Ce sujet est fermé
The last one I bolded is so true you don't even know. Kids who don't grow up with pile of shits for parents are more acceptable in life.
I've witnessed it first hand, one of my cousin's daughter who's 3 once listed the couples she knew, ending the list "Thiago is Uncle Mio's spouse". Said "Uncle Mio"'s homosexuality isn't a secret for anyone...well except for his mother whose obliviousness is one of science's last unexplained mysteries.
In fact the only reason one need to explain homosexuality in the first place, is because heteronormativity has been hammered into the child's head with a pile driver.
Because for a kid with no prejudices, a gay loving couple is exactly the same as a straight loving couple.
No, no it's not. Maybe it *should* be, maybe. And it's certainly no less worthy, but it's not "the same".
No, no it's not. Maybe it *should* be, maybe. And it's certainly no less worthy, but it's not "the same".
I think the previous poster is trying to point out that children tend not to notice or care about any differences unless they are told to. In my experience most young children <5yo are race-blind, gender-blind, etc.
No, no it's not. Maybe it *should* be, maybe. And it's certainly no less worthy, but it's not "the same".
Because ?
*snip*
Obviously, as a single employer dealing with a specific group of applicants, you're going to want to hire the applicant who is best qualified for the job.
But the gay men in this scenario have every right to campaign for the government to protect their rights to not be discriminated against, given that in the USA, it is still legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states. It is also their right to draw media attention and awareness to this injustice. That is, essentially, exactly the same as when people are asking for more representation in games. Nobody is saying that every single game is now obligated to include LGBT content. They are simply asking to see it more often, in games where it is appropriate (such as, for instance, games that have romance content).
Your scenario makes it sound like this is an either/or situation. It is not. Games can seamlessly include straight characters and LGBT characters. They can be appealing for a straight audience and an LGBT audience at the same time.
It also makes it sound like LGBT characters can only be included if they are somehow justified. Do you think this means that the writing would suffer if characters happened to be LGBT? That somehow gameplay would be altered? That the game would be changed in any way, other than that a few characters who would normally be presented as straight are now presented as not straight?
kinda curious on one particular issue; I have some theories, but of course, Bioware representatives have final say.
Judging from overt behavior and quotes such as "all I want is...and have a pretty girl", Anders would appear heterosexual in Origins.
What made him bisexual in 2?
Did fusion with Justice cause him to be more honest with himself?
Did Justice's lack of understanding about human reproduction affect Anders' cognitive and behavioral pattern?
kinda curious on one particular issue; I have some theories, but of course, Bioware representatives have final say.
Judging from overt behavior and quotes such as "all I want is...and have a pretty girl", Anders would appear heterosexual in Origins.
What made him bisexual in 2?
Did fusion with Justice cause him to be more honest with himself?
Did Justice's lack of understanding about human reproduction affect Anders' cognitive and behavioral pattern?
Maybe he was always bisexual, but because of his semi-recent experience with Karl he had been soured on the idea of being with a man? Only after more time had passed was he able to see men as a romantic interest again. Just because he never expressed interest in the idea of men does not mean he's not bisexual. I have a friend who is bisexual, but you'd never know it unless you knew her pretty well. She's been with the same guy for around ten years now, and never talks openly about finding women sexually attractive. That doesn't mean she's suddenly straight, just that the person she has fallen in love with happens to be a guy.
Also, heteronormative is disturbingly fun to say.
Again........ugh.... GROUP..... Anders with Oghren together in Awakening for most of the game, then come back and say Anders didn't show he liked men when they had flirtation from Anders and brush off with Oghren,
Actually some of that banter made me question if Oghren was bi himself.
Again........ugh.... GROUP..... Anders with Oghren together in Awakening for most of the game, then come back and say Anders didn't show he liked men when they had flirtation from Anders and brush off with Oghren,
Actually some of that banter made me question if Oghren was bi himself.
thought that's just trash talking.
Again........ugh.... GROUP..... Anders with Oghren together in Awakening for most of the game, then come back and say Anders didn't show he liked men when they had flirtation from Anders and brush off with Oghren,
Actually some of that banter made me question if Oghren was bi himself.
To be honest, I don't remember most of Awakening. And I've never played through it with a male warden. I was just assuming what he was saying was true. Which, I suppose, is probably not a good idea in general.
Its not trash talking, Oghren confronts Anders about staring at him. Then talk about skirts and other things are mentioned. Try listening to their words a bit more. Oghren brushed Anders off a bit, more than once. Oghren seems to know Anders is into men if you pay attention to the banter.
I play only females thru awakening and not tried a male yet.
If say a transgender girl applies for the job, as does a straight guy, and both have equal qualifications, and both desire the job strongly. With laws what they are, and discrimination in this respect pretty much acceptable anywhere to not hire, and fire people for simply being transgender, it would behoove you to hire the transgender girl. Why? Because it makes you the exception to the rule, unlike the straight white guy, she will be rejected in said situation most every time because her existence makes the person hiring them uncomfortable and the law doesn't protect them, so they can. If you don't hire the straight white guy, he probably will have very little trouble finding a different job in comparison. If you don't hire her, she is quite likely screwed, because no one else likely will either.
So if two people of equal skill show up to get hired, but one has a much larger handicap in getting hired, due to discriminatory reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job, the right thing to do is hire the person who deserves the job just as much as the other person, but unlike them, is more likely to suffer for being denied it. It is the option with the least harm that is more beneficial overall.
Ah, the "Equal Opportunities" Act. The thing that screwed my father out of his dream job and wasted years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars of his hard earned money to get the education for that job simply because he wasn't female or minority enough. 
Because ?
The straight couple being able to produce offspring comes to mind as a reason for the two couples being different.
The straight couple being able to produce offspring comes to mind as a reason for the two couples being different.
Not always, sometimes they can't without medical help and/or third party donations, or sometimes they can but don't want to...meanwhile, in some western societies, the possibility to found a family became a reality.
Not always, sometimes the can't without medical help and/or third party donations, or sometimes they can but don't want to...meanwhile, in some western societies, the possibility to found a family became a reality.
True. I should have put a term like possibly in that sentence since it is not always the case for a man and a woman to have and/or want children.
Ah, the "Equal Opportunities" Act. The thing that screwed my father out of his dream job and wasted years of his life and tens of thousands of dollars of his hard earned money to get the education for that job simply because he wasn't female or minority enough.
Transsexuals have zero protections from being hired, there is no "Equal Opportunity" laws that apply to transgender people pretty much anywhere. There is no "affirmative" action that applies to them. There is no law protecting them from being fired, or not hired at all for being transsexual. Do you have any idea what it feels like to tell your HR representative you intend to transition, and they tell you they need to talk to the people in charge to make sure that the company finds that acceptable? To wait, terrified that you might lose your job, for trying to be yourself?
I very much doubt your father lost his job to a Transsexual, I doubt very many people have. Also do you even have proof that all his job hunting in his field failed because of "Equal Opportunity." I know tons of people from all creeds that go through all the work your father did and find getting a job in their field damn near impossible. The statistics for getting the job you want associated with your degree is often pretty damn small regardless of who you are. Frankly the job market sucks, and getting a degree is simply a gamble, period.
I'm very skeptical when people blame "Equal Opportunity" for not getting a job in a shitty highly competitive market where getting such a job in the first place is damn unlikely.
I'm not saying it's most certainly not the case for your father, but I personally think, you're saying that people should not consider the truth of the job market as a transgender person when deciding to hire someone is a bit damn callous, as it pretty much makes not hiring someone because they're transgender ok.
How about this scenario. Two people apply, both are qualified, but the transgender person is more qualified, objectively so, but the person doing the hiring does not like Transgendered people, so hires the other person anyway. The transgender person can objectively prove they were more qualified, but the law says, so what. Do you find this acceptable? Is this ok? If that's not ok, is it then ok to not hire them because they are transgender in the first case? Does a transgender have to be better than the other person for it to not be ok not to hire them for being transgender?
Do you not see how complicated this is?
Transsexuals have zero protections from being hired, there is no "Equal Opportunity" laws that apply to transgender people pretty much anywhere. There is no "affirmative" action that applies to them. There is no law protecting them from being fired, or not hired at all for being transsexual. Do you have any idea what it feels like to tell your HR representative you intend to transition, and they tell you they need to talk to the people in charge to make sure that the company finds that acceptable? To wait, terrified that you might lose your job, for trying to be yourself?
I have never been employed, so I cannot say I have any idea about being in that position. Though I never claim to either.
I very much doubt your father lost his job to a Transsexual, I doubt very many people have. Also do you even have proof that all his job hunting in his field failed because of "Equal Opportunity." I know tons of people from all creeds that go through all the work your father did and find getting a job in their field damn near impossible. The statistics for getting the job you want associated with your degree is often pretty damn small regardless of who you are. Frankly the job market sucks, and getting a degree is simply a gamble, period.
I'm very skeptical when people blame "Equal Opportunity" for not getting a job in a shitty highly competitive market where getting such a job in the first place is damn unlikely.
The employers told him straight up every time he applied that the reason they couldn't hire him was because of Equal Opportunities, so yes I'd say I have proof.
I'm not saying it's most certainly not the case for your father, but I personally think, you're saying that people should not consider the truth of the job market as a transgender person when deciding to hire someone is a bit damn callous, as it pretty much makes not hiring someone because they're transgender ok.
How about this scenario. Two people apply, both are qualified, but the transgender person is more qualified, objectively so, but the person doing the hiring does not like Transgendered people, so hires the other person anyway. The transgender person can objectively prove they were more qualified, but the law says, so what. Do you find this acceptable? Is this ok? If that's not ok, is it then ok to not hire them because they are transgender in the first case? Does a transgender have to be better than the other person for it to not be ok not to hire them for being transgender?
Do you not see how complicated this is?
I never said anything about hiring or not hiring transgenders. I was actually more referring to your other paragraph I quoted but figured I should leave the one involving transgender employment there because a few parts fit the point I was addressing, mostly the " If you don't hire the straight white guy, he probably will have very little trouble finding a different job in comparison." part since my dad never found a job not only in that position but never even in that field of employment.
To answer your scenario, the person who is objectively better for the job should get that job. In your case, that would be the transgender person.
I have never been employed, so I cannot say I have any idea about being in that position. Though I never claim to either.
The employers told him straight up every time he turned in his application that the reason they couldn't hire him was because of Equal Opportunities, so yes I'd say I have proof.
I never said anything about hiring or not hiring transgenders. I was actually more referring to your other paragraph I quoted but figured I should leave the one involving transgender employment there because a few parts fit the point I was addressing, mostly the " If you don't hire the straight white guy, he probably will have very little trouble finding a different job in comparison." part since my dad never found a job not only in that position but never even in that field of employment.
To answer your scenario, the person who is objectively better for the job should get that job. In your case, that would be the transgender person.
But if neither is objectively better, is it ok to not hire the person for being transgender?
It sounds like your father went into a pretty restricted job market then, if they were all so fulled up with straight white guys that they needed to hire someone else to fill their "quota" which implies to me that these "Equal Opportunity" employers weren't really so "Equal Opportunity" as the only way they can legally say that is if, they haven't hired enough people in the first place, otherwise it's illegal and discrimination, actually I'm not sure they're allowed to say that at all period, but whatever. When discrimination happens to us, the only way we have a chance of justice is to hire lawyers and make a lawsuit out of, which may fail and put us into debt forever. Your father chose not to fight it, either because they really had not been "Equal Opportunity" and thus really did need to be less exclusionary to others, or because he didn't care enough to really put the fight to them, with lawyers and law. Which is fully understandable. He has a family and probably doesn't want to drag you all through that crap. I know it would take a lot for me to take that route.
Instead I'm more likely to accept the truth of my situation and move on. Which is basically what he did. Well until I'm literally starving, living on the street, and the only job I could get is prostitution, then I'll definitely fight. Tell me, is your father at risk of not getting any job period because of equal opportunity? Because I am.
The straight couple being able to produce offspring comes to mind as a reason for the two couples being different.
I've always been confused by this sentiment, its like the only reason people get together is to have children. From an evolutionary stand point that might have been the reason for why we started to form couples but the reason why our ancestors did something and the reason why modern humans do the same thing today are very different
The ability to produce children is such a silly way to separate gay & straight couples , particularly with IVF and other treatments that allow gay couples to have biological children.
But if neither is objectively better, is it ok to not hire the person for being transgender?
If neither is objectively better, is it okay to not hire the other person for not being transgender?
As for the rest of your post, I don't want to get the thread offtopic with personal stories more than I have so that is why I am not responding to it.
I've always been confused by this sentiment, its like the only reason people get together is to have children. From an evolutionary stand point that might have been the reason for why we started to form couples but the reason why our ancestors did something and the reason why modern humans do the same thing today are very different
The ability to produce children is such a silly way to separate gay & straight couples , particularly with IVF and other treatments that allow gay couples to have biological children.
I was just providing one example of how straight and gay couples are different. Unless there is something that prevents either partner of the straight couple from having children, they can. Meanwhile the gay couple can only have one of the partners be the parent of any future children.
Maybe he was always bisexual, but because of his semi-recent experience with Karl he had been soured on the idea of being with a man? Only after more time had passed was he able to see men as a romantic interest again. Just because he never expressed interest in the idea of men does not mean he's not bisexual. I have a friend who is bisexual, but you'd never know it unless you knew her pretty well. She's been with the same guy for around ten years now, and never talks openly about finding women sexually attractive. That doesn't mean she's suddenly straight, just that the person she has fallen in love with happens to be a guy.
Also, heteronormative is disturbingly fun to say.
So much this! 
Basically people look at your current partner and extrapolate your sexuality based on them or on comments that you've made and while I don't necessarily have an issue with this, people really need to stop being so shocked when their assumption turns out to be wrong.
You made the assumption it's not the person or character/writers fault that you were wrong.
*you in the generic form, not at someone in particular
When it comes to Anders and his sexuality, I just think of some real world examples. A good friend of mine realized she was pansexual at the age of 40. I also think of women like Meredith Baxter, who played the mom on the sitcom Family Ties. More recently, she played Ellen Rush on Cold Case. Ms. Baxter spent years struggling with her sexuality before coming out of the closet in 2009 as a lesbian. At the age of 62, no less.
Years ago, my best friend from high school surprised the crap out of me by admitting that, at the age of 21, he was bisexual and in an intimate relationship with a man (at that point.) He didn't suddenly have this huge personality change, he was the same guy I had known for years beforehand. Well, I take that back. One thing did change about him: He was much more happy and comfortable with himself as a person after he came out. He did eventually get married to a woman and has a great little boy with her, but he's comfortable in his own skin as a bisexual man in a committed heterosexual relationship.
Oh and that reminds me: Bi/pansexual folks can have monogamous relationships just like straight and gay people can. I'm sure that the LGBT community knows this, but it is worth mentioning to some of the more confused folks in general. I didn't suddenly become straight when I married my husband. My friend didn't become straight when he married his wife either. Nor does a pan/bisexual person being with someone in a homosexual relationship make them gay.
Anders not talking about his sexual preference to the Warden didn't make him straight, or gay. He was always bisexual/pansexual.
But if neither is objectively better, is it ok to not hire the person for being transgender?
If neither is objectively better, is it okay to not hire the other person for not being transgender?
I wasn't a huge fan of his latest special, but I did remember the that line that you quoted, which was from a couple of years ago. It is so true.
Modifié par BioWareMod04, 10 septembre 2014 - 09:18 .
Quote from Deleted Post Removed
It looks to me like you're avoiding the question.
Well, I am not. I am merely answering a question with an equally valid question.
Retour en haut