As I noted in another thread, we westerners certainly have it rough in a world where LGBTs complain about video game character representation.
Forgive me if I think this is a tad inflated, and no, I really don't care what a character is provided they're well written.
So while we complain about a video game character, Islamic countries abuse women by throwing acid in their faces, gay people are castrated or killed, and drawing a child molester from the year 611 AD is enough to get you killed.
I don't mean to get too off topic, but I defy any trans person who feels attacked to go to Yemen... actually, I don't, I wouldn't wish my enemies to go there.
I'd hate to go there, but this all seems like first world problems up in here, and I don't say that to be crass.
There are more dire issues too in Western culture, or are lead pipes no longer a concern? Does rising sea level no longer matter? Bees? Clean Energy? We'll have plenty of time to deal with inequities of black, white, gay, male, trans, female, etc. when the risk of huffing coal living at a sea level which used to be considered 50 feet above sea level as we learn to eat jellyfish because other sea life dies off.
TLDR: the world is filled with people who say mean things, but as a random druid npc quote once said "Don't mess with nature, or it'll mess with you!" Oh and before someone tries to twist that line into me saying something transphobic... you're looking too hard for conflict wherever you go.
As I noted in another thread, we westerners certainly have it rough in a world where LGBTs complain about video game character representation.
Forgive me if I think this is a tad inflated, and no, I really don't care what a character is provided they're well written.
So while we complain about a video game character, Islamic countries abuse women by throwing acid in their faces, gay people are castrated or killed, and drawing a child molester from the year 611 AD is enough to get you killed.
I don't mean to get too off topic, but I defy any trans person who feels attacked to go to Yemen... actually, I don't, I wouldn't wish my enemies to go there.
I'd hate to go there, but this all seems like first world problems up in here, and I don't say that to be crass.
There are more dire issues too in Western culture, or are lead pipes no longer a concern? Does rising sea level no longer matter? Bees? Clean Energy? We'll have plenty of time to deal with inequities of black, white, gay, male, trans, female, etc. when the risk of huffing coal living at a sea level which used to be considered 50 feet above sea level as we learn to eat jellyfish because other sea life dies off.
TLDR: the world is filled with people who say mean things, but as a random druid npc quote once said "Don't mess with nature, or it'll mess with you!" Oh and before someone tries to twist that line into me saying something transphobic... you're looking too hard for conflict wherever you go.
So why aren't you out there busy solving those real problems instead of coming here complaining about if LGBT should be concerned about their representation?
The real "funny" thing is that the trolls now change their "concern troll" attitude and now blame the trans people for the existence of the controversy. Start a controversy by saying you talk for trans people, then blame them for the mess you've made.
(To be clear this message are just for the message of @Dazzu and some other in other thread that have the same style. Not to the other people who talk lately on this thread. Sorry if it look like. Yes I've failed my "keep calm" ability check)
As I noted in another thread, we westerners certainly have it rough in a world where LGBTs complain about video game character representation.
Forgive me if I think this is a tad inflated, and no, I really don't care what a character is provided they're well written.
So while we complain about a video game character, Islamic countries abuse women by throwing acid in their faces, gay people are castrated or killed, and drawing a child molester from the year 611 AD is enough to get you killed.
I don't mean to get too off topic, but I defy any trans person who feels attacked to go to Yemen... actually, I don't, I wouldn't wish my enemies to go there.
I'd hate to go there, but this all seems like first world problems up in here, and I don't say that to be crass.
There are more dire issues too in Western culture, or are lead pipes no longer a concern? Does rising sea level no longer matter? Bees? Clean Energy? We'll have plenty of time to deal with inequities of black, white, gay, male, trans, female, etc. when the risk of huffing coal living at a sea level which used to be considered 50 feet above sea level as we learn to eat jellyfish because other sea life dies off.
TLDR: the world is filled with people who say mean things, but as a random druid npc quote once said "Don't mess with nature, or it'll mess with you!" Oh and before someone tries to twist that line into me saying something transphobic... you're looking too hard for conflict wherever you go.
Claim: There are more dire issues and therefore, this "issue" is a "nonissue"
1) Issue exists 2) It's not an issue because there exists a bigger issue 3) Find the bigger issue 4) It's not an issue because there exists a bigger issue 5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you find the biggest issue 6) There exists only one issue in the world
So in conclusion, using your very well constructed argument (that shall, from this point forward, be referred to as The Cow Pie Defense), I've just proven that there exists exactly one issue and only one issue in the entire world worth discussing.
@Dazzu I assume the same logic applies to all the people whining that the trans player was included in the first place? Because *that's* what this has been about over the last 20 days, not complaints from trans players.
Also: Please don't sh*t on other people's religions; the Islamophobia really isn't necessary and has nothing to do with the thread.
Claim: There are more dire issues and therefore, this "issue" is a "nonissue"
1) Issue exists 2) It's not an issue because there exists a bigger issue 3) Find the bigger issue 4) It's not an issue because there exists a bigger issue 5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you find the biggest issue 6) There exists only one issue in the world
So in conclusion, using your very well constructed argument (that shall, from this point forward, be referred to as The Cow Pie Defense), I've just proven that there exists exactly one issue and only one issue in the entire world worth discussing.
If I could hand out a "Burn of the year" award, you would get it!
I think you guys are misunderstanding my point. My point is that it seems that there is an illusion going on here. A sort of mental mirage as it were. See, we're a super-minority (like less than 1/100 here, which is still a lot of people added up but it wouldn't be unfair to say we're very uncommon), so we tend to stand out more when we pop up.
Looking at the first list I provided, each of those things tells you something important about your character's personality (except the speaking french, I was sleepy and I have no idea where that came from; I think my train of thought derailed for a bit). For example, Winthorp in Candlekeep is a joker. That jackass who owns the Copper Coronet is a bad guy. Noober is irritating. So on, so forth, yadda-yadda.
(I'm going to note that having being transsexual placed into the same trait grouping as having a peg leg is pretty hilarious and eerily accurate in some senses.)
Now, the rarer something is, the more it's going to stand out and not get glossed over by your brain, but at the same time the fewer other traits it has alongside it, the more alone it's going to see. Essentially, being flat makes it stand out a lot more.
Which is why the "round" characters don't seem to illicit these sorts of responses, because round characters feel more fleshed out and it doesn't feel like a gimmick. It's a play on the boiling frog effect.
And I think you might be misunderstanding a point I made in an earlier response to you about speculative fiction: if people do a double-take, speculative fiction is doing it's job right.
Say, for example, we're not talking about the Realms. It's a fantasy property that someone has made up themselves. And in this fantasy property, there are tons of LGBT characters for a series of reasons that makes sense within the world. It's not relevant what the reasons are for this argument, and I could churn out several dozen for you if you want, but just in case you absolutely need one to wrap your head around the argument let's say deities are real, like in FR, and they answer earnest, deeply felt and strongly desired prayers from followers living correctly according to their rules, and that includes both body related changes and miracle pregnancies requiring a Zynthian-section, or Z-section for gay men (hey, there was no Caesar in this world so no Caesarian-section, but the title of an ancient tyrant birthed that way to two gay tyrants was Zynth, look at that 5 second world building I just did there), and someone reading it goes "wow, there sure are a lot of people who choose to utilize this in-setting element that lets them change their bodies! wow, there sure are lots of gay parents!" before the author reveals why this is the case in the books
Does that make them token? Or does it make the reader unimaginative, closed-minded and impatient? The author has a fully developed explanation, and doesn't hammer the reader over the head with the methods in an unrealistic way (because why would characters in the setting be talking to each other about something that's been true for hundreds of thousands of years of their world's history? that would be forced, if the author felt they had to get the Whys and Wherefores out of the way through stilted dialogue about history and gods in the first few pages so people aren't constantly going "wow so LGBT, such agenda, many forced tokens!") and I'd argue that just having LGBT characters exist in that case is not only not tokenism, if it's just shown constantly that there are lots of LGBT characters and the fact of it isn't really brought up outside of comments like, "I came to know myself later than most, so I have yet to choose a new name. I am of the Nameless, and there is no shame in this." and then you're like "oh ok, this is like a person transitioning at 30 IRL who just has no clue what to change their name to" and it's not tokenizing because of course you'd tell someone that you have no name when they go "And you are...?" especially if it didn't have a negative social connotation in their world...and yet that's pretty much the level of Mizhena's reveal, and we also don't really know outside that dialogue how the culture she grew up in responded outside of her parents eventually coming to understand it and support her after a time, we don't know why that's the case or the history of transness in her home community, or even within Tempus' church! But we don't need to have that explanation for Mizhena to avoid being token, she successfully avoids it on every single metric I can think of! She has tons of other dialogue, none of which mention it, her primary characteristics are related to her faith and her role as a service provider for you, she has quests that also don't revolve around transness (and even if she had one, it would just be one, and she's involved in a handful of quests already so it wouldn't be tokenizing even then). She's well-rounded for a type of character usually much flatter, but not so well-rounded she exceeds that of other merchants involved in quests in BG1 and 2. There's no reason for someone to consider her token outside of trying to shoehorn the real world into a fantasy setting, which ironically is what these complaints usually accuse Beamdog of doing. But it's THEM imposing real world statistics and social realities into Faerûn.
Now let's switch it up. In this fantasy setting people also, due to a factor of evolution which is actually not understood by the populace of the world (because evolution as a theory hasn't been figured out yet, or the gods are purposely obscuring it so people don't play at non-divine versions of Life Creation themselves, who knows, this setting is mere minutes old at this point idk), have the ability to flex their muscles so hard they can break their own bones. There are people on Earth who can do this, they are exceedingly rare and so it would be mind-boggling to discover a whole bunch of them, but here is a world FULL of them!
Well, guess what? That's speculative fiction doing it's job right! It just shocked you, made you do a double-take! With a believable yet unbelievable thing! And no explanation as to why they can do it, even though the author does have one and this setting's Al-Jahiz or Ibn Arabi or Nasir al-Din al-Tusi or Nakhshabi or Ibn Khaldun is going to emerge during the series of books and reveal the evolutionary cause (what, did you think I was going to say "this setting's Darwin" when Muslim philosophers and scientists laid the path to his theory?) and sure a very rare subsection of Earth humans can use a greater % of their muscle strength to just flex so hard their arm bone shatters, but now somebody's imagination has posited a "what if" about something very very rare existing super commonly! That's fantasy! That's sci fi! That's what speculative fiction exists for!
So the argument that it's "too unrealistic" and "too rare, and so stands out" is so bogus. Fantasy fans read fantasy to read rare and weird things being commonplace for reasons both logical and sensible, and outside the realms of logic because of arcane or divine or psychic (and on and on with the types of hand-waving) interference in the realms of cause and effect, reason and logic, etc. That's fantasy! Anyone who says "but I don't want to have to imagine more of this stuff I don't like from real life in my fantasy" and disguise it doesn't interest me, and people who are earnestly caught up with real world statistics when engaging with sci fi and fantasy media/entertainment are...well, probably looking for a different genre tbh
Ed Greenwood created the Realms, and he said there's trans people. As the video said, trans characters deserve to be flat and round, just like muscle-flexing bone breakers in the setting I just made up deserve to be both flat and round. If someone has a problem with one but no problem with the other, there's something else at play there, and it might just be their impatience and lack of imagination instead of their bigotry...but if they can suspend their disbelief and just ponder about the bone-breaking, then why is it they can't do it about LGBT people simply existing?
The scientists and doctors of World Health Organization classifies transgender behavior as a mental illness. Trying to legitimize a mental illness isn't a good thing to do and is immoral IMO.
The scientists and doctors of World Health Organization classifies transgender behavior as a mental illness. Trying to legitimize a mental illness isn't a good thing to do and is immoral IMO.
You are correct, that the ICD (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems), which is developed and maintained by the World Health Organisation, states that mental and behavioural disorders include the F66 Category, which itself describes particular Psychological disorders as including uncertainty about gender identity.
It should be noted that the current ICD in use is known as ICD-10, and was published in 1990.
The WHO is currently revising and rewriting the ICD, and ICD-11 is expected to be published in 2017. It is widely expected that the F66 categories are going to be completely removed. Indeed, this is the published recommendation of the WHO's own working group, which was set up to examine this very matter.
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
The scientists and doctors of World Health Organization classifies transgender behavior as a mental illness. Trying to legitimize a mental illness isn't a good thing to do and is immoral IMO.
But remember, none of this controversy has ever been about transphobia!
(Or about people from the chanosphere trolling because being bigots to people online is hi---larious, probably more accurately in this case.)
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
ICD-9 (which was published in 1977) coded homosexuality as a mental illness. This was removed in ICD-10.
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
The classification as "mental illness" for homosexuality and transidentity is based on Freud and Lacan work. And even if you like it or not their work is mostly not scientical and don't follow the basic Poper's refutability criteria. Stop using big words, this is a very debate subject on the international scientific community, don't try make it look like an "indiscutable truth™".
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
The classification as "mental illness" for homosexuality and transidentity is based on Freud and Lacan work. And even if you like it or not their work is mostly not scientical and don't follow the basic Poper's refutability criteria. Stop using big words, this is a very debate subject on the international scientific community, don't try make it look like an "indiscutable truth™".
What, you don't like science that refutes an agenda you support. To bad it exists.
Current research points to "transgender" identity not being a mental illness. There is an associated diagnosis in the DSM-5 called "gender dysphoria" which is about the distress caused by being transgender in a society that doesn't really accommodate it. The ICD is very likely to follow suit.
The second thing is all mental illnesses should be legitimized. That is understood, and the best treatments widely known and used. Even if being "transgender" is classified as a mental illness, best practice is transition. Nothing else works - not medication, not talk therapy. If someone needs transition then the best thing to do for them is to let them transition. To help them transition. Actual scientific research shows that when transgender people transition (those who need to, not everyone needs or wants to) that they function better and have better mental health as a consequence.
But this conversation isn't about what science says. It's about what hatred says, and hatred says to call "transgender" a "mental illness" and condemn it as a personal failing, which is both inappropriate and false and not only betrays a nasty attitude about transgender people, but also a similarly nasty attitude about people who are mentally ill.
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
ICD-9 (which was published in 1977) coded homosexuality as a mental illness. This was removed in ICD-10.
That was progress too.
And stitches have been used for cuts for how many millenia? Just because something isn't new doesn't mean it is wrong or needs fixed.
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
Political pressure doesn't create new science and diagnosis. See the AMA bowing to political pressure and providing zero science for the change in stance. Hopefully the WHO doesn't follow this path as it isn't based in medical science and is just politics.
The classification as "mental illness" for homosexuality and transidentity is based on Freud and Lacan work. And even if you like it or not their work is mostly not scientical and don't follow the basic Poper's refutability criteria. Stop using big words, this is a very debate subject on the international scientific community, don't try make it look like an "indiscutable truth™".
What, you don't like science that refutes an agenda you support. To bad it exists.
The science doesn't exist. I keep up with this stuff (and psychiatry-related research in general) and it's fairly obvious that you do not.
The scientists and doctors of World Health Organization classifies transgender behavior as a mental illness. Trying to legitimize a mental illness isn't a good thing to do and is immoral IMO.
Why would it be immoral? Is having a wheelchair when not being able to walk 'immoral' to legitimize in the sense of portrayal in a videogame? Is being deaf, but refusing implants 'immoral' to legitimize?
And that is apart from the funny notion that you seem to think that science didn't change over the years, back then a difference from the norm was rather quickly classified as a mental illness (-;
Holding an opinion based & referenced in science and defending said opinion isn't trolling. Calling it trolling ACTUALLY is TROLLING.
Referencing to science without linking to said science can very well be trolling. Especially after everything has already been said 100 times before and you're just tossing gasoline to a diminishing fire.
If you want to stand by your opinion, find the science that proves your point and link to it.
Edit: and btw, "science" used to say ie that all women who didn't act according to male-made principles was "hysterical" and demanded treatment. This ofc has been proven to be utter bullshit, so if you want to link to science, please choose modern science, kkthx.
The classification and/or legitimization of nonbinary gender identity as a mental illness (or not) is certainly an interesting topic of conversation, but it belongs in the Off Topic forum. Let's steer the conversation back on course, folks.
Also, in case it hasn't been obvious already, there are several transgender users in this community, many of whom are posting in this very thread. Although everyone is certainly welcome to express their views in a respectful and civil manner, it bears noting that the topic of nonbinary gender identity is more significant to the people experiencing it than to those who are not.
Just be aware of this when you state your views on the matter, and know that some points of view pose the risk of antagonizing these people by marginalizing their position.
...Although everyone is certainly welcome to express their views in a respectful and civil manner, it bears noting that the topic of nonbinary gender identity is more significant to the people experiencing it than to those who are not.
Just be aware of this when you state your views on the matter, and know that some points of view pose the risk of antagonizing these people by marginalizing their position...
I'm afraid I cannot follow the logic there. I can see why the topic of gender identity is of great importance to those who feel like it applies to them more than anyone else and thus it might carry more meaning for them. The same goes for the fact that people can be incited by a comment on a topic that's deemed important to them and goes against their way of thinking.
However; marginalizing their position on it? I have no clue how to interpret that one. Could you give us something more to work with here? As in; how does stating one's opinion marginalize the ideas of someone else? Perhaps an example would work wonders in this case.
I don't mean it marginalizes the person's ideas; I mean it marginalizes the person themselves.
An absurdist example:
An apple, Joe, and a banana, Steven, are talking about what it's like being a banana (for context, most fruits are apples in this scenario; bananas are relatively uncommon). The apple says, "I think being a banana is a defect of the apple ideal. We shouldn't be encouraging bananas to embrace this defect."
Joe isn't trying to say that Steven is defective, and they're only saying what they believe, but the message that Steven receives is that to Joe, Steven is defective--and more than that, Steven's being a banana is apparently wrong. Does that mean Steven is unimportant? Does that mean Steven doesn't deserve recognition? Does that mean Steven shouldn't be in the fruit salad?
Steven has been marginalized by Joe's remark. Joe might not have meant it to be an oppressive statement, but the result is exactly that: Joe has presented the argument that Joe's existence is the only one that is valid or worth recognizing, and Steven's existence is a flaw that should be corrected.
If Joe wants to express his feelings about bananas, he can do that--but he should also do Steven the courtesy of seeing things from Steven's perspective, and understand that in this case, the expression of Joe's feelings can feel like an attack on Steven's right to exist.
EDIT: This is different from systemic exclusion, which would be best represented as the fact that both of the characters in the above example are male, and thus the example excludes entirely the perspective of female fruit. (Being a female banana is entirely different from being a male banana.) It shows that in my rational mind, I default to the male perspective, which could be a sign that I'm not thinking enough about the female perspective. Teachable moments!
I'm afraid I cannot follow the logic there. I can see why the topic of gender identity is of great importance to those who feel like it applies to them more than anyone else and thus it might carry more meaning for them. The same goes for the fact that people can be incited by a comment on a topic that's deemed important to them and goes against their way of thinking.
However; marginalizing their position on it? I have no clue how to interpret that one. Could you give us something more to work with here? As in; how does stating one's opinion marginalize the ideas of someone else? Perhaps an example would work wonders in this case.
How about if I take one aspect of you and publicly label it a disorder, and I go further, and implicitly state that this disorder affects aspects of your behaviour and thinking. This is what a mental illness is. I can then make the association between mental illness ( the disorder affecting part of your behaviour and thinking), and opinions you might have (that may or may not be related to the disorder I have attached to you), but which serve to discredit or undermine any other thought or opinion you might have, since we have now established (because I said so), that you have this mental disorder.
In this way, your views and attitudes on a whole host of issues can be marginalised. You can be marginalised.
And if you don't agree with my analysis, simply look up the definition of mental illness. And then think about how that diagnosis will impact on an individual who doesn't agree or accept they have a mental illness. And then think how that supposed diagnosis (or label, for want of another word) can be used by other people.
In fact, you don't have to go far to see how the application of that label can be used. Just a few posts ago we have that label being used to justify the exclusion of a whole group of people from aspects of popular culture, and the assertion that to include them would be immoral.
Comments
Forgive me if I think this is a tad inflated, and no, I really don't care what a character is provided they're well written.
So while we complain about a video game character, Islamic countries abuse women by throwing acid in their faces, gay people are castrated or killed, and drawing a child molester from the year 611 AD is enough to get you killed.
I don't mean to get too off topic, but I defy any trans person who feels attacked to go to Yemen... actually, I don't, I wouldn't wish my enemies to go there.
I'd hate to go there, but this all seems like first world problems up in here, and I don't say that to be crass.
There are more dire issues too in Western culture, or are lead pipes no longer a concern? Does rising sea level no longer matter? Bees? Clean Energy? We'll have plenty of time to deal with inequities of black, white, gay, male, trans, female, etc. when the risk of huffing coal living at a sea level which used to be considered 50 feet above sea level as we learn to eat jellyfish because other sea life dies off.
TLDR: the world is filled with people who say mean things, but as a random druid npc quote once said "Don't mess with nature, or it'll mess with you!" Oh and before someone tries to twist that line into me saying something transphobic... you're looking too hard for conflict wherever you go.
(To be clear this message are just for the message of @Dazzu and some other in other thread that have the same style. Not to the other people who talk lately on this thread. Sorry if it look like. Yes I've failed my "keep calm" ability check)
1) Issue exists
2) It's not an issue because there exists a bigger issue
3) Find the bigger issue
4) It's not an issue because there exists a bigger issue
5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you find the biggest issue
6) There exists only one issue in the world
So in conclusion, using your very well constructed argument (that shall, from this point forward, be referred to as The Cow Pie Defense), I've just proven that there exists exactly one issue and only one issue in the entire world worth discussing.
Also: Please don't sh*t on other people's religions; the Islamophobia really isn't necessary and has nothing to do with the thread.
*Launch a nuclear attack on Carthage*
The World is now totally fixed ! Good job everybody !
Say, for example, we're not talking about the Realms. It's a fantasy property that someone has made up themselves. And in this fantasy property, there are tons of LGBT characters for a series of reasons that makes sense within the world. It's not relevant what the reasons are for this argument, and I could churn out several dozen for you if you want, but just in case you absolutely need one to wrap your head around the argument let's say deities are real, like in FR, and they answer earnest, deeply felt and strongly desired prayers from followers living correctly according to their rules, and that includes both body related changes and miracle pregnancies requiring a Zynthian-section, or Z-section for gay men (hey, there was no Caesar in this world so no Caesarian-section, but the title of an ancient tyrant birthed that way to two gay tyrants was Zynth, look at that 5 second world building I just did there), and someone reading it goes "wow, there sure are a lot of people who choose to utilize this in-setting element that lets them change their bodies! wow, there sure are lots of gay parents!" before the author reveals why this is the case in the books
Does that make them token? Or does it make the reader unimaginative, closed-minded and impatient? The author has a fully developed explanation, and doesn't hammer the reader over the head with the methods in an unrealistic way (because why would characters in the setting be talking to each other about something that's been true for hundreds of thousands of years of their world's history? that would be forced, if the author felt they had to get the Whys and Wherefores out of the way through stilted dialogue about history and gods in the first few pages so people aren't constantly going "wow so LGBT, such agenda, many forced tokens!") and I'd argue that just having LGBT characters exist in that case is not only not tokenism, if it's just shown constantly that there are lots of LGBT characters and the fact of it isn't really brought up outside of comments like, "I came to know myself later than most, so I have yet to choose a new name. I am of the Nameless, and there is no shame in this." and then you're like "oh ok, this is like a person transitioning at 30 IRL who just has no clue what to change their name to" and it's not tokenizing because of course you'd tell someone that you have no name when they go "And you are...?" especially if it didn't have a negative social connotation in their world...and yet that's pretty much the level of Mizhena's reveal, and we also don't really know outside that dialogue how the culture she grew up in responded outside of her parents eventually coming to understand it and support her after a time, we don't know why that's the case or the history of transness in her home community, or even within Tempus' church! But we don't need to have that explanation for Mizhena to avoid being token, she successfully avoids it on every single metric I can think of! She has tons of other dialogue, none of which mention it, her primary characteristics are related to her faith and her role as a service provider for you, she has quests that also don't revolve around transness (and even if she had one, it would just be one, and she's involved in a handful of quests already so it wouldn't be tokenizing even then). She's well-rounded for a type of character usually much flatter, but not so well-rounded she exceeds that of other merchants involved in quests in BG1 and 2. There's no reason for someone to consider her token outside of trying to shoehorn the real world into a fantasy setting, which ironically is what these complaints usually accuse Beamdog of doing. But it's THEM imposing real world statistics and social realities into Faerûn.
Now let's switch it up. In this fantasy setting people also, due to a factor of evolution which is actually not understood by the populace of the world (because evolution as a theory hasn't been figured out yet, or the gods are purposely obscuring it so people don't play at non-divine versions of Life Creation themselves, who knows, this setting is mere minutes old at this point idk), have the ability to flex their muscles so hard they can break their own bones. There are people on Earth who can do this, they are exceedingly rare and so it would be mind-boggling to discover a whole bunch of them, but here is a world FULL of them!
Well, guess what? That's speculative fiction doing it's job right! It just shocked you, made you do a double-take! With a believable yet unbelievable thing! And no explanation as to why they can do it, even though the author does have one and this setting's Al-Jahiz or Ibn Arabi or Nasir al-Din al-Tusi or Nakhshabi or Ibn Khaldun is going to emerge during the series of books and reveal the evolutionary cause (what, did you think I was going to say "this setting's Darwin" when Muslim philosophers and scientists laid the path to his theory?) and sure a very rare subsection of Earth humans can use a greater % of their muscle strength to just flex so hard their arm bone shatters, but now somebody's imagination has posited a "what if" about something very very rare existing super commonly! That's fantasy! That's sci fi! That's what speculative fiction exists for!
So the argument that it's "too unrealistic" and "too rare, and so stands out" is so bogus. Fantasy fans read fantasy to read rare and weird things being commonplace for reasons both logical and sensible, and outside the realms of logic because of arcane or divine or psychic (and on and on with the types of hand-waving) interference in the realms of cause and effect, reason and logic, etc. That's fantasy! Anyone who says "but I don't want to have to imagine more of this stuff I don't like from real life in my fantasy" and disguise it doesn't interest me, and people who are earnestly caught up with real world statistics when engaging with sci fi and fantasy media/entertainment are...well, probably looking for a different genre tbh
Ed Greenwood created the Realms, and he said there's trans people. As the video said, trans characters deserve to be flat and round, just like muscle-flexing bone breakers in the setting I just made up deserve to be both flat and round. If someone has a problem with one but no problem with the other, there's something else at play there, and it might just be their impatience and lack of imagination instead of their bigotry...but if they can suspend their disbelief and just ponder about the bone-breaking, then why is it they can't do it about LGBT people simply existing?
It should be noted that the current ICD in use is known as ICD-10, and was published in 1990.
The WHO is currently revising and rewriting the ICD, and ICD-11 is expected to be published in 2017. It is widely expected that the F66 categories are going to be completely removed. Indeed, this is the published recommendation of the WHO's own working group, which was set up to examine this very matter.
This is called progress.
(Or about people from the chanosphere trolling because being bigots to people online is hi---larious, probably more accurately in this case.)
That was progress too.
Current research points to "transgender" identity not being a mental illness. There is an associated diagnosis in the DSM-5 called "gender dysphoria" which is about the distress caused by being transgender in a society that doesn't really accommodate it. The ICD is very likely to follow suit.
The second thing is all mental illnesses should be legitimized. That is understood, and the best treatments widely known and used. Even if being "transgender" is classified as a mental illness, best practice is transition. Nothing else works - not medication, not talk therapy. If someone needs transition then the best thing to do for them is to let them transition. To help them transition. Actual scientific research shows that when transgender people transition (those who need to, not everyone needs or wants to) that they function better and have better mental health as a consequence.
But this conversation isn't about what science says. It's about what hatred says, and hatred says to call "transgender" a "mental illness" and condemn it as a personal failing, which is both inappropriate and false and not only betrays a nasty attitude about transgender people, but also a similarly nasty attitude about people who are mentally ill.
And that is apart from the funny notion that you seem to think that science didn't change over the years, back then a difference from the norm was rather quickly classified as a mental illness (-;
If you want to stand by your opinion, find the science that proves your point and link to it.
Edit: and btw, "science" used to say ie that all women who didn't act according to male-made principles was "hysterical" and demanded treatment. This ofc has been proven to be utter bullshit, so if you want to link to science, please choose modern science, kkthx.
Also, in case it hasn't been obvious already, there are several transgender users in this community, many of whom are posting in this very thread. Although everyone is certainly welcome to express their views in a respectful and civil manner, it bears noting that the topic of nonbinary gender identity is more significant to the people experiencing it than to those who are not.
Just be aware of this when you state your views on the matter, and know that some points of view pose the risk of antagonizing these people by marginalizing their position.
Carry on, respectfully.
However; marginalizing their position on it? I have no clue how to interpret that one. Could you give us something more to work with here? As in; how does stating one's opinion marginalize the ideas of someone else? Perhaps an example would work wonders in this case.
An absurdist example:
An apple, Joe, and a banana, Steven, are talking about what it's like being a banana (for context, most fruits are apples in this scenario; bananas are relatively uncommon). The apple says, "I think being a banana is a defect of the apple ideal. We shouldn't be encouraging bananas to embrace this defect."
Joe isn't trying to say that Steven is defective, and they're only saying what they believe, but the message that Steven receives is that to Joe, Steven is defective--and more than that, Steven's being a banana is apparently wrong. Does that mean Steven is unimportant? Does that mean Steven doesn't deserve recognition? Does that mean Steven shouldn't be in the fruit salad?
Steven has been marginalized by Joe's remark. Joe might not have meant it to be an oppressive statement, but the result is exactly that: Joe has presented the argument that Joe's existence is the only one that is valid or worth recognizing, and Steven's existence is a flaw that should be corrected.
If Joe wants to express his feelings about bananas, he can do that--but he should also do Steven the courtesy of seeing things from Steven's perspective, and understand that in this case, the expression of Joe's feelings can feel like an attack on Steven's right to exist.
EDIT: This is different from systemic exclusion, which would be best represented as the fact that both of the characters in the above example are male, and thus the example excludes entirely the perspective of female fruit. (Being a female banana is entirely different from being a male banana.) It shows that in my rational mind, I default to the male perspective, which could be a sign that I'm not thinking enough about the female perspective. Teachable moments!
In this way, your views and attitudes on a whole host of issues can be marginalised. You can be marginalised.
And if you don't agree with my analysis, simply look up the definition of mental illness. And then think about how that diagnosis will impact on an individual who doesn't agree or accept they have a mental illness. And then think how that supposed diagnosis (or label, for want of another word) can be used by other people.
In fact, you don't have to go far to see how the application of that label can be used. Just a few posts ago we have that label being used to justify the exclusion of a whole group of people from aspects of popular culture, and the assertion that to include them would be immoral.
This is what marginalisation is.