But if our legislators in the GOP genuinely believed that abortion was child murder, they'd have done something to stop it when they had the chance. They did not try to stop it; therefore they do not believe it is wrong.
Or better yet, they believe it's wrong when it best suits their needs.
The GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in the early years of the Bush administration. That's all three of the bodies that you need to pass a law. Despite having the power to implement strong anti-abortion policies at the federal level with little opposition, the GOP failed to do anything to stop it from happening.
You could say that a ban on abortion would be unconstitutional because X, Y, and Z. But the standard GOP position on abortion is that it is literally child murder--you don't just let the states decide whether or not you can kill babies. You'd ban it. I'm pro-choice, but if murder is what abortion boils down to, you HAVE to stop it. You can't just let it slide.
Normally, I'm inclined to think that people mean what they say. If somebody has an economic policy I think is bad, I'm pretty sure they do in fact think it's good. There's no ulterior motive; they just happen to disagree with me. It's an honest position.
But if our legislators in the GOP genuinely believed that abortion was child murder, they'd have done something to stop it when they had the chance. They did not try to stop it; therefore they do not believe it is wrong.
Truthfully, your third paragraph is still largely right.
It's true that underlying the abortion debate is a festering stew of different things, including a deep disdain for extramarital sex and a belief that women can't/shouldn't be the ultimate arbiters of what happens to their own bodies.
But that's not all that's behind it, and despite being 100% pro-choice I don't think most pro-life people are being disingenuous. Fact is, MOST people would be very upset at the idea of a mother murdering her child. The debate is what constitutes a child, when it comes down to it, and this is honestly a completely arbitrary distinction, no matter whether you define it as conception, as birth, as "viable" (a common left-wing definition even though what constitutes "viable" has been pushed back repeatedly by medical science). It comes down to gut instinct rather than fact.
Your fallacy here is three-fold:
1) The assumption that people's beliefs have to be logically consistent. They don't. I don't want to bog down in debating a specific example, but I can imagine everyone here can think of a belief common to people they know that doesn't make any logical sense. People can genuinely believe something but still not act or think logically about it. In fact, that's probably more common than the reverse.
2) The assumption that the GOP is a monolithic bloc. It is primarily social conservatives, particularly religious social conservatives, that care about abortion. Fiscal conservatives, the other wing of the GOP, don't tend to care nearly as much about it. This is a very rough grouping for example's sake; in reality, the patchwork quilt of a big tent party is far more complex, but the point remains: not everybody in the party cares about this issue to the same extent.
3) The assumption that federal action was the only means to work against abortion. Anti-abortion legislation at the federal level is extremely likely to get struck down by the Supreme Court. More local legislation, however, has successfully impeded it over and over again. Many people have no local access to safe and anonymous clinics; women are often forced to get counselling (which invariably tries to talk them out of it) or repeatedly "prove" they desire the procedure, funding for facilities that offer abortion is miniscule or nonexistent, so many have gone out of business, etc, etc. Legislative war against abortion is subjecting it to a death of a thousand cuts rather than a single SC-drawing stroke.
All that being said, the lack of federal action against abortion IS resented by some of the GOP base, and it's one of the arguments for why Bush was "never a conservative".
You could view the GOP position on the issue as cynically exploiting the rubes to push their own fiscally conservative agenda, but I think that's as unfair as saying that Tea Party candidates are "hijacking" the party. In a big tent party situation, there will always be struggle to see whose priorities set the agenda; ideally the compromise makes everyone at least somewhat happy - realistically, some groups are going to either settle for scraps if they can't force the party to cater to them (and this is also very much true of the Democrats) or break away from the coalition to make their own third party (which doesn't work that well in the US political system).
The GOP controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House in the early years of the Bush administration. That's all three of the bodies that you need to pass a law. Despite having the power to implement strong anti-abortion policies at the federal level with little opposition, the GOP failed to do anything to stop it from happening.
You could say that a ban on abortion would be unconstitutional because X, Y, and Z. But the standard GOP position on abortion is that it is literally child murder--you don't just let the states decide whether or not you can kill babies. You'd ban it. I'm pro-choice, but if murder is what abortion boils down to, you HAVE to stop it. You can't just let it slide.
Normally, I'm inclined to think that people mean what they say. If somebody has an economic policy I think is bad, I'm pretty sure they do in fact think it's good. There's no ulterior motive; they just happen to disagree with me. It's an honest position.
But if our legislators in the GOP genuinely believed that abortion was child murder, they'd have done something to stop it when they had the chance. They did not try to stop it; therefore they do not believe it is wrong.
Truthfully, your third paragraph is still largely right.
It's true that underlying the abortion debate is a festering stew of different things, including a deep disdain for extramarital sex and a belief that women can't/shouldn't be the ultimate arbiters of what happens to their own bodies.
But that's not all that's behind it, and despite being 100% pro-choice I don't think most pro-life people are being disingenuous. Fact is, MOST people would be very upset at the idea of a mother murdering her child. The debate is what constitutes a child, when it comes down to it, and this is honestly a completely arbitrary distinction, no matter whether you define it as conception, as birth, as "viable" (a common left-wing definition even though what constitutes "viable" has been pushed back repeatedly by medical science). It comes down to gut instinct rather than fact.
Your fallacy here is three-fold:
1) The assumption that people's beliefs have to be logically consistent. They don't. I don't want to bog down in debating a specific example, but I can imagine everyone here can think of a belief common to people they know that doesn't make any logical sense. People can genuinely believe something but still not act or think logically about it. In fact, that's probably more common than the reverse.
2) The assumption that the GOP is a monolithic bloc. It is primarily social conservatives, particularly religious social conservatives, that care about abortion. Fiscal conservatives, the other wing of the GOP, don't tend to care nearly as much about it. This is a very rough grouping for example's sake; in reality, the patchwork quilt of a big tent party is far more complex, but the point remains: not everybody in the party cares about this issue to the same extent.
3) The assumption that federal action was the only means to work against abortion. Anti-abortion legislation at the federal level is extremely likely to get struck down by the Supreme Court. More local legislation, however, has successfully impeded it over and over again. Many people have no local access to safe and anonymous clinics; women are often forced to get counselling (which invariably tries to talk them out of it) or repeatedly "prove" they desire the procedure, funding for facilities that offer abortion is miniscule or nonexistent, so many have gone out of business, etc, etc. Legislative war against abortion is subjecting it to a death of a thousand cuts rather than a single SC-drawing stroke.
All that being said, the lack of federal action against abortion IS resented by some of the GOP base, and it's one of the arguments for why Bush was "never a conservative".
You could view the GOP position on the issue as cynically exploiting the rubes to push their own fiscally conservative agenda, but I think that's as unfair as saying that Tea Party candidates are "hijacking" the party. In a big tent party situation, there will always be struggle to see whose priorities set the agenda; ideally the compromise makes everyone at least somewhat happy - realistically, some groups are going to either settle for scraps if they can't force the party to cater to them (and this is also very much true of the Democrats) or break away from the coalition to make their own third party (which doesn't work that well in the US political system).
The fiscal conservatives seem to have no problem with the views of the social conservatives being the official platform. Reason?? They tend to have alothe of money, and they, their daughters or their wife will always have the means to travel to a state or country that does have readily available abortions.
As for not being disingenuous, the same people who are most adamantly against abortion are against a.) contraception and b.) most social services that directly impact poor children like food stamps, which.reveals their stand for the charade it is
The abortion debate is about wanting to punish women for having "promiscuous" sex by forcing them to raise a child for 18 years. They could give a shit less what happens to it once it leaves the womb.
@Ayiekie: I actually made a point of specifying that I was talking about GOP legislators, not the rest of the Republican party. I wanted to avoid criticizing the latter. Most of my extended family consists of Republicans and I know they're quite sincere about their social values. My complaint about the inconsistency was directed at Republican politicians, not at Republican citizens. I know Republicans are just as decent as Democrats, but their representatives these days are not, in my opinion.
Notable exceptions would be people like John McCain (no dishonest politician would support campaign finance reform), Robert Gates (always dedicated to protecting America's armed forces), John Boehner (he did try to build some bridges, and seemed more focused on policymaking than politicking), George H. W. Bush (he raised taxes because he thought it was necessary even though it badly hurt his political future, which takes a lot of guts), and George W. Bush (the war in Iraq killed tens of thousands, but his AIDS initiative in Africa saved millions). I like those guys. I don't agree with all of them on everything, but they are reasonable, good-hearted people. If I were to run for president I'd want guys like them in my cabinet.
Your second point does bring out a critical detail here, in that there's a gap between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. The Democratic party has the same split. Traditionally religious people tend to be Republican, but they also tend to be poor, and poor people tend to be Democrats. Rich people tend to be Republicans for fiscal reasons, but their social values are fairly liberal. My dad's a doctor and he's mentioned that most of his colleagues are Republicans only because they support Republican fiscal policies; they've got no problem with abortion and gay marriage. Some people trace the division to 1964, when the Democratic party pushed forward the Civil Rights Act and therefore alienated Southern whites, who used to be a staple constituency of the Democratic party, or they trace it to the GOP's "Southern Strategy" to appeal to blue-collar Southern whites who were drifting away from the Democratic party.
American politics is wonky like that. The poor are drawn to the GOP because of its social values, but are also drawn to the Democratic party because of its fiscal priorities. Likewise, the rich are drawn to the GOP because of its fiscal policy, but are also drawn to the Democratic party because of its social values.
Regarding your third point, I neglected to add one detail: the Supreme Court also leaned conservative during those years, which means federal anti-abortion legislation would have been likely to have survived judicial review. The GOP at the federal level did in fact have the power to push that through, and it would have made sense to have at least tried.
I would say much of GOP legislators' opposition to abortion (but not those of the general public) is indeed politically motivated and not sincere. I don't agree that this was a "struggle to see whose priorities set the agenda," though I'll grant that's a valid explanation and an important thing to keep in mind. You can't very well expect the entire party to march in step and implement all of their standard goals.
But, the GOP was perfectly capable of cutting taxes and deregulating the financial industry. They could be bothered to implement a Republican fiscal policy, but they could not be bothered to try to stop abortion. The former was more important to them than the latter.
I do think the lack of action on that point is an important problem for the GOP. A lot of Republican citizens are upset that the GOP hasn't made much progress on stuff like gay marriage and abortion. The GOP also made big promises to defeat Obama in 2012, and repeal Obamacare, and stop the Iran nuclear deal, and do a lot of other things to block Obama's policies, and each time they failed. The GOP base noticed those unmet promises, and I think that's one of the primary reasons why Trump has done so well: they've lost faith in everybody else.
No one said anything about obligations. No one said anyone should be forced to put politics in their games. People are saying that it's a needed outreach, not that it should be an obligatory outreach.
No one said anything about obligations. No one said anyone should be forced to put politics in their games. People are saying that it's a needed outreach, not that it should be an obligatory outreach.
No one said anyone should be forced to put politics in their games.
So it's cool that you agree with me. So why don't you put that wiki page down?
People are saying that it's a needed outreach, not that it should be an obligatory outreach.
Well, term "warfare" suggests otherwise. Listen - as long as it's independent decision of an artist, it's cool. Really. It becomes problem when a) certain things are expected to appear in piece because that minority is underpresented or something, b) certain things are expected to be presented in specific way, because it's unfair that minoroty is present as bad guys. Art isn't supposed to be realistic. To be fair. To teach us right things.
Set that dictionary down and look up straw man.
I appreciate eristic attempt, but you'd need more subtlety. I mean - c'mon.
Okay, fair enough - I missed your use of obligation. I probably didn't take it in because no one is talking about anyone being obligated to do anything, except to say they shouldn't be obligated. Which is great, because they shouldn't be obligated.
Okay, fair enough - I missed your use of obligation. I probably didn't take it in because no one is talking about anyone being obligated to do anything, except to say they shouldn't be obligated. Which is great, because they shouldn't be obligated.
...you do realise there is thing like "moral obligation", right?
I believe there is a moral obligation, the fact that a woman doing the most basic, Feminism 101 level critiques of videogames on Youtube videos has caused such an absurd reaction means that the industry as a whole (and gamers with it) needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
Moral obligations devaluate art to merely a tool or way of sending a message. With that thinking, "Lolita" could've never be released. And from formal point of view (so speaking of method): it gives any currently popular ideology useful instrument, if we agree on general notion "art has moral obligations".
@joluv - so... you have nothing valuable to say. Pity.
EDIT: Btw, everytime someone says something about "21st century" I kinda shake my head in disbelieve. Aren't we talking about principles and values that are eternal? Did something change after 1999?
I don't really know what you mean about Lolita at all there friend so please clarify.
We are talking about principles and values that are eternal yes, in general they are "treat other people with respect" and "there are lots of unique people in the world with things to offer." The 21st century phrase is saying hey now, its ridiculous that we have been on this Earth for this long and people still struggle with this.
The moral obligation here is not on the art itself but on the artist. Not to say that all art should be a certain way but for a whole genre/medium of art to be ignoring such a vast amount of the human experience cheapens it all. So if the artist cares about being an artist instead of some dabbler surely they have an obligation, at least to themselves to explore all these avenues that have been so long ignored?
People here know that in this case it's the writer will to write what people are calling "social justice warefare" ?
Sooooooo .... if you are for the full freedom for artist to do what they want ... you shouldn't pick "I don't like it, neither when done subtle or not so subtle. Games are for leisure and I'll take care of my own personal development" as a response.
I don't really know what you mean about Lolita at all there friend so please clarify.
Gladly, amigo. Let's agree on assertion "artist has moral obligation towards society/certain values". Now you say about principle: "treat other people with respect". Well, I think we'll agree that seducing twelve years old girl (SPOILER ALERT: that's what "Lolita" is about) breaks that principle, especially if we add that "Lolita" has no clear moral. So, assertion about moral obligations forces us to say that Nabokov did wrong, writing "Lolita". You can take "Gone with the wind" with it's clearly racist message, or brutal and almost anti-human "Iliad", instead of "Lolita", if you wish.
The 21st century phrase is saying hey now, its ridiculous that we have been on this Earth for this long and people still struggle with this.
I get it - at least I think I do. But still, I'd rather have them telling me what rules they think are vital.
Not to say that all art should be a certain way but for a whole genre/medium of art to be ignoring such a vast amount of the human experience cheapens it all. So if the artist cares about being an artist instead of some dabbler surely they have an obligation, at least to themselves to explore all these avenues that have been so long ignored?
It's not obligation, because if *x* is obligated to do something, there is always *y* that can demand fullfiling that obligation (because duty, above all, is a relation); with those "avenues" we are lacking *y*.
Lolita isn't a positive representation of paedophilia though, its about deception. Humbert tries to deceive the reader through his use of charm and language about how horrible he is and what he's really doing, much like he tries to deceive himself and others. So its pretty good as a "moral" text, giving the reader skills in recognising when honeyed words are disguising poisonous intentions.
I think maybe we are getting hung up on the "moral obligation" phrase. Perhaps we should simply say that artists should do their best to see where their medium has deficiencies and see how they could improve upon that.
Fortunately, it think things have changed since '99, mostly for the better, especially in terms of acceptance of marginalized groups and incremental weakening of the kyriarchy.
If "Lolita" example isn't valid, you can take "Gone with the wind", or "The Virginian", or whatever else.
I think maybe we are getting hung up on the "moral obligation" phrase. Perhaps we should simply say that artists should do their best to see where their medium has deficiencies and see how they could improve upon that.
So it's rather a guideline.
Fortunately, it think things have changed since '99, mostly for the better, especially in terms of acceptance of marginalized groups and incremental weakening of the kyriarchy.
I think adding social commentary to a work of art tends to be positive, but only if it fits the situation.
Social commentary can be fun and interesting, a way of poking fun at or calling attention to social trends. We live in a weird world, and satire is entertaining.
But if the setting isn't in our world, or if the issue is especially alien to the genre, adding social commentary tends to be immersion-breaking. A debate about government overreach in Middle Earth? We were expecting fantasy stuff, not real-world issues. A monologue about religion in a romance novel? That's not what we came for. Like any other element of a story, social commentary should be relevant.
That said, I don't think the mere presence of a trans character in a game is itself an example of social commentary, any more than adding a Mormon to a novel makes the book pro-Mormon. Sure, it's bothersome if an artist tries to beat us over the head with a political point. But I haven't seen that actually happen in any video game.
All I have seen in games is the mere presence of gay and trans characters, and the mere presence of something doesn't bother me.
Sooooooo .... if you are for the full freedom for artist to do what they want ... you shouldn't pick "I don't like it, neither when done subtle or not so subtle. Games are for leisure and I'll take care of my own personal development" as a response.
You are mistaking approval of artistic freedom with lack of preferences. And I feel like you haven't read what I wrote about "moral obligations".
Comments
It's true that underlying the abortion debate is a festering stew of different things, including a deep disdain for extramarital sex and a belief that women can't/shouldn't be the ultimate arbiters of what happens to their own bodies.
But that's not all that's behind it, and despite being 100% pro-choice I don't think most pro-life people are being disingenuous. Fact is, MOST people would be very upset at the idea of a mother murdering her child. The debate is what constitutes a child, when it comes down to it, and this is honestly a completely arbitrary distinction, no matter whether you define it as conception, as birth, as "viable" (a common left-wing definition even though what constitutes "viable" has been pushed back repeatedly by medical science). It comes down to gut instinct rather than fact.
Your fallacy here is three-fold:
1) The assumption that people's beliefs have to be logically consistent. They don't. I don't want to bog down in debating a specific example, but I can imagine everyone here can think of a belief common to people they know that doesn't make any logical sense. People can genuinely believe something but still not act or think logically about it. In fact, that's probably more common than the reverse.
2) The assumption that the GOP is a monolithic bloc. It is primarily social conservatives, particularly religious social conservatives, that care about abortion. Fiscal conservatives, the other wing of the GOP, don't tend to care nearly as much about it. This is a very rough grouping for example's sake; in reality, the patchwork quilt of a big tent party is far more complex, but the point remains: not everybody in the party cares about this issue to the same extent.
3) The assumption that federal action was the only means to work against abortion. Anti-abortion legislation at the federal level is extremely likely to get struck down by the Supreme Court. More local legislation, however, has successfully impeded it over and over again. Many people have no local access to safe and anonymous clinics; women are often forced to get counselling (which invariably tries to talk them out of it) or repeatedly "prove" they desire the procedure, funding for facilities that offer abortion is miniscule or nonexistent, so many have gone out of business, etc, etc. Legislative war against abortion is subjecting it to a death of a thousand cuts rather than a single SC-drawing stroke.
All that being said, the lack of federal action against abortion IS resented by some of the GOP base, and it's one of the arguments for why Bush was "never a conservative".
You could view the GOP position on the issue as cynically exploiting the rubes to push their own fiscally conservative agenda, but I think that's as unfair as saying that Tea Party candidates are "hijacking" the party. In a big tent party situation, there will always be struggle to see whose priorities set the agenda; ideally the compromise makes everyone at least somewhat happy - realistically, some groups are going to either settle for scraps if they can't force the party to cater to them (and this is also very much true of the Democrats) or break away from the coalition to make their own third party (which doesn't work that well in the US political system).
As for not being disingenuous, the same people who are most adamantly against abortion are against a.) contraception and b.) most social services that directly impact poor children like food stamps, which.reveals their stand for the charade it is
The abortion debate is about wanting to punish women for having "promiscuous" sex by forcing them to raise a child for 18 years. They could give a shit less what happens to it once it leaves the womb.
Notable exceptions would be people like John McCain (no dishonest politician would support campaign finance reform), Robert Gates (always dedicated to protecting America's armed forces), John Boehner (he did try to build some bridges, and seemed more focused on policymaking than politicking), George H. W. Bush (he raised taxes because he thought it was necessary even though it badly hurt his political future, which takes a lot of guts), and George W. Bush (the war in Iraq killed tens of thousands, but his AIDS initiative in Africa saved millions). I like those guys. I don't agree with all of them on everything, but they are reasonable, good-hearted people. If I were to run for president I'd want guys like them in my cabinet.
Your second point does bring out a critical detail here, in that there's a gap between social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. The Democratic party has the same split. Traditionally religious people tend to be Republican, but they also tend to be poor, and poor people tend to be Democrats. Rich people tend to be Republicans for fiscal reasons, but their social values are fairly liberal. My dad's a doctor and he's mentioned that most of his colleagues are Republicans only because they support Republican fiscal policies; they've got no problem with abortion and gay marriage. Some people trace the division to 1964, when the Democratic party pushed forward the Civil Rights Act and therefore alienated Southern whites, who used to be a staple constituency of the Democratic party, or they trace it to the GOP's "Southern Strategy" to appeal to blue-collar Southern whites who were drifting away from the Democratic party.
American politics is wonky like that. The poor are drawn to the GOP because of its social values, but are also drawn to the Democratic party because of its fiscal priorities. Likewise, the rich are drawn to the GOP because of its fiscal policy, but are also drawn to the Democratic party because of its social values.
Regarding your third point, I neglected to add one detail: the Supreme Court also leaned conservative during those years, which means federal anti-abortion legislation would have been likely to have survived judicial review. The GOP at the federal level did in fact have the power to push that through, and it would have made sense to have at least tried.
I would say much of GOP legislators' opposition to abortion (but not those of the general public) is indeed politically motivated and not sincere. I don't agree that this was a "struggle to see whose priorities set the agenda," though I'll grant that's a valid explanation and an important thing to keep in mind. You can't very well expect the entire party to march in step and implement all of their standard goals.
But, the GOP was perfectly capable of cutting taxes and deregulating the financial industry. They could be bothered to implement a Republican fiscal policy, but they could not be bothered to try to stop abortion. The former was more important to them than the latter.
I do think the lack of action on that point is an important problem for the GOP. A lot of Republican citizens are upset that the GOP hasn't made much progress on stuff like gay marriage and abortion. The GOP also made big promises to defeat Obama in 2012, and repeal Obamacare, and stop the Iran nuclear deal, and do a lot of other things to block Obama's policies, and each time they failed. The GOP base noticed those unmet promises, and I think that's one of the primary reasons why Trump has done so well: they've lost faith in everybody else.
Don't you just wanna squeeze him?
Check a dictionary or something.
No one said anything about obligations. No one said anyone should be forced to put politics in their games. People are saying that it's a needed outreach, not that it should be an obligatory outreach.
Set that dictionary down and look up straw man.
Listen - as long as it's independent decision of an artist, it's cool. Really. It becomes problem when a) certain things are expected to appear in piece because that minority is underpresented or something, b) certain things are expected to be presented in specific way, because it's unfair that minoroty is present as bad guys. Art isn't supposed to be realistic. To be fair. To teach us right things. I appreciate eristic attempt, but you'd need more subtlety. I mean - c'mon.
No one is talking about literal warfare.
How so, noble friend?
And from formal point of view (so speaking of method): it gives any currently popular ideology useful instrument, if we agree on general notion "art has moral obligations".
@joluv - so... you have nothing valuable to say. Pity.
EDIT: Btw, everytime someone says something about "21st century" I kinda shake my head in disbelieve. Aren't we talking about principles and values that are eternal? Did something change after 1999?
We are talking about principles and values that are eternal yes, in general they are "treat other people with respect" and "there are lots of unique people in the world with things to offer." The 21st century phrase is saying hey now, its ridiculous that we have been on this Earth for this long and people still struggle with this.
The moral obligation here is not on the art itself but on the artist. Not to say that all art should be a certain way but for a whole genre/medium of art to be ignoring such a vast amount of the human experience cheapens it all. So if the artist cares about being an artist instead of some dabbler surely they have an obligation, at least to themselves to explore all these avenues that have been so long ignored?
Sooooooo .... if you are for the full freedom for artist to do what they want ... you shouldn't pick "I don't like it, neither when done subtle or not so subtle. Games are for leisure and I'll take care of my own personal development" as a response.
Just my 2 cents.
Let's agree on assertion "artist has moral obligation towards society/certain values". Now you say about principle: "treat other people with respect". Well, I think we'll agree that seducing twelve years old girl (SPOILER ALERT: that's what "Lolita" is about) breaks that principle, especially if we add that "Lolita" has no clear moral. So, assertion about moral obligations forces us to say that Nabokov did wrong, writing "Lolita".
You can take "Gone with the wind" with it's clearly racist message, or brutal and almost anti-human "Iliad", instead of "Lolita", if you wish. I get it - at least I think I do. But still, I'd rather have them telling me what rules they think are vital. It's not obligation, because if *x* is obligated to do something, there is always *y* that can demand fullfiling that obligation (because duty, above all, is a relation); with those "avenues" we are lacking *y*.
I think maybe we are getting hung up on the "moral obligation" phrase. Perhaps we should simply say that artists should do their best to see where their medium has deficiencies and see how they could improve upon that.
Social commentary can be fun and interesting, a way of poking fun at or calling attention to social trends. We live in a weird world, and satire is entertaining.
But if the setting isn't in our world, or if the issue is especially alien to the genre, adding social commentary tends to be immersion-breaking. A debate about government overreach in Middle Earth? We were expecting fantasy stuff, not real-world issues. A monologue about religion in a romance novel? That's not what we came for. Like any other element of a story, social commentary should be relevant.
That said, I don't think the mere presence of a trans character in a game is itself an example of social commentary, any more than adding a Mormon to a novel makes the book pro-Mormon. Sure, it's bothersome if an artist tries to beat us over the head with a political point. But I haven't seen that actually happen in any video game.
All I have seen in games is the mere presence of gay and trans characters, and the mere presence of something doesn't bother me.