Changing plot content of games based on player outrage

[AppleQueso]

yeah nope fuck this shit i'm done

you can cram that "shut up and learn your place" assimilationist rhetoric up your ass

[irixith]

It's got nothing to do with having an open mind, it has to do with the absolute base definitions of male, female, homosexual and heterosexual... Biology matters.

irixith, I quite often agree with you, but in this case I shall have to disagree. As one of the trans members of our community so appropriately pointed out to me, biology itself is not binary.

Firstly, we must recognize that gender is cultural, and is far from binary. Going back even centuries you have people who were able to cross gender lines or live in-between (two-spirit/berdache, Hijra, etc...) Gender is about social identity and role and, while based in biology, it isn't bound by it.

Biology, too, has variety. In addition to issues involving gender assignment surgery on newborns to deal with malformed genitalia, regardless of chromosomal identity, there are a number of chromosomal conditions where men or women may have an extra X chromosome or two, or even a Y, while men may have an extra X and Y in some cases. There are surely more as this is not my particular area of expertise.

I agree that any consenting partners should be open in their discussions of their bedroom habits and personal lives as it may relate to the bedroom, but where do we draw the line? If a child with XY chromosomes is born with a genital deformity and is assigned the gender "girl" and is given some reconstructive surgery, and then grows up as a girl and never knows their chromosomal makeup, what truly is the difference from a grown former-man who transitions fully because of, let's say, Gender identity disorder? One was made a girl very early on and only knows of being a girl. The latter may have known she was a girl since very young and may have felt forced to live as a boy.

I welcome disagreement! If there is anywhere to discuss the pure breadth of this topic without getting banned or otherwise tar'd and feathered, it's going to be Racketboy.

Humans are sexually dimorphic, male and female. We call this "sex", on the basis of the male having a reproductive system that produces spermatazoa, and outer genitalia that includes, but is not limited to, a penis and testicles. The female having a reproductive system that produces ova, with outer genitalia including, but not limited to, the labia majora. There's nothing coercive about being labeled "male" or "female" based on your sex...we are not potato head dolls. The doctor did not say: "Congratulations, it's a..." while reaching into a nearby bin and selecting a reproductive system to attach to you against your will. This is important. Yes, there are particular conditions (intersex, etc) which transgender attempts to co-opt in an attempt at legitimacy...but neither transgender nor bisexual nor gay nor lesbian people have any proof that they are who they say they are that's as decisive as our biology. There is no test we can run that will identify L, G, B, T, or Q. It's the "honour system" if you will. Biology is binary with few aberrations.

Now from the moment you've popped out and been identified by your sex, you are indoctrinated into a terrible harmful system that we call "gender". This refers to sex-role stereotypes, the things we consider to be male-oriented or female-oriented outside of scientifically proven biological differences. Within the system of gender, females are subjugated and oppressed to the benefit of males. This socialization includes everything from blue is for boys, pink is for girls, to what you're conditioned into being allowed to do, achieve, think, be. Within the gendered system, males and females are socialized quite differently. This is also very important.

In your example, you make reference to an outlier case, within the realm of intersex. Someone with a certain make-up and is socialized as female from birth, compared to a male who makes the decision at a later point in life. The difference, as should be obvious, is in the socialization. When males are socialized they inherit something called "male privilege", which are the benefits society affords them simply for winning the lottery and being male. Females are not afforded these privileges, as the gendered system subjugates them, remember? Someone who is socialized as a male can never truly understand what it is like to be socialized as a female. A male may decide to take on the sex-role stereotypes of the subjugated class, but he has the freedom to make that choice, something that females, even female to male trans people, never have.

Don't make the mistake of conflating sex with gender...notice that "transsexual" has become "transgender", "sexual reassignment surgery" has become "gender reassignment surgery". The assault on the language is the attempt to conflate the two together to the benefit of transgender people, and the detriment of non-transgender people.

Also...

Intentionally deceiving someone into having sexual intercourse with you under false pretenses makes the person you deceived the victim, not you.

Unless the person "deceived" (see my hypotheticals above) decides to get some kind of revenge. The law does not recognize revenge as valid justification. In that case all you have are two victims instead of one. And I don't think your example can ever be as clear cut as you want it to be. As you present it, I don't even think it is clear-cut.

If the deceived person attempts revenge, as you say...this is where the "trans panic" law comes into play. Where a trans person will be killed because the person panicked upon the discovery. Under these laws, the deceived person gets a free pass. (This, as you might expect, greatly angers transgender people, especially those who have drunk the queer theory kool-aid and have attempted to subvert biological reality with gendered reality.) This is a complicated situation, because as I've outlined, we're talking about the case of intentional deception, to which the deceiver owns a burden of the responsibility, and the deceiver (if they do something illegal upon discovery) owns a burden of the responsibility. The "panic" laws simply exonerate the person deceived. I don't agree that exonerating the person from wrongdoing is OK. Of course I don't. However, I also don't agree with intentional deception either, based on what I said in the above post about "trans women are women" and "trans men are men". Again, there's a difference between sensitivity and pandering. There's "reality", and then there's reality.

[BogusMeatFactory]

yeah nope fuck this shit i'm done

you can cram that assimilationist rhetoric up your ass

Can you please define this and to whom are you addressing? If I were to look this up you would be saying that someone can cram their, "attempts at persuading someone to participate in racial and cultural integration," up their ass.

[irixith]

yeah nope fuck this shit i'm done

you can cram that assimilationist rhetoric up your ass

Can you please define this and to whom are you addressing? If I were to look this up you would be saying that someone can cram their, "attempts at persuading someone to participate in racial and cultural integration," up their ass.

It's directed at me, and it should stop here before the thread derails. My apologies.

[marurun]

Yes, there are particular conditions (intersex, etc) which transgender attempts to co-opt in an attempt at legitimacy...but neither transgender nor bisexual nor gay nor lesbian people have any proof that they are who they say they are that's as decisive as our biology. There is no test we can run that will identify L, G, B, T, or Q. It's the "honour system" if you will. Biology is binary with few aberrations.

Much of human psychology is under the "honour system", as you call it, but that makes it no less useful. Further, I'm not sure anyone is trying to "co-opt" anything, and I do not consider the self-identity of transgendered individuals to be at all illegitimate. Were I trans, I would likely be offended at that implication that somehow members of the trans community are illegitimate in any way. And in fact, despite not being part of that community, I am offended by that.

Someone who is socialized as a male can never truly understand what it is like to be socialized as a female.

This is one of those statements I always rail against. Humans have incredible capacity for empathy. We actually can come extremely close to walking in the shoes of others. In fact, our brains are wired to mirror many emotions and behaviors that are external to ourselves. Members of the trans community are regularly oppressed and marginalized. They are often left powerless. I suspect that, in some ways, they understand some of the worst aspects of the disservice western culture does to both widely accepted genders. Besides, gender definitions have quite a bit of inherent fluidity in them.

Don't make the mistake of conflating sex with gender

I was being rather distinct, I thought.

The "panic" laws simply exonerate the person deceived. I don't agree that exonerating the person from wrongdoing is OK. Of course I don't. However, I also don't agree with intentional deception either, based on what I said in the above post about "trans women are women" and "trans men are men".

The way you word this paragraph suggests you are equating the two offenses, the deception with the retaliation. I take issue with this if that is what you intended. If not, consider more carefully the juxtaposition of your words. The deception is no different from the many other kinds of deceptions that go on with human sexual relations. Partners are regularly dishonest with each other, sometimes about rather important details. Concealing ones' past is one of those we habitually commit. It is a problem, yes, but I do not think a trans person concealing their past gender is as severe a transgression as, say, concealing an STD.

And let's face it. "Trans panic" laws have no place. Nowhere do they have a place. Nowhere are they appropriate.

Again, there's a difference between sensitivity and pandering. There's "reality", and then there's reality.

There's this, again. With gender, reality IS "reality", and "reality" IS reality. As with any social construct, it is what we make of it. And yes, I agree there's a difference between sensitivity and pandering. The oppressed and the privileged often see the two differently. Those of us who are "normally" gendered may see something as pandering, but we do so from a position of social privilege and power. To those who so often lack social power and access, sensitivity, as defined by us empowered folks, is often sorely inadequate.

Finally...

those who have drunk the queer theory kool-aid

This kind of language in no way contributes to meaningful discussion. It is intended to belittle and to offend, and serves no other purpose but that. ANY meaningful discussion must be had in good faith, and this language is not good faith.

[pepharytheworm]

People seem to have a hard time differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is biological, gender is sociological. A lot of people get them confused across the spectrum, but that's because as a society we are just now becoming more aware of the differences, so of course there is confusion from cis and non-cis alike. Labels are only there for better communication but don't define us.

Also good humor punches up not down.

On the sudject of companies changing their products based on customer concerns, it's up to the companies or artist to decide. Unlike what was implied in this thread other forms of media have changed due to consumer complaints. Usually they fix in later reissues but there has been plenty of examples where products were pulled and changed even from theaters. We can ask them to change all we what, just as they are free to change said product or keep it as is. Being mindful about your ignorance and the unintended effects of your words is not the same as being PC with no basis on why. Again it's about better communication and understanding. If you're fine with being misunderstood then you shouldn't have a problem with people calling out your problematic behavior.

[irixith]

Much of human psychology is under the "honour system", as you call it, but that makes it no less useful. Further, I'm not sure anyone is trying to "co-opt" anything, and I do not consider the self-identity of transgendered individuals to be at all illegitimate. Were I trans, I would likely be offended at that implication that somehow members of the trans community are illegitimate in any way. And in fact, despite not being part of that community, I am offended by that.

I am not taking issue with the legitimacy of transgendered identity. Clearly transgendered people exist, but they can exist without co-opting a condition (such as intersex) which has nothing to do with being transgender.

This is one of those statements I always rail against. Humans have incredible capacity for empathy. We actually can come extremely close to walking in the shoes of others. In fact, our brains are wired to mirror many emotions and behaviors that are external to ourselves. Members of the trans community are regularly oppressed and marginalized. They are often left powerless. I suspect that, in some ways, they understand some of the worst aspects of the disservice western culture does to both widely accepted genders. Besides, gender definitions have quite a bit of inherent fluidity in them.

Empathy and socialization are different things. Being oppressed or marginalized for being transgender is not the same as being oppressed or marginalized for being female. They are both marginalization and oppression, but they are different. Do not conflate them. Conflating sex and gender is bad.

The way you word this paragraph suggests you are equating the two offenses, the deception with the retaliation. I take issue with this if that is what you intended. If not, consider more carefully the juxtaposition of your words. The deception is no different from the many other kinds of deceptions that go on with human sexual relations. Partners are regularly dishonest with each other, sometimes about rather important details. Concealing ones' past is one of those we habitually commit. It is a problem, yes, but I do not think a trans person concealing their past gender is as severe a transgression as, say, concealing an STD.

The severity of the deception is what factors here, as I thought I was clear about. A trans woman who "tricks" a man into sleeping with them has committed an egregious deception. This is not covering your sexual past, this is denying your partner an absolutely essential piece of information that they are entitled to before engaging in sexual intercourse. It's not concealing gender, it's concealing SEX (and this is why it's so very important not to conflate the two), they are different things. Does someone deserve to be KILLED for the deception? No. Is the deception severe enough to warrant that response? That involves a discussion down the road of the internalized homophobia that comes with male socialization, and another thread entirely I think.

This kind of language in no way contributes to meaningful discussion. It is intended to belittle and to offend, and serves no other purpose but that. ANY meaningful discussion must be had in good faith, and this language is not good faith.

It is not intended to belittle or offend (if you want to be offended, go read some queer theory)...but it is kool-aid. Swallow this misinformation and regard it as true, in the face of all the contradictory evidence. There are other rather prominent organizations that come to mind to compare to, but...I suppose that's not good "faith".

Don't mistake my looking at the other side of things for what I believe. There are two viewpoints -- the queer theory influenced conflation of sex and gender, and the science of biology. They conflict. It's interesting, and the joke in the game is predicated on a man killing himself after discovering the woman he slept with was not a woman. One of those viewpoints believes she is, another believes he is not. Is the joke a particularly big deal? NO. Should it have been changed? NO. There are two viewpoints, and one does not simply overtake the other by virtue of being "angry" or "offended".

[pepharytheworm]

^
Do you actually believe the queer theory influenced conflation of sex and gender? You speak as if this is a new thing. That was done a long time before queer theory was even a thing.

[dsheinem]

well this thread went off in an unexpected direction...

I actually appreciate irixith's invocation of Saint Carlin, as he's absolutely a foundational block in how I think about free speech, censorship, offensiveness, etc. I don't know that I have the same appreciation for the full range of the ensuing wall of text on sex and gender that the quote provided preamble for, though.

I tend to be against any kind of audience-driven change...though the fact that the PoE thing was itself an audience-created bit of text makes me a *little* more comfortable with the change.

I think social media is the best tool the politically correct police have ever had, and as such it is often stifling and suffocating of honest expression. I'd rather people be free to speak or create whatever nonsense they like and judge it (and perhaps them) on its merits than have people be constantly worried about saying the right thing lest they offend.

Rather, say what's on your mind and be ready to face the consequences...but those consequences should be debate and perhaps censurship, not "offense" as grounds for censorship.

Note that there's an important and sometimes fuzzy line between offensive speech and abusive or inciteful speech. I don't believe, in the case of PoE, that the line was crossed.

[samsonlonghair]

In the interest of building some consensus, let's see if we can all agree on some points here.

Can we all agree that violence against trans-folk (or anyone for that matter) is wrong?
Can we all agree that poking fun of trans-folk (or any disenfranchised people) is in poor taste?
Can we all agree that censorship is an inherently bad idea?
Can we all agree that comedians naturally (even rightfully) push the envelopes of good taste?
Can we all agree that the right to free speech is more important than preventing hurt feelings but less important than preventing a grisly murder?

If we all agree on these five points, then we can have a smidgeon of consensus with room to disagree on the finer points.