Another fun little “gender in games” article: “Why I Hacked Donkey Kong For My Daughter.”
When talking about differences of the physical capabilities of the genders (yes we all know when it comes to brute strength that guys tend to own that field ). I think the bigger issue with games in that field is not gender but with body types endomorph ectomorph mesomorph.
For the future record, there’s a related discussion currently ongoing at:
Pulling from the high school thread, as @Phoenixred019 has asked that this discussion not take over the thread:
@2Ton: I don’t think @FairyGodfeather said you were saying anything was “wrong or right.” He said you were judging people’s gender expression. And you were, even if you weren’t using moral language like “wrong or right” in that judgement – see above where you said you didn’t get how it was “acceptable” for a man to look like a woman and “still be considered straight somehow,” or when you expressed “hate for makeup” on anyone, male or female.
Those are judgements. Saying it’s “just my opinion” or “I’m just using my own views” or “I just call it like I see it” doesn’t change that you’re judging. You’re 100% entitled to your opinions and judgements, and you’re welcome to express them on this forum… and other people are welcome to respond to them, including the response that your judgements are wrong.
When you say e.g. “I assume [straight guys] value your masculinity at some extent so people can tell you’re a guy,” I’d also suggest that you consider whether that assumption is wrong, i.e. factually incorrect. Guys who wear makeup or women’s clothes are often if not usually straight (in the sense of “attracted to women”), value their masculinity, and the rest of it. Look at (among others) Eddie Izzard, Robert Smith, and Ed Wood.
You don’t have to change your assumption just because some of us think it’s mistaken, of course. But take a minute to try to see it from the other side of the tracks. For example, you argue that you “didn’t say anything about transgender” people; and @FairyGodfeather didn’t say that you had, but he did say that the “rigid gender categories” that you’re using are exactly the kind of thing that have destructive effects on trans people. You seemed to think he was accusing you of hating on trans people, but that’s not what he was saying. He was pointing out that strong, wrong assumptions (even by non-hateful people) can be as damaging as actual hate.
“It’s not worth talking about” – one of the principles of CoG is that gender stuff is worth talking about, because otherwise the gender assumptions that hurt people stay unchallenged. So please keep right on talking about what you think, but be ready for it to be questioned.
@2Ton
I never said that you were a bigot. It is something that you are ignorant about though and you’re clinging on desperately to that ignorance and not listening to what I’m saying. To me it’s like you’re saying “the sky is green, the sky is green” and I’m saying “no you’re wrong, the sky is not green” which isn’t the best analogy but it’s the one I have.
Sexuality is what gender you are attracted to. You are straight if you are attracted only to the opposite sex and not to the same sex. That has absolutely nothing to do with your gender expression or what you wear. No amount of wearing makeup, putting on women’s (or men’s) clothes, will change your sexuality.
Straight=Only attracted to opposite sex.
Gay=Only attracted to same sex.
Bisexual=Attracted to both. (Not neccessarly in equal measure).
Yes, you can also have sex with the same gender and be straight, just as you can have sex with the opposite gender and be gay. Gay people can be married for many years, have children and come out in later life, just as some straight people work in the porn industry and have sex with the same sex for money.
Gender is a different issue.
Can you at least see that what you wear does not influence who you are attracted to?
"I was just talking about male cross-dressers who resemble females. I dont have hate against them at all. "
I didn’t say you hated them. I am saying that you’re using the wrong words and I’m trying to explain what the right words are. Because using the wrong words is harmful, and spreading ignorance is harmful, and you are wrong.
“I dont wanna get into gender stuff because like I said it’s not worth talking about and seems like every person who wants to talk about is is so quick to make assumptions if you dont see it their way.”
If it’s not worth talking about why do you keep talking? To me it is worth talking about, and you’re right it is personal.
I am sorry if you see what I said as an attack against you. It wasn’t intended that way, just as I’m aware that you didn’t mean anything bad by what you said.
I don’t usually get involved in these types of conversations, but some things just irk me to no end.
I’m going to have to point out that there’s a difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction. It’s not that uncommon that someone is, say, bi-romantic while still being heterosexual. You can find someone attractive and still have no desire whatsoever to have sex with them.
Anyway, more on topic, the choice to cross-dress has nothing to do with your romantic or sexual preferences. Heck, I used to cross-dress all the time. It was fun. It’s not like I was trying to pick up girls while pretending to be a guy. Think of it as just another way of expressing yourself, like any other style of dress.
@CS_Closet You’re completely right. I was trying to keep the language simple and I erred in doing so. I edited the above post so many different times and I cut chunks out of it and I know I lost a lot in writing it.
I definitely got it wrong in my simplifications and I’m sorry if I offended you. I’m sorry for irking you.
I didn’t think I would be understood if I started getting into the differences between sexual and romantic attraction. That it’s possible to be a biromantic asexual, for instance. That you can be bisexual, yet only interested in romantic relationships with one gender.
That human attraction and sexuality are extremely nuanced and a binary scale doesn’t really work.
@FairyGodfeather
It’s cool. No offense was taken. It’s just one of those things that gets overlooked far more often than it should. Grouping both types of preferences under the same term is the root of a lot of confusion for some people, so I feel the need to add a clarification wherever possible.
What I’ve noticed in discussions like this, is that there has developed a new orthodoxy on matters of gender and sexuality, based on modern liberal social movements. And I find myself at something of a disadvantage when it comes to discussing how to factor these into games, because I seldom agree with any of it. To give a few rough illustrations:
- There is often said to be a divide between sex and gender, where the former is anatomical and the latter social. I’m more of a realist about gender, so I’d say there’s one’s anatomical sex, one’s intrinsic psychological gender, and then there’s the social expectations.
- Transgenderism is held to be a viable ‘Third gender’, whereas I’d hold it to be a defect in foetal development of the brain, akin to how hermaphroditism is with regards to the body.
- I don’t believe asexuality exists, or, rather, exists to anywhere near as much as is oft claimed. This may have something to do with the fact that I don’t separate romance from sexual attraction, as many people I’ve seen who identify themselves as asexual do.
- Gender-roles are frequently held as being oppressive or destructive. I couldn’t disagree more.
The list could go on.
Now, I’m sure that there will be people reading it who disagree with me on these matters, which is fine, but I’d hope they don’t read this with a sneer or with anger, for I do not think holding these views constitute bigotry, and more importantly: I do not think I would be the only person reading these games to hold such, or similar such, positions.
My cause for mentioning this is not to be contrarian or belligerent, but rather to highlight that there are genuine disagreements on the fundamentals of these matters. Because my concern is that if these disagreements are ignored, we’ll end up with individuals not recognising the different camps of thought, resulting on head-on collisions of assumptions. It should not be the case that the moment disagreement in these matters arise, one side brands the other as being automatically wrong, or even considers their opponent to be quasi-immoral in their stance.
Just to make sure I’m not being misconstrued, let me give a few examples:
- There is some antipathy regarding the representation of Transgenderism in games. I think that this relies upon the assumption that such is a real ‘Third option’; whereas, anyone closer to my perspective on these matters would consider Transgenderism to be an unfortunate rarity or disability (and to clarify, I use such wording without pejorative connotations) - In which case, calls for greater representation become somewhat superfluous.
- Likewise, there is the matter of CoG’s policy of ‘Gender Inclusivity’. This seems to mean a different thing for each camp of thought: The modern orthodoxy which considers gender to be a social construct would judge Gender Inclusivity to mean ‘Each sex is presented with similar options’, whereas a gender realist like myself would see it as ‘The perspective of each gender is available’.
- Gender roles may run the risk of appearing sexist or un-inclusive when they appear in games, but I would contend that this relies upon one having adopted the position that they are artificial relics. If one supposes that they are determined, to a degree, by the essential nature of ones gender, and that they serve a purpose, then one would be less inclined to omit them from affecting one’s game.
I hope I’ve made my point clear: That it would be erroneous for each camp of thought on matters of gender and sexuality to fail to recognise the presence of the other, even if they are convinced that their camp is correct. Because, how can one hope to talk of what a game ought to feature in these regards, if the individuals involved with the games are not clear that there are radically different underlying assumptions to their positions?
@Drazen, I think it would be pretty hard for either camp “to fail to recognise the presence of the other” on the CoG forum. Aren’t debates between them one of its most persistent features?
Similarly, I can’t imagine it will be news to the “orthodox” that there’s a rival, gender essentialist orthodoxy out there. For most of them, their daily lives are those of heretics in a world that operates on exactly the principles you just described: gender roles follow naturally from biology and deviance from them is unnatural; being transgender is an “unfortunate” result of a “defect,” etc. Those may feel like views in need of defence on CoG, given the views of the founders and some of the mods. When we turn off the screen, though, most of the world continues to take them for granted.
Do you consider “essentialist” a fair label, by the way – perhaps versus “constructivist” for those of us who believe that it’s best to treat gender as a social construct? I’m afraid I can’t join you in using “realist,” and it would be useful to have a shorthand that we can agree on.
As with most serious questions of justice, it’s going to be hard for people who have strong commitments on either side to read each others’ words without anger. Side A perceives Side B as justifying something incredibly damaging and unjust; Side B sees Side A as wrong-headedly accusing people of injustice. It would be almost inhuman for both sides not to feel anger.
The challenge, if we’re to remain a community, is to express ourselves without letting that anger lead us into incivility. I appreciate the civility and lack of belligerence with which you’ve expressed your views – even though I find some of them (particularly the comments on trans people) highly unjust.
I see that you’re still referring to being transgender as a disability and saying that it’s a defect.
Why does it matter to you how people label themselves? Asexual people do exist, including those who have romantic interests. But really, why does it matter to you?
You appear to be muddled with your terminology in referring to "“Transgenderism is held to be a viable ‘Third gender’” and assuming that it requires a third option. Most transgender people identify as either transmale or transfemale.
You say “Gender-roles are frequently held as being oppressive or destructive. I couldn’t disagree more.”
But that’s because you’re a straight cismale and you’re speaking from a position of privilege. I’m not saying that they’re always destructive. I’m not saying that those who like their gender roles shouldn’t embrace them fullheartedly. But they do not have any right to impose those values on other people.
Because imposing those values on other people and the lack of acceptance is one of the reasons why the trans suicide rates are so high. It’s why the murder rates are so high. It’s why transgender people are more likely to be homeless, more likely to be unemployed. It’s why such a simple action as going to the bathroom can be one fraught with danger and judgement.
Are you saying that that’s not destructive? Are you saying that’s not oppressive?
I could quote from the blog about Choice of Games gender inclusivity policy but you might claim I’d be taking the words out of context. Better to have one of them to speak up in that regards.
Have you played the official hosted games? How many of them have separate paths depending on your gender and impose gender roles? Choice of the Vampire? Which others? I suppose Choice of Romance has you in a dress and curtseying. Well not you, I’m sure you’d never do something like that.
Why must you drag me into this? now your calling me ignorant… again. I said it’s not straight. it as in their actions. I never said they are gay 100% of the time. I find what they are doing to be gay, doesnt mean I labeled them to be gay or bisexual.
I also feel what you say to be ignorant because your quick to assume and put your own definition behind my words and I dont like your way of handling things as it seems like your trying to publicly attack me for seemingly no reason.
I know what sexual orientation is but you can do gay things without being gay, you can never know if a person is truly gay, bisexual, or straight, and I believe actions speak louder than words, when I see that I think gay if there is no reason(besides style) behind why they are dressing like that when they are a guy. They have the right to be androgynous but I also have the right to assume they must not be straight, right? never seen a law saying im ignorant because I judged someone.
and please dont start with the “You have no right to judge anyone’s gender expression” I have a mind own my own, and EVERYONE judges. whether it be good or bad. You judged me too and you dont even know me. you keep saying that im ignorant about this and that when you dont know my situations. bit ironic. So I cant judge anyone? but your some higher power now, who can lay judgement on me or whoever you want?
I find you very hostile because I thought we privately said we wouldnt continue this, I even said I dont wanna do this I hate this topic and gender related topics because it’s lame I hate gender related topics because I know my views wont change, and pretty much everyone who brings up this subject is way too personal to be discussing it.
Though I will admit I do not like people who undergo plastic surgery(Idk if sex change counts as that but I count it as the same thing), without a serious reason, so by default I do not like most transgenders(KEYWORD MOST), Im not coming from a place of hate, it’s because of my own morals and values. Where I believe all people have natural beauty and in this time where alot of people have low self esteem and are so insecure I think it spreads a very negative message to just go out and change your body like that, just so you feel more comfortable. Im sure most people are uncomfortable or insecure about their bodies in some way but they have the balls to not alter their bodies and sweep their problem under the rug like nothing happened.
I think what this topic boils down to you want a tolerant world, when humans are all intolerant to an extent(I doubt you tolerate pedophiles). This isnt some Disney movie. People judge others all the time like I said, and because someone doesnt understand or perhaps like a group of people you may sympathize or empathize with doesnt make them ignorant.
@Havenstone I’m not sure that is the case that the camps are recognised, at least not clearly. For I do worry that the New Orthodox who seem to band together with greater zeal may not recognise the more… sedentary (perhaps?) “Old” Orthodox as a legitimate contending camp, so much as an outdated or ignorant position. Similarly, I fear the Old Orthodox might understate the New Orthodox as being a position for air-heads and hacks, and not feel the need to engage in discourse.
Or, perhaps my phrasing didn’t quite hit the nail on the head. For what I’m trying to get at is that both sides take each other on surface value, weighing up conclusions rather than premises. Either way, we need to be far more open about our underlying principles are on these matters, before we can start saying “this or that ought to happen”.
And Essentialist vs. Constructivist would be a fine label, to be sure. I’d used Realist as opposed to Anti-Realist, defining the former as ‘Gender is a real part of human psychology’ and the latter as ‘Gender is an artificial construct in human psychology’, but if those terms raise the wrong connotations, I see no fault in adopting yours.
Still, despite the importance each side places onto the issue, and how each sees the other as being a societally-damaging force, we should try to avoid discussions resorting into trying to force the other into submission. The solution to that is to make clear the different assumptions which are at play, and engage with them, rather than just declaring “This is wrong” or “This is bigoted”.
@FairyGodfeather You have just epitomised the head-on collision of assumptions which I mentioned and argued against. Regardless of how emotively attached you are to your views on this matter, do try to recognise that my disagreement is not just one of a “straight cismale […] arguing from a position of privilege”.
How on Earth are we supposed to discuss how games should handle these matters, if you react like that to a disagreement over core ideals and classifications?
Ya, this is hard topic to get into and I would need lots of time I dont have to properly touch on everything but I really dont wanna continue it like I told fairy privately.
Edit: Im done with this subject.
I am saying that you’re ignorant about issues in regards to sexuality and gender expression because that is how you’re coming across. There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant about certain things as long as you’re willing to learn. I don’t mean it as an offensive word.
I am ignorant in regards to sports. I’m ignorant in regards to fashion. There are huge areas in which I am ignorant. This doesn’t make me a bad person.
This is not an attack. I’m not angry at you. I am not intending to upset you. I am completely baffled by some of your responses. I just don’t understand.
So rather than assuming, I’ll ask.
Are you using gay as a word that means something different from how I’m using it? Are you using it to refer to actions and certain behaviours? What are gay things to you?
I asked you if you wanted to take things private you said no. I asked if you wanted to make a new thread, you said no. But you keep posting and expecting me to be the one to drop the subject.
You’re not coming from a place of hate, you just dislike most transgender people? How does that even work?
Out of pure curiosity, Drazen, how do you know your disagreement doesn’t arise at least partially from you being a straight cismale arguing from a position of privilege"? Are you perhaps not one of those things?
@Chrysoula It might be a cause, it might guide me in that direction, or it might have no consequence whatsoever. I spend a lot of time re-evaluating my opinions, and I’m often debating them with others, so I’d like to think I’ve refined them to be based on reason, not dogmatism.
Besides, each side could level the same argument against the other. I could easily accuse @FairyGodfeather of only thinking what he does because of his association, or identification, with alternative crowds. But I don’t think this sort of approach gets us very far, in reasonable discussions.
@FairyGodfeather There are points at which you need to let people bow out of a conversation and stop attempting to breach it with them. Your conversation with @2Ton has reached that point I believe, and it would be best to let it rest.
@FairyGodfeather
I guess I did post again but I had assumed you posted after we agreed not to because I hadnt seen the other post so I thought you were going against what we said to start trouble, that is my fault. I am sorry for that.
But like I said im done. If I get into it id be explaining this for days to come and I dont like the subject because it’s stupid, All it comes to is it’s my opinions, why do I have to explain myself to you? and vice versa when nothing will change, plus all the last times ive talked to you it comes to that with me being called ignorant. So I see no reason to do this with a subject that is so sensitive and I dont have time to do 8000+ posts all the time to define every single thing when in the end nothing will change.
It will just be a huge waste of time I dont have and spam CoG.