Gender. Is it offensive?

[Wuvvums]

It's one thing to have a gag character. It's another thing to make a gag out of something like gender. It's pretty similar to the character who decided to play themselves off as gay with a lisp; we banned them because we found such gags to be bigoted and offensive. Likewise turning a "trap" into a gag is pretty harmful as well.

[Scout]

In that case, those characters would be banned. I don't see what the issue is.

I would also prefer that you didn't try to speak for me and my community.

[Harmonic]

Why is this getting so hostile?

[DeadofPool]

Ignore this

[Harmonic]

This isn't even close to social justice, it's... getting really agressive for anyone to post a counter-point to those supporting this thread.

Like... it's gone from being a discussion to a one-sided arguement where you're met with hostility. That's pretty uncalled for.

[Scout]

I'm trying to be civil with all of my points, and I'm fine with people posting counter-points. I just seem to have many counter-counter-points. *shrugs*

[Esthrunil]

I'm just writing a post to say:

I support allowing people to choose the model for their character based on their gender expression or body-type, depending on the relevance to the character respectively. As someone who identifies as both non-binary and a trans-woman and who would like to be able to accurately play a character who isn't purely defined by the strict dichotomy going on re: man/woman character models.

I personally was against a specific type of character being played, and I don't feel that seeking to outright prohibit people from letting gender expression/body-type have a part in the representation that they use for their character on the server adequately tackles the reasons I was against it for.

I also don't feel that restricting characters to, "What gender they identify as they must use the model of," because there are some people who don't necessarily define their outward persona based on what gender they identify as (many because they identify as something we don't have an easy representation of).

[Spiky]

This is moving into personal attack territory. Answers were given really early on in the thread, and it's now spiralling off of the initial topic and damaging it's purpose more than it's helping. There has been made some very eloquent and well-written responses, but we all need to calm down now and not stop our ears with our fingers and yell as loud as we can.

We're all civil and friendly here. Nobody wants to harm anyone here.

[SachikoMaeda]

If you're reading posts and going




It's time to chillax and look back to the kitten. Do we need a new kitten? I think we need another kitten.

[Krent]

I do not have TRP2, or any addons. I don't like addons. I find them clunky and intrusive and a bit unnecessary. I should not have to download and install TRP2, or any other related type of addon, in order to get a full RP experience. Saying "just work around it with a TRP description!" should never be an answer for anything, really. Because not everyone here uses the same addons, nor should they be pressured / coerced into it.

On the issue on trans* persons and how they would feel about this....I, uhhh....actually I have no idea. I don't know, nor will pretend to know, what trans* persons feel and think on this issue. And because I don't know, I won't try to talk and act on their behalf. I won't call this or that "offensive to trans*" persons, because I am not a trans* person and am not able to make that call.

They can speak for themselves. I want them to speak for themselves, because I want them to feel comfortable, respected, and confident in their own agency to do so.

I believe no one should speak for anyone else. Even if a person identifies as a certain identity, they should be recognized as an individual and not placed into a certain mindset. Not everyone of one race, sexual orientation, or gender construction thinks, feels, and acts the same way; so why do we make blanket-rules of "this might be offensive to X group, and therefore is not allowed?"

That's what always bothers me about this community. Sometimes, people act like they have a monopoly over a certain identity, and try to speak for the whole of everyone. "As an X, I find this bad, and therefore it should always be banned." Well, that's good and everything, but even if you are an X, you do not speak for every X in existence.

And, who knows. Some of us might be an X, but--for one reason or another--we don't want to publicly identify this as such. Some of us want to keep our private lives private, and do not wish to bare ourselves to strangers on the internet. Yet, because of that, our opinions end up "diminished" in the face of people who have no problem in hoisting the flag of identity of others.

I've felt so...trapped, at times, here. People will discuss a certain "controversial topic," saying things like "As a person with X," or "as a person who suffers from Y," and the like. And I, too, am a person with X that's suffering from Y, but I'll completely disagree with what they're saying.

So then, I'm faced with a dilemma; do I also come out as a person with X, suffering from Y? Do I really want random people on the internet knowing that about me? Considering the nature of gossip and petty rumor-mongering, do I want to give people fuel to misconstrue stuff about me?

I always end up saying "no," to all of that. But then, when I do, I end up cutting myself out of the conversation--because without publicly identifying as an X, I lose any and all authority to speak on it, even if I am one.

What am I getting at with all of this?

I don't think rules should be made in the manner of "this might be offensive to ... " Nor do I believe certain characters, behaviors, and RP types should be categorized into "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

On the topic relating directly to trans* characters, or gender-fluid individuals, there seems to be a tendency to classify them into "one of the good ones" and "unacceptable and offensive." And that bothers me, on a personal level. Because what if an individual part of a minority isn't recognized as "one of the good ones?" Then they're told to "shape up" to the narrowly-defined guidelines placed on them by a group of people with higher social privilege, and that in itself is a form of persecution.

Like, just briefly--I knew and regularly conversed with a gay man who had a lisp back in college. I don't know why he had a lisp, but he did He's not into RP, but if he was, and he wanted to make a character like himself--adopting his own IRL speech patterns and mannerism into his character--he might be told he's not "acceptable," and "offensive." Not one of the "good ones." And then he might be told he'll have to "change" and "shape up" in order to be permitted to simply be in the community. All because other people--many outside of his own demographic and sexual identity--decided it had to be that way.

Is that right?

I don't know if it is. I understand we want to prevent offensive stereotypes from dotting the RP world. But, I feel that those individual cases should be dealt on by a case-by-case basis. They need to be carefully examined, analyzed, and discussed on by multiple parties--GMs, forum helpers, and even members of the whole community, if needed.

Now--to answer the topic at hand.

In any situation, I (for better or worse) lean towards one thing; player agency. If we have a choice between opening up options or restricting them, I'm always going to lean towards opening up those options. I know that's not the correct thing to do in every situation, but that's how I come down on things.

Ergo, I think players should have the option to choose the character model that best fits the gender construction of their character. If someone wants to use a female character model for a character who was born a male, they should be able to do so.

Just because a few people abused it in the distant past should not impede those in the future.

Sachi seems to know what's she's doing. But, even if Doran ends up being a wildly offensive stereotype...well, I can deal with it by not RP'ing with Doran. I won't demand the community to delete Female-Model Doran from existence just because he doesn't meet my standards.

In conclusion, I leave this in the hands of Heavy D and The Boyz.

Spoiler:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6JT1-P5lmQ&index=62

[DeadofPool]

I think Krent just posted the most based argument I've ever seen.

Spoiler:

[Laersect]

Krent pretty much sums up my perspective on the matter. We've got Tolerance as one of our main selling points for the server, for goodness sake. I'm hoping we can give this a shot. As I suggested earlier, if we want quality control on the matter, a Miscellaneous Application Subforum would be the perfect means of doing just that.

[Delta]

I belong to the group that supports sticking to biological gender models and emoting any extrusions, should they be applicable. All the points I agree with resoundingly have been made on the first page, so I'll just emphatically echo those. It is trading one extreme for another, and you will be obliged to describe your character's incongruities anyway, so it makes sense to choose the model that best describes biological gender and work from there.

This doesn't have a thing to do with tolerance. Nobody is being oppressed or marginalised. I see people scoffing at the importance of transparency, though, and begrudging the use of literary devices to convey their characters. If you're here at CotH to roleplay, making things as simple and easy to understand as possible for your fellow roleplayers should be one of your top priorities, right? Of course, you can try to beguile the reader, but it's not particularly sporting if you're using model misconceptions to deceive your audience.

[Laersect]

Well, I'm sorry that you think that what we're trying to argue for is for the sake of deceiving our audience. But that's largely not the intention.

For me, personally. It's a matter of comfort and convenience. I find it easier to emote, describe and work with a female model, for my Main (and only) character. Yes, I do feel unhappy, hurt and excluded because I'm essentially being told in the nicest way possible, "No one gets to do that. So get in line and cope." The reasons *do* seem intolerant. And the reasons for it being in place seem silly and arbitrary.

'It's easier for us to categorize' isn't a good reason in my eyes. I shouldn't even need to explain why.

'There's always TRP' isn't a good reason in my eyes. Not everyone has it, and even less actually read them half the time unless they're writhing in miserable boredom. And even then, misconceptions occur.

'Someone ruined it years ago, so no one gets to do it' isn't a good reason in my eyes. It was an old issue. --Not only is it an old issue, but it was a single person that brought on the wrath of the community over the matter. Placing a dead-locked rule on the entirety of the community over it is just mind-boggling and over-kill.

But I've rambled on and on about that already in earlier posts. For me, if the rule stays: I can't RP on CotH. My reasons for such are explained in earlier posts. It sucks, but I just... can't.

[DeadofPool]

Krent took everything I wanted to say while I was biting my tongue and trying not to rage.

Go ahead and disagree, but I think Krent literally put it the best. Out of anyone in this thread, for or against it. And made way more valid points than anyone against it.
Soz, not soz.