The LGBT Gamer Community Thread.


Gamer Life General Discussion

451 to 500 of 17,442 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

GentleGiant wrote:
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Shifty wrote:
Anyhow, I have met a lot of GLB gamers, but not yet a T.
It sucks being a rarity.

I've met a bunch of T women (no T men, as far as I know anyway), but I don't think any of them have been gamers (at least in the PnP way - video games are another matter).

So, as Winterthorn said, revel in the uniqueness instead. :-D

I ask this honestly.

WHen one reads Trans woman does it refer to the starting point or the destination?


Believe it refers to the journey. Becoming a gender other than the one you were born to takes years of practice, study, and self reflection.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Believe it refers to the journey.

Spoken wisely, young grasshopper.


Although there's the saying that it's about the journey rather than the destination, in this case I would rather just skip the journey and go straight to the destination, personally. The journey doesn't really sound all that fun.


Meophist wrote:

I try not to assume anything about anyone.

People are people. After much research, I found it basically all boils down to just that.

When I can make myself do it consistently, I do fairly well operating from the assumption that everyone is a dangerous wild animal. But it's not very good for your outlook, but does make all surprises happy ones.


Meophist wrote:
Although there's the saying that it's about the journey rather than the destination, in this case I would rather just skip the journey and go straight to the destination, personally. The journey doesn't really sound all that fun.

Journeys rarely are. Life's a journey. Life is pain...not a coincidence. ;)

Joking aside, we still haven't clarified whether T woman refers to a man becoming a woman or a woman becoming a man. And conversely whether T man refers to a woman becoming a man or a man becoming a woman. Is the gender designation here referring to the start point or the desired endpoint? It seems a fair question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
lynora wrote:
Meophist wrote:
Although there's the saying that it's about the journey rather than the destination, in this case I would rather just skip the journey and go straight to the destination, personally. The journey doesn't really sound all that fun.

Journeys rarely are. Life's a journey. Life is pain...not a coincidence. ;)

Joking aside, we still haven't clarified whether T woman refers to a man becoming a woman or a woman becoming a man. And conversely whether T man refers to a woman becoming a man or a man becoming a woman. Is the gender designation here referring to the start point or the desired endpoint? It seems a fair question.

From what I know, it's usually the end point, so a transwoman identifies as a woman. This doesn't necessarily mean that she transitioned or is transitioning into the body of a woman, but simply that she identifies as such as her gender.

Shadow Lodge

lynora wrote:
I didn't even really understand my own feelings until a couple of years ago. We're talking deep denial here. I was shocked by how many people were not at all surprised when I told them I was bi. Apparently body language gives away more than you realize sometimes.

That would certainly explain why my mom asked if I had a boyfriend after I said I didn't have a girlfriend... And here I was just acting like I always do. :)

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*puts on his diversity training cap*

A trans-woman is someone who was born with male anatomy but identifies as female. A trans-man is the opposite.

*takes off cap*

(Yes, I used to do diversity trainings about LGBT issues. I had a 5-10 minute spiel about terminology for people in the T group, such as which pronouns to use if you want to be polite, and the difference between transgendered people, transsexuals, transvestites, and drag queens.)


Celestial Healer wrote:

*puts on his diversity training cap*

A trans-woman is someone who was born with male anatomy but identifies as female. A trans-man is the opposite.

*takes off cap*

(Yes, I used to do diversity trainings about LGBT issues. I had a 5-10 minute spiel about terminology for people in the T group, such as which pronouns to use if you want to be polite, and the difference between transgendered people, transsexuals, transvestites, and drag queens.)

Out of those, I'm more gender-fluid, or perhaps gender-queer. I think I may have been bigendered or trigendered before, but I'm not quite sure if I can say that now.

Silver Crusade

Labels are limited. Every time you come up with categories, you find people they do not include. I'm not a big fan, myself :)

"Gender-queer" is a pretty good catch-all, I suppose, if you were looking for one.


Thanks, CH. That at least helps clarify what people mean when they use different labels. :)


Celestial Healer wrote:

Labels are limited. Every time you come up with categories, you find people they do not include. I'm not a big fan, myself :)

"Gender-queer" is a pretty good catch-all, I suppose, if you were looking for one.

That's true. Still there was a time when I scoured the Internet looking for a label I could use. I had the reasoning that, if there was a label for what was happening to me, then it means that I wasn't alone in the experience. With labels, one can find companionship. One can find wisdom. The idea that one is not alone itself can be of comfort.

Of course, there are many problems with labels as well.


I usually just say that a particular person is in a state of flux as their body catches up to their mind. Or did I say that already?


Meophist wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:

Labels are limited. Every time you come up with categories, you find people they do not include. I'm not a big fan, myself :)

"Gender-queer" is a pretty good catch-all, I suppose, if you were looking for one.

That's true. Still there was a time when I scoured the Internet looking for a label I could use. I had the reasoning that, if there was a label for what was happening to me, then it means that I wasn't alone in the experience. With labels, one can find companionship. One can find wisdom. The idea that one is not alone itself can be of comfort.

Of course, there are many problems with labels as well.

One thing I've found helpful, albeit with labels unrelated to sexuality, is to find one that kind of fits me and look at the situations faced by other people who accept the label. It's helped me connect things that appeared to be just personal oddities many times. Then I can organize them together into a better understanding of what goes on in my head and how and why it's not like what goes on in the heads of others.


Samnell wrote:
One thing I've found helpful, albeit with labels unrelated to sexuality, is to find one that kind of fits me and look at the situations faced by other people who accept the label. It's helped me connect things that appeared to be just personal oddities many times. Then I can organize them together into a better understanding of what goes on in my head and how and why it's not like what goes on in the heads of others.

I've done pretty much the exact thing with my aspergers. It helped me learn quite a bit about myself, and more importantly, about others.


Meophist wrote:
Samnell wrote:
One thing I've found helpful, albeit with labels unrelated to sexuality, is to find one that kind of fits me and look at the situations faced by other people who accept the label. It's helped me connect things that appeared to be just personal oddities many times. Then I can organize them together into a better understanding of what goes on in my head and how and why it's not like what goes on in the heads of others.
I've done pretty much the exact thing with my aspergers. It helped me learn quite a bit about myself, and more importantly, about others.

And you went and guessed my context. :)

Liberty's Edge

Samnell wrote:
And you went and guessed my context. :)

*raises hand as another guy with Aspergers*

I tend to agree. Labels can be problematic if people start trying to enforce them, or refuse to accept deviation from them, but as basic guides to what's typical in a particular group they're potentially very useful, as long as you remember that they're not cast in stone.

Or at least I find them so sometimes. :)


My dad has aspergers. And ADHD.
So does my son.
I just have ADHD. I often end up acting as a social translator of sorts. Which is really a case of the blind leading the blind since I'm not much better off than they are. I'm actually really good at following social situations I'm not involved in, but once I'm in the equation I completely lose track. Too much stuff to keep track of at once.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Samnell wrote:
And you went and guessed my context. :)
*raises hand as another guy with Aspergers*

I caught it off the internet, myself.

Seriously:
No formal diagnosis but I match a ridiculous number of the symptoms and a friend that's known me 21 years and works with Asperger kids daily also insists I have it. Considering there's not much margin in paying a pile of money to a shrink or two to get it official, that's close enough for me.

But then again it's deficits in areas that aren't important to me and bonuses in areas that are, so there's a bit of confirmation bias involved. "You mean I have this thing that chiefly makes me better than other people? Ok, that's fine." :P


I have been thinking about the biological basis of human sexuality and gender for a good long while. I hope I don't make anyone upset with this, but I would like your opinions on it.

Most likely, and almost by definition, getting sexual feelings for people of the opposite sex is THE most harshly selected trait in the human setup. Those who do not will have fewer offspring, right? Thus, no matter what kind of biological basis there is for this, we can expect the vast majority of humanity to adhere to this principle.

This would in turn mean that we have a finely tuned system to ensure it. Now, as a pure consequence of having two biological sexes, it's not as simple as everyone having one sexual preference, instead you will need women to prefer men and men to prefer women, and thus a complex system for this. Complex systems still reach only a certain percentage, and thus we have people who do not follow the general principle.

You could say: Hold on, this is not biological. It's kind of trendy to say so today. It feels strange, though. Biological traits are ones which shape us very sharply. Stuff we can't deny. Things like what gives us sexual feelings.

Finally, what could we expect those who do not fit the general principle to be like? Well, there would be those who fit better with what the system expects of the other sex, i.e. they get sexual feelings for people of their own sex. There would also be those who did not have strong preferences related to sex, people we would call bisexuals.

I have no way of knowing if this is true, but it seems to fit rather well with what I'd expect.

So far, so good.

Now, for gender identity, I would expect it to be another consequence of the above system. Most likely, which sex/gender you identify as is as important as what sex you prefer. Still, seeing as how this is a very central issue to most of us and how we view ourselves, I would guess it is mainly biological. And by the same token, we'd expect most to have clear gender identities, some to have the opposite gender identity, and some to have no clear gender identity at all.

In short, for most people to have clear (and extremely strong) preferences and identities that maximize childbirth, some need to/are going to be exceptions to these rules. By various surveys and papers, a few percent are, both regarding preference and identity.

Now, we are not just animals and biological entities best described by statistics. As human beings, then, the above tells at least me that we ought to treat people as people, no matter their sexual preferences or gender identities.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

That's an interesting analysis, Sissyl.

Regarding sexual preferences, another thing to consider while analyzing evolutionary factors is that hominids (us, chimps, and bonobos) are wired for experiencing sexual pleasure, not just an urge to mate in order to reproduce. (Maybe other apes are too, I don't remember; most of this stuff is things I've learned by watching NOVA and the like so I'm not exactly an expert.) This is apparently an evolutionary feature--sex becomes not just an act of survival, it becomes an act of social development, for forming different bonds between each other. It's interesting to look at bonobos in particular who take this to an extreme--they pretty much have sex with anyone of either gender for a variety of reasons--to welcome someone into a group, to apologize, to assure mutual protection, etc.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

I have been thinking about the biological basis of human sexuality and gender for a good long while. I hope I don't make anyone upset with this, but I would like your opinions on it.

Most likely, and almost by definition, getting sexual feelings for people of the opposite sex is THE most harshly selected trait in the human setup. Those who do not will have fewer offspring, right? Thus, no matter what kind of biological basis there is for this, we can expect the vast majority of humanity to adhere to this principle.

This is actually not necessarily true. In the social structure we evolved in, it is advantageous to the tribe (who are all basically related to some degree), and thus to carrying on a large part of one's genetic legacy, to have people in the tribe who are free to adopt and focus on orphans or otherwise protect and care for the children of their relatives, without the distraction of their own offspring. It's not advantageous for the whole tribe to be that way of course, but it's advantageous enough for some of them to be that way for such a trait to carry on in the bloodline, probably as a recessive of some sort.

There's some support for this theory even among relatively non-social animals like geese. Male geese will sometimes demonstrate homosexual pair-bonding, and actually steal chicks from other geese to raise. Because of the way geese finding food works, a pair of male geese actually take better care of the chicks, providing more food, and so more of them make it to adulthood. Making it a net benefit to the species to have such couples about, even though they don't actually produce any chicks.

Sissyl wrote:

This would in turn mean that we have a finely tuned system to ensure it. Now, as a pure consequence of having two biological sexes, it's not as simple as everyone having one sexual preference, instead you will need women to prefer men and men to prefer women, and thus a complex system for this. Complex systems still reach only a certain percentage, and thus we have people who do not follow the general principle.

You could say: Hold on, this is not biological. It's kind of trendy to say so today. It feels strange, though. Biological traits are ones which shape us very sharply. Stuff we can't deny. Things like what gives us sexual feelings.

I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that sexual preference is almost completely biological. Now, whether it's genetic is a somewhat different question, as some evidence seems to point to hormonal or other environmental factors in the womb being a possible contributing factor as well.

Sissyl wrote:

Finally, what could we expect those who do not fit the general principle to be like? Well, there would be those who fit better with what the system expects of the other sex, i.e. they get sexual feelings for people of their own sex. There would also be those who did not have strong preferences related to sex, people we would call bisexuals.

I have no way of knowing if this is true, but it seems to fit rather well with what I'd expect.

So far, so good.

Actually, evidence seems to suggest that bisexuality is sort of a default for human beings. Exactly why that might be the case, evolutionarily, is a matter of debate, but it seems to be the case in the great apes in general to some degree.

Now, the most logical reason I can come up with is simple: Evolution favors having sex with the opposite gender, but is entirely neutral in regards to having sex with the same one, that being the case it would seem reasonable that people who enjoyed sex regardless of partner's gender might have every bit as much evolutionary success as those who exclusively enjoyed it with the opposite gender. The only real 'dead end' is true homosexuality...and I already discussed above why that might persist in a gene pool.

Sissyl wrote:

Now, for gender identity, I would expect it to be another consequence of the above system. Most likely, which sex/gender you identify as is as important as what sex you prefer, though other areas come in as well. Still, seeing as how this is a very central issue to most of us and how we view ourselves, I would guess it is mainly biological. And by the same token, we'd expect most to have clear gender identities, some to have the opposite gender identity, and some to have no clear gender identity at all.

In short, for most people to have clear (and extremely strong) preferences and identities that maximize childbirth, some need to/are going to be exceptions to these rules.

By the scientific evidence I've looked at, transgendered individuals actually do appear to be a 'mistake' of sorts due to the complexity of the system, having brain patterns and structure in concert with their true gender while their body happens to be the other.

Genderqueer people of other sorts...I honestly have no idea. Not something I've studied a lot, unfortunately.

Sissyl wrote:
Now, we are not just animals and biological entities best described by statistics. As human beings, then, the above tells at least me that we ought to treat people as people, no matter their sexual preferences or gender identities.

Here, I agree with you quite completely. :)

DeathQuaker wrote:

That's an interesting analysis, Sissyl.

Regarding sexual preferences, another thing to consider while analyzing evolutionary factors is that hominids (us, chimps, and bonobos) are wired for experiencing sexual pleasure, not just an urge to mate in order to reproduce. (Maybe other apes are too, I don't remember; most of this stuff is things I've learned by watching NOVA and the like so I'm not exactly an expert.) This is apparently an evolutionary feature--sex becomes not just an act of survival, it becomes an act of social development, for forming different bonds between each other. It's interesting to look at bonobos in particular who take this to an extreme--they pretty much have sex with anyone of either gender for a variety of reasons--to welcome someone into a group, to apologize, to assure mutual protection, etc.

In fairness, we (and the other great apes, and I believe it is all of them, I know orangutangs do) are not the only species that enjoy sex. In most species at least one gender enjoys the act of procreation a fair amount, simply because that's evolutionarily a damn good idea.

That said, you're right that the social factor is rare, and actually, thinking about it, might help explain how common a certain degree of bisexuality appears to be in humans, as that expands the range and type of social bonding experiences one can use sex for.


So, not chased by a torch mob yet. =) Thanks for your replies. That "dead-end"-ness of exclusive homosexuality is what inspired these thoughts. And of course, tribal life would not be hampered by having people who did not get children of their own in any particular way. Same-sex liaisons are only "dead ends" if they are exclusive... but humanity has never been good at isolating the emotional impact of having sex, which is why I think we generally see few bisexuals (numbers I have seen is less than 1% male and up to 10% female).

Liberty's Edge

Sissyl wrote:
So, not chased by a torch mob yet. =) Thanks for your replies. That "dead-end"-ness of exclusive homosexuality is what inspired these thoughts. And of course, tribal life would not be hampered by having people who did not get children of their own in any particular way. Same-sex liaisons are only "dead ends" if they are exclusive... but humanity has never been good at isolating the emotional impact of having sex, which is why I think we generally see few bisexuals (numbers I have seen is less than 1% male and up to 10% female).

Those numbers come from modern society and what people self-identify as. Studies done on actual sexual responses or acts tend to achieve very different results, indicating a vastly higher number of people as bisexual to some degree.

Modern society really discourages bisexuality, which really skews any survey that actually asks orientation and even those that simply describe sex acts and desires to some degree.


Above all, I think it's interesting to note that the homo- and bisexuality numbers OUGHT to be the same for men and women. The fact that they are not is likely to be societal adaptation.

Silver Crusade

I read a study somewhere hypothesizing that the physiological traits that result in homosexuality for men result in higher fertility when found in women. They found that in families with a high incidence of gay men, their female relatives, on average, have more children. Some have speculated that if there is a genetic component to sexuality, this might explain how genes that contribute to male homosexuality are passed on - through female relatives. An interesting notion, although far from conclusive.


DeathQuaker wrote:

It's interesting to look at bonobos in particular who take this to an extreme--they pretty much have sex with anyone of either gender for a variety of reasons--to welcome someone into a group, to apologize, to assure mutual protection, etc.

My understanding is that hawt sexytime is their preferred method of conflict resolution. Why can't you pinkskins be more like them?

Bonobos rawk!!


Sexytime Movie Trailer Link


I think, when I was younger, if I were to meet a LGBT person, my reaction may be something along the lines of "OMG cool!", at least in my head. I'm not quite sure if that would've been a good thing.

I had a similar reaction when I learned somebody I knew was left-handed, however.


No posts for a day... is there nothing to talk about?

...I guess I'm not much of an expert on that subject.


Meophist wrote:
No posts for a day... is there nothing to talk about?

I worked at a hotel in the vicinity of the Berkshire Hathaway Shareholder's Meeting all weekend; hardly a free moment to be had in the last several days. What's everyone else's excuse? :P


Weekend. it usually slows down on weekends.


sissyl wrote:
That "dead-end"-ness of exclusive homosexuality is what inspired these thoughts. And of course, tribal life would not be hampered by having people who did not get children of their own in any particular way.

Warning: semi idle biological speculation

There's a few possibilities. Any, all, or none of them could be right for the population at large or for any given individual.

1) Is that its pre natal, not genetic. The brain develops according to hormones and forms patterns that lay the groundwork for later development. Change the hormones, you change the brain, you change behavior.

2) "Same-sex liaisons are only "dead ends" if they are exclusive."

It doesn't have to be a dead end even IF its exclusive for the individual, but not for the genes.

Evolution works on the gene level, not on the individual level. Humans very rarely work like mendels pea plants: we almost always have multiple genes going into a trait. Lets take a hypothetical situation to make the math easier and say that there are 10 individual genes controlling orientation.

Get none of those genes and you are completely, 100% strait. Get 5 and you're bisexual, get them all and you're 100% homosexual (and thus a biological dead end)

Even though those genes in combination will spell your genetic demise, the genes themselves will reproduce if they provide some benefit that outweighs the cost: if for example someone with 1 or 2 genes can on average relate to women better than someone with no genes that might increase their chances of reproducing and keep the genes going in the population.

So its a dead end for you, but not for your genes. And as you pointed out, since we evolved in family groups you're still around to help out your relatives even if you're not directly contributing to the next generation.


I'm not really sure what to think in terms of the causes of homo/bi/asexuality. We're not really at the point where we can change somebody's sexuality, although that could be interesting if it could be done. I'm a bit more interested in what causes gender dysphoria and the like, but I just see it as biology is such a complicated process that something screwing up here or there won't be particularly uncommon.

...I'm not quite sure what I'm trying to say.

I guess, if we're not trying to "cure" it or something, "why" doesn't really matter a whole lot.

Liberty's Edge

Meophist wrote:
I guess, if we're not trying to "cure" it or something, "why" doesn't really matter a whole lot.

Speaking only for myself, I do this all the time on things I don't want to change. For example, evolutionarily speaking, why do post-pubescent men grow beards? Or women ridiculously large breasts (as compared to other mammals)? Why do people with Aspergers persist in the gene pool? Why do most people seemingly instinctively loathe certain animals?

I certainly don't want to change any of those things (okay, I don't care that much about the beards, and wouldn't mind changing the instinctive loathing), but speculating how they evolved is interesting. They're intellectual puzzles that it's fun to theorize on.

So, basically, you're right, it doesn't matter, but it's interesting anyway. Not everything needs to have a practical application.


I suppose I'm just a bit fed up with the context in which these (specific) questions occur. Some try to figure out what causes "gayness" so that they can "cure" it. Some others try to defend themselves by saying that homosexuality is natural and they were born that way.

In the context of gay rights and most other stuff, it shouldn't really matter what causes homo/bi/whateversexuality. It doesn't really matter if it's by nature or nurture or choice. If somebody wants to have sex with someone of their own sex/gender, there really shouldn't be any issue with it either way(assuming safe, consensual sex, of course).

I'm fine with people wanting to figure it out for the sake of science!, but it shouldn't matter for the sake of people justifying themselves.


Heya Dogbladewarrior,

Dogbladewarrior wrote:
I thought it would be cool to create a thread where members of the LGBT community who are also gamers could come and share their life stories, experiences as gamers, and struggles (whether in dealing with their sexuality in relation to our society or not).

Thanks for this thread, def "cool."

I'm struck by two things immediately:

  • Firstly, I've been using "LBGTQ" myself for a while. I self-identify as "G" but I think it's cool that folks have been adding a "Q" onto the "traditional, well-known and in some circles highly-regarded" LGBT acronym (for either "Queer!" or "Questioning?" ... take your pick). I try to use it when I remember to.
  • Secondly, I've got nearly 500 posts to read through.

Anyhow, thanks for the thread; I know I'm in for an interesting and engaging read.

-- Andy


Meophist wrote:
I guess, if we're not trying to "cure" it or something, "why" doesn't really matter a whole lot.

Oh but it does matter. Not for any "cures" - but for several other reasons.

1) A better understanding of it might help with the societal stigma (and I say this fully knowing that this understanding still won't sway some people).
2) Pinpointing the specific "causes," whether hormonal, genetic or some other influencing factor, might expose clues to other biological puzzles.
3) It might be possible to "tweak" some factors in adults, so they can more fully realize themselves (e.g. your own example of changing someone's sexuality) - although this would, of course, pose some ethical questions and should obviously only be used (if at all possible, we don't know yet) with consenting adults. No forcing kids at the behest of homophobic parents. This "tweaking" might only be possible to a very small degree, but it might still help some people better deal with a confusing (to them) state.
4) As you also mention in the next post, it's great for science in general! Helps us better understand the complexity of us humans (and animals in general).


In terms of acronyms, I've been hearing QUILTBAG at times. From what I recall, it means:
Queer/Questioning
Undecided
Intersex
Lesbian
Transgendered/Transexual
Bisexual
Asexual
Gay

There's also QUILTBAGPIPE, of which the PIPE is...
Polysexual/Pansexual
Intersex?(Again?)
Polyamorous
Everyone

...Not entirely sure on all of these.

Edit: This is in response to Andrew's post.


Looks like that player I mentioned earlier is no longer interested in playing with us. The GM sent out a brief message about the game containing gay/bi characters when he sent out invitations to our table group via facebook (we hadn't even emailed him specifically about things yet); the player clicked "decline" on his game invite without another word and hasn't responded to any facebook messages or emails in a while despite being active online. Unless he was upset by seeing my posts here I can't think of another way we've offended him. I'd like to say no hard feelings over the matter but I find quite rude that he won't even speak a word to any of us via email. I'd call, but I don't think it would help matters and I'm not going far out of my way to get someone who believes I'm inherently inferior to play with us.


Ringtail wrote:
Looks like that player I mentioned earlier is no longer interested in playing with us. The GM sent out a brief message about the game containing gay/bi characters when he sent out invitations to our table group via facebook (we hadn't even emailed him specifically about things yet); the player clicked "decline" on his game invite without another word and hasn't responded to any facebook messages or emails in a while despite being active online. Unless he was upset by seeing my posts here I can't think of another way we've offended him. I'd like to say no hard feelings over the matter but I find quite rude that he won't even speak a word to any of us via email. I'd call, but I don't think it would help matters and I'm not going far out of my way to get someone who believes I'm inherently inferior to play with us.

That's unfortunate. At the very least the result wasn't any worse. If he no longer wishes to play, then the tale can end with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ringtail wrote:
Looks like that player I mentioned earlier is no longer interested in playing with us. The GM sent out a brief message about the game containing gay/bi characters when he sent out invitations to our table group via facebook (we hadn't even emailed him specifically about things yet); the player clicked "decline" on his game invite without another word and hasn't responded to any facebook messages or emails in a while despite being active online. Unless he was upset by seeing my posts here I can't think of another way we've offended him. I'd like to say no hard feelings over the matter but I find quite rude that he won't even speak a word to any of us via email. I'd call, but I don't think it would help matters and I'm not going far out of my way to get someone who believes I'm inherently inferior to play with us.

I think that's still about the second best outcome. Sure in a perfect world he comes around and embraces the rainbow that little pink bunnies produce by touching themselves while unicorns frolic and it rains hot, willing guys from the sky but here we still have minimal drama and the only person losing is the guy who chose to lose.


I am sorry if people see my post as trying to derail anything. I was a bit uncertain when I posted it, as it was not my intention.

I should perhaps explain why this is.

I am a very biologically-minded person. I see the entire tapestry of human functioning on all levels as more or less entirely shaped by biological factors. There are cultural factors, of course, but these express themselves in accordance with our biology, not against it. Most of the things we call civilization, then, are expressions of our being pack animals. As much as some try to claim it, we are neither the lone hunter, red in tooth and claw and without regard for anything but our own gratification, nor drones that subsume their entirety into the collective - and we never have been.

From this view of humans comes the immediate consequence that since people can't change their own biology, any social mechanisms for non-personal censure such as witch hunts and claiming that some people are of lesser worth, these are all Wrong. I know this is not what people first think of when they consider biology, most seem to think about how a cure for this and that might be achieved. I see it rather as biological diversity being a strength and something beautiful.

I am still curious about how it works. =)


Hmmn, 'herd animals,' I think, though in large I tend to agree with you...

Liberty's Edge

Alitan wrote:
Hmmn, 'herd animals,' I think, though in large I tend to agree with you...

Not exactly either, but closer to pack. We were and are active hunters, after all.

And, while I think particular cultures have vast impacts on the people raised in them, I too tend to agree that much of what we are like as a species, or in large groups, is determined in large parts by our biology.

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

I'm a gay guy who began D&D gaming about 6 years ago and I'm happy to report that I haven't suffered any kind of discrimination at the gaming table on account of my sexuality (though I have on account of my rules lawyering). The guys that I play with are all straight (as are the few gamer girls in our circle) and as far as I know, no one has indicated that they have any objections to my brophilia.

That being said, I know that there were issues with another gay dude that they had gamed with previously. The guy in question was apparently pretty gosh-darn effeminate (which at times annoys even me), he had no qualms about physically expressing his affection (interest?) for the other players (all of whom are straight), and he often made in-game overtures on the other members of the party with his female PCs. Apparently, games with him were routinely uncomfortable, both in and out of character.

Apart from the boundary issues exhibited by the last guy, what I've gathered is that my perceived masculinity actually sets my heterosexual friends at ease. This makes me wonder then if male homophobia is more strongly correlated to effeminacy than it is to sexual orientation. They've often said that they wouldn't have guessed I was gay if I hadn't told them. So, to me it seems that as long as I'm masculine and I'm not trying to bone anybody else at the table, then I'm just another one of the guys (plus, it doesn't hurt that I can optimize the sh** out of anything). Has anybody else made similar or contrary observations?

I understand that the other gay guy may have been an anomaly who didn't follow the meaning of "no means 'no'" in addition to whatever other issues may have been going on that I didn't hear about. Nevertheless, it's nice to be the one who gets to show the guys in my group that there are gay guys out there who are just as masculine as they are.

(NB: I'm totally not saying that any alternatives to masculinity are inferior in any way. There's a broad spectrum of identities and alignments[/D&Dhumor] all of which are equally valid, and I'm just sharing my experiences as a (perceived?) 'masculine' bro who loves other bros.)


Exalted actually plays up this situation in their setting. The Dragon-blooded are a warrior culture with very little tolerance for any form of perceived weakness, so any man acting in an effeminate manner will be sharply ostracized. This does not in any way carry over into a discrimination against homosexuality, and such relations are rather common.


@DMW

Active scavengers more than hunters, until the technology got started.


Let's just say that if our ancestors got the chance, they probably killed and ate just about anything that moved, excepting their own tribe, and ate it if stuff no longer moved.

451 to 500 of 17,442 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / The LGBT Gamer Community Thread. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.