671 réponses à ce sujet

[Puddi III]

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.

I'm not sure if you're responding to me, but I didn't say they should keep it a secret...

If I were designing a trans romance, which is a bad idea to have me design anything in general, I would have them being trans come up casually if your character expressed interest in having a relationship with them, whereby you could change your mind or whatever else. Leave the drama to some other aspect of their personality or plot.

[In Exile]

You're gonna have to elaborate that.

 

You're doing the same thing, with your political view, that you're accusing Beamdog of doing, with their political view: thumping your chest about your bona fides as a way to dodge criticism. 

[General TSAR]

You're doing the same thing, with your political view, that you're accusing Beamdog of doing, with their political view: thumping your chest about your bona fides as a way to dodge criticism. 

Criticism over what? I did not make a pisspoor DLC and then try to cover it up by virtue signaling and then banning people who called me out.

 

But nice try.

[LinksOcarina]

Criticism over what? I did not make a pisspoor DLC and then try to cover it up by virtue signaling and then banning people who called me out.

 

But nice try.

 

Neither did they....they just made a DLC that had uneven writing based on a game that admittedly had uneven writing back in 1998. Hell, I even reviewed the damn thing, none of the complaints over an agenda really being pushed were in there really. 

[In Exile]

Criticism over what? I did not make a pisspoor DLC and then try to cover it up by virtue signaling and then banning people who called me out.

 

But nice try.

 

Quite literally, the post you responded to:

 

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. 

[LinksOcarina]

 

Quite literally, the post you responded to:

 

 

 

I'm not sure I should thank you for that....

[In Exile]

I'm not sure I should thank you for that....

 

 

If it helps, it was a generally comment that sparked a defensive reaction and a lot of backtracking? 

[General TSAR]

Neither did they....they just made a DLC that had uneven writing based on a game that admittedly had uneven writing back in 1998. Hell, I even reviewed the damn thing, none of the complaints over an agenda really being pushed were in there really. 

Actually no, they made a pisspoor DLC with one of the writers even saying she didn't care if she made token characters and that ballooned into controversy.

[LinksOcarina]

Actually no, they made a pisspoor DLC with one of the writers even saying she didn't care if she made token characters and that ballooned into controversy.

 

So?

 

Do Christian metal bands always write music about religion for the sole purpose of preaching to people if they openly admit they are a Christian band? 

 

Hell, people don't even know what parts Scott wrote, most of it is inferred to be characterization. So no, what she said or believes has little to do with the quality of game, in my estimation, and since I played it...I can say sort of definitively that is the case. 

 

The ****** poor writing, for example, hits characters like Irenicus and Khalid too, plus a bunch of other merchants who have shallow interactions in the end, like the quartermaster Belegarm who contradicts himself in between sentences. Of course, no one talks about them though, I guess because there is no agenda to push there . 

 

 

 

If it helps, it was a generally comment that sparked a defensive reaction and a lot of backtracking? 

 

No worries, at least you're honest. 

[vbibbi]

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.

I mean yeah, it's the nature of video game conversations to over share. Just like IRL I wouldn't walk up to strangers and ask if they had odd jobs for me to do for a small fee.

But if someone over shared with me IRL, I would still find that odd, not just act like its normal. That's why it's called over sharing, and not just sharing.

[General TSAR]

So?

 

Do Christian metal bands always write music about religion for the sole purpose of preaching to people if they openly admit they are a Christian band? 

 

Hell, people don't even know what parts Scott wrote, most of it is inferred to be characterization. So no, what she said or believes has little to do with the quality of game, in my estimation, and since I played it...I can say sort of definitively that is the case. 

 

The ****** poor writing, for example, hits characters like Irenicus and Khalid too, plus a bunch of other merchants who have shallow interactions in the end, like the quartermaster Belegarm who contradicts himself in between sentences. Of course, no one talks about them though, I guess because there is no agenda to push there . 

 

 

 

No worries, at least you're honest. 

Writers writing awful characters for the sake of trying to catapult their agenda and they get negative feeback? Holy crap, what kinda of logic is this?

[LinksOcarina]

Writers writing awful characters for the sake of trying to catapult their agenda and they get negative feeback? Holy crap, what kinda of logic is this?

 

Did you play Dragonspear at all, or is it here-say that is making you say this? If you played it, and you are of the opinion that the game is pushing some sort of agenda, fine.

 

But your opinion, I would argue, is wrong based on my own experience with the game. It comes across as a smokescreen to use her and certain examples to justify poor writing throughout the title, when the reality is to push another agenda as a wedge issue because of personal dislike of what Scott said.

[frylock23]

Well, unless you do go with just a cosmetic change. Even with such technologies, some people would prefer to maintain an ambiguous status. Though I'm not sure they're a great fit for the topic.

 

Even if we accept this ... then that still doesn't explain why such an individual would be on the ARK. We are talking about a mission dedicated to preserving entire species. It will need as much genetic variety as possible and people able and willing to carry on the species in question. I can see the argument for a transgender who fully transitions, but why one who decides they won't and makes an issue of it such that we must have an entire storyline based around that topic in a place and time where such is not necessary?

[AlanC9]

Even if we accept this ... then that still doesn't explain why such an individual would be on the ARK. We are talking about a mission dedicated to preserving entire species. It will need as much genetic variety as possible and people able and willing to carry on the species in question. I can see the argument for a transgender who fully transitions, but why one who decides they won't and makes an issue of it such that we must have an entire storyline based around that topic in a place and time where such is not necessary?

Assuming the individual is still willing and capable of reproduction, there's no issue. It's not an issue with males in any event; really, if you want a lot of genetic diversity you should send only women and a lot of frozen diverse sperm.

[Killroy]

Geez. It hurts just looking at the guy on the frame for that vid. Forehead modification? Ugh..

That's the part that bothers you? Not the removal of his entire nose?

[Shechinah]

Even if we accept this ... then that still doesn't explain why such an individual would be on the ARK. We are talking about a mission dedicated to preserving entire species. It will need as much genetic variety as possible and people able and willing to carry on the species in question.

 

And they'd be unable to donate genetic material why? 

 

Because as I see it there is the not unlikely possibility that the ARK will not require natural reproduction from it's crew and will instead use some form for artificial cultivation perhaps similar to the tank procedure that Grunt was the result of. There would be benefits to such a methods.

 

To my knowledge, it is also not yet known whether or not the ARK and it's crew will arrive in the Andromeda galaxy within the current generation thereby leaving it possible that people within the following generations will have individuals born who'll experience transgenderism.
 

[ArabianIGoggles]

Mental illness, like physical illness, is not a matter of opinion. Unless this is a professional diagnosis?

http://www.cnsnews.c...rder-sex-change

 

Professional diagnosis right there.  I'm not here to debate this.  I stated my opinion.  I couldn't care less what someone else does

[frylock23]

Assuming the individual is still willing and capable of reproduction, there's no issue. It's not an issue with males in any event; really, if you want a lot of genetic diversity you should send only women and a lot of frozen diverse sperm.

 

That's if all you want is genetic diversity. You also need societal stability. Like it or not, you need both male and female roles in society whoever provides those. Little boys and girls learn by watching the adults, and I'm not talking about being barefoot and pregnant or anything else, simply about how an adult male of the species should act and carry himself and interact both with others.

 

Remove one of them from society and you handicap society's social development to a degree.

[frylock23]

And they'd be unable to donate genetic material why? 

 

Because as I see it there is the not unlikely possibility that the ARK will not require natural reproduction from it's crew and will instead use some form for artificial cultivation perhaps similar to the tank procedure that Grunt was the result of.

 

To my knowledge, it is also not yet known whether or not the ARK and it's crew will arrive in the Andromeda galaxy within the current generation thereby leaving it possible that people within the following generations will have individuals born who'll experience transgenderism.
 

 

Donating genetic material isn't the same, and if they contribute genetic material, they don't need to go. Their sperm or eggs can. You could say that about anyone.

[Killroy]

http://www.cnsnews.c...rder-sex-change

Professional diagnosis right there. I'm not here to debate this. I stated my opinion. I couldn't care less what someone else does

Sorry, but that man's opinion isn't worth much. Look him up and look at his other "professional" diagnoses. He said that homosexuality is a mental disease and that homosexuality is not found in nature.
The man is a fool.

[Shechinah]

That's if all you want is genetic diversity. You also need societal stability. Like it or not, you need both male and female roles in society whoever provides those. Little boys and girls learn by watching the adults, and I'm not talking about being barefoot and pregnant or anything else, simply about how an adult male of the species should act and carry himself and interact both with others.

 

Remove one of them from society and you handicap society's social development to a degree.

 

By this, do you mean family units?

[Shechinah]

Donating genetic material isn't the same, and if they contribute genetic material, they don't need to go. Their sperm or eggs can. You could say that about anyone.

 

Could you elaborate, please?
 

[frylock23]

By this, do you mean family units?

 

In a sense, but another angle is that an expedition like the ARK is going to need a high degree of social cohesion. The colony on the ARK represents the last chance for human society. As such, there aren't going to be many people included in the expedition who hold highly controversial or contrarian views. The individual we have been discussing would be a prime example of that. I would guess you wouldn't see many Amish (or their equivalent) or fundmentalist Muslims for similar reasons. They hold views that will create friction within the community, and the community has a limited number of individuals, enough so that it needs to stick together.

 

Like it or not, you need a community that can conform enough not to immediately become sub-divided and want to kill itself off as soon as it steps out of the boat. People going will be chosen with this in mind. Someone who openly refuses to transition when such a treatment is available may be tolerated by larger society back in the Milky Way, but may be too contrarian for a limited and closed society like the ARK one would have to be.

[Gago]

No. 

[frylock23]

I think he means that transgendered people don't go need onto the Ark. They just need to donate genetic material to insure a stable and healthy human (or whatever) population.

I'm not trying to step into this too much nor do I agree with what fry said. Just offering my take on their post.

 

No, this discussion talked about two different types of transgender - the ones who decide to swap their gender which we are all assuming is freely available and has no risk (I guess we assume this because they rebuilt Shepard?) and one who decides they like being one gender stuck in the body of another gender.

 

I am talking about the second. I am trying to see why such a character would be necessary or relevant beyond simply proving how inclusive BioWare is if we assume the first premise to be true - that transgenders can freely transition.

 

A character in a game like Dragon Age is different. They don't have the means there where here we are assuming they do. While I did not like the way they handled Krem (made him a walking PSA more than a real character), if they made such a character one of the companions in a future game, so long as the character is handled well as main companion should be, then that's fine. I know they can do it, they've handled plenty of LBGT characters well in the past.