To perhaps put it more clearly, if you design a character who is a transgender woman, and the majority of fans see her as a man, what you've got is a failure. That failure may be due to how you presented the character (for example, using masculine pronouns everywhere), it may be due to prejudice, it may be a combination of the two. But it's not a good example of how to create a successful transgender character.
Time to go at it harder then. Next time, make a transgender npc that can be romanced, and let her pull the man gun right before action. Make it an animation even. You're gonna have a success there.
Players recognize a character is a male->female. Does not view them as trans. Ultimate Success.
Players recognize a character as strictly male. Does not view her as trans or female. No success.
I am not putting words in your mouth. This is quite clear.
Yes, you are. You said that I want a trans character rather than a character who is trans. This is a meaningless distinction to begin with, and it has literally nothing to do with what I wrote - which is that Gwyndolin is not a successful transgender character because she is consistently referred to as a man in the English version of the game, and because she is consistently seen as a man by the majority of fans.
She's not "a character who is transgender." She's a character with trans cues but is presented as a man. If that's your (or Ashiel's) ideal of trans representation, then I'm sorry to say it's no ideal at all. If a game presents a transgender character (transgender is an adjective and so can be placed before the noun) or a character who is transgender, whichever sentence construction you prefer, and the intent is for that character to be good representation, then the game needs to present the character's gender correctly. Otherwise...it's not good trans representation. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise.
Players recognize a character is a male->female. Does not view them as trans. Ultimate Success.
Players recognize a character as strictly male. Does not view her as trans or female. No success.
I am not putting words in your mouth. This is quite clear.
Yes, you are. You said that I want a trans character rather than a character who is trans. This is a meaningless distinction to begin with, and it has literally nothing to do with what I wrote - which is that Gwyndolin is not a successful transgender character because she is consistently referred to as a man in the English version of the game, and because she is consistently seen as a man by the majority of fans.
I think two times she is referred to as a man. And stating majority requires proof, please.
Also, while we're talking about the entire fandom of Darksouls, most everyone I know personally refers to Gwyndolin as she, her, and was (as in was born a...). A small subset to be sure, but when we're making claims about the entire fanbase, we better be pretty sure it's the surest norm.
The point is, whether or not everyone accepts Gwyndolin as female, there was no huge outcry to the contrary. So we can't play the bigot card. At the very least, whether they see her as female or not (and bigots wouldn't, right? I mean, are you suggesting that people see Mizhena as female and dislike her because she's a tranny that they also think is female?).
So execution worked. Those who accept her as trans are happy, those who don't...didn't have a meltdown and are further desensitized to non-binary gender roles.
Seems like a win/win to me.
And there will always be people that don't see us as whatever we identify as. And, I hate to say it but, we're stuck with our genetic makeup. At the end of the day, we're in a bad situation that there's no real good way to overcome or be out of, because there will always be some aspect of us that is still incomplete.
But seeing someone as a male who lives as a female is pretty much what being a transwoman is. We'll never be female in the absolute, but we'd like to live happily, and treated like people. It's irrational to think that people will wholly accept us as our identified gender because there's always going to be a difference, until science makes some truly outstanding breakthroughs (maybe involving stem cells and cloning advancement).
Except every picture I've ever seen that someone's taken to show the dreaded "manspreading", it's when there are plenty of open seats, and it ignores women with their bags and stuff spread out next to them, often in the same pictures.
Come visit! We can go see real live metro cars, so you won't have to speculate based on photos you've seen on Tumblr.
But you frequently do get dialog options, especially when given a rather big wall of text and such. And, as I noted before, there are other factors contributing to the perception. Likewise, your attitude is unnecessarily antagonistic. What do you hope to accomplish other than making yourself feel better about fighting the good fight and giving yourself a pat on the back?
Because there is no reason to be upset about the lack of an "evil" response to this particular NPC other than to have an agenda. An agenda against transgendered people, or an agenda against "SJWs", neither of which is an honest accounting. Mizhena is not a big exception to an otherwise standard rule where you can tell off and insult NPCs for infodumping on you, and saying as much is deceitful.
Fighting the good fight is indeed exactly what I'm doing. I'm under no illusion that I'm suddenly going to wake up a a ton of people to be better, kinder internet denizens or that posting on a message board is saving the world, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Speech matters. Standing up for people matters. Not even because they can't stand up for themselves (there are many trans people here standing up for themselves, including yourself, who disagrees with me), but because it is the right thing to do. As long as these discussions are allowed to continue on the boards, I'm not going to give transphobia a pass, or lying about Amber Scott a pass.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm not helping, in your case. But while I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it.
You are being needlessly dismissive and you openly mock others for feeling differently than you do. Nobody here has done the same, so why not leave that crap at the door?
You can disagree with or even dislike me all you want, but you cannot be even slightly honest and argue that I am the only one here that is "needlessly dismissive" and "openly mocking others for feeling differently than I do". Virtually everyone I've responded to in these debates, with maybe one or two exceptions, is very hostile, dismissive and mocking.
Except things aren't so binary. For example, a some people are uncomfortable with what they perceive as a token character (and are no more wrong than disliking the notion of a token *insert subgroup* in anything). Further, some people are uncomfortable with the way that responses were initially responded to (yeah, it's doing us no favors). Some people are uncomfortable with seeing what feels like an agenda jab rather than something that seems natural, and when we've already had cases where companies like Obsidian were harassed because of a short goofy poem (I read the poem, it's actually kind of funny) and got the content changed/removed (also not good for us, IMHO), it makes it feel uncomfortable (which is exactly why it's not good for us). Some people feel let down by the inclusion and are of the mindset of "If you won't do it well, please just don't do it", which is a fair criticism.
Trying to make these things so binary discourages real discussion and understanding. You're doing no one any favors. You're only making things more hostile, needlessly.
Again, I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it, and I feel the history of inclusion of women and minorities in popular culture works backs me up. If you wait for the "perfect" trans character that no bigot objects to, you will wait forever. There will ALWAYS be a reason to oppose them - unless they are used purely as a exotic female sex object, the only "normal" use in the eyes of the reactionary manosphere.
I also disagree with the notion that Mizhena is a "token" character. She is a minor NPC involved in two questlines, and you can find out about an interesting bit of her backstory if you care to question her on her name. She is a completely normal character, neither in the story only to announce "I'm trans!", nor "shoved in the player's face", as is so often complained about. She doesn't use anachronistic modern terms to talk about her gender identity, and it is not central to what she's doing in the game. It is the very opposite of a token, a character included merely to give the appearance of diversity.
Make no mistake, if Mizhena had been a full party member, the exact same shitstorm would have erupted. The people that hate Mizhena, by and large, are going to hate anything they perceive as "SJW agenda pushing", and any trans character is agenda-pushing because they are not used to dealing with trans characters in their media. This absolutely did happen with Hexxat, who was a full party member.
The only way this will change is when trans characters become normal and accepted, just as black characters became normal and accepted in major roles (as opposed to "maid", "servant", "chauffeur", "criminal", etc.). Mizhena is a step forward here - a completely normal character that happens to be trans, if you inquire about her.
Your posting is pretty much indicative of what I'm talking about. You're talking past me. If you were even reading what I was saying, or not assuming deceit, it'd be quite obvious I'm not anti-trans. You'd have to be trying to conclude "simply due to your posts here", when I've said nothing anti-tg in the slightest, and am (including in my posts here) discussing things for the benefit of transgendered people.
It's very uncomfortable to be treated this way, so there is no reason to imagine.
Actually, I just confused you for one of the other people I was arguing with. I apologise for that; I've made a point of not checking this threads late at night since then.
Who are you talking about, here? Just who do you think I am? I'm not blaming anyone, but you're not doing me any favors either. Why is it that the only people that make me feel like I'm under attack at the people claiming they're defending me!?
That is most likely because you're in opposition to most of the points made by the contingent who are pro-Mizhena, pro-Amber Scott, and pro-Beamdog in general on SoD. Since most of the people who would be "pro-trans" are on that side, they are also likely to argue with you.
I feel uncomfortable because I feel like the ****ing rope in a game of tug of war. I don't feel like I'm under attack because of where I live. I get that there are two sides to everything. I'd rather we could just use whatever toilet happens to coincide with our personal preferences, but I likewise understand that not everyone else understands us, and it would make them feel just as awkward or uncomfortable as my not being able to just walk into the women's bathroom because I don't have a vagina.
Is it that hard to understand other people? Is it so hard to understand that other people are human beings to, and even if we don't agree with each other, trying to climb on the highest horse doesn't help us see any better?
It depends on what the issue is. Would it have been so hard to understand that black people made many white people uncomfortable in 1940s-50s America, and not all of them understood black people, and thus just stay at the back of the bus? Nope, it wouldn't, but it wouldn't have been the right thing to do even if it would have avoided a lot of immediate unpleasantness.
It depends on what the issue is. Would it have been so hard to understand that black people made many white people uncomfortable in 1940s-50s America, and not all of them understood black people, and thus just stay at the back of the bus? Nope, it wouldn't, but it wouldn't have been the right thing to do even if it would have avoided a lot of immediate unpleasantness.
If a white person dragged Rosa Parks out of the seat she was in and sat her next to them, said "Look here at this black woman, can you all see her? See this awesome thing I did?", it'd feel a little closer to home. Or if someone walked up and was like "Hey, can I take a picture of you?", "Because I won the Street Fighter game?" you ask, "Because we need more diversity in our yearbook".
However, that's not even close to the same thing. Even I can recognize that if I walked into a public bathroom, it could frighten someone, or make them feel embarrassed, etc. Forcing our condition onto other people isn't going to make them accept us, it only promotes anger and eventually that anger boils over. It's not about segregation, it's about feeling safe. We're not second class citizens, we're simply awkward classed citizens. We have every right to use the same bathrooms as everyone else, just not the everyone else we most identify with.
And it's not an easy question to answer with a simple solution that works for everyone. We are, factually, a slim minority. That means that we're the odd-one-out, and forcing the majority to conform to our preferences is of questionable morality at best. To most people, there's no reason to allow a man into a woman's bathroom or vice versa, and as I noted before, even with medical science where it is, it's not very simple. And if you decide you're going to, you're going to need to figure out where to draw the line, and if it's not physical/biologically based, then what? Gonna carry a special T-card you get from your psychiatrist or doctor saying you've got a right to go into the bathroom for the opposite sex?
Not even because they can't stand up for themselves (there are many trans people here standing up for themselves, including yourself, who disagrees with me), but because it is the right thing to do.
Well, I hope at least that I give someone a positive experience with our existence, rather than associating us with the disease on our culture, or assuming that we're trying to push some sort of agenda.
If a white person dragged Rosa Parks out of the seat she was in and sat her next to them, said "Look here at this black woman, can you all see her? See this awesome thing I did?", it'd feel a little closer to home. Or if someone walked up and was like "Hey, can I take a picture of you?", "Because I wont the Street Fighter game?" you ask, "Because we need more diversity in our yearbook".
With all due respect, nobody is doing anything like that.
However, that's not even close to the same thing. Even I can recognize that if I walked into a public bathroom, it could frighten someone, or make them feel embarrassed, etc. Forcing our condition onto other people isn't going to make them accept us, it only promotes anger and eventually that anger boils over. It's not about segregation, it's about feeling safe.
Word for word, you could have used that as an argument for black people staying at the back of the bus.
If you frightened or embarassed someone by walking into a public bathroom appropriate to your gender, the problem lies with them, not with you.
We're not second class citizens, we're simply awkward classed citizens. We have every right to use the same bathrooms as everyone else, just not the everyone else we most identify with.
And it's not an easy question to answer with a simple solution that works for everyone. We are, factually, a slim minority. That means that we're the odd-one-out, and forcing the majority to conform to our preferences is of questionable morality at best. To most people, there's no reason to allow a man into a woman's bathroom or vice versa, and as I noted before, even with medical science where it is, it's not very simple. And if you decide you're going to, you're going to need to figure out where to draw the line, and if it's not physical/biologically based, then what? Gonna carry a special T-card you get from your psychiatrist or doctor saying you've got a right to go into the bathroom for the opposite sex?
The gender-separated bathroom system, aside from being predicated on the notion that gay people don't exist, is kind of off-topic for discussion here, so I'd rather not continue this line of thought.
Well, I hope at least that I give someone a positive experience with our existence, rather than associating us with the disease on our culture, or assuming that we're trying to push some sort of agenda.
I think it's unfortunate that you feel you need to give a "positive experience" with trans people to those who don't want to accept them. But I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, either. Good luck to you.
I think it's unfortunate that you feel you need to give a "positive experience" with trans people to those who don't want to accept them.
See, that's the problem. There is more than yes Y/N in these situations. There's lots and lots of neutral-people out in the world who don't feel particularly strongly one-way or another, but they certainly can be made to, and coming off as entitled brats doesn't help us at all.
And, you know what, why would it be a bad thing to provide a positive experience to someone who's got a negative opinion of transfolk? How on earth could that be a bad thing? People do change. I've seen it happen.
If a white person dragged Rosa Parks out of the seat she was in and sat her next to them, said "Look here at this black woman, can you all see her? See this awesome thing I did?", it'd feel a little closer to home. Or if someone walked up and was like "Hey, can I take a picture of you?", "Because I wont the Street Fighter game?" you ask, "Because we need more diversity in our yearbook".
With all due respect, nobody is doing anything like that.
However, that's not even close to the same thing. Even I can recognize that if I walked into a public bathroom, it could frighten someone, or make them feel embarrassed, etc. Forcing our condition onto other people isn't going to make them accept us, it only promotes anger and eventually that anger boils over. It's not about segregation, it's about feeling safe.
Word for word, you could have used that as an argument for black people staying at the back of the bus.
If you frightened or embarassed someone by walking into a public bathroom appropriate to your gender, the problem lies with them, not with you.
We're not second class citizens, we're simply awkward classed citizens. We have every right to use the same bathrooms as everyone else, just not the everyone else we most identify with.
And it's not an easy question to answer with a simple solution that works for everyone. We are, factually, a slim minority. That means that we're the odd-one-out, and forcing the majority to conform to our preferences is of questionable morality at best. To most people, there's no reason to allow a man into a woman's bathroom or vice versa, and as I noted before, even with medical science where it is, it's not very simple. And if you decide you're going to, you're going to need to figure out where to draw the line, and if it's not physical/biologically based, then what? Gonna carry a special T-card you get from your psychiatrist or doctor saying you've got a right to go into the bathroom for the opposite sex?
The gender-separated bathroom system, aside from being predicated on the notion that gay people don't exist, is kind of off-topic for discussion here, so I'd rather not continue this line of thought.
Well, I hope at least that I give someone a positive experience with our existence, rather than associating us with the disease on our culture, or assuming that we're trying to push some sort of agenda.
I think it's unfortunate that you feel you need to give a "positive experience" with trans people to those who don't want to accept them. But I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, either. Good luck to you.
Yep. Its ridiculous that anyone should have to be afraid to openly be who they are out of fear of certain people not accepting them or becoming angry. Its funny that Rosa Parks was mentioned in this thread because she wasn't afraid to anger people with bigoted attitudes. She proudly stood up to them. If everyone was that fearful of angering people, LGBT people would still be in the closet, women would be in the kitchen and African-American people would be in the fields. You can't be afraid to stand up to these people. And if you stay silent because you're afraid of upsetting them then nothing will ever change. Change comes from having the courage to take a step forward and no one has ever changed the world by being silent. The reason why same-sex marriage is legal right now in the United States is because of the tireless effort of LGBT activists in our country and they faced a severe backlash during the fight but that didn't deter them. If a person is transendered, then you need to realize that these people are going to have a problem with you regardless of what you do so why not be open and proud about who you are?
I didn't say silent. I'm talking about being unnecessarily antagonistic, and being forced to be provocative isn't something anyone should have placed on them either. Likewise, I don't believe people should be silent, but I do believe in being diplomatic, and improving the general opinion of trans people rather than having a bunch of people trying to use us to beat other people over the god****ed head.
I've dealt with a lot of intolerance before. I work in customer service, I deal with people all the time, I discuss people's problems, I debate with people, and I'm nonreligious in the bible belt, and what I've learned is it's a lot more effective to not provoke people unnecessarily because it shuts down discussion.
For Example We have a person (say a trans woman), and that person comes up and wants to interact with a group of individuals that they want to be included in (such as a group of gamers playing Street Fighter). This person wants to enjoy not only this game but also the community that you're playing with.
Out of ten people in this group, 1 is pretty pro-trans, 7 are indifferent, and 2 are anti-trans (one because they're kinda 'phobic of what they see as strange, the other because some archaic book implies you're an abomination)...
Let's play an RPG Route 1: Inject Yourself Provocatively We decide to join the group. Two of the group members aren't thrilled with your presence and make some uncouth comments, and you are sure to tell them what for, you and the pro-trans person tell them what bigoted assholes they are, causing a scene. You're in the right, but you're also the outsider, and you haven't established your value yet, and human minds are geared towards supporting their own, so furthering your presence as an outsider isn't helping matters.
Tempers flare, and the seven neutrals are going to associate this horrible incident with you, because that's the way the human brain works. They're put into an uncomfortable situation, you're the newbie, and you're causing a stink. You're not getting invited back, and you're probably given them a sour impression which will extend to other transgendered people because the human brain likes patterns and it currently associates "transgendered person" with "disruptive asshole".
Route 2: Merge with the Group We decide to join the group. Two of the group members aren't thrilled with your presence and make some uncouth comments, but you tell your friend that it's okay. You might even make an apology, "I'm sorry I offend you, but we're just here to play Street Fighter," if you're particularly diplomatic. Then you just be an enjoyable person, and the 7 neutral players will recognize you as a benefit to their group because you're into what they're into, and surely, they will become more protective of you, and begin letting the other two know that even if you can stand their foolishness, they don't want to deal with that stuff, they just want to Shoryuken and that they're ruining the vibe.
You get invited back, and you've just given a positive impression of someone that's in a category that the group hadn't been familiar with. The guys who are against it find they have little ground to stand on, and, in time, they'll loosen up as well, because at the end of the day...well, damnit they're there to Shoryuken too.
What happens is that fighting real problems is difficult, and dangerous. It's much easier to verbally fight things over the net. Makes me feel righteous, and no risk is involved. It is the common trait between the gamergaters and the social justice warriors.
The reason why same-sex marriage is legal right now in the United States is because of the tireless effort of LGBT activists in our country and they faced a severe backlash during the fight but that didn't deter them.
There have been multiple pieces that I've read on the Washington Post and elsewhere that have put forth compelling arguments that the reason for the huge (and quick) shift in public opinion toward being favorable to gay marriage had nothing to do with activists, but came down to the fact that after homosexuals came out of the closet in larger numbers people simply grew more accustomed to being in the presence of gays and lesbians.
There is really not much of a substitute for personal experience. Once many more Americans had the experience of having a gay friend or relative, their attitudes toward gay marriage changed significantly. It is not a very complicated proposition, and there were similar results, in terms of race relations, when schools were desegregated. It, in fact, was one of the biggest reasons that desegregation was so imperative.
Public opinion did not shift because of activists, but because of normal, everyday gay people making friends and influencing people. Justice Kennedy cited this shift in public opinion in the Obergefell case:
"In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law."
You might even make an apology, "I'm sorry I offend you, but we're just here to play Street Fighter," if you're particularly diplomatic. Then you just be an enjoyable person, and the 7 neutral players will recognize you as a benefit to their group because you're into what they're into, and surely, they will become more protective of you, and begin letting the other two know that even if you can stand their foolishness, they don't want to deal with that stuff, they just want to Shoryuken and that they're ruining the vibe.
This... this I have concerns about. Your situation has multiple members of a group reacting negatively to the person in question regardless of what they do, and the polite situation has the person receiving verbal abuse say, "It is fine," even apologizing that who they are, regardless of what they are doing, makes them uncomfortable in the hope that they will overcome their inherently prejudiced views, keeping in mind that even if they do overcome said views, it will likely be over the course of many sessions during which they are passively, if not actively, hostile to your very presence.
I fully respect your own perspective, but for me, the idea of tolerating verbal abuse over who I am, then spending my own free time with those who abuse me, in the hopes that their friends will tolerate me is not something that I would ever want to participate in. I get the analogy that you are trying to make, but the example that you use is one that relies on a mindset that I don't feel is entirely healthy for the person entering the situation, given that it relies on the premise that you are not entitled to emotional security and safety, that you have to sacrifice such things in order to participate in activities that you would otherwise enjoy.
Alot to catch up on it seems, crap about homosexual marriage wasn't included when the Americans wrote their constitution. Eg. It's in the British and Australian and other constitutions. same as writing the "a man has to bear arms" in the constitution it was a rushed constitution. Not that much thought was put into it for the future. A nation born from war. So since there was nothing against gay/lesbian marriage in the constitution, it's now allowed. Atleast that is how I read it.
The majority did try and stall it as long as possible tho.
Alot to catch up on it seems, crap about homosexual marriage wasn't included when the Americans wrote their constitution. Eg. It's in the British and Australian and other constitutions. same as writing the "a man has to bear arms" in the constitution it was a rushed constitution. Not that much thought was put into it for the future. A nation born from war. So since there was nothing against gay/lesbian marriage in the constitution, it's now allowed. Atleast that is how I read it.
The British do not have a codified constitution and the Australian Constitution does not mention gay marriage.
Also, Obergefell was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment, which was added 80 years after the Constitution was originally adopted.
Can somebody explain to me, why on one hand "apparently" trans people do not in real life talk about their sexuality very open but in these threads they feel the need to expose themselves as being trans or on facebook and youtube and so forth? To me this whole debate seems like it got blown out of proportions and sometimes it's even questionable whether every person outing themselves as trans is truly so.
Reading this is tiring, and I think it's off topic. Except the picture about "uncle sue" that's epic, more sjw agenda propaganda. One side is fighting for games to have zero political Agenda and equality(censorship included) and stuff. The other side is fighting for it. I'll just ask why politics and equality(censorship included) is a good thing for gaming?
Can somebody explain to me, why on one hand "apparently" trans people do not in real life talk about their sexuality very open but in these threads they feel the need to expose themselves as being trans or on facebook and youtube and so forth? To me this whole debate seems like it got blown out of proportions and sometimes it's even questionable whether every person outing themselves as trans is truly so.
Are you suggesting that some people might tell little fibs in their posts?
If so I agree. I am beginning to suspect that alot of people who have joined the forum recently (lowers voice to speak in a hushed whisper), don't actually care about Baldurs Gate at all!
Can somebody explain to me, why on one hand "apparently" trans people do not in real life talk about their sexuality very open but in these threads they feel the need to expose themselves as being trans or on facebook and youtube and so forth? To me this whole debate seems like it got blown out of proportions and sometimes it's even questionable whether every person outing themselves as trans is truly so.
It's Much less personal over social media, it's your best bet at a good random conversation with minority groups. The "majority" don't have as many friends around to join in and win en mass, and it's far safer physically.
Comments
This discussion hasn't been about what I want or do not want.
She's not "a character who is transgender." She's a character with trans cues but is presented as a man. If that's your (or Ashiel's) ideal of trans representation, then I'm sorry to say it's no ideal at all. If a game presents a transgender character (transgender is an adjective and so can be placed before the noun) or a character who is transgender, whichever sentence construction you prefer, and the intent is for that character to be good representation, then the game needs to present the character's gender correctly. Otherwise...it's not good trans representation. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise.
The point is, whether or not everyone accepts Gwyndolin as female, there was no huge outcry to the contrary. So we can't play the bigot card. At the very least, whether they see her as female or not (and bigots wouldn't, right? I mean, are you suggesting that people see Mizhena as female and dislike her because she's a tranny that they also think is female?).
So execution worked. Those who accept her as trans are happy, those who don't...didn't have a meltdown and are further desensitized to non-binary gender roles.
Seems like a win/win to me.
And there will always be people that don't see us as whatever we identify as. And, I hate to say it but, we're stuck with our genetic makeup. At the end of the day, we're in a bad situation that there's no real good way to overcome or be out of, because there will always be some aspect of us that is still incomplete.
But seeing someone as a male who lives as a female is pretty much what being a transwoman is. We'll never be female in the absolute, but we'd like to live happily, and treated like people. It's irrational to think that people will wholly accept us as our identified gender because there's always going to be a difference, until science makes some truly outstanding breakthroughs (maybe involving stem cells and cloning advancement).
Fighting the good fight is indeed exactly what I'm doing. I'm under no illusion that I'm suddenly going to wake up a a ton of people to be better, kinder internet denizens or that posting on a message board is saving the world, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. Speech matters. Standing up for people matters. Not even because they can't stand up for themselves (there are many trans people here standing up for themselves, including yourself, who disagrees with me), but because it is the right thing to do. As long as these discussions are allowed to continue on the boards, I'm not going to give transphobia a pass, or lying about Amber Scott a pass.
I'm sorry you feel that I'm not helping, in your case. But while I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it. You can disagree with or even dislike me all you want, but you cannot be even slightly honest and argue that I am the only one here that is "needlessly dismissive" and "openly mocking others for feeling differently than I do". Virtually everyone I've responded to in these debates, with maybe one or two exceptions, is very hostile, dismissive and mocking. Again, I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it, and I feel the history of inclusion of women and minorities in popular culture works backs me up. If you wait for the "perfect" trans character that no bigot objects to, you will wait forever. There will ALWAYS be a reason to oppose them - unless they are used purely as a exotic female sex object, the only "normal" use in the eyes of the reactionary manosphere.
I also disagree with the notion that Mizhena is a "token" character. She is a minor NPC involved in two questlines, and you can find out about an interesting bit of her backstory if you care to question her on her name. She is a completely normal character, neither in the story only to announce "I'm trans!", nor "shoved in the player's face", as is so often complained about. She doesn't use anachronistic modern terms to talk about her gender identity, and it is not central to what she's doing in the game. It is the very opposite of a token, a character included merely to give the appearance of diversity.
Make no mistake, if Mizhena had been a full party member, the exact same shitstorm would have erupted. The people that hate Mizhena, by and large, are going to hate anything they perceive as "SJW agenda pushing", and any trans character is agenda-pushing because they are not used to dealing with trans characters in their media. This absolutely did happen with Hexxat, who was a full party member.
The only way this will change is when trans characters become normal and accepted, just as black characters became normal and accepted in major roles (as opposed to "maid", "servant", "chauffeur", "criminal", etc.). Mizhena is a step forward here - a completely normal character that happens to be trans, if you inquire about her. Actually, I just confused you for one of the other people I was arguing with. I apologise for that; I've made a point of not checking this threads late at night since then. That is most likely because you're in opposition to most of the points made by the contingent who are pro-Mizhena, pro-Amber Scott, and pro-Beamdog in general on SoD. Since most of the people who would be "pro-trans" are on that side, they are also likely to argue with you. It depends on what the issue is. Would it have been so hard to understand that black people made many white people uncomfortable in 1940s-50s America, and not all of them understood black people, and thus just stay at the back of the bus? Nope, it wouldn't, but it wouldn't have been the right thing to do even if it would have avoided a lot of immediate unpleasantness.
However, that's not even close to the same thing. Even I can recognize that if I walked into a public bathroom, it could frighten someone, or make them feel embarrassed, etc. Forcing our condition onto other people isn't going to make them accept us, it only promotes anger and eventually that anger boils over. It's not about segregation, it's about feeling safe. We're not second class citizens, we're simply awkward classed citizens. We have every right to use the same bathrooms as everyone else, just not the everyone else we most identify with.
And it's not an easy question to answer with a simple solution that works for everyone. We are, factually, a slim minority. That means that we're the odd-one-out, and forcing the majority to conform to our preferences is of questionable morality at best. To most people, there's no reason to allow a man into a woman's bathroom or vice versa, and as I noted before, even with medical science where it is, it's not very simple. And if you decide you're going to, you're going to need to figure out where to draw the line, and if it's not physical/biologically based, then what? Gonna carry a special T-card you get from your psychiatrist or doctor saying you've got a right to go into the bathroom for the opposite sex? Well, I hope at least that I give someone a positive experience with our existence, rather than associating us with the disease on our culture, or assuming that we're trying to push some sort of agenda.
If you frightened or embarassed someone by walking into a public bathroom appropriate to your gender, the problem lies with them, not with you. The gender-separated bathroom system, aside from being predicated on the notion that gay people don't exist, is kind of off-topic for discussion here, so I'd rather not continue this line of thought. I think it's unfortunate that you feel you need to give a "positive experience" with trans people to those who don't want to accept them. But I'm not going to tell you how to live your life, either. Good luck to you.
I think this pretty much says it all...
I've dealt with a lot of intolerance before. I work in customer service, I deal with people all the time, I discuss people's problems, I debate with people, and I'm nonreligious in the bible belt, and what I've learned is it's a lot more effective to not provoke people unnecessarily because it shuts down discussion.
For Example
We have a person (say a trans woman), and that person comes up and wants to interact with a group of individuals that they want to be included in (such as a group of gamers playing Street Fighter). This person wants to enjoy not only this game but also the community that you're playing with.
Out of ten people in this group, 1 is pretty pro-trans, 7 are indifferent, and 2 are anti-trans (one because they're kinda 'phobic of what they see as strange, the other because some archaic book implies you're an abomination)...
Let's play an RPG
Route 1: Inject Yourself Provocatively We decide to join the group. Two of the group members aren't thrilled with your presence and make some uncouth comments, and you are sure to tell them what for, you and the pro-trans person tell them what bigoted assholes they are, causing a scene. You're in the right, but you're also the outsider, and you haven't established your value yet, and human minds are geared towards supporting their own, so furthering your presence as an outsider isn't helping matters.
Tempers flare, and the seven neutrals are going to associate this horrible incident with you, because that's the way the human brain works. They're put into an uncomfortable situation, you're the newbie, and you're causing a stink. You're not getting invited back, and you're probably given them a sour impression which will extend to other transgendered people because the human brain likes patterns and it currently associates "transgendered person" with "disruptive asshole".
Route 2: Merge with the Group We decide to join the group. Two of the group members aren't thrilled with your presence and make some uncouth comments, but you tell your friend that it's okay. You might even make an apology, "I'm sorry I offend you, but we're just here to play Street Fighter," if you're particularly diplomatic. Then you just be an enjoyable person, and the 7 neutral players will recognize you as a benefit to their group because you're into what they're into, and surely, they will become more protective of you, and begin letting the other two know that even if you can stand their foolishness, they don't want to deal with that stuff, they just want to Shoryuken and that they're ruining the vibe.
You get invited back, and you've just given a positive impression of someone that's in a category that the group hadn't been familiar with. The guys who are against it find they have little ground to stand on, and, in time, they'll loosen up as well, because at the end of the day...well, damnit they're there to Shoryuken too.
There is really not much of a substitute for personal experience. Once many more Americans had the experience of having a gay friend or relative, their attitudes toward gay marriage changed significantly. It is not a very complicated proposition, and there were similar results, in terms of race relations, when schools were desegregated. It, in fact, was one of the biggest reasons that desegregation was so imperative.
Public opinion did not shift because of activists, but because of normal, everyday gay people making friends and influencing people. Justice Kennedy cited this shift in public opinion in the Obergefell case:
"In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance. As a result, questions about the rights of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where the issue could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law."
I fully respect your own perspective, but for me, the idea of tolerating verbal abuse over who I am, then spending my own free time with those who abuse me, in the hopes that their friends will tolerate me is not something that I would ever want to participate in. I get the analogy that you are trying to make, but the example that you use is one that relies on a mindset that I don't feel is entirely healthy for the person entering the situation, given that it relies on the premise that you are not entitled to emotional security and safety, that you have to sacrifice such things in order to participate in activities that you would otherwise enjoy.
The majority did try and stall it as long as possible tho.
The British do not have a codified constitution and the Australian Constitution does not mention gay marriage.
Also, Obergefell was decided on the basis of the 14th Amendment, which was added 80 years after the Constitution was originally adopted.
To me this whole debate seems like it got blown out of proportions and sometimes it's even questionable whether every person outing themselves as trans is truly so.
If so I agree. I am beginning to suspect that alot of people who have joined the forum recently (lowers voice to speak in a hushed whisper), don't actually care about Baldurs Gate at all!