|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue of whether or not a term is a slur or pejorative can't be based upon the speaker, but must be based upon whether or not the "labelee" takes offense.
Altho "cis' may have started with good intention, it is now used with such anger and negative connotations by so many, that I have to take offense at the term and consider it a pejorative. And, "privilege" is starting to look that way also.
Im starting to see the real privilege as being the one with the power to tell others HOW and WHAT they are ALLOWED to think/speak opinions. The power to silence any opinion but your own is one hell of a privilege......
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Прекратите тыкать меня! :P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never actually been in a gaming group that didn't have at least two female members, and for a number of years my primary group had 50/50 female/male parity.
Additionally, I've also never been in a group without at least one member being something other than straight.
I honestly think that once the hangups and social pressures for conformity are removed from the equation, the average gaming group (being composed of self-selected nerds by and large) is probably wildly more diverse in the gender and sexuality department than an average sampling of the population at large.
The only area where my groups haven't been very diverse at all has been in terms of race where it's largely white, with a small number of players of asian ancestry or of various mixed race flavors (though in these cases still predominantly of caucasian origin). Even with the shifting designation of what "white" means in American society, my groups have been pretty dang "white".
Bah internet ate my post so lets try this again.
How often do gm's and players find themselves in gaming groups that are composed in large part or entirely of players who are not the traditionally thought of players of tabletop games (i.e. hetero, white, cis, male players)? As it stands I just started a new group and for the first time I have a group that is not composed in large part or almost entirely of women and I'm wondering if it is common to get groups like what I have been able to play with and group diversity has become more common or if I've just gotten very lucky up until now to have that many groups not composed of what might be thought of as the standard group.
My standard friday group is actually all female (excepting for the dm) at present and for the last 10+ months. If we run a temporary one off game, then it draws in the old (and new) male gaming crowd, but the last atypical game I ran had women 4 men 3.
They are not even all white, one is Malaysian.
Of note, Asians have always been players in my games, token Asian guy or girl. Even when I gamed in a small very white town, there was still an Asian player.
We have had a few bi players and a gay chap at the table. That gay chap has a taste for dming now and may try more of it.
Im starting to see the real privilege as being the one with the power to tell others HOW and WHAT they are ALLOWED to think/speak opinions. The power to silence any opinion but your own is one hell of a privilege......The issue of whether or not a term is a slur or pejorative can't be based upon the speaker, but must be based upon whether or not the "labelee" takes offense.
Altho "cis' may have started with good intention, it is now used with such anger and negative connotations by so many, that I have to take offense at the term and consider it a pejorative. And, "privilege" is starting to look that way also.
Privilege is now heavily pejorative. The progressives are on the march again. Winter is coming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still have my copy of Smith's Conquest from a freshman sociology course. Conquest makes some seriously radical arguments for social change that bridge gaps between marxism, feminism, and critical race theory. Growing up in the pacific northwest, her words helped me coalesce a lot of things I experienced growing up. She's brilliant.
I'm not familiar with her work. I found that essay not too long ago after there was a lengthy debate on privilege theory on socialistworker.org.
A quick google search for Conquest reveals that it is probably right up my alley and will more than likely cause me to enter the same fits of apoplectic rage as bell hooks's Ain't I a Woman.
[Adds to long, long list of things to read]
|
Bah internet ate my post so lets try this again.
How often do gm's and players find themselves in gaming groups that are composed in large part or entirely of players who are not the traditionally thought of players of tabletop games (i.e. hetero, white, cis, male players)? As it stands I just started a new group and for the first time I have a group that is not composed in large part or almost entirely of women and I'm wondering if it is common to get groups like what I have been able to play with and group diversity has become more common or if I've just gotten very lucky up until now to have that many groups not composed of what might be thought of as the standard group.
I am not white myself (brazilian race system is very different from USA, many people we consider white could be seen as latinos in the states), and in brazil, playing RPG is a more regular enterprise than only the nerd stereotype, so all kind of people is, or was sometime, an active roleplayer (my high school group had all classic high school stereotype with the exception of the cheerleader that don't exist here). Having said that, female gamers are rare outside of my state (Bahia), for some mysterious motive we have a really high number of female gamers here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know a half-African guy I play tabletop rpgs online with with (sometimes he runs too) who makes fun of me for playing Pathfinder with a bunch of fat white guys, since he plays indie rpgs with a group that's half or more than half women with a gay guy or something and he says the big fantasy games are full of fat white straight guys. Even though he knows of and has made fun of people I've played Pathfinder with who are 'nontraditional' as you say. Yeah he's kind of a dick I guess.
I think for me most of the time, it's probably about half or more straight white guys with a couple people who aren't, but that's not saying much since my groups don't tend to be that big.
I still have my copy of Smith's Conquest from a freshman sociology course. Conquest makes some seriously radical arguments for social change that bridge gaps between marxism, feminism, and critical race theory. Growing up in the pacific northwest, her words helped me coalesce a lot of things I experienced growing up. She's brilliant.I'm not familiar with her work. I found that essay not too long ago after there was a lengthy debate on privilege theory on socialistworker.org.
A quick google search for Conquest reveals that it is probably right up my alley and will more than likely cause me to enter the same fits of apoplectic rage as bell hooks's Ain't I a Woman.
[Adds to long, long list of things to read]
interesting, CA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Im starting to see the real privilege as being the one with the power to tell others HOW and WHAT they are ALLOWED to think/speak opinions. The power to silence any opinion but your own is one hell of a privilege......The issue of whether or not a term is a slur or pejorative can't be based upon the speaker, but must be based upon whether or not the "labelee" takes offense.
Altho "cis' may have started with good intention, it is now used with such anger and negative connotations by so many, that I have to take offense at the term and consider it a pejorative. And, "privilege" is starting to look that way also.
No one is telling you what opinion you can have or even state (altho there may be a few MB rules on that). But members of a group know what terms they find offensive when applied to them. You can't decide for them what terms they don't like.
We all agree some terms should never be used (except in historical context, or perhaps jocularly between members of that group.) Those words are actually censored here, such as the N-word, a term for gays which means the same as a bundle of firewood, a term for Jewish people which rimes with "Bike", and many others. This is the Power of polite society. Polite society (and this MB's rule) has decided it's very wrong for a White person to call a Black person the N-word. But you seem to disagree, to you that would be Thought Control.
You can't allow the person speaking to decide what is or is not offensive, it has to be the person being addressed. Many terms aren't as offensive as say the N-word, but are still a term a person from the group would prefer you not use. A good example is "Negro"- obviously The United Negro College Fund is still a very popular charity, but my black friends wince or get angry if you call them that. Or "queer"- some gay people enjoy that label, others don't and so my gay friends say it's a term best left to them. "Cis" is in this group- obviously not anywhere near as loaded or offensive a pejorative as the "n-word, but one that is still used as a pejorative by many- and thus the group to whom it is being addressed has every right to ask you politely to not use that word.
So yes- this Polite society has decided and has the power to tell you that using (for example) the N-word is not allowed...if you want to be a member. (Of course there are MB where using that term is de rigueur).
But again, you seem to think that it'd be OK for you to use any pejorative you want to, that polite requests from the offended group are infringing on your right to free speech. I disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem with people rejecting the term "cis" is that no one offers a term to suppliment it. The response is usually "let's just not use labels at all for this stuff" which just so happens to affect everyone else more negatively than us (myself being cisgendered, though not cissexual).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem with people rejecting the term "cis" is that no one offers a term to suppliment it. The response is usually "let's just not use labels at all for this stuff" which just so happens to affect everyone else more negatively than us (myself being cisgendered, though not cissexual).
It's a problem with labeling. In general, I'm seeing "cis" used as a slur on this very thread. I could point fingers at the culprits, but I've ripped into one of them enough already.
In any case, the problem with coming up with a replacement label is what led to the development of the "cis" label to begin with. Mainly, how do you come up with a label that is both neutral and won't be used as a slur? Well, so far, even this thread has demonstrated you can't. So if you want to avoid the idea of people being discriminated against, you're going to have to drop terms and accept the consequences; otherwise, this very thread stands as evidence that there's no way to create a term without it ending up discriminating against someone.
Want to solve it? Change human nature.
It's a problem with labeling. In general, I'm seeing "straight" used as a slur on this very thread. I could point fingers at the culprits, but I've ripped into one of them enough already.
In any case, the problem with coming up wiht a replacement label is what led to the development of the "straight" label to begin with. Mainly, how do you come up with a label that is both neutral and won't be used as a slur? Well, so far, even this thread has demonstrated you can't. So if you want to avoid the idea of people being discriminated against, you're going to have to drop terms and accept the consequences; otherwise, this very thread stands as evidence that there's no way to create a term without it ending up discriminating against someone.
Want to solve it? Change human nature?
|
|
I am not used of having taboo words that are offensive universally. Brazilian consider offense and counter offense an art, so pretty much anything can be a offense at a given context. So we worry more about intention than the act (unless you are doing a public speech or something where some words can be faux pass).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne, nice try. But considering that "straight" was not used as a slur on this topic, is not being advocated as being kept instead of cissexuality, the idea of labels in general is being criticized by the post you're responding to, and the person whose post you're dealing with admitted earlier to not even being remotely cis... Your post comes across as you mocking anything related to saying people shouldn't discriminate against cissexuals and makes you look bigoted against them.
Considering you have repeatedly argued for equality, I am certain you did not intend that.
Now, I'm up for some fun...
Ask yourself this: Does "homosexual" mean "someone attracted to the same sex" or "someone attracted to men?" Well, that depends... the first definition assumes you're using Greek. The second assumes Latin. Given how much of early investigations and talks about homosexuality focused on male homosexuals, it can be argued the Latin-based definition is the one the general populace understands more. Which is probably why "gay" is associated with "homosexual" but lesbians have their own term.
That's another reason why labels are problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne, nice try. But considering that "straight" was not used as a slur on this topic,
Where in this thread do you see cis being used as an insult? Please link me. I don't recall anything of the like happening in this thread. I recall lots of complaining about it being an insult, but I don't recall it actually being used as an insult anywhere. (Edit: I just finished going through the thread. Nowhere did I see cis being used as an insult.)
Your post comes across as you mocking anything related to saying people shouldn't discriminate against cissexuals and makes you look bigoted against them.
I'd quibble over the word "mocking". But yes, I don't think that we should take seriously complaints that the word cis is discrimination against cis people. Because cis people aren't discriminated against for being cis! When people are murdered, beaten, raped, made homeless, economically discriminated against etc. for being cis, get back to me. It is disgusting to equate someone not liking the word cis being applied to them with the systematic violence conducted against trans people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne, nice try. But considering that "straight" was not used as a slur on this topic,Where in this thread do you see cis being used as an insult? Please link me. I don't recall anything of the like happening in this thread. I recall lots of complaining about it being an insult, but I don't recall it actually being used as an insult anywhere.
Your post comes across as you mocking anything related to saying people shouldn't discriminate against cissexuals and makes you look bigoted against them.I am in fact mocking anything related to saying people shouldn't discriminate against cis people. Because that never happens in the real world! When people are murdered, beaten, raped, made homeless, economically discriminated against etc. for being cis, get back to me. It is disgusting to equate someone not liking the word cis being applied to them with the systematic violence conducted against trans people.
By saying it doesn't happen in the real world while mocking it, you yourself are discriminating against those people. Congrats... you just disproved it doesn't happen with your own actions. Because mocking anything saying they shouldn't be discriminating against is arguing that they should... which is, of itself, discrimination in action.
So, congrats... your own post proves your stance wrong.
And the only person here equating someone not liking the term cis with the systematic violence against trans people is you. And, yes, people do get murdered, beaten, or raped for being cis on occasion. The rate is smaller, but is high enough that the amount of straight women raped by other women and straight men raped by other men is scientifically measurable on a national level. Unless you are arguing those rapes never happened...
Honestly, what I'm arguing is that if you want equality, you have to have it for everyone. The easiest way to eliminate discrimination is to have everyone thinking of everyone else around them as equal to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Err...yes. Society in general has accepted certain terms as discriminatory. Words brought up in this thread. But plenty of other terms are not, and I have never heard "cis" used as an overall hate word.
Sure you can use "cis" as a derogatory term. There is plenty of precedent for that. That's why posts which use "gay" in a way other than referring to a homosexual person get deleted by the mods. I have also seen people use "Jew" as a hate term, but I am pretty sure the term isn't banned from public converse.
Please explain how those 3 posts by Annabel are using cis as an insult. I don't see it.
You linked me to a document that has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes or discrimination against cis people. The document doesn't even use cis or cisgender or cissexual.
Let's back up for a moment: do you know what cis(gender) means? Do you know what cissexist means?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Err...I only see one of those posts as using the term cis in a somewhat derogatory manner. But then I also think your problems have less to do with the term cis and how the poster presents his post.
A poster who might be construed as hostile can make any term look like slander. That doesn't mean it actually is a hate word.
See: every discussion here about optimization and roleplay
I also agree with Vivianne...your last post makes me question if you know what the term cis means...
Vivianne, I already explained when I argued with Annabel. Click the links to those posts and give them a read. I am not reposting all of that again. Stop reading when I finally go off on her about blaming the wrong people and read what I say there. Then you'll understand.
As for the document I linked: I will admit my posting of it relies upon certain assumptions. I noticed you tended to like Annabel's posts, where she pretty much conflates cisgender with heterosexuality, and came to the conclusion from a pattern of you supporting her that you are operating under the same definition. So, I made it a point to tailor my reply to the definition I believed you are using.
As for cisgender? It means someone whose gender matches the sex they were born with.
MMCJawa, you are correct. It is in how a person uses a term and their general method of presenting it that determines if it is a slur or not. Thus, why it is I see the issue of it being used as a slur in those three posts; it was being used with hostility. It's the same way, as you said above, with "gay" and "Jew."
Okay, we are reading Annabel's posts wildly differently. In particular, I'm reading those posts as being careful to not collapse cisgenderism and heterosexuality (hence why, y'know, both words are being used). But I don't care to argue about it and your responses earlier in the thread don't make a compelling case of cis being used as an insult.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wonders if people should start a definition of terms + intent thread instead of spreading an argument over 4 different threads and peppering the place with nasty little snark infested snipes.
I am going to get flag happy very soon and I am going to start encouraging others to do so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to get flag happy very soon and I am going to start encouraging others to do so.
I find it easier to simply ignore those posters. They tend to post something somewhat inflammatory or rude and expect a reaction. Then they inevitably get the reaction they wanted, which just snowballs.
If you ignore them, they tend to go away. Fire and acid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Vivianne, you seriously don't see how comments like "cissexist, heterosexist society" and "CisHetCo" are using them as an insult with the hostility inherent in the way they were used? Especially since the issues that Annabel was complaining about were caused by religious belief and mostly remain in place because no one has yet established better?
That carries with it the implications that all of the disparate cisgender heterosexual groups are the same in outlook, and with it that the societal standards they create are inherently discriminatory. Considering some of those societal standards include rising equality for homosexuality and a growing idea that being transsexual isn't having something wrong with you, it carries some unfortunate implications. Plus, to confuse all of those standards as being part of a discriminatory whole is about like confusing cisgender homosexuals with transgender homosexuals. There are some similarities, but the differences should be pretty obvious.
Now, we have requests to take this discussion elsewhere... shall we? I think people would appreciate it, and I know I get tired of trying to keep track of something that is, for me, spread across two threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MagusJanus: The 8th Dwarf and Tormsskull make good points. I'm not going to respond to this line of inquiry in this thread. If this is something you want to pursue further, this is not the best place for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with everyone else...lets take this to another thread...
My last post on this: You know I was able to get some pretty nasty results for DrDeth's phrases by replacing cis with atheist, liberal, and environmentalist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the nontraditional gaming groups, what about personalities and habits that keep coming up?
THE OBSERVED:
a) For the stats! Across the years, there was always a power gamer or two.
b) Follower of Groetus. Always one oddball at the table, other than the dm.
c) Let's go! One rather charismatic person (not me, or the dm). The leader. How we yearn to follow. If there is initially no charismatic fellow, a normal player may turn suddenly charismatic. Nature abhors a vacuum.
d) ... One quiet player that wants to do so much, but is shy. If this person becomes more active and less shy, a new shy player will emerge to take their place.
e) Falling Paladin. One person playing LG as a horrible tyrant or nutter.
f) The Pragmatist. This can be helpful, or terrifying.
g) Innuendo. A pairing of two that playfully flirt each session. Often female/female, male/male. Let it all out people, lol *dm shakes head and chuckles*.
h) Follower of the Dice Gods. One person that has all the dice.
i) Diceless. One person that has no dice, for what seems like forever. Get some dice already!
j) The Provider. A player that brings food for others. Maybe they are going to declare this on tax as a donation to the poor?
k) The Devourer. At least one person that doesn't bring the food, but which eats as much as two of the other players combined. I wish I could be as gluttonous as this person, but I have to dm and speak *sigh*.
