characters:

Spoiler: Heart of Darkness Excerpt

Show

Atlantis was a wholly egalitarian society, and the Imperium and most of the lands that it once controlled are relatively free of enforced gender roles, and as such few people recognize a distinction between gender and biological sex.
Likewise, alchemy and transmutation magic mean that changing one’s sex is an achievable goal for any save those from the poorest or most conservative backgrounds. As a result, intersex or gender nonconforming people are far more likely to be met with confusion or religious awe than hostility or prejudice

A surgeon skilled in the Atlantean sciences can also seamlessly change a character’s cosmetic details, including gender, although the rarity of such practitioners and the associated costs, risks, and social stigma mean it is not often undertaken lightly.

I will answer this last question before bowing out.

Lgbtq people are simply people. You address them by not addressing them. They don't wear special clothes, they don't stand out. They simply exist. The rules for them to exist in many games is already written in. If you try to call special attention to them and designate special rules to them, it will be clear that you are doing so and it will drive away massive portions of potential customers. It will be relegated to "adult material" if it goes far enough, and be treated as a joke. I mean seriously, soneone mentioned a game called kissing lesbians. If that's not a joke game, I don't know what is.

If you REALLY want to call them out, here is my advice. Create a serious rulebook that is not specifically calling them out at all. Use a small blurb that they can exist such as 5e. Have a gender swap curse or magic item.

Then, make a setting supplement. Inside that setting supplement, introduce something along these lines:

City:Yurisberg.

Ruling setup: guilds.

Meet Thief guild master Jeridth. A former famous adventurer named Jeremy, When landing the final blow against a high level evil witch, a truly powerful curse wuas activated changing Jeremy into Jeridith. Jeridith retired from adventuring to take over the thieves guild of Yurisberg.

She converted a major bar into her new base of operations and now runs it as an openly lesbian bar since her tastes in partners did not changd with her physical gender.

You then include a picture of Jeridith.

And that's all you need to do. No special call outs, no special rules you have just 1: presented a transgender individual. 2: provided a legitimate place for lesbians to meet up in world. 3: presented these in such a way that both implies more exist and all without making special attention a thing.

That is how you make it a non joke game. Some people may respond negatively to even this much, but they will be in the extreme minority.

This is my advice on the matter. Take it or leave it, I am out.

[Cluedrew]

Is someone who changed both there gender and sex trans? Isn't the tans "across" referring to that split?

[OldTrees1]

Is someone who changed both there gender and sex trans? Isn't the trans "across" referring to that split?

Trans, in the context of gender, is both a specific term and an umbrella term to cover any that are not cis (similar in function to queer).

Consider the Jeremy/Jeridth example with the curse not affecting the mind at all (so their "gender" did not change). Depending on unspecified details, they might be trans using the specific definition, or only trans using the umbrella term usage.


Personally I like the representation that focuses on them being people. However this can make the representation feel like "blink and you will miss it" which makes it easier for a reader to not find representation they were looking for.

[BisectedBrioche]

Is someone who changed both there gender and sex trans? Isn't the tans "across" referring to that split?

The formal definition of a transgender person is anyone whose gender doesn't match the one they were assigned at birth. The state of their body doesn't really come into it outside the actual assigning.

[Liquor Box]

I can think of several ways you could tell them apart:

• Frequency: If the gatherers are getting attacked by animals as often as the hunters... why have gatherers, just have the hunters gather some stuff while they are out.
• Location: A wound from an ambush or while attempting to flee is probably different then while you were facing it off with a spear. Also, subpoint Scale, if you are attacked and eaten that probably looks very different then a quick malling to escape.
• Cross-Reference: Combine with other information you can get from the skeleton and burial site. If they were buried with their lucky spearhead they were probably a hunter.

I agree with you about the first, which was why I wondered whether there was a different proportion of animal wounds on men than women - that wasn't specified.

On the second, I don't really think so. The atlatl (spear thrower) has been around for 30,000 years, and spears have likely been thrown by hand for tens of thousands of years prior to that. I'm not sure if there was ever a time when people deliberately went club to claw with large animals. I don't really think you could tell from the location of an injury whether it was inflicted by a charging wooly rhino who you'd failed to debilitate with a spear throw, or one you'd startled by accident.

On the third, it seems that the cross reference stands against the theory in this instance. The idea of females having animal injuries was presented as counting against the pre-existing belief that females tended not to hunt.

It's amazing how far some out there, both professional archaeologists and amateur commenters, will go to dismiss evidence of women involved in warfare, hunting, or leadership roles.

For a long time, any grave with weapons was immediately assumed to be a male grave, because "weapons = war and hunting = male".

Well we do know that for most of human history it has been overwhelmingly men who went to war. There are credible written records for well over 2000 years, often including lists of individual soldiers. This is similarly pervasive throughout the world, such that women who did go to war were clearly seen as particularly noteworthy. In that light the assumption that graves with weapons buried in it were graves of men seems quite reasonable.

I'm not sure what incidences you are referring to of females being buried with weapons. I know that some Dane invaders of the British Isles fall into that category - but I think it is (and always has been) widely accepted that a few Danish women were warriors.

Can you provide a reference at all?

Hunters having the same chance of animal attacks as everyone else seems very much unlikely.

Most animals really don't want to fight if they can avoid it. They rarely attack immediately, and mostly will be quite happy if they can chase potential enemies away.
Trying to get close to dangerous animals and trying to get away from them should lead to very different frequency of injuries caused by animals.

As mentioned above, humans have been hunting with missile weapons for tens of thousands of years. So I doubt hunters liked to get close to dangerous animals either.

But I agree, hunters probably do suffer animal injuries more often than non-hunters. Did the study you referred to talk about how frequently female skeletons showed signs of animal injuries relative to men? Do you have a link to it?

An ordinary humanoid that's not on the gender binary.

Some people want to play tentacle monsters or plant people or weird stuff.
Other people want to play someone like themselves.

Isn't that the case in several RPGs now? In DnD there's nothing in the rules suggesting that humanoids are always gender binary.

[Cluedrew]

Even given OldTrees1 and BisectedBrioche's responses (thank-you both) I think my main issue with Calthropstu's suggestion itself is roughly the same. If you are going to have only one queer example character I would make sure they were "all-natural". By which I mean not created by magic, future tech, impossible hypnosis, superpowers or any other element added by the setting. (Although in the case of a transgender character, they can transition however you want.) Just have the queer example be... just queer. I would also consider not making it the core concept of their character, there are times that is appropriate (and if you are actually making a point about witches curses Jeridth could be a good example) but if you are just trying to get some non-token inclusion going it usually helps avoid the token problem.

Spoiler: On Hunters

Show

[QUOTE=Liquor Box;25023761On the second, I don't really think so. The atlatl (spear thrower) has been around for 30,000 years, and spears have likely been thrown by hand for tens of thousands of years prior to that. I'm not sure if there was ever a time when people deliberately went club to claw with large animals.[/QUOTE]Sure, I'd still carry some melee weapon (or just not throw one of my spears) if I was going hunting but would leave it behind much sooner if I was just gathering.

On the third, it seems that the cross reference stands against the theory in this instance. The idea of females having animal injuries was presented as counting against the pre-existing belief that females tended not to hunt.

This was referencing another poster who pointed out they found female graves with weapons, which is also evidence that females hunted and if you find both in the same grave that would be an even stronger case.

Also I don't care enough to say that - even in a historically accurate stone age game - you can't be a female hunt. There would have certainly been some over the entire stone age and when it comes to the PCs, I don't care how frequent it is.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well we do know that for most of human history it has been overwhelmingly men who went to war. There are credible written records for well over 2000 years, often including lists of individual soldiers. This is similarly pervasive throughout the world, such that women who did go to war were clearly seen as particularly noteworthy. In that light the assumption that graves with weapons buried in it were graves of men seems quite reasonable.

I'm not sure what incidences you are referring to of females being buried with weapons. I know that some Dane invaders of the British Isles fall into that category - but I think it is (and always has been) widely accepted that a few Danish women were warriors.

Can you provide a reference at all?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ale-180971541/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...sia-180973877/

Just a couple examples out of an ever-growing number.

~~~~

On the subject of "hunting injuries", they don't have to come from the animals, they can be things like repetitive stress, differential skeletal development from heavy use of thrown weapons, etc.

[Xervous]

Just have the queer example be... just queer. I would also consider not making it the core concept of their character

I find myself making comparisons to how certain authors present fantastical details of worlds they are writing about. Sanderson doesn’t lecture the reader at length about the fantastical backdrop in Stormlight Archives, mention simply comes up as it is relevant to the characters. Having a “everyone stop and look” moment really serves to set things apart. Whether it’s a flying glowing not-quite-jedi (Windrunner) or a caged heretic on display being driven mad by the power he wielded (Logain, Wheel of Time), stopping the flow gets everyone staring. A detail provided but not emphasized to the exclusion of all else gets an average response from your players (if any).

The shopkeeper is wearing a red shirt. The name of this commonly used coin is a Burlem. The roofs need scraping after a storm lest the crem builds up (Stormlight). Someone’s phone buzzes with a text message. For people in these worlds such details don’t invite pauses or unusual remarks. It’s the normal. I agree that if you make a big show of presenting something that should be accepted and viewed as normal some players are not going to respond appropriately. Don’t play up a token queer like they’re some exotic creature, else you’re suggesting the players react to them as such. Just drop a mention (however vague or specific) that invites no more awe than “it’s a warm sunny day”.

Obviously for games wherein players have agreed that they want to explore specific themes you’ll be going beyond this to varying extents. But that’s usually past the level of a token presence.

[Batcathat]

The shopkeeper is wearing a red shirt. The name of this commonly used coin is a Burlem. The roofs need scraping after a storm lest the crem builds up (Stormlight). Someone’s phone buzzes with a text message. For people in these worlds such details don’t invite pauses or unusual remarks. It’s the normal. I agree that if you make a big show of presenting something that should be accepted and viewed as normal some players are not going to respond appropriately. Don’t play up a token queer like they’re some exotic creature, else you’re suggesting the players react to them as such. Just drop a mention (however vague or specific) that invites no more awe than “it’s a warm sunny day”.

That reminds me of an article I read (I think on Cracked) by someone with dwarfism. Apparently, people assumed he liked Tyrion in Game of Thrones for being a mainstream representation of dwarfism but his favorite representation was actually Wee Man on Jackass, since dwarfism is a huge part of Tyrion's character but Wee Man is treated just like the regular-sized jackasses.

[OldTrees1]

Even given OldTrees1 and BisectedBrioche's responses (thank-you both) I think my main issue with Calthropstu's suggestion itself is roughly the same. If you are going to have only one queer example character I would make sure they were "all-natural". By which I mean not created by magic, future tech, impossible hypnosis, superpowers or any other element added by the setting. (Although in the case of a transgender character, they can transition however you want.) Just have the queer example be... just queer. I would also consider not making it the core concept of their character, there are times that is appropriate (and if you are actually making a point about witches curses Jeridth could be a good example) but if you are just trying to get some non-token inclusion going it usually helps avoid the token problem.

This is sound advice.

I think there is room for unusual circumstances in additional representation. However representation is rare enough that it should not all be unusual circumstances.

I think there is room for more obvious representation. However such representation risks the token problem, so I suggest some representation that mostly focuses on them as a person rather than the representation. Even if the more nuanced representation might be easier for the reader to "blink and miss".

Basically some diversity in the representation sounds ideal, and nobody said there was a limit on the number of background setting characters.

[Calthropstu]

This is sound advice.

I think there is room for unusual circumstances in additional representation. However representation is rare enough that it should not all be unusual circumstances.

I think there is room for more obvious representation. However such representation risks the token problem, so I suggest some representation that mostly focuses on them as a person rather than the representation. Even if the more nuanced representation might be easier for the reader to "blink and miss".

Basically some diversity in the representation sounds ideal, and nobody said there was a limit on the number of background setting characters.

I have to clarify my stance on this somewhat. I never said restrict it to 1, but if you want the setting to be seriously accepted and not relegated to a "oh this is a game made for and by the lgbtq community" status, fewer is better. Keep in mind T and Q are an extreme minority, even in the lgbtq community itself. If you boost that amount in your world, you run a risk of feeling like you are making the world about them and normal people will not relate.

Minimalization is absolutely needed here. I am not trying to belittle this, I am not trying to rain on your parade. I am telling you what I think you need to do to get an acceptable game that deals with this issue. I suggested the magical transformation angle because it increases the empathy between a "normal" person and the proposed character. "What if my gender suddenly changed. How would I react?"

I was going to exit this thread completely, but it seemed people mistook what I was trying to say and do. Please carry on.

[Batcathat]

I have to clarify my stance on this somewhat. I never said restrict it to 1, but if you want the setting to be seriously accepted and not relegated to a "oh this is a game made for and by the lgbtq community" status, fewer is better. Keep in mind T and Q are an extreme minority, even in the lgbtq community itself. If you boost that amount in your world, you run a risk of feeling like you are making the world about them and normal people will not relate.

I mean, we are talking about worlds with wizards and dragons in them, right? If I can relate to a wizard despite my tragic lack of magical powers, I can probably relate to transpeople despite being cis.

That said, I do think there should be a reason for creating a setting where 50 percent of the people are asexual or whatever, but that's true of every part of world building.

[OldTrees1]

I have to clarify my stance on this somewhat. I was going to exit this thread completely, but it seemed people mistook what I was trying to say and do. Please carry on.

Quick clarification: You never said restrict it to 1. I felt that was crystal clear.

This clarification matches my understanding of what you were trying to say. I appreciate the clarification.

The critiques with the suggestion are mild and come from minor differences of opinion (more natural for better representation, or less natural to be more relatable) rather than misunderstanding.

I hope this helps you feel comfortable exiting the thread. Your suggestion, and its insights might continue to be discussed. However I believe you made it clear enough that you can let it stand on its own without concern.

[Segev]

However this can make the representation feel like "blink and you will miss it" which makes it easier for a reader to not find representation they were looking for.

I do not actively look for representation of "me" in things. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate moments where I can say, "Oh, that's cool, that character is also [whatever]." It amuses me to see left-handed people, for example, in fiction. I don't always notice left-handed people because of how subtle it can be, but if it's drawn attention to in even the slightest way, it's more than enough for me to catch it.

All of which is to say, I think "blink and you'll miss it" representation isn't so missable as you think it will be to those to whom it matters because they like seeing a reference they identify with.

[OldTrees1]

I do not actively look for representation of "me" in things. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate moments where I can say, "Oh, that's cool, that character is also [whatever]." It amuses me to see left-handed people, for example, in fiction. I don't always notice left-handed people because of how subtle it can be, but if it's drawn attention to in even the slightest way, it's more than enough for me to catch it.

All of which is to say, I think "blink and you'll miss it" representation isn't so missable as you think it will be to those to whom it matters because they like seeing a reference they identify with.

I would rephrase it as "the line where something becomes 'blink and you'll miss it' is close to the extreme". The event does occur. The question is do you "draw attention to it in even the slightest way"? I don't always notice other left-handed people because it is sometimes that subtle. There are enough of them that I still notice some of the really subtle ones.

[Liquor Box]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ale-180971541/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...sia-180973877/

Just a couple examples out of an ever-growing number.

Thanks for those, but I meant examples of people trying to explain those examples away as something other than the women in the tomb being warriors. I appreciate the first one does link to a a guy disagreeing with what the research showed, but he is just a single example and says up front that he is not a scientist.

As I mentioned, I think the idea of Viking warriors women (shield maidens) are pretty widely accepted as having existed. I'm not sure there's some sort of widespread irrational denial as your post had suggested. I am only aware of one credible person who disagrees with the proposition that there were warrior women (judith Jesch, who herself happens to be a woman). Am I missing something wider?

On the subject of "hunting injuries", they don't have to come from the animals, they can be things like repetitive stress, differential skeletal development from heavy use of thrown weapons, etc.

Maybe - although the only weapons I am aware of causing that sort of skeletal development change is the yew longbow - which caused unusual arm strain.

I suppose you are right though, it's possible that there are clues from the skeletons which suggest the conclusion. I guess we can't really go much deeper without being able to look at the study itself - hopefully Yora remembers where it was.

[Max_Killjoy]

Thanks for those, but I meant examples of people trying to explain those examples away as something other than the women in the tomb being warriors. I appreciate the first one does link to a a guy disagreeing with what the research showed, but he is just a single example and says up front that he is not a scientist.

As I mentioned, I think the idea of Viking warriors women (shield maidens) are pretty widely accepted as having existed. I'm not sure there's some sort of widespread irrational denial as your post had suggested. I am only aware of one credible person who disagrees with the proposition that there were warrior women (judith Jesch, who herself happens to be a woman). Am I missing something wider?

Article by the aforementioned Judith Jesch.
https://norseandviking.blogspot.com/2017/09/lets-debate-female-viking-warriors-yet.html

"Not so fast" article about the Birka grave -- which of course cites Jesch.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/09/have-we-finally-found-hard-evidence-for-viking-warrior-women/

More coverage of the general resistance to the idea.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/sep/15/how-the-female-viking-warrior-was-written-out-of-history


I'll have some more examples later today, after I get some feedback from an expert in the field I know online.

Or maybe now.

In-depth coverage:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/viking-warrior-women-reassessing-birka-chamber-grave-bj581/7CC691F69FAE51DDE905D27E049FADCD

Someone who seems pretty determined to change the interpretation to match the conclusion:
https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/14/viking-warrior-women-an-archaeodeath-response-part-1/

[Cluedrew]

The critiques with the suggestion are mild and come from minor differences of opinion (more natural for better representation, or less natural to be more relatable) rather than misunderstanding.

There is a difference in opinion but it is also a difference in goals. Who are you targeting? Or perhaps more precisely, what level of comfort/familiarity with the topic that you are accounting for? Are you worried about easing people into it or is this for people who already know about the issues? Things like that can effect what the "right" answer is.

All of which is to say, I think "blink and you'll miss it" representation isn't so missable as you think it will be to those to whom it matters because they like seeing a reference they identify with.

Also sometimes its just fun to piece together. I think you need lore from both Risk of Rain 1 & 2 to figure out that Loader is probably transgender. There is no official word on it to my knowledge.