671 réponses à ce sujet

[78stonewobble]

There is no indication that health care or mental care is for profit in the citadel space in fact i recall seeing the exact opposite. Second it assumes that transitioning is a long and dangerous process what if it isn't? Hell major near death trauma can be cured with simply applying medi-gel, which in the past would have require surgery to heal and months of rehabilitation to heal. So again there is evidence to suggest the process wouldn't be difficult or costly. 

 

I think "transgender" will become a thing of the past because of technology, if they can genetically make you whatever gender you want are you trans? If you are XX or XY genetically regardless of the gender of your birth are you not fully your current gender? And if we imagine a more enlightened era wouldn't this ability to change gender just be viewed as essential to a healthy self identity?

 

So if we want to have start a conversation on social issue which sci-fi fiction has been doing since its inception so very much in line with the genre would it not be better to have a discussion about gender in a different way? Maybe we encounter people who have no set gender but go about life changing their gender every 5 or so years. Someone who was A gender at birth but is now B gender but it is only revealed in the story because we meet a friend of the squad mate and they slip with a pronoun because they are recalling a past event they did together. Or a squadmate/crewmember says the one thing they miss about being a X gender was the plumbing in the space suit was more comfortable. just an offhand remark that makes mention their current gender hasn't always been the same.

 

I think this is a better way to introduce gender identity to mass effect than transplanting directly an issue from the present and make no adjustments to the issues. It will feel out of place if technology does nothing to help with gender identity. 

 

I think a fantasy setting and a contemporary setting or near future setting makes sense to directly talk about transgender issues but in a future where gender reassignment is 100% functional, safe and not just cosmetic will there be transgender issues? People don't do gender reassignment surgery today because there are major health risks with surgery and hormone therapy. But if these risks are near zero who is going to say no "I don't want to be the gender I identify as?

 

Or again... The technology could also be there to change the mind to fit the body, rather than vice versa, or atleast make people accept their body or that line of tech could be the only line. 

 

Or people could just not be having kids with atleast the genetical issues anymore... 

[In Exile]

So a person either has to be willing to bang everyone or be willing to include trans folks if their willing to bang.. let's say, people with blond hair...or they hate trans people. 

 

This thread is really starting to make me wonder how many SJWs force themselves to have sex with people they don't like out of fear of "discriminating" against them. 

 

There's a pretty big dividing line between "I am not sexually attracted to [x]" and "I wouldn't not date person with identifiable trait [x]". It's not homophobic to be straight, for example. Talking about gender expression is different because you get into the range of actual physical traits here, not just gender and personality. 

 

Let's use a different example. If you're straight, and the topic is dating various people of the same sex, it's weird to say "I won't date black men/women", because it's not as if you'd date any man/woman (as the case may be) because of sexual attraction. It's just weird to point out what's ultimately an irrelevant disqualifier. 

[In Exile]

Or again... The technology could also be there to change the mind to fit the body, rather than vice versa, or atleast make people accept their body or that line of tech could be the only line. 

 

The idea of mind control drugs seems way, way more objectionable than surgery. You can apply that type of logic to anything and everything (including happiness!), based on whatever social idea is in at the time. 

[AlanC9]

The idea of mind control drugs seems way, way more objectionable than surgery. You can apply that type of logic to anything and everything (including happiness!), based on whatever social idea is in at the time.

Suddenly I'm thinking of the qunari. Or Brave New World.

Is it OK if the person chooses to modify his own personality? I suppose having a free choice in such matters would not be realistic in most RL cultures, though.

[o Ventus]

The idea of mind control drugs seems way, way more objectionable than surgery. You can apply that type of logic to anything and everything (including happiness!), based on whatever social idea is in at the time. 

 

Well, they have it in Blade Runner. Except they're less outright "mind control" and more emotional influencers. Like, literal happy or sad pills. The potential for abuse is never really brought up in the movie, but it is in the book the movie is based on.

[In Exile]

Well, they have it in Blade Runner. Except they're less outright "mind control" and more emotional influencers. Like, literal happy or sad pills. The potential for abuse is never really brought up in the movie, but it is in the book the movie is based on.

 

My point is just that once we start talking about "curing" the mind, we're not really talking about the same sort of issue. We're talking about a combination of social expectations and values with outliers. We could "cure" things like racism, or selfishness, or aggressiveness, with the right kind of phlembotium mind control drug. 

 

To the extent our society values self-determination, there's no real level of technological phlebotinum where the moral answer of "fundamentally change the other person" is an easy answer. Though it raises fascinating questions - like what if people decide they do want to fundamentally change themselves, which is well put by Alan:

 

Suddenly I'm thinking of the qunari. Or Brave New World.

Is it OK if the person chooses to modify his own personality? I suppose having a free choice in such matters would not be realistic in most RL cultures, though.

 

Yeah. I think that's a fascinating question to ask. 

 

Also, on the technology point - and this is a question born of my pure ignorance - is it even true that all transgendered persons want to physical transition? I honestly don't know. If the answer is no, then the fact such technology could hypothetically exist doesn't actually address the acceptance issue at all. A game could still confront it - in fact confront it even more directly - by asking the audience to accept that some people have a particular view of themselves.

[o Ventus]

My point is just that once we start talking about "curing" the mind, we're not really talking about the same sort of issue. We're talking about a combination of social expectations and values with outliers. We could "cure" things like racism, or selfishness, or aggressiveness, with the right kind of phlembotium mind control drug. 

 

 

I know, I'm just stating a sort of fun fact.

[Dean_the_Young]

You are the one who put emphasis on the drama surrounding "questions on whether they had been deceived." As regards to what they actually do in your scenario, the person isn't really being deceptive, so framing it that way basically requires thinking in terms of the stereotype to even make sense. And I was pointing out that that's a pretty uncomfortable stereotype, as the 'drama' doesn't always end with mean words. But I doubt you would suggest that as a roleplaying option as well.
 
 

 

Emphasis? It was a throw-away reference to a potential reaction to the reveal. It wasn't even the subject of its own sentence.

 

I also disagree that feeling mislead upon a discovery requires thinking in terms of a stereotype, since what happens is, by context, at worst a lie of ommission that could apply to any number of concepts where the reasons for a 'no' are not shared and so a misunderstanding is perpetuated.

 

 

That's probably right. But you could always surprise me.

Why would I want to?

 

When you're as intent on projecting hidden messages regardless of actual content as the people who feel one trans is too many, I'd give you the same deferrence as them. If any perception of controversy is too much, you aren't interested in the presence- only the absence of it.

[Abramsrunner]

No.

[Dean_the_Young]

There's a pretty big dividing line between "I am not sexually attracted to [x]" and "I wouldn't not date person with identifiable trait [x]". It's not homophobic to be straight, for example. Talking about gender expression is different because you get into the range of actual physical traits here, not just gender and personality. 

 

Let's use a different example. If you're straight, and the topic is dating various people of the same sex, it's weird to say "I won't date black men/women", because it's not as if you'd date any man/woman (as the case may be) because of sexual attraction. It's just weird to point out what's ultimately an irrelevant disqualifier. 

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'd have to disagree. With the way certain social pressures are going- where a trans who wants to be a woman is supposed to be treated and addressed as woman in every relevant way- there will be a need for that qualifier. Because if the proper term for a trans woman with male genetilia is woman, with no signaling forced on her, then people who are interested in women without male genetilia are going to have to make the distinctions themselves when signalling through whatever the courtship ritual is, be it tinder or match.com or otherwise.

 

Interested in 'women' will no longer necessarily be sufficient, since the category contains ambiguous numbers of non-candidates. New expressions of distinction will emerge to both signal intent and allow early screening to avoid embarassment or undesired encounters. It could be a transition from 'women' to 'women without dicks', and certainly there will be people who judge expressing such qualifiers as bigoted/discriminatory, but as long as there's a need for such discriminatory factors- like, you know, people's personal orientations- you'll continue to have the friction between 'trans women are women and indistinguishable from any other women' and, well, situations where they're not.

 

The onus of signalling may switch- that lesbians or straight men have to define their presence rather than trans women hold a trans label- and the very act of signaling preference may come under attack as bigoted, but people will need signaling as long as there's any sort of engagement and courtship practices before relationships.

[Dean_the_Young]

My point is just that once we start talking about "curing" the mind, we're not really talking about the same sort of issue. We're talking about a combination of social expectations and values with outliers. We could "cure" things like racism, or selfishness, or aggressiveness, with the right kind of phlembotium mind control drug. 

 

To the extent our society values self-determination, there's no real level of technological phlebotinum where the moral answer of "fundamentally change the other person" is an easy answer. Though it raises fascinating questions - like what if people decide they do want to fundamentally change themselves, which is well put by Alan:

 

 

Yeah. I think that's a fascinating question to ask. 

 

Another aspect of the 'fundamentally changing someone' that always gets me is 'who' makes the decision, and what's the criteria? The idea of pre-birth transitioning- where magic phletomium standards allow people to predict what the person's inner gender is before they even have a mind- makes me incredibly uneasy. Not only for where I stand on the concept of gender identity, but that such standards are ripe for misuse and innaccuracy.

 

To me, it calls to mind some trans advocates who's response to any child questioning their sexuality or gender norms during youth is to advocate immediate and total transition. That's disturbing to me because, having listened to some arguments in justification, they didn't sound like arguments of transcending cultural biases of gender norms- they were arguments to rigidly enforce them. This boy doesn't like masculine things and so must be a girl, this girl isn't a tomboy she's a boy in the wrong body, chop chop post haste.

 

That sort of arbitrary high-handedness terrifies me, and it wouldn't get better in abstract with mind control drugs or perfect transition. I wouldn't have qualified for my gender growing up, as if there's a 'qualification' for that, and I'm quite comfortable in it- I was just far outside the norm for my peers, and didn't become passably normal until sometime in.

 

For me, a transition should be a deliberate decision by someone who's had the time, age, and maturity to test themselves and come to their own conclusion- not have one forced on them, especially against their will. Mind control or pre-adolescent by well meaning adults certain they know what's best for you would worry me.
 

 

Also, on the technology point - and this is a question born of my pure ignorance - is it even true that all transgendered persons want to physical transition? I honestly don't know. If the answer is no, then the fact such technology could hypothetically exist doesn't actually address the acceptance issue at all. A game could still confront it - in fact confront it even more directly - by asking the audience to accept that some people have a particular view of themselves.

 

 

Since this is an absolute question, I can safely answer that- no. Not all.

 

Many (most?) do, and would insist that 'true' trans people do, but short of an actual firm consensus on a category that includes an opinion, the argument of 'true trans people must want to transition' rests somewhere near the No True Scotsman Fallacy. There are people who do identify as trans, but who do not undergo removal surgery, for various reasons.

 

The question would be challenged if perfect transition was even possible- like the discussed hypothetical gene therapy space-magic tech that could allow a full transition of gender to biology. At that point, if full transition were possible, then people who claim to be born in the wrong sex but don't change to a body that matches their gender could quite likely be dismissed as not 'really' transsexual, depending on how the concept changed.

[In Exile]

To me, it calls to mind some trans advocates who's response to any child questioning their sexuality or gender norms during youth is to advocate immediate and total transition. That's disturbing to me because, having listened to some arguments in justification, they didn't sound like arguments of transcending cultural biases of gender norms- they were arguments to rigidly enforce them. This boy doesn't like masculine things and so must be a girl, this girl isn't a tomboy she's a boy in the wrong body, chop chop post haste.

 

That's actually what I had in mind. I read an article recently about a very virulent reaction about a young boy notionally transitioning, based on things the child said, etc. (including something along the lines of I feel like half and half). My view is that discussions about gender identity should really spark discussions about our rigid obsession with categories. Not everything is a natural kind (if anything is at all) and a fluid definition of category membership is not problematic. 

 

But the position of "let children identify as whatever they want" is not necessarily a popular one, either. And it's an interesting point to consider in view of certian countries that see gender reassignment as a way to enforce their rigid norms about both gender and sexuality. 

 

Many (most?) do, and would insist that 'true' trans people do, but short of an actual firm consensus on a category that includes an opinion, the argument of 'true trans people must want to transition' rests somewhere near the No True Scotsman Fallacy. There are people who do identify as trans, but who do not undergo removal surgery, for various reasons.

 

The question would be challenged if perfect transition was even possible- like the discussed hypothetical gene therapy space-magic tech that could allow a full transition of gender to biology. At that point, if full transition were possible, then people who claim to be born in the wrong sex but don't change to a body that matches their gender could quite likely be dismissed as not 'really' transsexual, depending on how the concept changed.

 

Right. And my view is that this is an interesting issue to explore. This is the value in speculative science fiction - allowing us to play out the philosophical thought experiment by seeing it executed. 

[In Exile]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'd have to disagree. With the way certain social pressures are going- where a trans who wants to be a woman is supposed to be treated and addressed as woman in every relevant way- there will be a need for that qualifier. Because if the proper term for a trans woman with male genetilia is woman, with no signaling forced on her, then people who are interested in women without male genetilia are going to have to make the distinctions themselves when signalling through whatever the courtship ritual is, be it tinder or match.com or otherwise.

 

Interested in 'women' will no longer necessarily be sufficient, since the category contains ambiguous numbers of non-candidates. New expressions of distinction will emerge to both signal intent and allow early screening to avoid embarassment or undesired encounters. It could be a transition from 'women' to 'women without dicks', and certainly there will be people who judge expressing such qualifiers as bigoted/discriminatory, but as long as there's a need for such discriminatory factors- like, you know, people's personal orientations- you'll continue to have the friction between 'trans women are women and indistinguishable from any other women' and, well, situations where they're not.

 

The onus of signalling may switch- that lesbians or straight men have to define their presence rather than trans women hold a trans label- and the very act of signaling preference may come under attack as bigoted, but people will need signaling as long as there's any sort of engagement and courtship practices before relationships.

I wasn't particularly clear. What I was getting at was that to me there seems to be a difference between simply expressing attraction (I'm not into men/women/cats/otherkin) and expressing a preference in a way that, essentially, is aggressive or insulting toward others. 

[General TSAR]

I don't care if they are in or not.  Just don't put them in the game for the sake of putting them in, make their character make sense.  As for as romancing goes it is not my cup of tea.

Word.

 

 

No, because in ME universe they have gene therapy and I assume much more advanced surgery, so if someone decides they want to be another sex then they can. No stigma, no other crap that is floating around today. For all intents and purposes they will become whatever they choose. 

 

The current thing about being "transgender" is because we lack the technology and tools to do it fast and easy. Its a slow, hard process involving loads of hormones and surgery. When we do then there won't be a big fuss about it.

 

PS. I thought we had this thread already and it got killed? 

Double word.

 

If ME space magic tech can bring people back from the grave, changing someone's sex is a piece of cake hence no transgender.

[LinksOcarina]

So...legit question.

 

What is the difference between this:

 

 

 

And this?

 

 

I am not saying this topic was spurred by the stuff going over at Beamdog at all, but I find the whole argument of a transgendered character being "forced"  or being added "for the sake of it" to be a major cop-out argument in the end. 

 

Not every character has to be deep or complex. It's great when they are, don't get me wrong, but forcing diversity by forcing complexity is pushing one agenda, while simultaneously, saying every character in the game who is LGBT or black or asian or jewish or whatever, is a token character because of their lack of character development is also missing the point, and ultimately forcing their own agenda at the same time. 

 

When RPG's and worlds like Mass Effect are made, you will have characters and questlines that have very little characterization to them. Would the character of Harkin  from Mass Effect 1 and 2 really change if we found out he had a boyfriend or something? Or would he still be a pig and scumbag regardless of who he slept with based on his characterization? It shouldn't matter ultimately, but it does to a lot of people who either want deeper representation as their agenda, or no representation at all for their agenda. 

 

It's why I find that part of the argument to be kind of silly, really. Ultimately, if there is a trans character,well have to deal with it. So long as the trans character isn't a mary-sue type, it's simply something we need to accept as part of the game and the texture of the world. 

[Puddi III]

Emphasis? It was a throw-away reference to a potential reaction to the reveal. It wasn't even the subject of its own sentence.
 
I also disagree that feeling mislead upon a discovery requires thinking in terms of a stereotype, since what happens is, by context, at worst a lie of ommission that could apply to any number of concepts where the reasons for a 'no' are not shared and so a misunderstanding is perpetuated.

It was the subject of the post. "Having the discovery of the genitilia issue be the drama would be my recommendation" was your first sentence. That is, in fact, what I have been arguing against, not some semantic or imagined detail. Maybe you have something else in mind of what you 'actually' meant by drama, but it seems to be framed around the surprise, confusion, and 'question of whether you had been deceived.' If not for those, where is the drama?

That it's considered a lie by omission when a trans person doesn't broadcast is part of the stereotype.
 

Why would I want to?
 
When you're as intent on projecting hidden messages regardless of actual content as the people who feel one trans is too many, I'd give you the same deferrence as them.

It's your choice, boss.
 

If any perception of controversy is too much, you aren't interested in the presence- only the absence of it.

Though it's weird that you've hammered at this point twice now, as though it's self-evidently preposterous. Yeah, I don't think having a surprise transgender reveal is a good idea for the source of drama in a character arc. I would prefer its absence. And I don't think I said any controversy should be avoided. Just not a fan of this one.

[In Exile]

So...legit question.

 

What is the difference between this:

 

 

 

And this?

 

 

I am not saying this topic was spurred by the stuff going over at Beamdog at all, but I find the whole argument of a transgendered character being "forced"  or being added "for the sake of it" to be a major cop-out argument in the end. 

 

Not every character has to be deep or complex. It's great when they are, don't get me wrong, but forcing diversity by forcing complexity is pushing one agenda, while simultaneously, saying every character in the game who is LGBT or black or asian or jewish or whatever, is a token character because of their lack of character development is also missing the point, and ultimately forcing their own agenda at the same time. 

 

When RPG's and worlds like Mass Effect are made, you will have characters and questlines that have very little characterization to them. Would the character of Harkin  from Mass Effect 1 and 2 really change if we found out he had a boyfriend or something? Or would he still be a pig and scumbag regardless of who he slept with based on his characterization? It shouldn't matter ultimately, but it does to a lot of people who either want deeper representation as their agenda, or no representation at all for their agenda. 

 

It's why I find that part of the argument to be kind of silly, really. Ultimately, if there is a trans character,well have to deal with it. So long as the trans character isn't a mary-sue type, it's simply something we need to accept as part of the game and the texture of the world. 

 

One is a political issue. The other isn't. The other point is that when characters are so uncommon in fiction to start with, their merely being in the story is something that draws attention. No one notices when an NPC is a woman, because that's not a live issue anymore (except when it doesn't jive with whatever their impression or view on gender politics is, then we get stuff like it's "forced" that [X] character is a woman). Whenever people say this, they want to have an IRL political debate about whatever IRL political issue triggered the whole kerfluffle. 

[LinksOcarina]

One is a political issue. The other isn't. The other point is that when characters are so uncommon in fiction to start with, their merely being in the story is something that draws attention. No one notices when an NPC is a woman, because that's not a live issue anymore (except when it doesn't jive with whatever their impression or view on gender politics is, then we get stuff like it's "forced" that [X] character is a woman). Whenever people say this, they want to have an IRL political debate about whatever IRL political issue triggered the whole kerfluffle. 

 

 I would argue there is no difference and the political issue is people trying to make it into one ultimately, which for me I see is the real problem.

 

The ironic thing is even with that said, the only way it changes is when it does become like this, when it does become commonplace from time to time as throwaway characters. If we are not there yet fair enough, but people getting ants in their pants over this need to step back and enjoy the game over worrying about a "political issue" they are fabricating. 

[General TSAR]

So...legit question.

 

What is the difference between this:

 

 

 

And this?

 

 

 

Easy.

 

One of those is not the developer dragging their genitals across our eyes and telling us how us progressive they are while giving a middle finger to anyone who accuses them of really bad Tokenism, poor writing, terrible bugs and such.

[In Exile]

 I would argue there is no difference and the political issue is people trying to make it into one ultimately, which for me I see is the real problem.

 

The ironic thing is even with that said, the only way it changes is when it does become like this, when it does become commonplace from time to time as throwaway characters. If we are not there yet fair enough, but people getting ants in their pants over this need to step back and enjoy the game over worrying about a "political issue" they are fabricating. 

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I don't think there is a difference apart from the fact that IRL one of the screens captures what is a live political issue. And people are going to express their views on it, because no one can resist spouting their opinion. 

[vbibbi]

So...legit question.

 

What is the difference between this:

 

 

 

And this?

 

 

I am not saying this topic was spurred by the stuff going over at Beamdog at all, but I find the whole argument of a transgendered character being "forced"  or being added "for the sake of it" to be a major cop-out argument in the end. 

 

Not every character has to be deep or complex. It's great when they are, don't get me wrong, but forcing diversity by forcing complexity is pushing one agenda, while simultaneously, saying every character in the game who is LGBT or black or asian or jewish or whatever, is a token character because of their lack of character development is also missing the point, and ultimately forcing their own agenda at the same time.

 

These are very brief conversations the PC has with a near-stranger. The first conversation has the NPC reveal deeply personal facets of their history to a stranger, which is unrealistic in this world or the Forgotten Realms. The second conversation is the NPC reacting to the PC making fun of his name.

 

If the examples were more equal, the first conversation would go: "I decided to change my name using syllables from many languages, in order to better reflect who I see myself as." to match the impersonal response of the second conversation. OR the second conversation would go "How dare ye make fun of me name? My grandmother named me such in honor of the love of her life, who died when she was but a girl. And although her love was gone, she wanted to memorialize his/her memory through her family. So it is a good name and I dinnae care of your opinion of it!"

 

Then I would say the levels of interaction are the same for these minor NPCs. But in order to get that level of intimacy, I think it should require more than "What's your name? What do you sell? What is your intensely personal backstory?"

[In Exile]

Easy.

 

One of those is not the developer dragging their genitals across our eyes and telling us how us progressive they are while giving a middle finger to anyone who accuses them of really bad Tokenism, poor writing, terrible bugs and such.

 

[In Exile]

These are very brief conversations the PC has with a near-stranger. The first conversation has the NPC reveal deeply personal facets of their history to a stranger, which is unrealistic in this world or the Forgotten Realms. The second conversation is the NPC reacting to the PC making fun of his name.

 

If the examples were more equal, the first conversation would go: "I decided to change my name using syllables from many languages, in order to better reflect who I see myself as." to match the impersonal response of the second conversation. OR the second conversation would go "How dare ye make fun of me name? My grandmother named me such in honor of the love of her life, who died when she was but a girl. And although her love was gone, she wanted to memorialize his/her memory through her family. So it is a good name and I dinnae care of your opinion of it!"

 

Then I would say the levels of interaction are the same for these minor NPCs. But in order to get that level of intimacy, I think it should require more than "What's your name? What do you sell? What is your intensely personal backstory?"

 

I don't buy it. People overshare all the damn time. I'm an incredibly private person, at least when it comes to talking about myself. People - random people, often people I barely met - tell me what I think are weirdly personal things about themselves all the time. 

[Battlebloodmage]

It was the subject of the post. "Having the discovery of the genitilia issue be the drama would be my recommendation" was your first sentence. That is, in fact, what I have been arguing against, not some semantic or imagined detail. Maybe you have something else in mind of what you 'actually' meant by drama, but it seems to be framed around the surprise, confusion, and 'question of whether you had been deceived.' If not for those, where is the drama?

That it's considered a lie by omission when a trans person doesn't broadcast is part of the stereotype.
 

It's your choice, boss.
 

Though it's weird that you've hammered at this point twice now, as though it's self-evidently preposterous. Yeah, I don't think having a surprise transgender reveal is a good idea for the source of drama in a character arc. I would prefer its absence. And I don't think I said any controversy should be avoided. Just not a fan of this one.

Seriously, why would they need to keep it a secret? If the people don't like transgender, they wouldn't automatically like transgender people after dating you. If people want to kill transgender, having them sleep with you and they found out they slept with a transgender, you'd be more likely get killed. If you meet in a public place, and you reveal that you're a transgender, if he's not interested, he would move on, and if he hit you, you could have him throw into jail, but it wouldn't go as far as getting yourself killed for being revealed as opposed to hiding it, having someone that is transphobic and find out they have slept with a trans person which may actually make them angry and kill you. You're justifying it that it's dangerous to reveal it but keeping it hidden is actually more dangerous in the long run since that person who is not ok with ok would still not be ok with it and now they know who you are and where you live. There is no reason to share it with random strangers for safety reasons, I can understand that, but hiding it from people who you want to date is pretty dangerous, and they wouldn't suddenly be ok with you and you wouldn't want to date people like that anyway if you're trans, not sure there's a point of lying. 

[General TSAR]

You're gonna have to elaborate that.