To some extent it's a generational thing. The shift away from homosexual and towards gay is really only a few decades old. Part of it is to avoid the clinical and pathologizing usage of the word "homosexual" within psychology (though interestingly, the term was originally coined in the late 1800s as a neutral replacement for "sodomite"). Note that homophobic and anti-queer groups really like to use the word "homosexual". The American Family Association, for example, has a news site where they auto filter "gay" to "homosexual", sometimes to amusing results.
I read that article from 2007 about words changing from "homosexual" to "gay" and "Negro" to "African-American" and it made me giggle.
|
I'll let slide mostly without comment that you just compared queer identities to stamp collecting, diseases, weather events, and types of plants.
But perhaps the point is that, in Golarion, being queer is roughly as significant to a person's identity - especially the externally applied portion of that identity - as being a stamp collector is in reality? Frankly, that fits in reasonably well with the available evidence - i.e., how queer characters are presented in the source material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's not what's being asked here. Whether people on Golarion have a concept of and terminology for transgenderism, bisexuality, etc. is a major and basic detail.
Well Viv, Here's JJ answering that exact question from me about a million posts ago in this very thread. I'm not saying you shouldn't care, or that it's you're fault for not reading the whole entire thread, but that one's been answered.
James (or Jessica, JJ, or anyone else who might care to answer), this question may get a bit arcane, but does the classification "homosexual" even exist in Golarion? That is, if none of the cultural streams that condemn homosexuality exist, is sexual preference seen as worth classifying beyond a "what's your type" level of preference? I suppose the answer could well vary from culture to culture.Of course it exists. The word "homosexual" does not only exist because folks needed a word to quantify something bad or sinful.
|
I expect that most languages on Golarion have words which convey the meanings of 'lesbian', 'bisexual' etc. We don't need to know what these words are, and Paizo don't need to have worked them out.
They don't need to, because all of the words they use that are relevant to us are translated into whatever English word means the same thing to us that their word means to them.
Yet the text of the AP intended for the gamemaster to read conspicuously avoids using words like 'lesbian', 'transgender', even though this would make things clear for the DM, without any need for any word in the Golarion languages to have a word that is exactly equivalent.
The idea that, even in text meant to inform the DM, the word 'lesbian' must be avoided on the grounds that there was no Isle of Lesbos on Golarion is inconsistent with their use of the word 'paladin' when there were no Peers of Charlemagne in Golarion either.
I understand that Paizo want to create a world without sexuality bias, but it does not follow that there would be no words in their languages to describe a person's sexual preference.
Innocent words can be co-opted by biased groups. The seemingly innocent and neutral 'homosexual' I've just learned (through reading this thread) should be avoided, mainly because it has been co-opted by those who prefer it in their ant-gay propaganda.
It amuses me when I think of the 'euphemism train'. 'I'm just going to have a piss' became 'I'm going for a wee' which became 'I'm going to the toilet'. When that became impolite, then it became 'I'm going to the powder room/bathroom' (why are you having a bath?). At the moment 'restroom' is the polite euphemism in America, but in a few years that'll be too rude for polite company and they'll have to invent another, equally temporary euphemism.
'Left-handed.' Is that insulting? 'Dexter' (latin for 'right') is the root of 'dextrous' (a good thing), and doing things the 'right' way is the 'correct' way. My mother was made to sit on her left hand to force her to learn to write with her right hand.
The latin for 'left' is 'sinister'. Sinister is bad.
So a lefty was known as 'cack-handed' and worse. But is the term 'left-handed' to be avoided when talking about Golarion?
Is the word 'homosexual' to be avoided just because it has been co-opted by those who hate?
These are judgement calls. When we make our choice, and publish that choice, then the readers can give their opinions on whether that judgement call was a good call.
I think there should be neutral words that we can use, and I think that Paizo should use them in text meant to inform the DM.
What are these words?
You tell me!
I'll let slide mostly without comment that you just compared queer identities to stamp collecting, diseases, weather events, and types of plants.But perhaps the point is that, in Golarion, being queer is roughly as significant to a person's identity - especially the externally applied portion of that identity - as being a stamp collector is in reality? Frankly, that fits in reasonably well with the available evidence - i.e., how queer characters are presented in the source material.
Ah, but knightnday didn't say that on Golarion. We are talking about this on earth, where it's a big deal for Paizo to include queer characters in their adventure paths. Having a stamp collector character in an adventure path wouldn't be pushing against a larger trend in tabletop roleplaying games of marginalizing stamp collectors. Golarion may not have any oppression of queer people, but earth does. Knightnday's trivialization contributes to that.
What are these words?
In the case of Irabeth and Anevia, lesbian or bisexual, as the case may be, would work. For Anevia, transgender would work. I think the simplest and best solution is to use terms that are commonly used as self-identifications in the real world society where Pathfinder is published.
Well Viv, Here's JJ answering that exact question from me about a million posts ago in this very thread. I'm not saying you shouldn't care, or that it's you're fault for not reading the whole entire thread, but that one's been answered.
James (or Jessica, JJ, or anyone else who might care to answer), this question may get a bit arcane, but does the classification "homosexual" even exist in Golarion? That is, if none of the cultural streams that condemn homosexuality exist, is sexual preference seen as worth classifying beyond a "what's your type" level of preference? I suppose the answer could well vary from culture to culture.Of course it exists. The word "homosexual" does not only exist because folks needed a word to quantify something bad or sinful.
Cool. That's the explanation that makes the most sense to me. Thanks for the citation.
Anyway, the word "lesbian" is treated differently from e.g. "paladin". In Irabeth's description, for example, she is described as a paladin three times ("she had become a paladin of Iomedae", "the half-orc paladin caught up with the tiefling at a ruined tower", "the paladin would have certainly stormed off into the Worldwound"). No word, lesbian or otherwise, is given to her sexuality.
The thing is, there are paladins on both Earth and Golarion, but it's actually kind of up in the air whether there are "lesbians" on Golarion, and if they are, whether that identity is regional or universal. The mere existence of a woman in a relationship with a woman does not mean there are "lesbians." Even when you are talking about real-life people, pinning people down according to constructed categories of identity can be difficult. Most of what people complain about alignment in-game can be applied to sexual orientation in real life. Some people easily fit into and accept their categories, some do not.
When you try to apply the cultural baggage of "lesbianism" to a fantasy world, it becomes even more difficult. There is a difference between,
"Sorry, I prefer women," vs.
"Sorry, I'm a lesbian."
Many differences, actually.
Really, the last thing I need in a Pathfinder book is a paragraph about how a character wondering if her attraction to one specific male person, whom she has no intention of actually having a relationship with, makes her somewhat bisexual rather than lesbian. It's really... not helpful.
So the Pathfinder books are very matter-of-fact in a way I actually wish people in the real world would emulate.
Similarly, Anevia isn't referred to by the words "lesbian" (or "bisexual") or "transgender". Referring to her as transgender would have been particularly useful, as it would've helped avoid the use of offensive phrases like "born a man" or "revealed herself to actually be a man".
Language around transgender issues is dicey. Some people prefer to be called "actually a man" and might actually be offended if you insist on calling them transgender.
Innocent words can be co-opted by biased groups. The seemingly innocent and neutral 'homosexual' I've just learned (through reading this thread) should be avoided, mainly because it has been co-opted by those who prefer it in their ant-gay propaganda.
By contrast, I am a queer person and a student of mental health, and I will give no ground. I use the word insistently. The person who uses it as an insult does so because they hate gay people. I will not let them steal and stain neutral vocabulary. If someone calls me a homosexual and means it as an insult, I understand what they are saying and do not feel ashamed of who and what I am.
Please do not avoid this word.
|
|
I'll let slide mostly without comment that you just compared queer identities to stamp collecting, diseases, weather events, and types of plants.But perhaps the point is that, in Golarion, being queer is roughly as significant to a person's identity - especially the externally applied portion of that identity - as being a stamp collector is in reality? Frankly, that fits in reasonably well with the available evidence - i.e., how queer characters are presented in the source material.Well, but anyone can stop stamp collecting, and anyone (who has enough money/time) can start stamp collecting.
I can't "not be Ace anymore".
First of all, I'm not trying to compare a hobby to one's own sense of identity, particularly not anybody in the real world. That's taking the metaphor way beyond what I'm getting at.*
The point I'm trying to make is that, from the perspective of those on the outside, "being queer" is roughly as worthy of commentary or notice in Golarion as "collects stamps" is to us. There is a technical term for it - most people don't know it, especially if they're not involved in the subculture; it's unusual from the majority perspective, but ultimately not that big a deal; it matters a lot more to the participants themselves, although to a degree that varies greatly depending on the individual.
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll let slide mostly without comment that you just compared queer identities to stamp collecting, diseases, weather events, and types of plants.But perhaps the point is that, in Golarion, being queer is roughly as significant to a person's identity - especially the externally applied portion of that identity - as being a stamp collector is in reality? Frankly, that fits in reasonably well with the available evidence - i.e., how queer characters are presented in the source material.Ah, but knightnday didn't say that on Golarion. We are talking about this on earth, where it's a big deal for Paizo to include queer characters in their adventure paths. Having a stamp collector character in an adventure path wouldn't be pushing against a larger trend in tabletop roleplaying games of marginalizing stamp collectors. Golarion may not have any oppression of queer people, but earth does. Knightnday's trivialization contributes to that.
What are these words?In the case of Irabeth and Anevia, lesbian or bisexual, as the case may be, would work. For Anevia, transgender would work. I think the simplest and best solution is to use terms that are commonly used as self-identifications in the real world society where Pathfinder is published.
Sadly, I only said it on Earth because I cannot find a gate to Golarion.
And yes, I presented my comments in such a manner as to make the topic trivial because to me it IS trivial. The characters are included in the game, and a reading of their information makes it pretty clear, at least to me, where they stand. I'm less sure that we need part of the statblock to indicate preferences. Irabeth is referred to as 'the paladin' most likely so that her name wasn't used over and over, as a change of pace. She wasn't referred to as a lesbian any more than another character was referred to 'as that straight guy'.
To repeat, queer characters are included in Golarion. And yes, it would be nice if we could read the minds of the devs and know what they call themselves on Golarion. That said, it is no more -- and no less -- important than any other questions pending.
Working out that one important detail doesn't require one to work out every angle and nuance of queer life on Golarion.
If reading these boards and dealing with gamers in general has taught me anything, it is never over. Once that question is answered then there will be a push for other details and why haven't they been provided. So yeah, I have to say I have a hard time believing that answering the question will be the end of the controversy.
Bonus points for any responses that do not include the term 'priviledge'!
Except that Anevia is a transwoman. "Actually a man" does not refer to how she sees herself. I could be wrong, but I doubt many transgender people want to be called "actually a man", if that's their assigned sex, not their gender identity.Language around transgender issues is dicey. Some people prefer to be called "actually a man" and might actually be offended if you insist on calling them transgender.
Similarly, Anevia isn't referred to by the words "lesbian" (or "bisexual") or "transgender". Referring to her as transgender would have been particularly useful, as it would've helped avoid the use of offensive phrases like "born a man" or "revealed herself to actually be a man".
Okay, sorry, I was reading that as reversed. I am not familiar with the character.
IME "born a man" is not usually considered offensive in contexts where a person is acknowledged to be a woman. But there are, uh, table differences. As I said, it can be tricky. Certainly, I never want to hurt someone's feelings or make them feel sad because I reminded them of difficulties in their life.
The thing is, there are paladins on both Earth and Golarion, but it's actually kind of up in the air whether there are "lesbians" on Golarion, and if they are, whether that identity is regional or universal. The mere existence of a woman in a relationship with a woman does not mean there are "lesbians." Even when you are talking about real-life people, pinning people down according to constructed categories of identity can be difficult. Most of what people complain about alignment in-game can be applied to sexual orientation in real life. Some people easily fit into and accept their categories, some do not.
I'm aware of the complexities here. However, the solution is not to try to sidestep the issue by refusing to use any of the relevant language. As I noted earlier, only referring to Anevia's and Irabeth's sexuality by mentioning their relationship didn't stop them from being widely understood as lesbian characters. Go to pretty much anywhere on the internet talking about them and you'll see the word "lesbian". Because it's same-gender sexual desire which carries this cultural baggage, not the words we use, you cannot avoid this baggage by avoiding the words.
In the real world, there are many people who don't fit easily into the usual categories---which are often assigned to them, rather than being self-chosen. There are people who don't identify as gay or bi or pan or ace. It doesn't follow however that we shouldn't use words like "gay" or "lesbian" in the real world. Even if these categories are ill-fitting, they are a significant part of how we conceptualize sexuality. They are how many self-identify. I think that since we have good reason to use these words when talking about the real world, it is justified to use them when talking about Golarion. Even if published material tries to carefully avoid using the words, they are still part of how we understand the characters.
There is a difference between,
"Sorry, I prefer women," vs.
"Sorry, I'm a lesbian."Many differences, actually.
But the adventure paths---at least the ones I've read---don't talk about sexuality in that way. Anevia's sexuality isn't presented to the reader by something like "Anevia is attracted to women" in her description. Her sexuality is presented to the reader solely through her relationship with Irabeth. We see phrases like "her wife", "they'd fallen in love", and "Anevia and Irabeth were wedded". Besides what we can infer from her relationship to Irabeth, no mention is given of Anevia's desires, only of her actions and her relationship to Irabeth.
This is more a side point, but it's problematic to reduce sexuality to whom one is in a relationship with. This idea is what leads to nonsense like thinking bi or pan people become monosexual when they enter a monogamous relationship. Only presenting sexuality through relationships contributes to this sort of monosexism and erasure of non-monosexual people.
Language around transgender issues is dicey. Some people prefer to be called "actually a man" and might actually be offended if you insist on calling them transgender.
I would be interested in seeing an example of preferring to be called "actually a man". In my experience, it has been universal among trans people that saying someone is actually the gender they were coercively assigned at birth, rather than the gender they present as, is offensive and problematic. Saying that a trans woman is actually a man, as done to Anevia, falls squarely into that. (Of course, a trans man actually is a man.) This idea that the gender one is assigned at birth takes primacy over everything else rests upon a false understanding of gender. It relies on a biological essentialism that collapses medically-constructed sex with gender.
Edit: I just saw your and thejeff's comments. Yeah, Anevia is a trans woman. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
If reading these boards and dealing with gamers in general has taught me anything, it is never over. Once that question is answered then there will be a push for other details and why haven't they been provided. So yeah, I have to say I have a hard time believing that answering the question will be the end of the controversy.
Of course it won't be the end of the issue. There's a lot of ingrained concepts and prejudices that Paizo has to push against as part of the inclusion of queer characters. Of course this cannot be easily and immediately overcome by establishing a few basic but important setting details.
But why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the gripping hand, the language around transgender people is tricky and probably not well known to most of their audience. The preferred terms are almost technical vocabulary and any attempt to describe them in terms laypeople will understand is potentially offensive: "actually a man", for example.I see this sort of argument a lot, but I disagree. It does require some effort, but I don't think it's too difficult to avoid the pratfalls while still being understandable to a general audience. For example, here's a quick and far-from-perfect attempt at rewriting the first paragraph of Anevia's description:
Anevia grew up on the streets of Nisroch, and witnessed a hundred horrors by age 12. Her mother worked for a gang of outlaw artists and thieves, an occupation dangerous in any city but especially risk in the back streets of Nisroch. Anevia is transgender and was raised as a son by her mother. She raised Anevia with an appreciation of freedom and to speak and love art, while her gang taught young Anevia how to pick locks and pockets. Although she proved an adept pupil of thievery, Anevia always felt awkward in her skin and avoided making friends as a result. In art and literature, she found herself identifying with strong women characters rather than their male counterparts---and throughout her childhood, she carried the conviction that she had been born into the wrong body.For reference, here's the original:
Born a man and originally named Anvenn, Anevia grew up on the streets of Nisroch, and witnessed a hundred horrors by age 12. Anvenn's mother worked for a gang of outlaw artists and thieves, an occupation dangerous in any city but especially risky in the back streets of Nisroch. She raised her son with an appreciation of freedom to speak and love of art, while her gang taught young Anvenn how to pick locks and pockets. Although he proved an adept pupil of thievery, Anvenn always felt awkward in his skin and avoided making friends as a result. In art and literature, Anvenn increasingly found himself identifying with strong female figures rather than their male counterparts-and for most of his life Anvenn would carry the conviction that he had been born into the wrong body.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the adventure paths---at least the ones I've read---don't talk about sexuality in that way. Anevia's sexuality isn't presented to the reader by something like "Anevia is attracted to women" in her description. Her sexuality is presented to the reader solely through her relationship with Irabeth. We see phrases like "her wife", "they'd fallen in love", and "Anevia and Irabeth were wedded". Besides what we can infer from her relationship to Irabeth, no mention is given of Anevia's desires, only of her actions and her relationship to Irabeth.
This is more a side point, but it's problematic to reduce sexuality to whom one is in a relationship with. This idea is what leads to nonsense like thinking bi or pan people become monosexual when they enter a monogamous relationship. Only presenting sexuality through relationships contributes to this sort of monosexism and erasure of non-monosexual people.
I am sympathetic, but I find it more problematic to reduce people to identities and categories. I don't think identifying what relationships people are in is reductionistic. People may assume one thing if they find out a person is married. But adding a label isn't going to do a better job of capturing the complexities of people's lives.
I think, by leaving the character's internal lives less defined, you make more characters accessible to more people. If I want Valeros to be bisexual, or maybe just flexible enough to pair with whomever, I can. In a lot of ways, I'm happier not being told repeatedly every time a character is straight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Vivianne Ladlamme: A good attempt at a rewrite.
"Anevia is transgender and was raised as a son by her mother."
I think you'd need another sentence or two after this one. I'm not sure that people unfamiliar with transgender people would necessarily read that the right way. The use of "her" elsewhere in the paragraph helps, as does the bit about identifying with women characters versus male characters, but I'd expect some people would still be confused as to whether Anevia was born with a male body or a female body.
Maybe include something about people (including her mother?) taking her to be the boy she externally appeared to be? Maybe something like, "Anevia is transgender. Her mother believed Anevia was the son she appeared to be, and raised her as such, naming her Anvenn. Anevia herself, however, identified as a girl." And "Born a man" in the original could be replaced as "Born male-bodied," I suppose, but I'm not sure how people feel about that term these days.
I guess you could also think about when she realized she was transgender: at a very early age, as happens for some people, or near the advent of puberty, as happens for others, including myself. I think there's a subtle difference in that regard between what you have in your rewrite, "and throughout her childhood, she carried the conviction that she had been born into the wrong body," and what's in the original, "and for most of his life Anvenn would carry the conviction that he had been born into the wrong body."
Speaking personally (and speaking for myself only), I wasn't offended by anything in Anevia's description, including the pronoun usage and original name usage during her childhood. At the same time, others might take offense at those elements. I agree there's room for refinement and clarification.
Just my 2 cents on the issue.
"Born a man" is at least strictly accurate, as there is a male body and male acculturation, and babies don't themselves have an internalized sense of identity. So, that part I would guess to be less offensive, perhaps even non-offensive to many people.
"Actually be a man" is a real thunker, though. Should be "born male-bodied" or something like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[good stuff]
You make good points. Incorporating your criticisms would much improve my rewrite.
I suspect the later "revealed herself to actually be a man" is more problematic that "born a man", but I'm not sure.
I agree, in so much as these things can be ordered. But both suffer from the same kind of underlying biological essentialism. I went with rewriting the "born a man" paragraph because it's easier to make the point with the first paragraph in the description, rather than the sixth. By that point removing it from the rest of the context makes it hard to see what's going on.
I am sympathetic, but I find it more problematic to reduce people to identities and categories. I don't think identifying what relationships people are in is reductionistic. People may assume one thing if they find out a person is married. But adding a label isn't going to do a better job of capturing the complexities of people's lives.
I also don't think identifying people's relationships is reductionistic. What is reductionistic is for that to be the only way you describe sexuality.
I think, by leaving the character's internal lives less defined, you make more characters accessible to more people. If I want Valeros to be bisexual, or maybe just flexible enough to pair with whomever, I can. In a lot of ways, I'm happier not being told repeatedly every time a character is straight.
I think for the average NPC, the best thing to do when describing them in an adventure path is to say nothing about their sexuality. Leave that unstated so that it is easily adjusted to fit the needs of the specific group and campaign. But for NPCs whose sexuality is an important part of their character, like Anevia and Irabeth, this sort of flexibility through saying nothing isn't an option. Again, carefully avoiding using the word didn't rescue Irabeth and Anevia from being understood as lesbians by readers. The question is why not make their sexuality explicit? It doesn't keep them from being lesbians.
This careful avoidance of giving name to these characters' sexualities strikes me as a mild form of hide your lesbians. There's a history of queer characters in fiction being hinted at but never explicitly invoked. Obviously this isn't on the same level as suggesting lesbianism by rubbing a fur coat across a face, but it's a step along the same path.
|
But the adventure paths---at least the ones I've read---don't talk about sexuality in that way. Anevia's sexuality isn't presented to the reader by something like "Anevia is attracted to women" in her description. Her sexuality is presented to the reader solely through her relationship with Irabeth. We see phrases like "her wife", "they'd fallen in love", and "Anevia and Irabeth were wedded". Besides what we can infer from her relationship to Irabeth, no mention is given of Anevia's desires, only of her actions and her relationship to Irabeth.
This is more a side point, but it's problematic to reduce sexuality to whom one is in a relationship with. This idea is what leads to nonsense like thinking bi or pan people become monosexual when they enter a monogamous relationship. Only presenting sexuality through relationships contributes to this sort of monosexism and erasure of non-monosexual people.
I am sympathetic, but I find it more problematic to reduce people to identities and categories. I don't think identifying what relationships people are in is reductionistic. People may assume one thing if they find out a person is married. But adding a label isn't going to do a better job of capturing the complexities of people's lives.
I think, by leaving the character's internal lives less defined, you make more characters accessible to more people. If I want Valeros to be bisexual, or maybe just flexible enough to pair with whomever, I can. In a lot of ways, I'm happier not being told repeatedly every time a character is straight.
Yeah but you cannot win with this "identity' game. part of it is wanting so badly to see whatever identity you you have chosen displayed exactly how you want. Don't show gay characters and you are a homophobe, show them "wrong" and you are a bigot, use the wrong word of the day and you are ignorant. This is why i do not play identity games with any group and start to want to avoid people entirely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an openly homosexual person...I find it baffeling how interested people in general are in "who is sleeping with who".
Don't get me wrong....I appreciate the fact that Paizo has included characters of varying preferences in their AP's.
But at the same time....I can't help but wonder why this thread has so many posts, and so much activity.
As I wander through life, and meet different people, the last thing on my mind is "do they sleep with guy's or gal's"....
I guess I must be odd or something :(
|
|
As an openly homosexual person...I find it baffeling how interested people in general are in "who is sleeping with who".
Don't get me wrong....I appreciate the fact that Paizo has included characters of varying preferences in their AP's.
But at the same time....I can't help but wonder why this thread has so many posts, and so much activity.
As I wander through life, and meet different people, the last thing on my mind is "do they sleep with guy's or gal's"....
I guess I must be odd or something :(
You are more what people should be about this stuff. But i blame identity issues mostly.
I think for the average NPC, the best thing to do when describing them in an adventure path is to say nothing about their sexuality. Leave that unstated so that it is easily adjusted to fit the needs of the specific group and campaign. But for NPCs whose sexuality is an important part of their character, like Anevia and Irabeth, this sort of flexibility through saying nothing isn't an option. Again, carefully avoiding using the word didn't rescue Irabeth and Anevia from being understood as lesbians by readers. The question is why not make their sexuality explicit? It doesn't keep them from being lesbians.
How do you know they ARE lesbians?
I think for the average NPC, the best thing to do when describing them in an adventure path is to say nothing about their sexuality. Leave that unstated so that it is easily adjusted to fit the needs of the specific group and campaign. But for NPCs whose sexuality is an important part of their character, like Anevia and Irabeth, this sort of flexibility through saying nothing isn't an option. Again, carefully avoiding using the word didn't rescue Irabeth and Anevia from being understood as lesbians by readers. The question is why not make their sexuality explicit? It doesn't keep them from being lesbians.How do you know they ARE lesbians?
What do you mean "they ARE lesbians," because as far as I read, the text doesn't make that clear. In fact, the vagueness coupled with the assumption that "they ARE lesbians," is an obvious instance of bi erasure.
How do you know they ARE lesbians?
Everyone knows they are lesbians. Read the product discussion thread for the book (starting about here). Irabeth and Anevia are referred to over and over as lesbian characters. That thread has several Paizo employees active in it too, so if the intent wasn't for the characters to be understood as lesbians, that could have been clarified. Or look at this thread about the characters. Or this blog.
To reiterate my point yet again: Anevia and Irabeth are widely understood as lesbians by readers. They are portrayed as lesbians by DMs running the game. The are talked about as lesbians when people discuss The Worldwound Incursion. It appears to be the intent of Paizo for the characters to be understood as lesbian; given ample opportunity, Paizo employees didn't correct people and let them know the reader isn't meant to understand the characters as lesbian. Avoiding using the word "lesbian" in the book didn't prevent any of this. The word "lesbian" doesn't need to be explicitly used for the audience of a work to recognize a character being portrayed as a lesbian.
I linked to "The Celluloid Closet" in a previous post (apparently the whole thing is on youtube). It discusses, among other things, Hollywood's history of portraying queer characters without explicitly giving a name to their sexuality. One might even go so far as to say that in much of modern media, the default way to portray queer characters is without giving a name to their sexuality. Yet their sexuality is still understood by the audience. Paizo isn't being progressive in how they refused to give a name to Irabeth's and Anevia's sexualities. I do think it's possible to make a progressive statement by way of refusing to label characters' sexuality. To do so, however, would require a lot of work to distance your work from the history of queer identities being portrayed but not explicitly invoked. That work simply isn't present in The Worldwound Incursion, as evinced by Anevia and Irabeth being widely understood by readers as lesbian.
Since when is Irabeth a lesbian? I assumed she was pansexual from her description.
Since when is Irabeth a lesbian? I assumed she was pansexual from her description.
Read the threads I linked. You are quite rare in reading her as pansexual.
"Over the course of their journey north, they fell in love. By the time Anevia chose to reveal her secret to Irabeth, the observant half-orc had already known for several days that she was a man—it made no difference to Irabeth, who knew better than to judge a person by appearance alone."
Sounds to me like Irabeth fell in love with Anevia the person, not Anevia the man or woman (i.e. she's pansexual).
|
|
I don't think I would have labeled her as pansexual per se - we lack the data to make such a claim - but I don't see where she's really coming across as a lesbian.
Anevia had revealed herself to actually be a man to Irabeth, but this didn’t matter to the paladin, who had learned to value a companion’s personality over her appearance.
Over the course of their journey north, they fell in love. By the time Anevia chose to reveal her secret to Irabeth, the observant half-orc had already known for several days that she was a man—it made no difference to Irabeth, who knew better than to judge a person by appearance alone.
That doesn't sound particularly lesbian to me, and I've never interpreted her as such.
That doesn't sound particularly lesbian to me, and I've never interpreted her as such.
It's perfectly cool that you didn't read her as lesbian. However, if you look at discussions of the module (let me link again), Irabeth and Anevia are widely referred to as lesbian. Whether or not you read them that way doesn't change the fact that a lot of people did.
Irabeth certainly didn't seem to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or we don't give a damn about labels and accept they are two people in love that do not need to have that relationship or themselves defined and put in a convenient category.....
These things are more than just labels, they're part of a language that makes living possible for queer folk. As Judith Butler said, this language is as necessary as bread and water. There is nothing convenient about it: it's won over through tears sweat and blood.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or we don't give a damn about labels and accept they are two people in love that do not need to have that relationship or themselves defined and put in a convenient category.....These things are more than just labels, they're part of a language that makes living possible for queer folk. As Judith Butler said, this language is as necessary as bread and water. There is nothing convenient about it: it's won over through tears sweat and blood.
Why? i can date a woman without being labeled straight, a man without being labeled gay or bi, i can believe in god without picking a religion, i can enjoy games just as much without being a gamer. The words make nothing different save maybe to set up an "us and you" split to make things worse.