|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I don't think he's actually saying it's OK. More just that it's expected - that's why societies push that position, because there's a hardwired tendency. And that's how we know it's genetic, because so many (all?) societies push it.
What bothers me about that logic is nearly all pre-modern societies do far more than just push gender roles, they come far closer to mandating them. If we were drawing conclusions from that, before modern experiments with equality, we'd be justified in much stronger ones.
OTOH, nearly every pre-modern culture goes far beyond what can be taken as innate when setting strict gender roles. Very often women are, for example, actually banned from sports (or male sports, at least), while we know from modern experience that at least some women would be interested. It's very easy to draw too strong conclusions from such data.
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
But children are mostly treated differently according to their (perceived) gender from birth (babies dressed in 'girly pink' as opposed to 'blue for boys'), so "boys like sports" is implied before they can even walk, and reinforced by the choice of games adults play with them (talking to dolls or playing catch with balls). It's a distinction that occurs very, very early and is very pervasive.
Yeah. There's very likely some baseline there that's actually innate nature, but it's very hard to distinguish between that and the pervasive cultural effects. That such effects seem to be common among widely divergent cultures is suggestive, but not conclusive.
Western society really is conducting an unprecedented experiment in trying to treat men and women as equals, not just as equal status in different spheres, but doing away with gender roles entirely, allowing and encouraging either sex to pursue any path they choose. I know of some historical cultures that had more equality, but even those tended to have strong gender roles.
Mind you, we're not doing all that well at the experiment in many ways, but that we're doing it at all is probably the biggest cultural revolution I can think of.
I'm not sure what you mean. Your examples were about referring to the minority group as "non-majority", while with non-transgender, it's the other way around. It's referring to the majority group as non-minority. Thus calling whites, non-coloured is a closer parallel than the other way around.
*Minority used here for the lack of a better term - lower status, historically and/or currently discriminated against group, which usually, but not always corresponds to being a numerical minority.
Though that's sort of flipped, since cisgender is the majority. More like whites being called non-people of colour.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
In a strict reductive sense it's all biology. Just horribly complicated, emergent biology.
We just call that part of biology: psychology.
But there's a distinction to be drawn, whether you call it "sex" and "gender" or "biological" and "psychological". That's why I used the jargon "gender identity" and "assigned gender". At least if someone doesn't understand those terms, they'll probably realize they don't understand rather than just assume a common meaning and misunderstand.Most people don't have to deal with these concepts, because they all line up and get lumped together into a single thing: assigned gender, gender identity, sex, gender, it all matches, so it's easy to think of as just one concept. Often gender role gets blurred into it as well. In order to talk about it, you have to learn new concepts.
And that's the point of jargon, in nearly any field. To give you words to go with those new concepts or to draw distinctions not made in normal language.
That's true. But that's because it's hard to talk about and uses a lot of concepts that really are outside of most people's experience. Even in that sentence, "assigned gender" probably requires more explanation and "gender identity" might.But you can't talk about things if you have to explain them all down to the basics with every reference. That's not a problem with "cis", but with the actual concepts.
You're aware of it. We normally call it Fox. :)
Actually, I have no real idea if there's any truth to that. The entertainment side of Fox has always been less culture war driven than the news side.
GM Tribute wrote:
Plenty of players expect at least some character death.CR appropriate encounters have always been necessary for at least the main path of any adventure - overpowered ones need to be avoidable. Some modules & APs still have random encounter tables that don't stick so close to CR. There is also a strong sandbox minority on the forums at least.
Traps are less deadly, that I'll agree.
The prominence of the build game in 3.x really demands that gear be widely available. That's mechanics driven, not player driven.
Black Dougal wrote:
I was really hoping for spider-man. In my opinion, his arc was the best part of civil war.
I really can't see this Civil War being much like the comic's Civil War. The pieces aren't in place and they've only got one movie to work with. You weren't going to get anything like Spider-Man's arc in the movie, even if he was in it. He'd get a few personal scenes and play a support role in the basic Cap/Bucky/IM arc.
The problem still is that there really isn't another common term, so what I'd be likely to do in a case where I was bringing it up would be to use "cisgender", explain it the first time, and then use it thereafter rather than say "people whose gender identity matches their assigned gender" every time.
This bit also pretty much explains what's going on: The Turkmen rebels are supported by Turkey. Russia's attacking them because Russia's supporting Assad. Turkey seizes the excuse of the border violation to strike the Russian bomber, because it's been attacking their allies.
Any retaliation is likely to continue to fall on the Turkmen rebels, not directly on Turkey, since that would risk confrontation with NATO, which no one wants.
As opposed to the one they did capture and keep alive, but who was rescued by a Russian strike team?
And if the dude on the piece of land next to you doesn't recognize that is your piece of land, suddenly there are no laws?
I mean, practically speaking, you're essentially right, but that invalidates all the Geneva Convention/law of war kind of stuff.
I am unaware of any rebel group that has signed those conventions. Meaning anything goes and is legal.
I don't think that's quite how it works with rebel groups. There are provisions under the conventions for dealing with non-state groups, though I can't cite chapter and verse at the moment.They're expected to abide by at least a subset of the laws of war and the state parties are expected to treat them as such.
Strictly speaking the rebel groups can't sign the conventions, since it's a treaty between states.
If someone calls you "cis scum", feel free to be offended. I would be.
Mostly by the "scum". Much like if someone called me "white scum" or "male scum" or "straight scum".
The "cis" part doesn't bother me.
But yeah, I get that the words are chosen to be opposites. It's still not the same as just adding a not. Maybe because cisgender parses out as (not-trans)gender, rather than as not-(transgender).
I missed the specific linguistic reasons and the history is pretty damn short and slim.
Nothing at all like the history attached to nearly any popular slur minorities are bothered by. Even the article talks about it being used mostly neutrally in academia and in policy and sociology discussions.
Again, I'm perfectly willing to accept a different term - come up with something that's not explicitly "not-trans" or "normal" and I'd be perfectly willing to jump on board and start using it. In all the discussions I've had about how horrible "cis" is, I've never seen a real alternative proposed.
It's not what it means at all. I mean, it refers to the same concept, so the actual meaning of the words is the same, but it's not at all what the word comes from. Being identified as "not-something" is very different from having your own term.
Rogar Valertis wrote:
Incidentally I also believe Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. Call me a conspirationist theorist if you want.
Well, frankly, I agree that Turkey doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. (No Kurdish State!)I also believe that Russia doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under its terms. (Assad stays!)
And that the US doesn't want Syria to stabilize unless under our terms.
The same is likely true of the smaller players, including Iran and the Saudis among others.
Certainly, the words don't usually need to be used. There is rarely a need to specify "trans" or "cis" when talking about sexual orientation, since they don't relate to orientation. It's generally only useful when talking about gender identification issues. "Cisgender" should be used sparingly, as you suggest. And it is.
I'd also add that when minorities ask others "please dont use that term, it offends me", they can usually point out either specific linguistic reasons it's offensive or a history of prejudice and discrimination attached to the word.
If and when that 20 year old is showing his youth and health privilege, sure. For example, if he's making assumptions about something you can't easily do due to your arthritis.
Privilege is always a relative concept. "Check your privilege" is just a reminder that what seems easy and obvious from your point of view, given your life experience, might not be the same for others.
It helps though if you've got a replacement for the supposedly offensive term. If you're telling trans people not to use the term "cis" because you don't like it, you really need to be able to say "We think X is preferable." Not "We don't need a special term because we're just regular folks" or even "Just call us normal".
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Near as I can tell, non-Daesh, anti-Assad rebels. Turkmen, not Kurdish, I think.
2 pilots, at least one reported dead - shot by rebels on the ground. Unclear about the other, but there have been reports he was captured.
Ugly and dangerous, but I don't think quite Ferdinand levels. Everyone's pushing for their own goals and status, but none of the actual powers are interested in fighting each other.
Accuracy, sure, but damage, number of attacks, etc? Straight fighters do have some advantages in combat over casters or partial casters, right?Do gish style partial casters wind up being just as good as straight martials in a fight and have spells for other things? Or are they just dialed back in a fight, but more versatile with out of combat spells or blasty spells?
Yeah, I guess those old modules are sort of sandbox - even the original Drow modules might qualify.
In a homebrew sandbox, you adjust for that on the fly, giving them cues so they can figure out what's too tough or not worth their time. You just don't actually develop the possibilities they don't pursue.
I haven't played enough to tell yet: I see how the concentration changes make a nice nerf to full casters, but how do they work with gish types?
You know, I can see that. It's certainly not like the adventure layouts of pathfinder. The entire feel of it reminds me of the sandbox adventures of 1e, and I loved those, so I think that's why I love this one so much. But after playing pathfinder for so long, there is a style I've gotten used to and this ain't it. So I can definitely see a dislike for the layout. It did take me a bit to get used to this one, and once I did the rest fell into place.
What 1e sandbox adventures are you thinking of? Nothing really comes to mind for me, though people's understanding of sandbox varies widely.
How wide open is this and how do they handle reaching areas at different levels? Random encounters on the different travel routes are one thing, but how about visiting the locations in chapters 3-6 and trying to do the sub-adventures in different orders?
As I pointed out the Cackle wouldn't let you do that, so is there a rule that says you can stack these? I can't see why one is allowed and the other isn't.
Cackle isn't allowed specifically to avoid abusing the fortune hex, by cackling multiple times/round outside of combat then having the hex stay up through the fight while you get your normal full actions.
Aid Another isn't really similar at all.
The female Captain Marvel is from Marvel, unless DC's switched up something in the Shazam franchise I've missed.
Alzrius, when you ask someone "Why should X do Y?", there is very definitely an implication that you think they believe that X should do Y.
Rephrasing it, as you ultimately did to first ask "Do you think X should do Y? If so, why?" would be a far better place to start and we could eliminate a lot of unneeded back and forth.
Honestly, I wasn't happy with that thread lock either. There's a difference between sort of randomly "advocating for violence" against religious groups and debating mainstream public policy issues. We are in a situation where a broad expansion of the war in Syria & Iraq is possible and being called for by major political figures. That's worth talking about.
OTOH, this post and the attack on Liz and Paizo go way too far.
Astral Wanderer wrote:
I really don't see it in combat. At least with characters capable of doing damage if they hit. If you're in a situation with an enemy with really high DR that only one PC can bypass, I suppose that makes sense.Otherwise, even if you only hit on a 20, is just adding +2 to someone else's attack really better than rolling for the 20 on yours? Even worse with multiple attacks, since you still only get to add one +2.
And sending the squishies to the front line to (maybe) add the +2 puts them at risk for very little reward. That applies to things like familiars as well.
Depends on the party and the campaign.Essentially you need to be up to par with the rest of the team and with the opposition. What level that is, depends on the level the rest of the group is at. Some who's an effective high school quarterback isn't going to be an effective NFL quarterback. And if your team is expected to go up against other NFL teams, you'd better all be up at that level.
The flip side of course is that if the rest of the group are high school players, one guy bringing in Tom Brady isn't a good idea either.
Attempting to Aid Another shouldn't actually hurt.
I'm not really sure that: Extreme fundamentalist sect B pays better then extreme fundamentalist sect A really supports the assertion that economics have anything to do with it.
It suggests that the unemployed, poverty stricken young men of Afghanistan might not be strictly motivated by religious fervor.
Because it's so much more blatant in the magic case. It's hard to even say anything about magic in the world without running into those obvious cases.
OTOH, as I mentioned before, they're recruiting fighters in Afghanistan by paying better than either the Taliban or the government.It's possible the appeals to local fighters and to disaffected youth in the West are different?
Despite the prominence in the news of those from the West, the vast bulk of their forces are more local to the conflict areas.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Of course it's not like there isn't war going on in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Daesh still holding territory in Iraq and active in Afghanistan as well.
Mind you, some people can make the fireballs without using the guano or sulfur. Other than that, the effects are identical.
And the scroll isn't just instructions. It contains the magic itself. You couldn't copy the text of the scroll and follow the instructions again and have them work.
It's a little more complicated than that. Define "not getting involved", for example.
We've been meddling in middle eastern politics since WWII. Before then the rest of the European powers were. Before then, the Ottomans.
Does "not getting involved" include not supporting their dictators or blocking other powers from influencing them? If we weren't meddling, then others would be.
In the short run, not invading Iraq would have prevented much of the disaster that area's become, but it still wouldn't be exactly thriving and vibrant. Suppression by dictators might be better than what we've come to, but it isn't exactly the best outcome either.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I suppose and that might work for damage. It's harder to justify for distance, since that's not random and is very quantized. And you can't just tell the low level caster the right mixture or exactly how to wiggle his fingers for one spell. He gets better at all of them together.
This also leads into the question of how much the rules are actually the way it works in the game world and how much they're an abstraction to let us play in a reasonable amount of time.
Cliff Clavin wrote:
Yeah, stars in real life are all different sizes, so fusion obviously defies the laws of physics, amiright?
So does the size of a fireball depend on the amount of bat guano? (Or the damage, since the size is constant, barring metamagic.)We've got a pretty good idea what controls the size of stars - basically the size of the dust cloud the formed from, which itself is dependent on other initial conditions.
Fireball damage, while random, is largely driven by the level of the caster. Even more clearly is the distance to which a given caster may send the fireball, which will clearly correspond to the distance he can send many other spells and to the number he can cast (or prepare) every day.
To the extent that it's scientific, the very first thing you'll start to deduce is the existence of levels and most likely soon thereafter of distinct character classes. (Classes might be hidden for awhile, depending on how many of your test subjects are multiclassed or otherwise non-standard.)
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That's certainly true. We could get rid of the "Caliphate" part. We could deny them a state fairly easily. Holding territory is where they're vulnerable.That's not going to make more than a minor drop in their ability to make terrorist attacks outside that area. Or, even if Daesh itself collapses, prevent the mantle from being taken up by the next group, as they've largely taken it from Al Qaeda.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Though most "asymmetric warfare" types use those tactics to win local battles. The "terrorist" part comes in when you start attacking civilians in foreign countries. As far as I recall, the colonists in what would become the US didn't go to Britain to blow up parts of London. Even the early Israelis tended to keep their attacks local to Palestine.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
There are reasons groups like this are popular in lawless, wartorn areas, beyond everyone being terrorist fanatics.
It's how the Taliban won support over the feuding warlords in Afghanistan after the Soviet war. It's how Hamas won support over Fatah in Palestine. From the outside we see the horrible terror attacks on outsiders, but we don't usually see the chaos and corruption they replace.