The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

10,401 to 10,450 of 18,884 << first < prev | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
Thanks for going through that so systematically and thoroughly KSF.

My tentative pre-apology was offered free of sarcasm. Just so you know.

KSF wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
Groups of persons are those with faces, that you sit down with and discuss the relevant issues with.
That assumes that sitting down and discussing relevant issues is an option that we are always offered. And that doing so, when you have the opportunity to do so, will produce results.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
In reality this opportunity is not always offered to you, for many reasons. Here, it always is.

Given that this discussion arose from people talking about running into stuff and dealing with stuff in their lives and not on these boards, I'm not sure that's entirely relevant to what I'm saying, and to what some others are saying here.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
It is a personal ideal, one I wish more people shared. Can't accomplish an ideal you don't hold,

It came across in your original post as a prescription, a bit of a "You're doing it wrong" sort of statement.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
and compromise isn't a good basis for personal identity.

Compromise is sometimes necessary for survival, self care, and co-existence.

Moving on to your other points, frustration is not the same as hate. Expressing frustration is not the same as expressing hate.

And while I know it stings sometimes, when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that you yourself are a part of, if you do not participate in the sorts of things they are talking about, they are not talking about you. People slip between literal and figurative language all the time. Basic fact of human discourse.

You can also assume that they already know people in that group who do not participate in that behavior, and do not need those exceptions pointed out to them. The "not all" is understood.

And while I know it stings, sometimes they are talking about you. Accurately. In which case you have an opportunity for self-reflection and self-improvement.

On being miserable and alone, you seem to be offering general advice, not just to posters here, but ideals to live by. If that's the case, you are indeed making an inaccurate assumption about this. Further, you offer it in a way that seems to say that those who are miserable and alone have themselves to blame, with your If-Then statement.

And telling someone who is miserable or alone that they are to blame for it, and that things may be that way forever? Particularly when offered as an initial response? Not helpful. Quite the opposite.

More generally, I would refer you to littlediegito's post above on this overall topic. He lays it all out pretty clearly.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

More generally, a discussion about dealing with real world prejudice against LGBTQ people has by now turned into a discussion about how to talk properly to non-LGBTQ people. Which bums me out because so much of everything is about non-LGBTQ people.

So I think I'm going to duck back out of this thread for a while.

Have a good end of week and weekend, y'all :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Something I've seen that is breaking my heart:

I have a friend that wants children. She is homosexual and that is causing issues with the idea of adopting. She has considered/ is considering invetro but insurance issues and worries of what could happen depending on the next election and supreme court appointee.

Watching this tear her up is horrible, and I wish I had a magic answer for her.

I don't want her suffering to turn into a circus, but I feel if more people saw what this does to individuals it might change their minds and hearts.


Hrothdane wrote:

Saying "well, only some straight people are a problem" allows straight people to exclude themselves from that "some." All straight people benefit from homophobia, biphobia, transphobia, etc... and they all need to reexamine how it has benefited them.

For example, I am white and racism and anti-blackness benefit me, even if I try to not participate in them. I have had a couple of bosses who I discovered later were anti-black. How many qualified applicants did they turn down because they were too black? Did I owe my job to their racism and anti-blackness? In all likelihood, yes. Do I feel bad that I benefited from it? Absolutely. Do my feelings matter more than the structural oppression against black people and other ethnic groups? Absolutely not.

These discussions of respectability and related semantics are red herrings to distract from the real issues. Respectability politics are a bourgeois neo-liberal waste of time that serve no purpose except to allow privileged groups excuses to disown oppressed groups the second they no longer become a safe pet project. Oppressed groups end up having to spend all their time justifying themselves to self-proclaimed allies rather than actually making progress towards freedom from oppression.

hmm. What did you do when you discovered this about your employers?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:
Compromise is sometimes necessary for survival, self care, and co-existence.

A very important fact that is forgotten in most struggles focusing on civil rights.

Quote:

And while I know it stings sometimes, when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that you yourself are a part of, if you do not participate in the sorts of things they are talking about, they are not talking about you. People slip between literal and figurative language all the time. Basic fact of human discourse.

You can also assume that they already know people in that group who do not participate in that behavior, and do not need those exceptions pointed out to them. The "not all" is understood.

except, I don't see that here. Or, to be fair, much of anywhere. I'm probably not explaining myself well, but I can't number the amount of times someone has had a crticism about black people that was "obviously!!!!" not aimed at me, my wife, or my mother or father because we're "obviously!!!!" "not like that". I think it's this approach that results in a lot of "not-all" ing in every sense, and Idon't know if it's a good thing that the speaker is actively trying to avoid including people who do not fit into a stereotype into their statement of if that makes me and my own one of the "good ones". I think that the bridge between the two terms may be incredibly short and traversed unwittingly by everyone on every side of the arguement.

Again, I don't think I'm explaining myself well. But I have been watching the converation here for a while and it is interesting.

And note that I use race here only because of my personal experiences, I have had a lt of interesting late night debates at work with race removed and sexual identity put in, but if that doesn't work then I apologize.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
KSF wrote:
Compromise is sometimes necessary for survival, self care, and co-existence.

A very important fact that is forgotten in most struggles focusing on civil rights.

Quote:

And while I know it stings sometimes, when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that you yourself are a part of, if you do not participate in the sorts of things they are talking about, they are not talking about you. People slip between literal and figurative language all the time. Basic fact of human discourse.

You can also assume that they already know people in that group who do not participate in that behavior, and do not need those exceptions pointed out to them. The "not all" is understood.

except, I don't see that here. Or, to be fair, much of anywhere. I'm probably not explaining myself well, but I can't number the amount of times someone has had a crticism about black people that was "obviously!!!!" not aimed at me, my wife, or my mother or father because we're "obviously!!!!" "not like that". I think it's this approach that results in a lot of "not-all" ing in every sense, and Idon't know if it's a good thing that the speaker is actively trying to avoid including people who do not fit into a stereotype into their statement of if that makes me and my own one of the "good ones". I think that the bridge between the two terms may be incredibly short and traversed unwittingly by everyone on every side of the arguement.

Again, I don't think I'm explaining myself well. But I have been watching the converation here for a while and it is interesting.

And note that I use race here only because of my personal experiences, I have had a lt of interesting late night debates at work with race removed and sexual identity put in, but if that doesn't work then I apologize.

I think race works just fine, but black doesn't in this context. KSF said "when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that you yourself are a part of". I don't think that reverses to "when you hear someone in a majority group express frustration with a minority group". The power dynamics are too different.


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
KSF wrote:
Compromise is sometimes necessary for survival, self care, and co-existence.

A very important fact that is forgotten in most struggles focusing on civil rights.

Quote:

And while I know it stings sometimes, when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that you yourself are a part of, if you do not participate in the sorts of things they are talking about, they are not talking about you. People slip between literal and figurative language all the time. Basic fact of human discourse.

You can also assume that they already know people in that group who do not participate in that behavior, and do not need those exceptions pointed out to them. The "not all" is understood.

except, I don't see that here. Or, to be fair, much of anywhere. I'm probably not explaining myself well, but I can't number the amount of times someone has had a crticism about black people that was "obviously!!!!" not aimed at me, my wife, or my mother or father because we're "obviously!!!!" "not like that". I think it's this approach that results in a lot of "not-all" ing in every sense, and Idon't know if it's a good thing that the speaker is actively trying to avoid including people who do not fit into a stereotype into their statement of if that makes me and my own one of the "good ones". I think that the bridge between the two terms may be incredibly short and traversed unwittingly by everyone on every side of the arguement.

Again, I don't think I'm explaining myself well. But I have been watching the converation here for a while and it is interesting.

And note that I use race here only because of my personal experiences, I have had a lt of interesting late night debates at work with race removed and sexual identity put in, but if that doesn't work then I apologize.

I think race works just fine, but black doesn't in this context. KSF said "when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that...

Interesting and fair point. Maybe it doesn't translate well.


All I know is when you restrict the rights of the minority, you're not helping the majority.

And no I didn't mean to make it rhyme. It just came out that way. :p

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

All I know is when you restrict the rights of the minority, you're not helping the majority.

And no I didn't mean to make it rhyme. It just came out that way. :p

Actually, restricting the rights of the minority is directly beneficial to the majority in terms of cultural, economic, and political dominance.

If oppression wasn't helpful to the aims of the powerful, it probably wouldn't be so incredibly pervasive.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't mean to immediately be a huge bummer and well-actually you. I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to shut you down and correct you to be a jerk (even if I am), but I think it's important to recognize how people at the top of power structures pretty much want to stay at the top and will fight to maintain that imbalance.


Maybe but doesn't make it better when the majority becomes the minority .


”KSF” wrote:
My tentative pre-apology was offered free of sarcasm. Just so you know.

For the record I never read it any other way; as I see it your voice is close to one of moderation on this topic, and helpful. I thank you for the clarification none-the-less.

”KSF” wrote:
Given that this discussion arose from people talking about running into stuff and dealing with stuff in their lives and not on these boards, I'm not sure that's entirely relevant to what I'm saying, and to what some others are saying here.

I suppose my point is just that there are people and faces living behind the computer screens of those posting on this and other forums. I can understand coming here, upset, and posting about a bad experience. Most people look to find community and support in the face of discrimination; it’s healthy, and normal. If I’ve given the impression that I’m attacking anyone for making those sorts of posts, I apologize; it was not my intent.

There is a second component of this specific series of posts which is ‘and everyone who doesn’t identify as I do is evil.’ Which is what I’m trying to help you all see, and why I find my comments relevant to what you’re saying. Sissyl for example felt terribly about the way poster A was treated, and offered sympathy and support. She was then attacked as being part of ‘and everyone else is evil.’

What I hope you’ll find relevant to what you’re saying is that treating everyone poorly, just because you have been victimized by a few perpetuates a circle of misery and alienation. It helps no one. All I’m asking here is that we help break the cycle.

”KSF” wrote:
”Trekkie90909” wrote:
It is a personal ideal, one I wish more people shared (“Ignore 'people.' Be your own person. Treat others as persons.”)…
It came across in your original post as a prescription, a bit of a "You're doing it wrong" sort of statement.

It is exactly such a statement. It’s ok to feel miserable and alone, especially when your core identity---something you have no control over---is attacked. It is equally ok to seek companionship amongst those who will not persecute you. When you, or the group of people you associate with then go out and commit the same atrocity to others it makes you complicit of the original crime.

All I’m saying is you should feel beautiful, and empowered by the things which make you YOU. Just like you can’t change that core identity which makes you YOU, neither can anyone else nor should they.

Relating to others starts with understanding yourself. Once you know who you are, and you know what hurts you, you can start to look through other people’s eyes to gain new perspectives on issues. Consider how badly you hurt when someone casually denigrates you; does the fact that you’ve been mis-treated really give you the right (or even the desire) to go about hurting other random persons in the exact same way? Why should it?

If you feel, as an ideal, that you should not be discriminated against on the basis of your race, orientation, or identity whatever those may be. And I feel, as an ideal, that I should not be discriminated against on the basis of my race, orientation, or identity whatever those may be. Why can we not then say that, as an ideal, none of us should be discriminated against on the basis of any race, orientation, or identity? Is that not a good ideal to hold as the basis of compromise?

If I hold it to be true, and you hold it to be true, and continue the trend such that the collective we (society) hold it to be true, will it not end every situation in which poster A is made to feel miserable or humiliated on the basis of their personal identity? Will it not allow poster A to feel whole, as themselves, happy and free to ride the tram in peace?

”KSF” wrote:
Compromise is sometimes necessary for survival, self care, and co-existence.

It certainly is. That doesn’t make it a good basis for self-identity. You can hold ideals and still compromise. The best ideals allow for, and even engender compromise and peaceful co-existance.

Quote:
Moving on to your other points, frustration is not the same as hate. Expressing frustration is not the same as expressing hate.

You are correct; frustration is not the same as hate. Both exist up-thread. There is frustration with specific groups of individuals. There is also a collective hatred, directed at a non-existent group of people whom you feel denigrate you on the basis of their existence and the fact they share physical similarities to people who actually cause you vexation.

”KSF” wrote:
And while I know it stings sometimes, when you hear someone in a minority group express frustration with a majority group that you yourself are a part of, if you do not participate in the sorts of things they are talking about, they are not talking about you. People slip between literal and figurative language all the time. Basic fact of human discourse.

I don’t entirely disagree. However if anyone identifies something as a ‘trigger,’ or potentially hate-speech, or simply asks that you stop referring to a group to which they belong fallaciously, and instead confine your comments to real groups, which really embody the crimes you hate I don’t understand why you wouldn’t stop. I do. When someone points out that I’ve accidentally caused them harm because I’m using figurative language I stop. I reconsider what it is I’m really trying to say, and I try to improve myself to better express what I mean. What I don’t understand is why when I ask for the same respect, of people I’m happy to learn and grow from, why it is they feel the need to continue in their casual racism and general bigotry (I’m not speaking of you specifically here KSF, but such language exists up-thread, even after attempts were made asking them to stop---and I see continues to some extent below your posts).

”KSF” wrote:
…you offer it in a way that seems to say that those who are miserable and alone have themselves to blame, with your If-Then statement.

What I mean to say, and I hope I’ve clarified elsewhere in this post, is that continuing a cycle of hatred and violence only begets more misery and stronger feelings alienation from either side. I stand behind that. If you perpetrate the same crimes which make you miserable and alone, then really why would you expect to receive different treatment. People tend to learn best by example, and they respond very well to kindness just as they respond very aggressively to hate. If you want to live in a society where you are accepted on the basis of your personal identity, hate and hate-speech are not good avenues to pursue. In this very thread for example you’ve driven off Sissyl, who as far as I’ve ever seen wishes only for you to be healthy and happy, safe in your personal identity.

”KSF” wrote:
More generally, a discussion about dealing with real world prejudice against LGBTQ people has by now turned into a discussion about how to talk properly to non-LGBTQ people. Which bums me out because so much of everything is about non-LGBTQ people.

A discussion by its nature involves multiple parties. If one party is LGBTQ folks, the other party is logically those who are not. I’m just trying to help (the collective) you see your (collective) reaction to very real issues from another point of view.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
A discussion by its nature involves multiple parties. If one party is LGBTQ folks, the other party is logically those who are not. I’m just trying to help (the collective) you see your (collective) reaction to very real issues from another point of view.

If it is all the same to you, I would take considerable offense to the presumption that you had any right to moderate my tone or language at all. This place is somewhere for LGBT+ people to voice their disgruntlement with people who oppress them and want to hurt them, in incidental and moderate and serious forms of violence. Consider possibly taking these kinds of arguments elsewhere, they are more often than not unwarranted and unwanted, and based on assumptions that there is space for compromise from one side that has a disproportionately smaller amount of room to compromise anything to a greater majority.

In other words, back up and stop expecting anything pleasant or moderated for your tastes, because generally our existence is not pleasant and we shouldn't have to censor ourselves so you don't feel bad about being complacent in discrimination.

Trekkie90909 wrote:
What I hope you’ll find relevant to what you’re saying is that treating everyone poorly, just because you have been victimized by a few perpetuates a circle of misery and alienation. It helps no one. All I’m asking here is that we help break the cycle.

And let me be very clear here. This is a bold damn thing to say. Few circles is an understatement of what most people go through on a regular basis. The 'circles' are not outside in, like we're ever openly accepted by the greater majority. It is always inward out, with people who we know are like us, are safe, who listen to us, and will hopefully protect us. Because how else do we protect ourselves and keep ourselves sane.

I don't know if you noticed, but this is one of those kinds of circles. A place for people to come in and meet others, talk, let out the anxiety and feel like they aren't actually alone. And I want you to think about what the kind of impact you might be having, walking in and telling people what to say and how to address non-LGBT people. You are kinda hurting people if anything. And you have most definitely made this less of a welcoming place. So please stop.

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
A discussion by its nature involves multiple parties. If one party is LGBTQ folks, the other party is logically those who are not. I’m just trying to help (the collective) you see your (collective) reaction to very real issues from another point of view.

This seems like a straight person entering a LGBT+ space and demanding the right to restructure the debate. In the same vein as sea lioning. Since you seem to be trying to enlighten us, I will try to enlighten you:

Straight culture pervades every aspect of our lives. Whether it's through media, legislation, coworkers, friends, or our family, it's impossible not to be intimately familiar with how straight people will perceive what we say about our issues.

We really know that there are good straight people, and we know that most of them understand they're not the target of "UGH STRAIGHTS." We don't go around saying "UGH STRAIGHTS" in random cishet spaces and conversations. But when a member of The Straights (a group that is diverse but is characterized by its monolithic impact on LGBT+ communities) does something s&%#ty, we're gonna complain about it in LGBT+ spaces. And characterize it for what it is. The Straights being s%%%ty.

It's not our job to make ourselves appealing to them - it's a damn important job, but no single LGBT+ person should be required to do s$#% to convince cishets to treat us like people. Least of all in a thread titled LGBT Gamer Community. I know cishet people read this thread and it is cool that both groups are able to discuss so openly! But it'd be cool for it to still be a space where we could talk about oppression without being yelled at for using a term as blandly inoffensive as "cracker."

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Crystal: Passion, certainly. Anger? Not so sure. It bites one in the butt, really. Anger makes you a threat, and legitimizes anger and perhaps even action against you. The age old question is the same: How fast can we change attitudes about us? From what I have seen, being a good example seems to be what brings any change at all. I would also add that criticising huge groups of people for what some do is a pretty good way to get treated the same way. People change attitudes when minority X becomes a collection of individuals to them. I may be wrong, of course.
I don't think anger legitimizes action against you--it may be used as an excuse to harm you, but that doesn't mean it's legitimate. You have a right to be angry, and no one has a right to hurt you because of what you're feeling--action is only legitimate if it's taken against something you've done.
I don't know. As a black man in this country at this moment in time, anger seems to legitimize everything on every side of the fence(possibly underneath and on top of it too). It is so overwhelmingly seductive and omnipresent that it would in some ways be foolish to not use it to batten whichever side of whatever argument you are on. But it is so inherently destructive or not conducive to debate and/or positive change it remains a scorched earth option at best.

You're talking about reckless anger. Anger without purpose. Focused anger is drive. It inspires people, makes them angry on your behalf. Everyone understands anger. In some ways, if you do it right (it's not easy but it can be done) anger can bring people around. It's not enough to simply be angry, but if you can express your anger in such a manner that the people around you, the people who hear you begin to feel it, even when the issue doesn't directly affect them....then you have a tool of change. Revolutions are driven by anger. And anger at injustice. Nothing changes until people start getting angry. Anger is not violence, but it has a power all its own.

The trick is that anger is like fire, the most amazing tool when you have it under control, and an absolute nightmare when you don't.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
What I mean to say, and I hope I’ve clarified elsewhere in this post, is that continuing a cycle of hatred and violence only begets more misery and stronger feelings alienation from either side. I stand behind that. If you perpetrate the same crimes which make you miserable and alone, then really why would you expect to receive different treatment. People tend to learn best by example, and they respond very well to kindness just as they respond very aggressively to hate. If you want to live in a society where you are accepted on the basis of your personal identity, hate and hate-speech are not good avenues to pursue. In this very thread for example you’ve driven off Sissyl, who as far as I’ve ever seen wishes only for you to be healthy and happy, safe in your personal identity.

This part sounds an awful lot like victim blaming to me.

There is no cycle. Victims do not cause abuse. The oppressed do not cause oppression. Minorities do not cause discrimination.


Gark the Goblin” wrote:
This seems like a straight person entering a LGBT+ space and demanding the right to restructure the debate. In the same vein as sea lioning.

I see your point, and how I come across as ‘sea lioning.’ Please correct me if I’m wrong, but the debate I’ve entered into here could be summarized as “The majority does not have the right to oppress the minority.” Specifically as applies to how LGBTQ+ persons are treated by ‘straights,’ meaning straight/bigots.

This is the LGBT+ community thread, and it is first and foremost for those members of the LGBT+ community to post their feelings. It is also part of a community of gamers, who interact with people who identify as LGBT+. The two are not exclusive, nor should they be. LGBT+ posters by right of being fellow human beings have a lot to share with the other human beings they game with. Oppressing their rights to self expression therefore hurts that greater community, and to a greater extent hurts the LGBT+ posters on these forums.

I agree unequivocally.

There is another portion of your post which---if I may paraphrase, and please correct me if it is a misrepresentation of your words---says two things ‘it’s ok to refer to straight/bigots by the contraction straight so long as everyone involved in the discussion is LGBT+,’ and ‘we don’t refer to people by the contraction straights when we’re in random cishet spaces and conversations.’

I have no opinion of what people people should and shouldn’t say when surrounded by the groups of people they identify with, and I don’t hold it against poster A for casually referring to problem people as ‘straights.’ Given the purpose of this thread, and reinforced by your points, I would regard that conversation as essentially private, even when posted on a public forum such as this.

What is a problem is when people identify that they’ve entered into such a space, and that they’re uncomfortable with that contraction and they’re dismissed as irrelevant. Furthermore, they’re ostracized for daring to come here despite a generally supportive attitude and they are eventually run off. This thread is part of that larger community after all, and everyone should be able to come here and discuss issues pertaining to the LGBT+ gamer community in a civil manner.

I have tried to restructure the debate, in what to me seems a small way, by focusing on the underlying issue “the majority does not have the right to oppress the minority.”

The rest of your post was enlightening, thank you for sharing. You are right, I was wrong to say casually that you’ve been victimized by ‘the few.’ There is a larger underlying social injustice, and I’m a s@@%ty person for forgetting that in my preoccupation with restructuring the debate.

People like Sissyl, who wish to avert social injustice when they see it, are the minority of ‘straights.’ I would ask what good comes from running them off. I would ask how small a minority they have to be before their experiences, opinions, and statements matter to you; if posing that question is really censorship, trolling (‘sea-lioning’), unwelcome moderation, or an anti-LGBT+ sentiment I simply wish to know why. I don’t want facts, statistics, or historical examples (things which would reflect 'sea lioning'); some of you have chosen to include personal experiences, which I thank you for, it really helps me see your point, but really all I’m looking for is an explanation I can understand; cognizantly or empathetically. I don’t understand ‘it’s discrimination when it happens to us, but not when we do it,’ which is the impression a few, though certainly not all, posters have left me with.


thejeff wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
What I mean to say, and I hope I’ve clarified elsewhere in this post, is that continuing a cycle of hatred and violence only begets more misery and stronger feelings alienation from either side. I stand behind that. If you perpetrate the same crimes which make you miserable and alone, then really why would you expect to receive different treatment. People tend to learn best by example, and they respond very well to kindness just as they respond very aggressively to hate. If you want to live in a society where you are accepted on the basis of your personal identity, hate and hate-speech are not good avenues to pursue. In this very thread for example you’ve driven off Sissyl, who as far as I’ve ever seen wishes only for you to be healthy and happy, safe in your personal identity.

This part sounds an awful lot like victim blaming to me.

There is no cycle. Victims do not cause abuse. The oppressed do not cause oppression. Minorities do not cause discrimination.

Victim blaming would be to say something morally outrageous, utterly idiotic, and completely wrong like 'well you're gay and they're straight, so obviously they attacked you, what are you an idiot.' I sincerely hope that's not been my message. I apologize to anyone who has read anything I've written as that or any other instance of victim blaming.

I don't blame anyone for being victimized, I do blame abusers for creating victims. A victim can later become an abuser through separate acts. A few posters have been categorically supporting the idea that continued discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation (in this case for being straight) is not victimizing but instead freedom of speech.

*I use strong language in this post which I do not agree with, and which makes me uncomfortable to type; if anyone would prefer, I will delete it or ask a mod to.*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Trekkie90909 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trekkie90909 wrote:
What I mean to say, and I hope I’ve clarified elsewhere in this post, is that continuing a cycle of hatred and violence only begets more misery and stronger feelings alienation from either side. I stand behind that. If you perpetrate the same crimes which make you miserable and alone, then really why would you expect to receive different treatment. People tend to learn best by example, and they respond very well to kindness just as they respond very aggressively to hate. If you want to live in a society where you are accepted on the basis of your personal identity, hate and hate-speech are not good avenues to pursue. In this very thread for example you’ve driven off Sissyl, who as far as I’ve ever seen wishes only for you to be healthy and happy, safe in your personal identity.

This part sounds an awful lot like victim blaming to me.

There is no cycle. Victims do not cause abuse. The oppressed do not cause oppression. Minorities do not cause discrimination.

Victim blaming would be to say something morally outrageous, utterly idiotic, and completely wrong like 'well you're gay and they're straight, so obviously they attacked you, what are you an idiot.' I sincerely hope that's not been my message. I apologize to anyone who has read anything I've written as that or any other instance of victim blaming.

I don't blame anyone for being victimized, I do blame abusers for creating victims. A victim can later become an abuser through separate acts. A few posters have been categorically supporting the idea that continued discrimination against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation (in this case for being straight) is not victimizing but instead freedom of speech.

*I use strong language in this post which I do not agree with, and which makes me uncomfortable to type; if anyone would prefer, I will delete it or ask a mod to.*

That would be blatantly obvious victim blaming. Talking about a "cycle of hatred and violence" is less blatant, but implies that both sides are responsible for the hatred and violence. That discrimination is driven by a cycle of the majority responding to anger from the minority.

It's not the responsibility of the minority to behave better so that majority doesn't oppress them. Homophobia isn't fixed by LGBTQ people being nicer to straights. Racism isn't fixed by blacks being nicer to whites. That doesn't work.


I think I see what you're saying now. I'd say it depends to the extent one takes retaliation, but since referring to someone derogatorily as a 'straight' is 'small?' enough that it probably should not engender significant ill-will I concede, it was victim blaming in this instance. I'm sorry.

I've also hijacked this thread long enough; in the unlikely event anyone wants to debate further, or simply offer an answer to any of the questions I've asked (or tell me off), feel free to pm me.

Liberty's Edge Developer

18 people marked this as a favorite.

It is depressing an alienating how often the thread specifically for LGBT community in the fandom devolves into having the same debate about LGBT tone and politeness over and over again :(


Mark Thomas 66 wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Crystal: Passion, certainly. Anger? Not so sure. It bites one in the butt, really. Anger makes you a threat, and legitimizes anger and perhaps even action against you. The age old question is the same: How fast can we change attitudes about us? From what I have seen, being a good example seems to be what brings any change at all. I would also add that criticising huge groups of people for what some do is a pretty good way to get treated the same way. People change attitudes when minority X becomes a collection of individuals to them. I may be wrong, of course.
I don't think anger legitimizes action against you--it may be used as an excuse to harm you, but that doesn't mean it's legitimate. You have a right to be angry, and no one has a right to hurt you because of what you're feeling--action is only legitimate if it's taken against something you've done.
I don't know. As a black man in this country at this moment in time, anger seems to legitimize everything on every side of the fence(possibly underneath and on top of it too). It is so overwhelmingly seductive and omnipresent that it would in some ways be foolish to not use it to batten whichever side of whatever argument you are on. But it is so inherently destructive or not conducive to debate and/or positive change it remains a scorched earth option at best.

You're talking about reckless anger. Anger without purpose. Focused anger is drive. It inspires people, makes them angry on your behalf. Everyone understands anger. In some ways, if you do it right (it's not easy but it can be done) anger can bring people around. It's not enough to simply be angry, but if you can express your anger in such a manner that the people around you, the people who hear you begin to feel it, even when the issue doesn't directly affect them....then you have a tool of change. Revolutions are driven by anger. And anger at injustice. Nothing changes until people start getting angry. Anger is not violence, but it has a power all its own.

The trick is that anger is like fire, the most amazing tool when you have it under control, and an absolute nightmare when you don't.

well said.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
It is depressing an alienating how often the thread specifically for LGBT community in the fandom devolves into having the same debate about LGBT tone and politeness over and over again :(

Also depressing is that people think it's perfectly acceptable to frame this as a debate at all.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me count the ways

Trekkie90909 wrote:


Which is what I’m trying to help you all see,

I don’t hold it against poster A for casually referring to problem people as ‘straights.’

I have tried to restructure the debate,

really all I’m looking for is an explanation I can understand

What is a problem is when people identify that they’ve entered into such a space, and that they’re uncomfortable with that contraction and they’re dismissed as irrelevant.

This thread is part of that larger community after all, and everyone should be able to come here and discuss issues pertaining to the LGBT+ gamer community in a civil manner.

It isn't anyone's job but your own to help you understand. Minorities have no obligation to explain their situation to you until you finally "get it". Your job is to observe and understand, not insist that people pay attention to you and stop their discussion so that you can be educated by them. You can actually educate yourself if you work at it.

You're coming into a space and trying to restructure it so that you feel comfortable here. This thread IS part of a larger community, but that doesn't mean the larger community can blunder in and rearrange the furniture so they're comfy.

If you really want to have these conversations, do your homework. There's plenty of written material for you to read and stories to listen to. Then have the conversations with your LGBT friends, over brunch some weekend. Don't hijack a gaming thread and start explaining to people how they're doing it all wrong.

This isn't a debate.

Liberty's Edge Developer

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I still remember... was it three years ago? This cis guy came into this thread and said his cisgender girlfriend had a theory about transgender people, and proceeded to run through a lot of awful stereotypes summed up with an insulting "theory" about what we were. And the four or five trans people in the thread at the time said "no, that's incredibly incorrect and also hurtful." Turned into an epic flamewar, especially when the girlfriend came in and demanded that we all respect her "opinion" because "respect is a two-way street."

Good times.

So, what's everybody's favorite class for playing gay characters? Trans characters?


As a cis- and straight guy I do both of those very carefully, (don't think I've ever had a trans character actually), but I'd say either bard or paladin. Bard because that's just my favourite class, and paladin because hey, people that aren't like me can be shining beacons of goodness too.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Currently both of my trans characters are occult classes, which has less to do with me finding those classes to be a good fit for trans characters than it does with the timing of Occult Adventures coinciding with my being more assured of my own gender and feeling able to play non-cis characters in PFS.

But my favorite class usually circles back around to paladins or whatever paladin analog I can find in other games. I'm sure some other people will chime in with this thread's well-documented love of gay lady knights, so I'll leave the majority of that discussion to others. ;)

So I'll pick a "class" from an entirely different game: the Battlebabe from Apocalypse World. They're paladin-like in the sense that they have good (but not top tier) combat skills, they're hot, and a little more defensive. In AW, all the Playbooks (basically the character sheets for each class) lack a place to fill in or choose a gender, but have a section for choosing your 'Look'. Looks include things like man, woman, ambiguous, transgressing, hidden, etc., across the various Playbooks. One thing I find really interesting about the Battlebabe is that the Looks section includes many options, but things like "hidden" are absent. The whole vibe of the Battlebabe is that you're good at violence but also people can't take their eyes off you. Which I don't think is to say that you can't be an agender Battlebabe, just that there's an electricity and style about you that can't leave gender and the act of gendering well enough alone. Anyway, if you've just read this paragraph, thank you for indulging me in letting me babble about my perfect RPG Hard Femme fantasy.


I have been thinking about trans characters a great deal of late due to something I have been working on in my homebrew. I have yet to play a trans character in a game, I fear that(along with the tepid reception I received from someone I shared some stuff I was working from) may make things more awkward- even unintentionally insulting!- than approachable with respect to role-playing options. I am not sure how to proceed, and this is on the back burner for now, but I plan to revisit the idea in the future, definitely including things I learned in this thread and at work.

Silver Crusade

I tried to make a Trans Male character, who was Barbarian going into Champion of Gwynharwyf. Granted after talking with an extremely knowledgeable and incredibly patient woman I realized how problematic the character and his backstory was and would need heavy revision and thinking if I ever attempt to play him again.

I've made a few Lesbian characters but while they're classes are different I noticed all their names start with N. Weirded me out when I noticed that.

Nazz, Aasimar paladin (tortured crusader is perfect for her) of Iomedae who was born before the Worldwound.

Naught, changeling storyteller (basically a female Brother Grim), Id Rager.

Nymph (she hates the name) Wereshark-Kin Ranger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a preferred class, but my characters are:

Kyras is gay. He is a cleric.

Sama is also gay. She is a kineticist.

Eshrin the wizard is asexual.

Anya is a swashbuckler and is bisexual.

I don't have a trans character yet, but I have been thinking of some new characters and one of them is trans.


Crystal Frasier wrote:
So, what's everybody's favorite class for playing gay characters? Trans characters?

I don't really have a favorite class for particular personality types.

At the moment, I'm playing one gay character, and it's here on the Paizo boards. Dr. Stefan von Herzog is a physician and wizard from Lepidstadt who hates the undead and has extensively studied them so as to more effectively fight them.

And in a GURPS by Gaslight supernatural/mystery game set in 1890s Boston, I played a "confirmed bachelor" spiritualist-investigator. He was very much in love with another PC (a physician and alienist), although the love was unrequited.

I'm playing a cis female Varisian cartomancer witch in a Shattered Star game, and I still haven't quite figured out her sexuality. I'm leaning toward "straight-ish" for her.

I've never played a trans character. The closest I've come was probably back in the late '80s, and the character wasn't actually trans, although she dressed and presented as a man. (She was actually a cis lesbian.) She was a sorcerer from an order that tied their members' powers to a deep personal secret; in this case, the fact that she was actually a woman. I flat-out stole the idea from Marion Zimmer Bradley's character "Lythande the Star-Browed" from the 1979 shared-world fantasy anthology Thieves' World.

Of course, now that I'm thinking about it, all of the gay characters I've played were some kind of psychic or spellcaster...

Liberty's Edge Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh... that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realize people would actually respond O.o

I've played a lot of trans characters (though I've very rarely told the rest of the table that), so I don't think I have a preferred class. When I play trans characters in superhero, games, however, they somehow always end up being paragons or else fire-controllers. Even when rolled randomly.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Huh... that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realize people would actually respond O.o

You asked role-players to tell you about their characters... ;-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:

Huh... that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realize people would actually respond O.o

I've played a lot of trans characters (though I've very rarely told the rest of the table that), so I don't think I have a preferred class. When I play trans characters in superhero, games, however, they somehow always end up being paragons or else fire-controllers. Even when rolled randomly.

You mean you DON'T want to hear about my character?! :(

Liberty's Edge Developer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Kajehase wrote:
Crystal Frasier wrote:
Huh... that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realize people would actually respond O.o
You asked role-players to tell you about their characters... ;-)

I brought his on myself. I deserve this.


Crystal Frasier wrote:
It is depressing an alienating how often the thread specifically for LGBT community in the fandom devolves into having the same debate about LGBT tone and politeness over and over again :(

I'm sorry if I'm contributing to that Ms Frasier. I just want to be informed. Not to inform.


Also I'm always glad to hear about other peoples characters. Especially in the fights against dragons, demons and undead.


Crystal Frasier wrote:


So, what's everybody's favorite class for playing gay characters? Trans characters?

I Have only played one gay character. Jo, a lesbian sorceress. But she was full of defects so not the best example.

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really have a favorite class for LGBT characters. I do think I have a favorite character archetype (in the non-Pathfinder sense of the word). I really like the trans shaman idea that we see with Shardra. I personally, non-religious materialist I am, find a kind of spiritual transcendence in being trans, so I like exploring that.

My name here (and just about everywhere)--Hrothdane--is actually taken from my tauren shaman in World of Warcraft, who I've been playing since I started in 2005. I recently had her transition thanks to the power of microtransactions, and it was a cathartic experience.


To divide it out I see it as two different (if related) topic: sexuality and biology. For sexuality I do not have a favored class or archetype. I tend to stay away from any such character with negative traits for homosexual characters that I would accept in heterosexual characters though in order to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes of homosexuals. An example of this is I might be willing to play a straight evil character that abuses magic for sexual favors but I would not play a homosexual character that does the same, as that is something that homosexuals have regular been accused of (using misinformation to "trick" people into sexual situations). Come to think of it I wouldn't play a female magical seductress normally either for similar reasons. Even though people like that exist across the sexuality spectrum I recognize the mental harm I could inflect playing such a character.

I have not played a trans character but if I did I could see the draw of magic for a character interested in changing genders. I have played characters that desired to change races (from human to elf for example) and for those characters the desire for change wwas so deep they chased magic as a means to fulfill the desire.

I couldn't say if that would be typical or normal for people in those circumstances and would be interested in feedback on that.

Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:


So, what's everybody's favorite class for playing gay characters? Trans characters?

Blood arcanist for my most played trans character, and for cis non-straight characters, cleric at the moment actually (I haven't played them enough nor written enough backstory to really get a good handle on what precisely their sexuality is, and their gender might end up relatively fluid, we'll see).

Of course the more recent characters have all been protean-blooded and even protean-worshiping for the cleric. I think fluidity in sex, gender, sexuality, and really about every way possible just comes with that territory.

Managing Editor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of queer characters, no favorite class for them (though the grippli rogue was super fun to play). I've mostly been playing in relatively short-term games, so romance doesn't come up that often, but said rogue did politely decline the advances of a flirty harpy. Harpies' stench is a real barrier to relationships when you breathe through your skin!

Liberty's Edge

Nicos wrote:
I Have only played one gay character. Jo, a lesbian sorceress. But she was full of defects so not the best example.

The character I played in that game, the halfling cleric named Chimon, was also gay, but I can't remember if it ever came up?

I've played a gay investigator (actually, the Age of Worms NPC Gattel Wattam) where it DID come up. Same with my regular Age of Worms cleric Astraden Limhaare, who is asexual and has no set romantic orientation.

My original Age of Worms character, a dwarven wizard named Erip, was genderfluid, but made a bad decision about swarms and was eaten in the first encounter :(

I had an agender character in an Iron Gods game (blight druid named Auehda), but after a few weeks of play I started to wonder if I didn't know enough about being agender, and between that and the GM continually misgendering them I resigned my slot after Book 1. After that experience and the "trans dies first" of that Age of Worms game, I've kind of shied away from playing trans PCs for fear of perpetuating stereotypes.

My character Romo Slender (human winter witch) in KC's Reivegnloft of Winter is an annoying cis pan dude. He's the closest to my own experience.

The common theme is . . . spellcasters? Counting extract-users like the investigator. But then I've only played a few martials since Pathfinder came out, so I clearly have a predilection for spellcasters anyways.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:

I have not played a trans character but if I did I could see the draw of magic for a character interested in changing genders. I have played characters that desired to change races (from human to elf for example) and for those characters the desire for change wwas so deep they chased magic as a means to fulfill the desire.

I couldn't say if that would be typical or normal for people in those circumstances and would be interested in feedback on that.

Since you're asking for feedback:

There are a couple of things to keep in mind here. Let's start with this:

Abraham spalding wrote:
To divide it out I see it as two different (if related) topic: sexuality and biology.

This is a false division, of sorts. First of all, is sexuality not biological? Or, conversely (and I may be using that word wrong), is gender not at the same distance from biology as sexuality, which defines itself with gendered relations? What I'm mainly getting at here is that it's important to avoid gender essentialism, especially in terms of thinking about how biology relates to transgender and cisgender bodies.

To expand on that, let's take a look at what you initially proposed: in a world with high fantasy Pathfinder magic, transgender people would be drawn to pursuing magic as a means of "changing gender". This is at best an oversimplified way at looking at gender and what it means to be trans. At worst, it takes a biological essentialist view of gender--i.e., there is something essential in a body that makes it one gender or another, and a given gender has something essential about it that manifests biologically in the body. This can be a dangerous line of thinking in that it can invalidate trans identities (not to mention its intersexism). For instance, the typical anti-trans rhetoric denies trans people their gender based on their genitals. Men have one thing, women have a different thing, and that biological component is essential to what they are, says this rhetoric. Sometimes this approach allows for a window of validation: if a trans person alters their body through hormones and surgery, dresses the right way, acts the right way, goes through the legal process to change their name and gender, etc., then these oh-so-gracious gatekeepers will accept that a trans person has stopped being one binary gender and is now "the other" binary gender.

However, this isn't how gender actually functions for a lot of people. What defines a transgender person, imo, is that they don't identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. That means that trans folks' gender is a matter of identity, not physiology. And while many trans folks seek ways to alter their bodies medically, there is a huge variety of ways that people go about it or even want it or have access to those changes. Some folks might feel like they're going from one gender and becoming another, but lots of folks also feel like they've been one gender their whole lives and have found ways to relieve their body dysmorphia or achieve gender euphoria through any number of ways. Some people have a more fluid or even undefined gender identify, and the only biological process it takes to change gender is whatever biological act goes on within the brain (which is also biological) such that a person might fluctuate between whatever number and intensity of gendered identities they experience.

So, with all that out of the way, I can now answer your question. Would trans people be drawn to powerful magic to change their gender? Possibly. People with fluid gender identities already "change gender" in a sense without magic. Trans people who experience gender dysphoria/dysmorphia may seek magical ways to relieve their discomfort and pain similar to how trans people undergo hormone replacement therapy, surgery, wear gender-affirming garments, etc. Some trans people are perfectly chill with their bodies, and would find no reason to use magic to change their bodies for reasons of gender. Trans people would be just as likely as cis people to seek out magic as a means to change their bodies for non-gendered reasons as well (which is to say, it varies from person to person based on their circumstances). The elixir of sex shift in Pathfinder is a super cool item in that the revised version essentially just works based on the user's desire, which could result in any number of changes. Even cisgender people could benefit from it, since it's not like they don't also have insecurities about their bodies as it relates to gender. But then there could also be people in this world who distrust magic. A trans Kellid barbarian might scorn magic of any kind and rely on more mundane methods of affirming their gender or relieving any dysphoria.

To conclude, the answer to your question is, yes, some people might be drawn to magical solutions to the hardships of being trans. But transgender folks aren't a monolith in their feelings and experiences. The way that people in general relate to their bodies is complex, and so is gender, and it can be detrimental if not dangerous to oversimplify these things. Even the way magic functions and people relate to it (in fiction) are generally more complex than "magic is cool and it can solve any problem with no complications".

TL;DR: It's bad to conflate bodies with gender because essentialism is transphobic and intersexist. Magic can solve a lot of problems, but using it to change your body isn't limited to trans people, and trans people wouldn't all be drawn to it in the same way (if at all) because trans people are complex (like all people are). Also gender is fake, actually.


It's a blatant stereotype but I think that rogues are the best LGBT class, simply because they've already got the flair, pizazz and what-have-you. That said, my only explicitly LGBT character in PnP role-playing was a female Air Genasi ranger/priest of Shaundakul (in the Forgotten Realms).

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I absolutely agree that the white, western, colonialist rigid gender binary is socially constructed and not representative of the truth of gender, but there is still some something unrelated to biology or presentation that I identify with and that I am drawn to in others (being a lesbian). I don't like calling it "womanness" because I feel like it's something more fundamental than the white western colonialist roots of "woman." The closest I can come to grasping what it is if I view it as something spiritual, but I'm not sure I like the baggage that comes with that word either.

All I know is that there is something there and that I don't have the language yet to describe what it is.


Gark the Goblin wrote:
Nicos wrote:
I Have only played one gay character. Jo, a lesbian sorceress. But she was full of defects so not the best example.

The character I played in that game, the halfling cleric named Chimon, was also gay, but I can't remember if it ever came up?

Not that I remember, we had little time for personal life in between our evildoings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:

I still remember... was it three years ago? This cis guy came into this thread and said his cisgender girlfriend had a theory about transgender people, and proceeded to run through a lot of awful stereotypes summed up with an insulting "theory" about what we were. And the four or five trans people in the thread at the time said "no, that's incredibly incorrect and also hurtful." Turned into an epic flamewar, especially when the girlfriend came in and demanded that we all respect her "opinion" because "respect is a two-way street."

Good times.

So, what's everybody's favorite class for playing gay characters? Trans characters?

I remember that ugh......

I usually play gay male characters. But as that is old hat to me a gay male. I decided to get into the mindset of a female and started playing a female paladin and a female Ranger. So I just want to get into a different mindset.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Crystal Frasier wrote:

Huh... that was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. I didn't realize people would actually respond O.o

I've played a lot of trans characters (though I've very rarely told the rest of the table that), so I don't think I have a preferred class. When I play trans characters in superhero, games, however, they somehow always end up being paragons or else fire-controllers. Even when rolled randomly.

Weirdly enough, taking forever to work out that I actually was trans and asexual, I spent the longest time playing trans and asexual characters without realizing it. Then looking back, and huh, nearly every "male" character I've ever played ended up with a hat of disguise or ever-prepped alter self in case there was ever a need (read: possible justification) for setting up a female alter ego.

Frustratingly enough, since working all that out (mainly by way of a friend playing the same sorts of characters coming out) I've been stuck always having to GM or having games cut before the first session. Most notably I have this here Shadowrun character all set to go who's basically Faith from Mirror's Edge if she was a trans lesbian orc adept, with a big chip on her shoulder about her actual ethnic heritage getting erased by the rest of her family embracing the orc thing.

So... I suppose by default that makes my answer rogue/monk for gay and every single class for trans? Thematically though there's a lot to be said for shaman (actual historical relevance there), or cleric of Gozreh. Alchemist works too (improving your body with Science Juice and all).

10,401 to 10,450 of 18,884 << first < prev | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.