"You don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon's image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded dwarf female who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character's sexual orientation is for you to decide."
-Basic Rules, Chapter 4, Page 33
As a transgender lesbian gamer, I have to say... seeing this paragraph in the rules made me immensely happy. Even if I weren't already kind of in love with Next, I'd likely buy some of the product just to support this.
The "man trapped in a female body" phrasing for gender identity is a bit clumsy, but it's an inoffensive bit of clumsiness, and the fact that gender identity, non-binary physicalities, gender presentation, sexual orientation, the whole nine yards, are explicitly brought up in the PDF, right there in the section about fleshing out your character, is AMAZING.
Whoever decided to include this... thank you. I'm actively teared up a little right now after reading it. D&D just looked me in the eyes and said, "I want you included."
My hat is off to you.
As my girlfriend pointed out...
Some trans girl, who hasn't figured out what's wrong - just that she's uncomfortable in her body and every time someone uses her name or assigns her a gender with a pronoun - is going to learn that being trans is a thing from reading about it in a D&D book. She's going to learn that she's not alone.
And she's going to see that someone like her can be a hero, because D&D is about making heroes.
That's pretty incredible.
They certainly lose nothing from the inclusion.
It kind of reminds me of when 3E came out, and there was a (very short) section that basically said you could play male or female characters and it would not be a limiting factor. From what I understand, this was typical for its day.
My DM-at-the-time commented that he'd wished they had included a sentence or two about how women might face certain societal adversity within more historically-accurate settings. While that also makes some sense (given that AD&D actually had a number of guides for playing games set within various historical periods), I kind of wish they'd split the difference by saying that such discrimination would be more common in a historical setting, but that it specifically does not apply to most/default D&D settings, which have much higher priorities than that.
Saelorn wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
I am glad you feel included. I personally dont care one little bit about the gender and/or sexual orientation of the PCs (or players for that matter)., nor is it ever a big thing in my games. I prefer games about exploiring Dungeons and killing Dragons. But hey, if those lines of text just shuts the mouth of one single homophobic moron I guess they are well worth printing.
Lots of youngsters read D&D books front to back over and over. This kind of inclusion, as well as the art direction in depiction powerful people of all shapes and sizes, is an awesome move on WotC part! While I do not feel D&D needs to directly tackle our societal concerns, adding statements like this leaves each table open to address these kinds of issues as they please. I DM for my son and have addressed (albeit light-handedly) concerns over racism using the Elf/Dwarf dichotomy presented in most standard settings. Using role-play to help instill values of fairness and acceptance is a good thing! Now if I could get him to divide the treasure evenly...
I think it is pretty awesome as well. My partner has a degree in Women Studies, is the LGBT liason for the high school she teaches at, and I think she will be glad to see this inclusion. I don't think it will convince her to play with me and our sons, but you never know! That being said, I think it is really great for new people coming to the game, and it makes me feel better for supporting the game.
RustedKitsune wrote:
FallingIcicle wrote:
I'm glad that this is included too. The early editions were clearly pretty sexist...Everything from female PC's not allowed to have the highest allowable Str scores, to zero mention of sexual identity or orientation. And, of course, all the chainmail bikinis and keyhole cleaveage windows on the covers of everything from rulebooks, to dragon magazine, to novels. Video games have gotten better too. Look at how in popular RPGS (Dragon Age, Mass Effect) you can choose to make sweet love to any NPC, not just ones of opposite sex. Although, video games haven't left behind the "I battle in longerie" female characters completely yet...
I have a transgender gamer friend, and she's been thinking about getting back into D&D, this might make her happy enough about it to play.
Stuff like more inclusive art and statements in the basic PDF/PHB/Starter Set will go a long way to making TTRPG and D&D culture better. For so long it really has been a boys club. I've known several women, for example, who have played, or wanted to play, but some LGS's and Cons have really turned them off to (and away from) from the hobby.
PS: about D&D deities...They are run by the DM, so...If the DM is a homophobe, or sexist, or hates kids, well, those players are going to have a bad time. I've used discrimination in campaigns before, but I've tried to parallel real world stuff, rather than emulate it. Warforged in my campaign world are discriminated against because they were built for combat and labor, and only more enlightened peoples see them as sentient, free-willed beings. Also, many of them are 'transgender' in a way, as a few major warforged NPC's of mine have customized themselves to mach their preferred indentity. Other than that, I try to imagine a world were there are monsters. It's hard to hate on men and women of humanoid decent when there are bigger threats around all the time. Undead, evil dragons, demons, devils, beholders, mind flayers, etc.
If such creatures and abominations really existed, you'd see racism and sexism pretty much dissapear from real world human culture. In theory, at least...
Just because your deity talks doesn't make you actually hear what they are saying.
Mephi1234 wrote:
seti wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Would it be inclusive to exclude chainkinis? At least leave them Drow Priestesses...
seti wrote:
strider13x wrote:
If anything, it'd be the drow males who'd be wearing less and probably heavily sexualized. It is a female dominated society, and the males do all the hot, sweaty work. I bet all those drow priestesses have a stable of boy-toys. LMAO, drow males in drow society would look like strippers. Spider silk banana hammocks. 
Yup...Bet you can't un-imagine that.
The typical drow priestess/leader would be dressed luxuriously, but probably fully covered. If she had to lead a band of raiders or warriors out, she'd be in the best full plate or magical chainmail, or drowmesh or whatever. Totally covered and protected.
I did a little happy dance about Page 33 as well.
I'm also happy to see more LGBTQ folks openly posting on these forums. For a while, there, I thought I was the only one. ;)
TiaNadiezja wrote:
To the o.p. Congrats. I'm glad you are happy and feel included as a fan! I certainly want you to know you are welcome in D&D and at my table as well. Beyond that- I am in no position to formulate an informed opinion on this subject; having no experiencial knowledge with transgender identity. So I'll give you the respect you deserve by not posting an ignorant one. Happy gaming and welcome to the party. 
edwin_su wrote:
I had only skimmed the Basic Rules and somehow missed this. Thanks to the OP for pointing it out. Considering that the extent of the 3.5 section on gender was, "You can be male or female," this is quite exciting. What a difference a decade makes!
Rottle wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
Also, to clarify the anti-chainmail-bikini sentiment... I'm speaking as a straight male here, so take this for what it's worth, but I know that I personally occasionally play female characters, and I think I've seen more inspiring art in the previews so far than in all of the 3e PHB, where all the female characters, even the "tough" ones, looked waifish, distorted, and kind of idiotic for going into battle half-naked. IMHO, sexy is fine, but they should be ass-kicking sexy, not pinup-girl sexy. The woman in the "warrior" background page with samurai armor, for example - she's got makeup on and a fancy hairdo, but she's geared up to smash faces.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
As noted above, the chainmail bikini is a male-oriented fantasy, and the muscle bound loin cloth wearing barbarian is ALSO a male-oriented fantasy. What men want to be with (sexually) and who they want to be (self-identity). Fantasy is still very much a boys club.
That said, the words of inclusion in the basic rules are a welcome sight and a wonderful addition. A good start towards real change.
souldoubt wrote:
1eejit wrote:
souldoubt wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
RustedKitsune wrote:
With my neices growing and playing D&D, I've been a LOT more conscious of sexism and a lot of other hate-isms inherent in society, entertainment and such forth. And it pisses me off. One of my neices has discovered that she likes girls, not boys, and she's fortunate that she'll never have to experience being in the "closet" because everyone in our family and circle of friends accept her (and are willing to set on fire anyone that doesn't 
). I told her about this entry in the rules and she squeed. I want my neices to be able to look through rulebooks and not have to roll their eyes at sexist (or other hate-ist) art or feel pushed away male fanservice or exclusionary themes.
So, yeah, props to WotC for what I've seen thus far.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
It was a great piece of inclusive text. It was lovely go see.
Do you know how many times I've seen a trans woman portrayed as a hero in any professionally-published work - on television, in a game, in a comic or book? The answer is zero. The two best trans characters I've seen - Laverne Cox's character in Orange is the New Black and Alysiah Yeoh in Gail Simone's Batgirl - are a criminal and a hero's roommate, respectively. In published work, people like me NEVER get to be heroes. We're jokes, predators, victims, or sidekicks. D&D just invited us to be heroes - and encouraged people who aren't us to think of us as heroes. That's HUGE. It's virtually unprecedented. It's horribly sad how unique this is, but the fact is that it IS unique. Maybe you get to see yourself reflected in your heroes all the time. From your comment, I assume that's true. But I don't, and D&D openly inviting and encouraging it makes me happy. This IS something new - it's an acknowledgement that we can be heroes by WotC. It's wonderful.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Removed some content, namecalling and baiting - said baiting is against the Code of Conduct, found here - http://company.wizards.com/policies/web/conduct
Let's keep it civil.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
emwasick wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Good job on WoTC for being inclusive, I run/play most of my games on roll20 and over the past couple years I have roleplayed with a variety of people, here is a handy chart that helped a conservative texan like me have a small understanding of gender/sex/identity 
As far as transgender tv shows go, I liked Hit & Miss a lot, sure the main character is a transgender assassin but she becomes a mom to a group of kids and is basicly besides the whole hired killer thing a wonderful person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_%26_Miss
I am glad they have that passage to be inclusive, but in a perfect world the default assumption should be inclusivity.
MechaPilot wrote:
emwasick wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Qmark wrote:
seti wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
I have always found the sort of people drawn to a D&D table to be relatively open minded and accepting of people regardless of lifestyle, chosen or otherwise. It is one of the things that has kept me playing for so long.
Not only have I been made to feel welcome despite my own differences and allowed me to enjoy fellowship with like-minded people, but I have also been exposed to those who differ from me in most ways imaginable. This has served to broaden my own perspective as a human being.
I agree that it is a welcomed stance for the creators of 5th edition to take.
Yes, very groovy they included this, of course, many do no need this spelled out (but still, I think it is important they did, bravo, WotC), my buddy, who is homosexual, has been playing an openly homosexual drow (has an incubus lover, NPC played by me) psion in my Planescape campaign for 9 years (and he's pretty much the star of the show, the longest running character, been there since day one).
A mature approach to sexuality/gender, can really enhance a D&D campaign.
In a Greco-Roman campaign it's required!
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Paraxis wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Here's the question: if you stuck a male character in the same pose and outfit, would it look especially weird and ridiculous? I would argue no for the 5e PHB and yes for the 4e PHB.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Fralex wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
seti wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
1eejit wrote:
The inclusion of that paragraph makes some people happy. Calling it superfluous is an act that is in itself superfluous—if the message has no impact on you then it wasn't intended for you to begin with. There are very real (and very dumb, I might add) social barriers in the world, whether individuals notice them or not. It's great to see a company very publicly disintegrating one of those. More importantly, it's great to see the biggest brand name on the block taking that step.
Cennedi wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
I'm happy to see the paragraph; bravo to WOTC for increasing the inclusivity of the game.
Cennedi wrote:
R_Dragoner wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Fralex wrote:
This thread probably ought to get locked down. At this point it's just a dozen people trying to argue with one guy who's overly impressed with his ability to "play devil's advocate" against the grand liberal conspiracy of professional victims.
My final thoughts and then I'll heed my own advice and shut up:
1. This paragraph is aimed at new players. It's important to include because without it, newbies might assume that the pseudo-medieval game world had a similar perspective on sexuality to real-life medieval Europe, when that hasn't ever been the case in canonical d&d worlds and is certainly not the case now.
2. This paragraph makes some people very happy to feel included.
3. It makes nobody at all feel excluded or alienated. Heck, it doesn't even say that everyone in the default game world is particularly tolerant and open-minded.
4. Therefore, if you are spending a lot of time and energy arguing against the inclusion of this paragraph, consider exactly what point you're trying to make. You're not impressing anyone with your rhetorical prowess; at best, you're trying to undo any good wotc has done by alienating part of the fanbase all over again.
Azzy1974 wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
This is an awesome decision on WOTC's part.
In my opinion, the inclusivity and freedom that the paragraph concerning orientation and sexuality in the ruleset gives us is a much better decision on WOTC's part by far than the decision that NBC made concerning the TV show Constantine and the sexual orientation of the TV show's main character.
Wizards of The Coast is being much nicer and more fair than network TV is, in my opinion.
Bravo, WOTC!
Profanity is a violation of the Code of Conduct and has been removed from this thread.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
The_Jester wrote:
Glad to see this paragraph in Basic. Quite frankly, I don't feel like it influences my decision to play (I was already going to), but it's nice to see them actively accepting people. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that they chose the elf as the example of an LGBT character (IIRC, elves are frequently portrayed as being sexually deviant and/or androgynous, there's even a trope for it - "Elfeminate"). Still, a number of my friends seem glad to see this included, and it's good to see a long-standing franchise like D&D be so forward-thinking.
EDIT: I noticed that the paragraph in question is spurning a bit of controversy (should have expected that). I want to make my stance perfectly clear: regardless of this paragraph's existence, I would always allow my players to play their character how they choose, whether that means a homosexual/bisexual/asexual character, or transgender, or anything else. However, I hope this paragraph helps some people feel more comfortable playing the character they want to play. If some players or DMs take offense at the inclusivity, then that's their own problem. It's good to know the paragraph will be there to remind them that WotC's vision for D&D did not involve excluding people who want to play a certain type of character.
Personally, I think it is wonderful that WotC included this paragraph...I know some people who felt encouraged and lifted up by the 'inclusion'.
Lord_Markelhay wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Let's look at it this way...
D&D in the 1980s...
Gender questioning player: Can I play a female character?
DM: No way, dude, way too confusing. The book doesn't say anything about it, anyway. Besides...why would you want to?
Later in the campaign...
DM: You put the girdle on and suddenly you're female!
Gender questioning player: (Thinking - Yes! I can finally play the character I want!)
Other players: Dude! Ha! That's awful! Yeah, that's the worst. Better work on your lisp! Hey, DM, what's HER cup size? Is she hot?
DM: Oh, and lower your Strength score by two points.
D&D today...
Gender questioning player: Can I play a female character?
DM: Uh, well, yeah. Page 33 says your gender can be anything you like.
Gender questioning player: Great!
The whole section that this paragraph can be removed with the logic being put forth by some here. It should be "obvious" that your character has a height, weight, hair color, eye color, personality traits and flaws, ideals, and everything else in the "fleshing out" section. None if it "should" be needed for an experienced player. It's put there to help out new players who aren't familiar with how role-playing games work. By putting in this section it also points out other features about what makes a real person real (just in real life we don't get to pick any of these traits, they just occur organically via genetics, environment, experience, and stardust whimsy).
Since a player can't wait for their character to be born and grow up on it's own this section is put there to give the player ideas and options of what to give their character. Sure not all D&D games will cover topics of sex, sexuality or some of the other topics in this paragraph, but other games will. If a game has no elves in it does that mean the section of the elf race should be removed? Chances are no game will use EVERYTHING in the books but they will use parts of it and those parts will vary between games.
What seems obvious to some people won't be to others. Having the paragraph doesn't detract anything from the game, the rules, or people's lives (if it does they have issues beyond the help of this forum). What it does do is provide ideas and options that player may not have thought about, and for those of us who aren't hetersexual, gender role typical, fully comfortable and identifiable with our (sometimes assigned by a doctor) physical sex, or look different than our sex is assumed to look; this paragraph gives us a bit of recognition in a social space where we're not always welcomed. While there's been talk of how open-minded geeks and gamers tend to be this is far from the truth. I've had players leave a game over even hints of gay NPCs (or PCs).
I've seen some get offended if a female or someone too young/old wants to join. I've seen them leave the table and stop playing when they find out one of the players (usually me) is gay. I was an outcast amongst outcasts growing up, a geek hated by other geeks and that was before my sexuality was a known quantity. Just because someone is hated on by one group doesn't mean they won't hate on other groups, or even their own group over just a minor variation on one detail (just look at the various sects of Christianity).
This paragraph can help alleviate some of that feeling of alienation, even if it doesn't change any player's attitudes and actions it shows that WotC and D&D in particular at least are accepting of their differences. It may also reach those not covered by the topics in the paragraph just because they are aware that these classifications mentioned are usually excluded by society at large (to varying degrees) so for the game to include them in a welcoming but non-agressive manner means the game is inclusive to all types. By putting this paragraph in with the normal flow of the section it's "just another aspect of a character". They didn't put it in a sidebar or highlight it in any way to call extra attention to the topic. It's treated the same as deciding one's height or hair color.
I often play non-gender chacters.
Like warforged, shardmind, or a swarm of bees.
Kiraya_TiDrekan wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Add in some real-world comparison, such as the genderless Hindu deitites, to make it obvious that it's a concept that's been around for quite a while.
Maybe suggest that the infamous Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity was created for a reason.
I think the wide range of reaction also shows the international nature the DnD now has.
To me it felt a bit unessesary at becouse ofcourse a character can have the same range of sexual orientations as people can have in rl.
I live in the netherlands and we have a wide exeptance of the LBGT cumunity here.
Acceptanse seems so natural that the intent of a paragraph like that almost seems to flip.
where by naming the minority orentations like in the paragrap almost feels like they are being singles out to atract extra attention to them for not being "normal".
But in other parts of the world where the acceptance level might be diferent it might feal diferently.
edwin_su wrote:
mellored wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Hi folks,
I'm closing the thread temporarily so the ORCs and I can do a little tidying up.
While it's closed, please keep in mind that the topic of the thread is tolerance and inclusion in the new edition of D&D. That's it. That's all.
Monica
Thank you, Monica.
Here's a question to get the discussion on-topic and going strong.
Has Page 33 inspired any new character concepts for anyone?
Hi,
I've reopened this thread to comments now. Please keep in mind the topics which are inclusivity and tolerance. Please do not use this topic as an excuse to bring up politics, even tangentally. Please remain respectful of others and polite.
I would also like the posts to steer clear of the topic of "did D&D need to have this specific language in it." That topic seems to be causing some disruption and doesn't really belong in our forums at all.
Thanks for understanding,
Monica
While I certainly don't envy the mod who had to clean this up, the end result seems about as chopped up as a 4Kids anime translation.
Kiraya_TiDrekan wrote:
Qmark wrote:
"Has Page 33 inspired any new character concepts for anyone?"
Butchie, the Clearly Manly Elf.
I knew I was asking for trouble when I started talking about average racial height.
Hitdice wrote:
This picture reminds me of a character I once played. He was a barbarian who wasn't very bright but he was very enthusiastic about being a barbarian. Despite his low charisma, he was stunningly handsome and a picture perfect representation of the ultimate male physique, and he knew it. So he would always be hitting on every lady he ever thought was hot. He'd simply do it in such an egregious and overtly chauvinistic manner that he always failed to get laid (in other words, representing his low charisma score).
He had an especial fondness for elves, however, because he could never tell whether they were male or female and felt that it was irrelevent because they were all so incredibly gorgeous 
Cennedi wrote:
By the way, one of my characters has the entire inventory of girdles of femininity/masuclinity. He has traveled the multiverse, and cornered the market. He is going to be very, very rich in this edition.
Discussing Moderation is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Kiraya_TiDrekan wrote:
"When one of the Hu-Charad (giants) of the Diamond Throne is born, they are given what is called a "birth name." The birth name is one syllable long, unisex, and kept until the child comes of age at 22 years. When more than one child in an area has the same birth name, one addresses them by using a nickname, usually derived from the child's habits, followed by their birth name - for example, Running-Tu or Hiding-Li. Children have no family name.
When the giant reaches 22 years of age, they receive two additional names. The first, the Truename, is revealed in a ceremony performed with a priest, where it is divined. Only the giant learns their Truename; because such names have power, it is revealed only to close friends and spouses, and to reveal another giant's Truename is one of three capital crimes within the lands under the Diamond Throne. The other name the newly-minted adult receives is called the social name, and is what they use in everyday interaction. The giant chooses their own social name, which consists of two parts - a family name and a personal name. The family name is usually shared with the giant's parents, but if the giant is particularly close to another family they may choose that one's name instead. Personal names are gendered and have multiple syllables. For the giant Li-Coreon, 'Li' is his family name and 'Coreon' is his personal name.
When two giants meet, traditionally, they immediately introduce themselves - one is not supposed to speak with someone whose name they do not know, except in the direst of circumstances. It is from one's new companion's personal name, and not their appearance or apparent anatomy, that one learns their gender, and the proper modes of address. When addressing someone of unknown gender - a child, or a face in the crowd - one uses a pronoun that is usually translated into Thyatian Common as 'one.'"
Admittedly I haven't done it often, but I have had the following in my games;
A bard character based on Eddy Izzard - loved that character...
... and a main plotline villain who turned evil after suffering too much societal rejection based on being androgenous amongst a noble bloodline fixated on advantageous marriages and alliances based on these between generations of the family.
All storylines move forwards based on conflicts, and these sorts of things do create them, from comedic to tragic.
They can always be dealt with sympathetically however, even by those who have never been personally subject to them, and the paragraph in the rules underlines this succinctly and excellently.
My Eddie Izzard bard ended up a crimelord.
My villanous noblewoman NPC ended up being converted by a Paladin in order to defend the powerless against the very nobles she was once rejected by. Vindication by proxy in a way.
I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed playing the first and GM'ing the second.
I had a recurring NPC that ended up being rather epic...
In a 3.5 campaign, there were over a dozen rakshasa who had divided up the world amongst themselves and used the various other sentient races as pawns on a chess board, so to speak, in a game of prestation with themselves, never attacking eachother directly.
One of the rakshasa rejected the game and secretly helped the PCs in the guise of a gay halfling tailor, based loosely on Garak from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. You always knew there was more to him than what he let on and multiple layers of meaning behind everything he said but it was always difficult to pin down exactly what he was up to.
Another of the rakshasa called itself The Six Who Are One, having "adopted" the six major elven subraces and taking on a disguise that incorporated physical traits of all six (wood elves, high elves, grey elves, wild elves, drow, and aquatic elves). It was thus androgynous.
I've been thinking of playing a transgender drow for a while.
The concept started with the idea of the anti-Drizzt, a drow ranger who uses a bow nit two weapons and is unabashedly evil but adventures for other reasons.
In this case, not being able to fit into the gender based matriarchy of drow society, neither being male or female. When the deception was discovered, the character shot their way out of the Underdark, killing several ranking drow. They're now not only an exile from drow society, but when they die they'll go to the Abyss for their many evil acts and suffer at the hands of Lolth for all eternity. So for purely selfish reasons (not going to the Abyss) the drow pledges themself to heroism and performing good deeds.
akaddk wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Kiraya_TiDrekan wrote:
I would make a wager that one is more likely to be mocked and ridiculed for bringing a drizzt wanna-be drow character to a D&D table than for being gay IRL. At least thats how I suspect my table would react. You guys do know Bob doesnt allow drow PCs in his home game and he invented drizzt. Based on these forums the underdark is crawling with chaotic good and chaotic neutral drow all trying to escape a evil civilization that must have long disappeared under the weight of all the special snow flakes.
Another observation and this is a question by comparison
Guy who wears wizard robes and hat but attracted to females = straight but wierd or maybe mentally deranged?
Guy who wears evening wear and make up but attracted to women = invented gender brand?
Guy who dresses like a guy but digs guys = homosexual?
Guy who dresses like a lady and digs guys = homosexual?
Basically when did larping become a gender?
Basing a supposed gender on what cloths and make up you wear seems incredibly shallow no? I have on a rare occasion dressed in make up and womens cloths for a costume party and once even as a ballerina.... Am I still straight? I wore a kilt and blue make up at a highland games... Am I scottish? (i am not)
Are furries now a distict "gender" Does seem like some group or other keeps adding letters to that alphabet mess that some folks are promoting.
Fallen_Star_02 wrote:
admcewen wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
"androgynous, hairless drow with butterfly wings, think the film Wizards."
If you found Elinore from "Wizards" androgynous you were watching a very different movie. I'd link a picture, but I'm not sure any of them would be family friendly.
Peace on the other hand, you could make a good case for.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Foxface wrote:
Antheros wrote:
Antheros wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Antheros wrote:
Antheros wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
Antheros wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
In response to the OP, I agree I think it's nice that it's just made it concisely not a big deal. It's just another aspect of the character, if it even comes up in the game.
Cennedi wrote:
"Sometimes though love, self-examination, or lack of options for the cultural ideal conquers the cultural conditionings and people pursue people they're truly attracted to or at least give "subideal" options a chance."
Replace that second "people" with "weapons" amd this argument also elegantly solves the Greatsword/Greataxe divide.
The fact that D&D did not make a special point to acknowledge the homosexual community in the past in no way excluded them.
Cennedi wrote:
Kugnar wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
post got stealthed.
Hello all,
We're going to be doing more work on this thread. I'd remind everyone what the topic is, which is the inclusive text found in the PHB. Please keep your posts positive, respecful, polite, and avoid anything that could be considered inflammatory. This is not a place to discuss politics or one's opinion on mental illness.
This is a thread for people to acknowledge the inclusive text in the PHB in positive ways. Please keep that in mind.
Thank you,
Monica
I wish this thread was more about discussing gender identitiy, orientation, and presentation in D&D and less about the one paragraph at the start of the book. I was curious how others have handled it in their games. I've never pulled any sort of exclusivity from any of the previous books nor had any problem with characters who weren't the norm in-game. Were there any instances of text in previous books that people took exclusion from? Any non-normative NPCs or key NPCs anyone can think of?
I did and still do implement a rule in most of my games that the players need to play the gender they are outside of the game. I implemented this rule due to certain players constantly trying to play characters of the other sex who were giant walking caricatures. I never saw this as excluding anyone, but more as limiting my players, whom I knew, in an effort to not make non-serious PCs.
Freezingmaw wrote:
I will admit this much: I far prefer to use gender neutral forms of address during game play. For instance, after combat is done, I'll say "Well, you were all too stupid to be proficient in Investigation, so you don't find any treasure; now which door do you idiots want to open next?" and, y'know, no one feels singled out for their sexual preference or anything. 
Dragonette wrote:
Dragonette wrote:
Actually that paragraph about genders made me consider playing different types of characters than I usually do. That said, the only time I remember my character's gender coming into play was when I was seducing a drunk garuda, but that shouldn't be a reason not to customize a character.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
emwasick wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
On another topic, anyone have a new way of using the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity now?
I for one think the inclusion of that paragraph is awesome. It's like how they switched from using exclusively he pronouns and had representations of people of color in the character art. Those small steps let people know that D&D is meant for everyone and doesn't want to give succor to those who want D&D to remain an old boy's club.
Dreamstryder wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Dreamstryder wrote:
Grazel wrote:
It will be interesting to see how the DMG interacts with this paragraph. Does it advise DMs to make their worlds friendly/accepting to all variations to accomodate the sensibilities of real world players, or to be hostile to them in order to ramp up the "Everything wants to do you harm" threat to the in-game characters?
Or do both. Or neither. Or take a vote on it. Or just not mention it at all.
Dreamstryder wrote:
In a fantasy world I have fantasy based discrimination, so that the subject can be part of the story but not directly or indirectly insulting to any players. So for example in my worlds dwarves and halflings might be slaves in some places, orc and half-orcs could be treated like lesser beings, elves could be extreme racists towards humans. warforged could have trouble with concept of gender, changlings can change sexes at will, assimar can be androgynous, etc... But I don't have sexism or racism based on skin color among those races.
You can have stories that deal with these types of issues without bringing real world stuff into it.
Paraxis wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Kiraya_TiDrekan wrote:
Annandul wrote:
Did that make it difficult for the DM to introduce love-interest subplots for you?
Isn't Vaarsuvius a popular example of a gender queer character in a fantasy setting? :P
MusicOfCreation wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Via The Escapist.
I've been avoiding this thread for a few days because it had taken a bit of a turn for the worse. I'm glad to see it get back on track.
I'm also very glad that Mike Mearls has continued to reaffirm D&D's committment to inclusivity in recent interviews.
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Dreamstryder wrote:
Qmark wrote:
Hmmmm. That's an interesting perspective. While you are looking for signs of people being "mocked", I see opportunity for them to explore their possible gender curiosities from the safety of a role-playing game with their friends...
Regarding the infamous Girdle...
Its a two-edged sword really. On the one hand it treats gender as a curse and a joke. On the other, it could be used to explore gender identity and an opportunity for out-of-the-box roleplaying. Unfortunately, the negative outweighs the positive here. I'm not sure what the original intent may have been, but it appears in the same puerile humor context as other joke items of the era at a time when the game also had Strength maximums for female characters.
At this point, the Girdle is extremely outdated regardless; a relic best left in the game's past.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Tia (and to a lesser extend Kiraya),
Please stop trying to speak to my experiences or profess to have superior knowledge of how the game is/was played (outside of your own sphere). You seem to be using words designed to convey fact and general authority. Unless you start prefacing some of your claims with "In my experience," or "In my opinion," your points are going to start holding less weight. Your experiences do not invalidate mine. Nor do they diminish their breadth.
In the many, many years I've played D&D, in all its varied incarnations, and in countless groups, the girdle found its way into a game a handful of times. And I cannot recall a single time in which it transformed a character, did we point and laugh or otherwise ridicule the player for the change. That you keep insinuating that we did is insulting.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
To pontificate further...
Look, the girdle doesn't make games sexist, sexists make the game sexist.
The only times I imagine the girdle causing such immature reactions, is among the immature. That's not a problem with the item, but the group.
Anecdote Time!:
In our early years as teenage goofballs hacking our way through AD&D, one of the players got a sword of sharpness. The first time he scored high enough to "cut off a random limb", it was against a storm giant. He petitioned the GM, given the tallness of the giant, that he could have cut off the "other appendage". This got a round of chuckles from the group. And, of course, the DM agreed...
Hey, we were juveniles being juvenile.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Girdle of Gender Exploration. Make the gender-based physical changes of your choice, which you can modify during a rest.
Kiraya_TiDrekan wrote:
This discussion about the Girdle reminds me of of what actually happened to me at a convention.
As play begun, the DM prompted us to describe our characters as is common in such situations. I described my character and mentioned that he could switch genders at will.
Another player responded, "Ew, that is so sick."
Then it came the "offended" player's turn to describe his character. He then proudly declared, "My mage here is a Doppleganger."
I guess shape changing is Ok, but gender switching (a limited for of shape changing) is not.
The next time you DM's out there have an evil wizard polymorph a male character, tell him, "The diabolical wizard has turned you into a toad. A female toad!" Then see which part of the transformation is more vexing. 
You can be in favor of free speech and not be in favor of everything that is said.
My only complaint against the gender switching was that it lessened readability not that it was trying to be inclusive. The masculine pronoun was used in a gender neutral way for centuries prior to people having an issue with it. If anything men got shorted having to share their pronoun with "everyone".
A paragraph on the subject of alternative lifestyles in the game seems a small concession to a community. It's not like anyone anywhere is forced to play with such characters in their games. I tend to believe that purveyers of products should avoid taking stances on controversial topics. They should though try to include as many customers as they can because that is just good business.
I think the bigot comment was a bit over the top.
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Kishri wrote:
Mainly the excessive switching happened in the Dragon Magazines of the era and a few modules. The move was done to counter allegations of sexism but was implimented so badly that it infuriated everyone and pleased no one. After a while, TSR got it right.
Emerikol. wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Grazel wrote:
Kishri wrote:
Zappy wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
It's a connotation no longer in exclusive use. It can be used to refer to religious matters, but it refers to a great many other things these days. That was mentioned when the definiton was offered (basically, that definition is obsolete).
I can't personally wrap my head around how any one would take exception to that paragraph. There's all kinds of stuff printed in the book that don't need to be said (like the "Making Bruenor" snippets) but don't really detract from anything. Why focus on one of the positive bits?
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Brimleydower wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Cennedi wrote:
I am a trans woman myself. All this paragraph does is acknowlege that people like me exist. Its hardly promotion.
And yes, being put off by something that miniscule is a pretty good sign that someone is a bigot. I've said this elsewhere but my right to exist is not subject to debate.
Should x group be allowed in public, allowed to be open, allowed to be represented in the media as something other than monsters lets hear from both sides and call it being objective? The fact that you're asking the questions implies "no" is as worthwhile an answer as yes. Imagine if there was a debate as to whether you should be flayed alive and eaten. Tthat such an unspeakable thing was being discussed would at the very least put you on the defensive. or make you feel threatened. This classical liberal belief that all sides have value only makes sense for the privileged. it creates a context where even people speaking in your favor come across a little patronizing. Patronizing example "Come on now, not ALL New Yorkers should be flayed and eaten alive, some of them are really nice." This is what I think of when you "debate" people's rights. It means you're in a position to be expected to compromise. Well, if flaying and eating you alive is too extreme, I guess the reasonable middle ground is to just take one of your legs. That is what being in my position is like.
Plus its a single paragraph in a rulebook for a game about elves and dragons. Perspective.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
rethgryn wrote:
rethgryn wrote:
If you can't buy into the idea that some people don't gender conform, how are you able to buy into a world where magic is real, where lizard people shoot magic missles at the darkness, twhere here are portals to other worlds around every corner, where there is massive hollow cave miles under the earth with spider worshiping pointed ear priestesses who fight floating eyeball monsters, where adventures march intovillage with a mountain of gold and don't inflate the economy to destruction, or where the fate of the multivere coming down to the roll of funny shaped dice.
rethgryn wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
I'm fairly certain I went into detail as to why debating this is destructive. I'm not going to do it again. My identity is not negotiable.
Cennedi wrote:
rethgryn wrote:
Thought provoking...
Personally, I am against bigotry of any kind. I take people to task when I see it and am no shrinking violet when I do.
I have suffered somewhat due to the 'them' factor, and whilst that is in my past, it is something I will not forget, and it shapes me today.
However - around my gaming table I do ask (not demand mind you...) that people play a character of the same sex as themselves.
I do this because I like immersive gameplay and I have found over my many years of RP'ing that people playing the opposite sex tend to play shallow caricatures.
In other words, the roleplay suffers.
However, I am not entirely sure I have never had a trans-gender person around my table at any point, and considering this, I wouldn't have the slightest problem if they told me and wanted to play the appropriate sex for them.
But I have to accept that they would have had reasons perhaps not to tell me. They could have told me "no, I want to play an 'x' gendered character", but I may have put them on the spot.
I will however from now on, state my preference about roleplay, the flexibility that exists in my game and get everyone to read that section (amongst others).
I guess my point is, I'm grateful it's there, so my preferences can be gently placed alongside something someone else may prefer for reasons they do not wish to share and the two incorporated without any perceived 'issue' should someone wish to otherwise keep their personal lives out of their gaming.
A good thing, and doubly so as it's right up front in the ruleset.
Caliburn101. wrote:
I will admit that this discussion has given me a new found level of empathy for gamers of non-tradition genders. I find myself liking a few of you on a personal level.
Cennedi wrote:
Not to point fingers but members of that peculiar group i am loath to call a church who like to picket funerals and such are not, in my opinion, very good Christians. For what it is worth I do not think you are any more sinful than am I and as deserving of tolerance, love, and respect as any other human.
Cennedi wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
kalil wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
kalil wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
"The tendency to caricature is the root of prejudice"
Nonsense. Survival instinct is the root of predjudice.
The tendency to caricature on the the other hand, is what drives people to set up easels in fairgrounds and draw bad picture of people as Star Wars characters on roller skates.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
"If I want to experience discrimination, all I have to do is go outside.
For me, the fantasy is to not experience discrimination."
In a fantasy game, you get to gruesomely murder the people who mess with you, and take their goods as trophies.
If you want to live the cathartic dream, dream BIG!
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
I disagree with your point Caliburn. Regardless of how predjudice can be manufactured, the fact that humans are prone to it at all is because it was at one point a useful survival tool and the tendency towards it is in our genes. That tendency has to be resisted, of course, the same way we resist the desire to put a stone axe through the skull of anyone who disagrees with us (though really, a stone greatsword would do more damage). "Caricaturing" may be a mechanism, but it is not the root, and I believe misunderstanding that cause/effect relationship is damaging to the overall goal of understanding the issue.
I just choose to disagree with you in a lighthearted manner, for which I make no apology.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
I encourage everyone that has stated that they, as a DM, ban players from playing cross-sex (by which I mean people will penises playing female characters, and those with vaginas playing male characters) to consider ammending that practice to the following:
Anyone can play any type of character that does not become an offensive stereotype or joke. Those characters that become offensive will be removed from the game. (And, of course, a player that constantly makes offensive characters despite this will be ejected from the group.)
It has worked for me for years, and it lets my not quite cisgendered friends know that I'm supporting their explorations, even though I am not willing to sit through another slutty elf stripper assassin played out as a masturbatorial fantasy.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
"even though I am not willing to sit through another slutty elf stripper assassin played out as a masturbatorial fantasy."
Well, if I'm not going to deny my players their homicidal fantasies, I see no reason to deny them their masturbatory ones.
As DM I do set limits on whether a certain race or class fit's into my game. I am supremely indifferent as to character sex, gender identification, or sexual preference. except as it impacts plotting love interests.
DemoMonkey wrote:
Dwarfslayer wrote:
emwasick wrote:
@emwasick
I take your point, but I do think creating a mature fictional drama requires issues which may upset some people to be tackled.
There are in fact so many potential upsets in any fictional conflicts that were we to avoid all of them no stories would be left. One does not for instance avoid directing '12 Years a Slave' because some of the audience may have been slaves at some point.
@TiaNadiezja
You didn't answer my question directly, but from your last post, am I to take it that you would not want to play out the plotline I outline under the circumstances stated?
Caliburn101. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
emwasick wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
They have actually inspired a character concept out of me based on the small passage they did, along with the preview of the Bard:
I'm going to make an intersexed Elf Bard, who travels as part of a long-standing troupe of storytellers and actors. The troupe tell tales drawn from mythology, especially from Elven mythology. The Elf portraying Corellon is a place of honor and prestige. The troupe chooses a new Corellon every few centuries and the Elf playing it must portray Corellon "in both body and soul." Generally speaking, this role is given to the most talented, intersexed and devout Elf who usually has been trained from a young age to play the role.
From this core, I could imagine the character might leave to adventure due to either something happening to the troupe, receiving visions from Corellon or as a young Corellon-in-training who wishes to experience the greater world as part of their training. Never would have even thought of this without this paragraph.
NOTE: Mechanically, it would be a Bard (lore) w/Acolyte background or even a Cleric w/Entertainer background.
Nice!
Azzy1974 wrote:
I am transgendered myself, and I aplaud the forward-thinking direction Wizards took by publishing this in the rulebook. Dnd is the biggest, most well known RPG brand in the industry, and to see GLBT characters as being presented as a valid option for the player fills me with great admiration for the design team. They took the high road and risked alienating the bigoted part of their community in an effort to be inclusive, and show their support for GLBT lifestyles without pomp or flair..... I respect this even more for the fact that they did not draw unnecessary attention to this fact a la "look at us. We are so cool for supporting GLBT. See, look at how GLBT friendly we are". Instead, they made it a complete non-issue as it should be.
In respect to discrimination within a fantasy setting, it is of my opinion that it is always best to only discriminate against NPC characters, or only slightly discriminate against PC characters (as some players may take discrimination toward their character personally). In addition, due to the sensitive nature of discrimination in general, when I (as the DM) seek to highlight discrimination in a world, I always attempt to find a creative form of discrimination unique to the fantasy setting, and without real-world analogue whenever possible. That way, I can play up the struggle against discrimination with less chance of making my players uncomfortable, providing I am mindful to watch out for players who show signs of taking it personally (at which point I would ease off on PC discrimination and focus more on NPC discrimination). Finally, so as to not have any given player feel "singled out", I try to incorporate several different forms of discrimination simultaneously (such as arcanism, aegism, and subterraneism).
Examples I have used in the past include:
Ageism: Long lived races discriminate against shorter lived races and vice versa. Care must be taken with this ism as it can quickly devolve into racism toward various groups.
Kenderism: While on the surface this appears to be racism, this form of discrimination is well documented in Dragonlance, and is directed more towards the races unconscious kleptomania than it is toward the race itself. I have played with this form of discrimination in several ways, especially when dealing with afflicted and half-kender, as the people of my world do not show any discrimination toward known afflicted kender (but treat all unknown kender with suspicion). At the same time, they are less lenient with known afflicted kender.
Arcanism/Theolism: A form of elitism, wherein spellcasters (or non-spellcasters) discriminate against the other group. This shows up as anti-arcanism in Dragonlance, but in a Mageocracy like Thimhallen (Darksword Trilogy), such discrimination is reversed. A third option is discrimination along the arcane/divine spectrum wherein one (or both) groups discriminate against the other. Care must be taken that this does not devolve into religious discrimination however. While most worshipers believe their god to be superior to the others, and several claim to be the "one true religion" (eg. Silver Flame), I try to downplay religious discrimination in my games to be little more than squabbling over who has the better sports team (god/religion).
Classism: Another form of elitism wherein one (or more) classes discriminate against other similar classes. Examples include Wizards discriminating against other arcane spellcasters (eg. Dragonlance), Clerics discriminating against Druids (and/or vice versa), etc. Care must be taken to focus on the in-character differences between classes rather than metagame elements, in order to maintain verisimilitude... Clerics might discriminate against druids for worshiping nature, and casting "lesser" spells for example, while Paladins might discriminate against other warriors for their lack of divine faith (and commesurate gifts).
Subterraneism: Surface dwellers show discrimination toward races, creatures, and peoples which live underground and/or vice versa. I love this one as it is broad sweeping, does not discriminate along good/evil axis (as PC dwarves and gnomes will be swept into the discrimination) and lets me play up the ridiculousness of their elitism...."How superior the dwarven mushroom farming techniques are to surface dwellers. I mean, you don't even use mirrors or grow things vertically! And lets not get started on how flatulent your cows are. Tunnel Worms eat less, have more efficient digestive systems, are more obedient, and aide in tunnel construction as well."
I prefer this one to monsterism (aka discrimination to/by monster races) as that one has been done to death and somewhat resembles civilized/native discrimination given how "uncivilized" most monster races are.
Political Discrimination: Two (or more) rival organizations show discrimination toward one another. Going back to dragonlance again, a good example of this is the hostility/elitism shown by the various knightly orders toward each other (Solamnic Knights, Legion of Steel, and Knights of Takhissis/Neraka). When using this form of discrimination, I take care not to elevate it to nation vs. nation, but instead make certain to keep it at an organizational level of discrimination. In that respect, this form of discrimination is comparable to Coke vs. Pepsi, rival sports teams, or rival car manufacturers - but taken to an exaggerated level.
If discrimination is going to play a role in your games, there is no reason why you should make use of real-world ism's when there are a multitude of fantasy ism's you can draw upon in order to create a unique, and interesting play environment without unduely offending any player because of any RW trait they may/may not have a strong opinion on.
In a game where people play tomb robbing MurderHobos who can use magic, summon demons, worship various non-real world deities, raise the undead, and eventually become gods themselves why is it that suddenly one side bar paragraph about people with non-traditional orientations or gender identities is the thing that is going to offend someone's religious sensibilities? :/
MusicOfCreation wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Homophobia does not always relate to Christianity (although the US right-wing christians* are the most vocal, organized and vitriolic demographic in the West). Ive met quite a few homophobic gamers in my day who would spit chips at the GLBT inclusive direction dnd has taken this edition, despite the fact that it is a throw-away passage in the character building section.
If there is one thing that is true about gamers, we tend to have exaggerated reactions when it comes to changes to our beloved franchise(s)...hense the edition wars. When those changes mirror some of our RL values, I expect the reaction to be that much worse... With that being said, I would say that homophobic gamers are a growing minority within the gaming population (as most bigoted people have traditionally prefered other interests), but they are still present. This is especially true among the younger "gamer" generations.
*speaking of right-wing christians who are simultaneously homophobic and/or transphobic
Hitdice wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Etymology, linguistics, and evolution of language are some of my pet interests. As such, I am well aware of the multiple definitions of homophobia (both colloquial and official), as well as its root word "phobia" (to which multiple definitions apply, such as in the case of hydrophobia vs. arachnophobia) - and that one of those definitions is "intense fear", however that is only a partially correct definition.
More accurately homophobia is defined as:
- "An intense, and/or irrational fear, aversion, intolerance, loathing, and/or discrimination of/toward homosexuals".
I am also well aware that homophobia is considered a mental disorder in some circles, however to date - such beliefs are apocryphal. While its inclusion in the DSM-V as a mental disorder was heavily debated, AFAIK "homophobia" was eventually excluded on the grounds that it did not present with symptoms typical for a mental disorder, and presents itself with behavior typical for other forms of discrimination (racism, sexism, etc).
I agree: A more clinical definition of homophobia would reserve the word exclusively to the realms of a true phobia (fear) of homosexuals. Colloquial use however, has made the word homophobia synonymous with heterosexism (a more accurate description of the prevalent behavior). However, with that being said, while heterosexism is a more accurate word, people had been using the word homophobia to describe such behavior for decades before the (more accurate) word entered public awareness. Despite being in public vocabulary, it is still used largely as a jargon word as it is used very infrequently in colloquial language.
When I use the term, I use it in the inclusive sense, and in context with the rest of my comments, it was clear I was using the word to be synonymous with heterosexism, as I made no assumption of anyones awareness of the more accurate terminology.
FYI, ad hominem attacks only serve to weaken your argument in a debate, as it implies the author/speaker is unable to counter their "opponents" argument on its own merits, and therefore resort to personal attacks in an effort to discredit the speaker/author instead of the argument itself. As you have resorted to ad hominem attacks against my person, and as I no longer wish to derail this thread any further - I have nothing further to add regarding this particular tangent.
Edited to refine my ideas and reduce length.
I have heard a lot more people (wrongly) accuse homosexuals of being disordered than I have heard (wrongly) accuse homophobes of being disordered.
And in this very thread, a poster who's still active in it (wrongly) said that trans people are disordered. I don't know if that post's still around, but when someone calls me mentally ill I tend to remember.
Kalani wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
@Cennedi. I can see you are highly sensitive to this topic, and I will state for the record that no offense was intended or implied by my use of the word homophobic. I was speaking factually, but using the word colloquially. As I can see you are highly sensitive, I will from herein use the more accurate term "heterosexist" instead, despite it not being part of common vernacular. To that end, please replace all instances of "homopobia" in my previous statements with heterosexism, which is more clearly defined:
Heterosexism
- Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, specifically toward homosexual individuals.
- A prejudiced attitude or discriminatory behavior toward homosexuality on the basis that heterosexuality is normal and/or superior, or that homosexuality is sinful/evil/unclean/etc.
- Sometimes used as an umbrella term for discrimination toward any GLBTI individuals, and when used as such includes cis-genderism.
With that being said howver, you must understand that the reason I chose "homophobia" in place of heterosexism, was simply due to the obscurity of the word heterosexism, and the fact that most people commonly use the word homophobic, to be synonymous with the more accurate (but also more obscure) term.
In respect to making blanket statements about a section of the community - these statements are true.
1) A sizable portion of the Christian community encourages and engages in heterosexist behavior, usually on the basis of religious rationale.
2) This behavior is most prevelant among right-wing Christian conservatives within the continental US (when compared against other western countries).
3) This group is highly vocal, vitriolic, and has sizable lobbying powers and influence in US politics.
None of these things are attacks, and are simply indisputable facts. As I said above, I refuse to make any subjective statements regarding this subject due to its sensitive nature. As such, I ask that you stop making assumptions as to my opinion on the matter. If you must know - I only wish that everyone could get along and show each other courtesy, decency, and mutual respect and that all this vitriol and intolerance (on both sides of the fence) would evaporate.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
FYI, if you must know - the reason gender dysphoria was eventually included in the DSM-V was political. While few experts in the field of gender dysphoria consider it a mental disorder, they are well aware that, without proper treatment and care, those who suffer intense gender dysphoria are at extreme risk of becoming suicidal, and/or developing depression and/or several Type II mental disorders (eg. borderline personality disorder, several scitzoid and disassociative disorders, etc) due to the internal conflict.
It was the conclusion of the psychiatric experts that keeping the status quo would allow the majority of such patients to receive proper medical treatment (psychiatric, hormonal, surgical) as required by the individual, and that in many cases such treatment would be partially (or wholely) covered by health insurance. Had Gender Dysphoria been removed from the DSM-V, healthcare providers would be able to justify denying such individuals necessary medical treatments, claiming them "elective".
While the psychiatric community no longer considers gender dysphoria a mental disorder - the unanimous consensus was that such medical interventions were necessary for those who need them, and therefore required a diagnosis under current medical practices in order to qualify. Were it not for the sometimes necessary medical intervention in gender dysphoric cases, the DSM-V would have removed transgenderism, much as its previous editions removed homosexuality. I have been following this particular aspect of the DSM-V debate very closely since discussions of the DSM-V was first announced.
Adendum: Gender Dysphoria and transgenderism should not be confused with transvestism, or crossdressing. While gender dysphoric individuals engage in crossdressing behavior, the two are only superficially linked. Crossdressers self-identify as cis-gender, that is - male crossdressers self-identify as male and vice/versa. Transvestism is a subset of crossdressing, wherein the crossdressing behavior expresses itself as a fetish. The only other similarity between Crossdressers/Transvestites and transgendered individuals is the fact that both experience cis-genderist persecution.
If society got over its hangups on gender-exclusive clothing, and allowed people to wear what they want to wear - Crossdressers and Transvestites would no longer have any problems. In this idealistic senario, transgender and transsexual individuals would still have to deal with their internal/external gender conflicts, and everything that goes with it (legal, hormonal, surgical, etc).
Kalani wrote:
People who claim to "disagree with homosexuality" aren't inhuman. They just don't bring anything more substantial than personal distate to the table. It's like me saying that because brussels sprouts disgust me, cookbooks shouldn't mention them.
Nautilus wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Kalani wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
emwasick wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
In Japanese culture, it is traditionally expected that individuals place the family needs above their own. GLBTI lifestyles go against this tradition. As I understand it (and I could easily be wrong here as my knowledge of japanese GLBTI politics is sketchy at best), the discrimination toward GLBTI individuals in Japan is motivated by different reasons than it is in the West. I am lead to believe that while they are largely treated as second class citizens with few rights, the discrimination is far less violent, and comes across more in legal and workplace discrimination than it does outright assault, and hostility.
Again, take this with a grain of salt as my information is second hand at best (I have yet to delve into that particular aspect of Japanese culture, but learning about it is on my to-do list).
In respect to the issue regarding transgender legal status: The guideline is to treat them as a member of the gender they self-identify with, regardless of their current physiological/medical/legal status. If for example, a transgender individual identifies herself as female, despite not even undergoing hormone therapy - treat her as female,as thats her self-identified gender. If they self-identify as androgynous, genderqueer, or whatever...again use the terminology (and pronouns) they prefer, regardless of whats between their legs. or on their ID cards.
In respect to romantic/physical relationships with trans/intersex individuals, the cis-binary sexual orientations (gay, straight, bi) come up short. By the kinsey scale, is a pre-op MTF woman in a heterosexual, or homosexual relationship with a man? The correct answer is - heterosexual using that limited scale, as the woman is relating to her partner from a female identity, however despite this - many would still say its a homosexual relationship, prioritizing the sexual status of the transindividual and invalidating their self-identity in the process. However, as sexual and romantic attraction goes beyond the binary sex and/or gender of a person, most people familiar with transgenderism tend to use a broader definition of sexual orientation, allowing for terms such as "admirer" (cis-gender males who have sexual/romantic preference for MTF women, usually pre-op/non-op), trans-lesbian (MTF and cis-gender lesbians who are attracted to pre/post op MTF-lesbians), and pansexual (attracted to cis/trans and usually intersex people of both sexes).
Clinically, I consider myself a post-op MTF bisexual woman, but leave open the possibility that I am pansexual (despite having never been attracted to a trans/intersex individual as of yet).... In normal circles however, I simply say I am a bisexual woman as the other aspects of my identity are irrelevant for casual interaction.
Kalani wrote:
While I know you meant no offense, tranny is considered a derrogatory term in the GLBT community (but is less offensive than other terms). If you must call out a transpersons status for any reason (usually when distinguishing them from cisgender individuals), the preferred vernacular is transwoman (MTF) and transman (FTM) respectively. Such terms work regardless of whether the person is pre, post, or non-op, although in most cases, dropping the trans completely works better.
For example, as you yourself said above - you would have no issue with dating a post-op transwoman providing you found her attractive (in both personality and looks).
Kalani wrote:
You know, it's interesting how gender gets more complicated as science advances. I realize that this is really just a matter of science allowing people to express who they feel they really are and not a change in people as a result of scientific advancement, but future scientific advancement seems like it's really going to make gender much more flexibile.
I mean, what about when genetics allows us to biologically rewrite out genders? Or when artifical organs advance to the point where functional artifical wombs are a reality? Or when we can have Ghost in the Shell-style artificial bodies?
MechaPilot wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
How the heck do you disagree with homosexuality anyway? It's like disagreeing with the sun.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Nautilus wrote:
As the last thing that I write about surgery status...
Surgery status has no impact on gender identity. Some people have surgery; some do not. Some choose not to for economic reasons (the surgery is about $30k and rarely covered by insurance), some for practical reasons (like wanting biological children), some simply because they don't feel a need for it. Whether or not someone has had surgery - or hormones, or therapy - has no impact on the validity of their identity.
If a person says she is a woman, she is a woman. If he says he is a man, he is a man. It is not yours, or mine, or the President's or the court's or the media's, to question them - just to respect and recognize them.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Zappy wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Zappy wrote:
Cennedi wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Locked for VCL review.