Search Posts
I hope this comes with at least a GM suggestion of how a follower of Arazni can get at least some betrayal in. I'm on board for the non-good alignment campaign,
Part of the reason it's viewed as side stepping is because the claims weren't exclusive to a hotel room. The claims included giving her a distinct contract for either unclear or discriminatory reasons and letting her go when she had an injury, hiring a cis friend of hers instead. A single room per person policy is the only response to those claims. The claim is that a trans person may have been discriminated against in at least 3 ways. The response is removing an avenue that such discrimination could be visible (it doesn't prevent them from discriminating in the other two ways or just not selecting trans people in the future, for example). That isn't to say I know what would work to prevent discrimination, or what policies should be pursued, but it's fully reasonable to call it side stepping.
People are upset because solving the hotel room issue in this way is very similar to "don't ask, don't tell".That's an interesting analogy. In my lifetime, I've seen DADT go from the progressive and inclusive option to the posterchild for discriminatory ruling. I'm too young (born 1990) and don't have the experience in the military but I got the impression that DADT was a compromise rather than *the* progressive and inclusive option. I'm also struggling to reasonably map your elaborations (which are interesting and I appreciate you sharing your experience) back onto the hotel situation, as I don't think Paizo has a murdering trans people problem, or something similar that trans people need to be shielded from. The context for DADT being a compromise isn't a good mapping for the context of Paizo today. Although I can sorta see what you're saying with the reality of trans discrimination or prejudice still being present, I think we're supposed to be at a place now culturally where that should be unacceptable rather than compromised around. While I generally agree that autonomy over room choices is good policy, the context for the switch to that policy is othering for sure. (For example: I like single stall bathrooms, I don't like single stall bathrooms being pitched as the solution to cis people realizing trans people pee like everyone else.)
I think it's been mentioned already, but if the allegation is "Someone in management wouldn't let two consenting women, one cis and one trans, room together at an event important to their job and career" and the seemingly just announced solution the company's president gave yesterday is "we made it policy for workers to be in separate rooms by default"... Then the implication is that discrimination wasn't resolved, just worked around and accommodated at greater effort and cost. Maybe even to the detriment of all workers due to increased cost of attendance likely reducing number of attendees. The message is you'd rather both change policy and pay more money than let trans women do their convention work like everyone else. Framing that as an evolved approach is, well, very reminiscent of the bathroom bill debates in a bad way. I would consider this to be directly "transphobic" in a way that's as fresh as yesterday, rather than "years ago". It's a big bummer to me, as a fan, advocate, and GM. |
