Girdle of Opposite Gender -- Offensive?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:


First, there is a difference between a trait having a biologicol basis and a trait being associated with a gender based on biology. Additionally, both of those concepts are completely different from saying that a trait, or the gender of a trait, is based on specific physiological differences in the brain.

Uh...who is talking about the gender of personality traits? We were talking about gender dysphoria which is a very different thing indeed.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Even more, the brain may be similar between all humans, but the brain is so mallable that it is unique for each individual, thus it is foolhardy to claim that noted differences are definately caused by or cause certain other things.

The brain is indeed enormously malleable. On the other hand, some parts of brain structure remain consistent throughout one's life. Such as, for example, the structural differences between men's and women's brains. Except of course for those transgender people who've had MRI scans of their brains, who appear to have a much closer brain structure to the gender they feel they are than other people of their physical sex. We're talking gross structural differences here, not which parts they use for what and when.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Violence and ice cream comes to mind here.

I've always liked this example of why correlation doesn't equal causation...but you're applying it incorrectly here. When a physical abnormality appears universal in people with a particular 'personality trait' then the odds of the personality trait causing the physical abnormality are pretty much nonexistent, while the odds of the reverse are decent. Could there be an intervening variable? Absolutely! But, definitionally, any intervening variable that causes a brain structure abnormality is biological in nature. Meaning that the root cause pretty much has to be something biological.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
bilinguals are a good example. Those who learned multiple languages at a young age use thesame brain areas for both languages while those who learn a language later will have the languages in completely different areas. Thus no one can look at a brain and state whether brain differences make learning a new language easier or harder.

Languages are a learned skill, and thus have a wide variety of different effects on the brain depending on circumstances. Being transgender appears, based on the best scientific evidence available, to be based on brain structure and no more changeable by sheer willpower or environment than, say, schizophrenia.

Note: I am not actually comparing being trans* to being schizophrenic, just saying that both are biological issues that do not go away simply via psychotherapy or wishing.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Additionally, no such results should be taken as true anyway as biases or experiment flaws can lead to skewed results, however such errors are more likely to result in the appearence of a causal relationship then a lack of such relationship.

This is very true of psychological research. It's somewhat true of all research...but it's harder to bias direct physical evidence than the kind of things psychological research uses. And they have physical evidence on this particular question. Lots of it. We're not talking one study here, but a large number of them done over the course of over a decade.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There is a flawedexperiment that tries to demonstrate a persons latent gender biases by throwingwords on screen and having people pick the right catagory. However, this is flawed because in the first segment when only one catagory is on each side, the same catagory is always on the same side, however, at the last portion when two catagories are shown on each side, one pair is reversed. This leads to a false result as it is just as likely, ifnot more so that the individual learned to classify things to the left or right, practiced that, then got thrown a curve ball of switching sides. Whatmakes thosepsycologists believe that only biases can account for their results, is an error on their part.

How is looking at MRI scans susceptible to this kind of flaw? I mean, bias in the researcher is always an issue...but they aren't really comparable situations, and we're not just talking about a single study.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Oh, and feeling emotions is different then feeling other types of things, such as a gut instinct type feeling, or cognitive dissonence type feeling, etc.

Certainly true. I'm...not sure how it relates to the rest of your post, but it's true.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
And like stated by someone else above, gender identity and gender roles are different.

Yes they are. I am discussing gender identity specifically, not gender roles. For the record.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
These are all subtleties, and if you cant sort between such subtle differences then you need a simpler line of work type job.

Yeah, because I'm clearly only interested in simplicity as opposed to accuracy. *eyeroll*

Grand Lodge

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
First, there is a difference between a trait having a biologicol basis and a trait being associated with a gender based on biology. Additionally, both of those concepts are completely different from saying that a trait, or the gender of a trait, is based on specific physiological differences in the brain.

Wow, your posts are becoming increasingly bizarre, and you clearly have an axe to grind.

The "gender of a trait"? Last I checked, traits don't have gender, and why would the biological basis of a trait based on gender be any different than the biological basis of any other trait? Wouldn't a trait that impacts gender have to operate under the same rules and biological parameters as traits that affect shyness or physical coordination or verbal fluency? Does our biological makeup have a particular fussy spot when it comes to the subject of gender?

For someone who claims to have a background in Psychology, you don't seem to understand much of it. Fairly simple concepts like neural plasticity seem to confound you, and you don't seem to have a handle on basic experimental design and statistics either.

You're right. There are subtleties. And you don't seem to grasp most of them.


I think this raises an interesting point, how much of your mind would be changed by the girdle changing your brain?


aboniks wrote:

I'm not a TG player, (nor do I play one on TV) but this seems like a stretch.

"Cursed" in this context is a mechanical term, not a pejorative term or an ethical judgement.

It's cursed because you can't take it off without successfully casting remove curse (or a spell with a similar effect), not because it fiddles with your biology.

Also, changing someone's sex against their will is a curse. I mean, a man trapped in a woman's body is still not a woman. In fact, you could argue that his plight is not dissimilar to that of someone transgendered and uncomfortable with the way their body is formed. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
aboniks wrote:

I'm not a TG player, (nor do I play one on TV) but this seems like a stretch.

"Cursed" in this context is a mechanical term, not a pejorative term or an ethical judgement.

Also, changing someone's sex against their will is a curse. I mean, a man trapped in a woman's body is still not a woman. In fact, you could argue that his plight is not dissimilar to that of someone transgendered and uncomfortable with the way their body is formed. :P

Ack, you quoted the thing I later realized was incorrect! You're rotten. :P

I was simply trying to point out that it's mechanically a cursed item solely because it requires a remove curse spell to end the effect. Whether or not the effect is worthy of the term "curse" seems to be entirely subjective.

I make no assertions as to the real-world feelings of people struggling with (or comfortable with) their gender, gender identity, or gender perception. I'm unqualified to hold any meaningful opinion on the subject.

Now, if there were a Girdle of Aspergianism, that's something I'd be qualified to speak to. Not that Pathfinder mechanics could really deal with that topic in any more depth that it can deal with gender. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I played in a game where one member of the party used gender-randomising spells to torture an NPC.

So many non-board safe ways that could have gone.

@Kobold Cleaver
BigNorse Wolf raises an interesting point the man (for the sake of argument) turned into a woman with a womans body, a womans brain, a womans nervours system and hormone levels IS a woman except for her mind/soul. So would she remain a man inside or would she slowly realize that she's comfortable in her body because the physical imbalance simply isn't there and its literally all in her head? Hmmm which would be a worse thing from the perspective of a heterosexual guy happy that way being turned into a girl and finding it all wrong or being turned into a girl and knowing that it should feel wrong when in fact it just feels . . . right?

Reminds me of a manga where the guy gets turned into a girl and meets someone who say's they're an alien. He natural tells them they're nuts as there's no evidence they really are an alien and they're response is to say there's no evidence she's really a guy. Afterwhich she just accepts that yes they're an alien.

EDIT
Wow rare to see someone else with Aspergers syndrome, Hi there.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Darklight wrote:
These are all subtleties, and if you cant sort between such subtle differences then you need a simpler line of work type job.
Didn't you mistake chainsaws and lawn mowers for a mysterious tree die off?

No I did not. The closest thing is when I spoke to the researchers at the Bioshere 2 who were investigating why the number of trees dying from diseases was increasing exponentially.


EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
First, there is a difference between a trait having a biologicol basis and a trait being associated with a gender based on biology. Additionally, both of those concepts are completely different from saying that a trait, or the gender of a trait, is based on specific physiological differences in the brain.

Wow, your posts are becoming increasingly bizarre, and you clearly have an axe to grind.

The "gender of a trait"? Last I checked, traits don't have gender, and why would the biological basis of a trait based on gender be any different than the biological basis of any other trait? Wouldn't a trait that impacts gender have to operate under the same rules and biological parameters as traits that affect shyness or physical coordination or verbal fluency? Does our biological makeup have a particular fussy spot when it comes to the subject of gender?

For someone who claims to have a background in Psychology, you don't seem to understand much of it. Fairly simple concepts like neural plasticity seem to confound you, and you don't seem to have a handle on basic experimental design and statistics either.

You're right. There are subtleties. And you don't seem to grasp most of them.

I am horrible at trying to explain things, particularly in written form.

However, my point was that there are no gendered traits, therefore, people do not have traits because of gender, therefore, being of a gender physically does not affect your personality traits.

Right now culturally, gender is confusing and becoming more so, therefore, it is logical that children, who learn this stuff implicitly, would have issues with gender identity. Our culture is giving out mixed signals on the issue and that will inevitably lead to gender confused kids. Toss in some of the other quirks of human psychology and finding individuals who think they are the wrong gender is to be expected (from a logical point of view, though obviously not a common one)

And yes gender is confusing and giving mixed signals. Just look at bronies. Guys, many in the military even, being fans of a show about pastel colored ponies on their adventures of friendship. Socially, it is becoming acceptable yet at the same time there are hate crimes over this and even my own mother (who is usually unable to believe something without doing research on at least three seperate sources) calls them sexually repressed pedophilliac perverts without even researching it. Making such a judgement is out of character for her, but it points out the mixed bag it is.


Liam Warner wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I played in a game where one member of the party used gender-randomising spells to torture an NPC.

So many non-board safe ways that could have gone.

@Kobold Cleaver
BigNorse Wolf raises an interesting point the man (for the sake of argument) turned into a woman with a womans body, a womans brain, a womans nervours system and hormone levels IS a woman except for her mind/soul. So would she remain a man inside or would she slowly realize that she's comfortable in her body because the physical imbalance simply isn't there and its literally all in her head? Hmmm which would be a worse thing from the perspective of a heterosexual guy happy that way being turned into a girl and finding it all wrong or being turned into a girl and knowing that it should feel wrong when in fact it just feels . . . right?

Reminds me of a manga where the guy gets turned into a girl and meets someone who say's they're an alien. He natural tells them they're nuts as there's no evidence they really are an alien and they're response is to say there's no evidence she's really a guy. Afterwhich she just accepts that yes they're an alien.

EDIT
Wow rare to see someone else with Aspergers syndrome, Hi there.

That manga was Kashimashi right? Or was it another one?

Yeah!, so you understand the difficulty of trying to clearly explain something right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I am horrible at trying to explain things, particularly in written form.

However, my point was that there are no gendered traits, therefore, people do not have traits because of gender, therefore, being of a gender physically does not affect your personality traits.

Right now culturally, gender is confusing and becoming more so, therefore, it is logical that children, who learn this stuff implicitly, would have issues with gender identity. Our culture is giving out mixed signals on the issue and that will inevitably lead to gender confused kids. Toss in some of the other quirks of human psychology and finding individuals who think they are the wrong gender is to be expected (from a logical point of view, though obviously not a common one)

And yes gender is confusing and giving mixed signals. Just look at bronies. Guys, many in the military even, being fans of a show about pastel colored ponies on their adventures of friendship. Socially, it is becoming acceptable yet at the same time there are hate crimes over this and even my own mother (who is usually unable to believe something without doing research on at least three seperate sources) calls them sexually repressed pedophilliac perverts without even researching it. Making such a judgement is out of character for her, but it points out the mixed bag it is.

What do Bronies have to do with Gender? You really need to look at the real world. Bronies come in all shapes, sizes, sexual orientation, gender orientation, colors, and any other variant you can think of. This is like saying the guys taking cooking classes in high school are gay (my brothers took those classes to meet girls). Or that all bikers are straight.

I also like how you completely ignored the article I previously posted, but then again it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Liam Warner wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I played in a game where one member of the party used gender-randomising spells to torture an NPC.

So many non-board safe ways that could have gone.

@Kobold Cleaver
BigNorse Wolf raises an interesting point the man (for the sake of argument) turned into a woman with a womans body, a womans brain, a womans nervours system and hormone levels IS a woman except for her mind/soul. So would she remain a man inside or would she slowly realize that she's comfortable in her body because the physical imbalance simply isn't there and its literally all in her head? Hmmm which would be a worse thing from the perspective of a heterosexual guy happy that way being turned into a girl and finding it all wrong or being turned into a girl and knowing that it should feel wrong when in fact it just feels . . . right?

Reminds me of a manga where the guy gets turned into a girl and meets someone who say's they're an alien. He natural tells them they're nuts as there's no evidence they really are an alien and they're response is to say there's no evidence she's really a guy. Afterwhich she just accepts that yes they're an alien.

EDIT
Wow rare to see someone else with Aspergers syndrome, Hi there.

That manga was Kashimashi right? Or was it another one?

Yeah!, so you understand the difficulty of trying to clearly explain something right?

Nope different manga and yes.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So if this is so offensive to some, have there been any complaints about the witch class from those that are religious witches (wiccans)?

Which must perforce beg the question...

Did any non-Latin speakers feel personally affronted when the Barbarian class was announced?

Perhaps there was some feeling of persecution among Catholics when the Inquisitor hit the shelves?

Dissension in the ranks of the Special Forces at such a heinous misuse of the Ranger appellation?

Protestations of maltreatment among Christians when the Cleric burst so rudely upon the scene?

Riotous accusations of slander among the descendants of Charlemagnes court at the inclusion of Paladins?

No? How odd.

This amuses me when Paizo went out of their way to try to make the Juju mystery and specifically talked about people of whom still find this relevant to their religious beliefs, thus showing a respectfulness towards real world adherents of this religion.

This is really just a strawman, and it seems offensive when real life trans people are dismissed as this nebulous group whom are equated with descendants of Charlemagne.

I have a friend who's trans who saw this item, and their reaction to it was A: It should be the Girdle of Opposite Sex, and B: That they wished something like this existed in real life, curse or not, and that having your sex changed without your consent would be nightmarish.

It always shocks me, the lack of empathy people can show for others, especially when it only so barely puts them out to do so. An item like this isn't so much offensive, but it can easily be problematic. It's something that you need to watch carefully in your games and in published material to make sure that you're not crossing the line. Paizo has honestly done pretty well in this respect, which is why I support them and their game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:
I was wondering if the Girdle of Opposite Gender was offensive to transgender players, as it is officially listed as a "cursed" item. Think about the implications. Couldn't Paizo be considered to be insensitive to the TG community in its official consideration of this item as "cursed"?

People choose what they wish to be offended by. I choose not to be offended by things that were not intended to be offensive.

I find it makes life much, much easier.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Werebat wrote:
I was wondering if the Girdle of Opposite Gender was offensive to transgender players, as it is officially listed as a "cursed" item. Think about the implications. Couldn't Paizo be considered to be insensitive to the TG community in its official consideration of this item as "cursed"?

People choose what they wish to be offended by. I choose not to be offended by things that were not intended to be offensive.

I find it makes life much, much easier.

People CHOOSE what they're offended by? Really? So you've never once had a visceral reaction to something? You've always made a conscious decision on what upset you? That...I can't even understand what you're saying, or the lack of empathy to understand that this MIGHT be offensive to others, and for that reason it shouldn't exist. Just because it doesn't intend to be offensive doesn't mean it's not offensive.

A fantasy example: If you and I were elves, and you had a human best friend and romantic interest, and I wore a "Kill All Humans" shirt on, always spoke mockingly of humans and made deeply racially mocking jokes about humans, I'm allowed to tell you "Just get over it, it's not offensive to you, you're an elf, not a g!& d*!n dirty human." And I didn't mean it to be offensive to you, you're an elf, just like me, why do you care? Maybe you don't even have a human friend or romantic interest, and you're just not a terrible person, and can recognize that it's deeply upsetting to hate someone for superficial things like race, but I didn't mean to offend you, so stop being offended.

This item doesn't fall into that category, but thinking like what you've presented is not what we should base 'offensive' off of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Werebat wrote:
I was wondering if the Girdle of Opposite Gender was offensive to transgender players, as it is officially listed as a "cursed" item. Think about the implications. Couldn't Paizo be considered to be insensitive to the TG community in its official consideration of this item as "cursed"?

People choose what they wish to be offended by. I choose not to be offended by things that were not intended to be offensive.

I find it makes life much, much easier.

People CHOOSE what they're offended by? Really? So you've never once had a visceral reaction to something? You've always made a conscious decision on what upset you? That...I can't even understand what you're saying, or the lack of empathy to understand that this MIGHT be offensive to others, and for that reason it shouldn't exist. Just because it doesn't intend to be offensive doesn't mean it's not offensive.

A fantasy example: If you and I were elves, and you had a human best friend and romantic interest, and I wore a "Kill All Humans" shirt on, always spoke mockingly of humans and made deeply racially mocking jokes about humans, I'm allowed to tell you "Just get over it, it's not offensive to you, you're an elf, not a g$* d~*n dirty human." And I didn't mean it to be offensive to you, you're an elf, just like me, why do you care? Maybe you don't even have a human friend or romantic interest, and you're just not a terrible person, and can recognize that it's deeply upsetting to hate someone for superficial things like race, but I didn't mean to offend you, so stop being offended.

This item doesn't fall into that category, but thinking like what you've presented is not what we should base 'offensive' off of.

No. You don't choose your visceral reaction. You do, however, have the ability and agency to choose whether to act on instinct or not.


N. Jolly wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Werebat wrote:
I was wondering if the Girdle of Opposite Gender was offensive to transgender players, as it is officially listed as a "cursed" item. Think about the implications. Couldn't Paizo be considered to be insensitive to the TG community in its official consideration of this item as "cursed"?

People choose what they wish to be offended by. I choose not to be offended by things that were not intended to be offensive.

I find it makes life much, much easier.

People CHOOSE what they're offended by? Really? So you've never once had a visceral reaction to something? You've always made a conscious decision on what upset you? That...I can't even understand what you're saying, or the lack of empathy to understand that this MIGHT be offensive to others, and for that reason it shouldn't exist. Just because it doesn't intend to be offensive doesn't mean it's not offensive.

I agree. You can't understand what I'm saying. Its all good though.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
I agree. You can't understand what I'm saying. Its all good though.

I'm okay to 'agree to disagree' here, everyone has different standards and morals. I try my best to be inclusive (look through my guides, all the pronouns are gender neutral, and I have a genderfluid sample character), so to me it's just a matter of empathy. I'll admit I didn't think like this before I made friends and got into the community a little more with people who deal with that sort of thing.

I don't think the item is offensive, but I think it's important to see that it could be, to recognize why so that you realize if you're close to a line that could be crossed.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just an interjection here.

Werebat was posting these 'Is X Offensive?' threads to cause arguments.

At present, he has succeeded. The current arguments are simply feeding and encouraging more trolling.


Sadurian wrote:

Just an interjection here.

Werebat was posting these 'Is X Offensive?' threads to cause arguments.

At present, he has succeeded. The current arguments are simply feeding and encouraging more trolling.

huh, in this thread? I think its a troll fail as the discussion has (at least for me) felt reasonably level-headed.


Liam Warner wrote:
Hmmm which would be a worse thing from the perspective of a heterosexual guy happy that way being turned into a girl and finding it all wrong or being turned into a girl and knowing that it should feel wrong when in fact it just feels . . . right?

Especially if orientation is part of the package.

In the wheel of time one of the forsaken (ancient evil bad guys) gets brought back to life into the body of a woman. Their mind says "oooo women!" and their brain says "oooo men" so they just wind up going with both.

Ultimate spiderwoman has a something similar set up, since they're peter parkers mind in a genderswapped clone.

I don't think most people realize just how weird and hardwired sexual attraction is.


GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I am horrible at trying to explain things, particularly in written form.

However, my point was that there are no gendered traits, therefore, people do not have traits because of gender, therefore, being of a gender physically does not affect your personality traits.

Right now culturally, gender is confusing and becoming more so, therefore, it is logical that children, who learn this stuff implicitly, would have issues with gender identity. Our culture is giving out mixed signals on the issue and that will inevitably lead to gender confused kids. Toss in some of the other quirks of human psychology and finding individuals who think they are the wrong gender is to be expected (from a logical point of view, though obviously not a common one)

And yes...

If this was true, then transgender people would basically be an artifact (in the Western World) of the last few decades, but we know that isn't true. There are plenty of people who are/were transgender who were born at times where more "rigid" gender classifications were the norm (Although I really don't think that gender expectations are that confusing nowadays). Similarly, I would hazard a guess that many transgender people are born to conservative families, who would definitely enforce strong gender divisions in the raising of their children.

Your argument seems to rest the entire case of gender dysphoria on nurture, but I am hard pressed to see how parents (especially those of conservative backgrounds) could be raising their children up in such a way to result in the above, and if it's a subtle thing, we should be seeing way way more of it than does occur.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I think this raises an interesting point, how much of your mind would be changed by the girdle changing your brain?

According to the item description, none. Hey, its magic.

PRD wrote:
The character's abilities, mind, and spirit remain unaffected; only the character's sex changes.

In fact it doesn't say the entire body changes, just the sex. So a fitted full plate would fit just as well, though it might be a little snug or loose in the crotch area, depending on the nature of the switch.


RDM42 wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Werebat wrote:
I was wondering if the Girdle of Opposite Gender was offensive to transgender players, as it is officially listed as a "cursed" item. Think about the implications. Couldn't Paizo be considered to be insensitive to the TG community in its official consideration of this item as "cursed"?

People choose what they wish to be offended by. I choose not to be offended by things that were not intended to be offensive.

I find it makes life much, much easier.

People CHOOSE what they're offended by? Really? So you've never once had a visceral reaction to something? You've always made a conscious decision on what upset you? That...I can't even understand what you're saying, or the lack of empathy to understand that this MIGHT be offensive to others, and for that reason it shouldn't exist. Just because it doesn't intend to be offensive doesn't mean it's not offensive.

A fantasy example: If you and I were elves, and you had a human best friend and romantic interest, and I wore a "Kill All Humans" shirt on, always spoke mockingly of humans and made deeply racially mocking jokes about humans, I'm allowed to tell you "Just get over it, it's not offensive to you, you're an elf, not a g$* d~*n dirty human." And I didn't mean it to be offensive to you, you're an elf, just like me, why do you care? Maybe you don't even have a human friend or romantic interest, and you're just not a terrible person, and can recognize that it's deeply upsetting to hate someone for superficial things like race, but I didn't mean to offend you, so stop being offended.

This item doesn't fall into that category, but thinking like what you've presented is not what we should base 'offensive' off of.

No. You don't choose your visceral reaction. You do, however, have the ability and agency to choose whether to act on instinct or not.

Yeah, I think there's a lot to be said for developing a thick skin. If only Tumblr's warped mockery of the social justice movement could see things that way... ;D


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Such as, for example, the structural differences between men's and women's brains. Except of course for those transgender people who've had MRI scans of their brains, who appear to have a much closer brain structure to the gender they feel they are than other people of their physical sex. We're talking gross structural differences here, not which parts they use for what and when.

I think you are selling this a bit stronger than it is in actuality. If it was so strong of evidence, then when someone indicated that they were trans and wanted a gender reassignment surgery, the medical person they were working with would just send them off for an MRI. "Your results are back and yes, you are a woman." or "Your results are back and I'm sorry to say that in fact you are a man, and not a woman as you thought." There is enough differences between different women and different men to make it so any one MRI doesn't prove one way or another if the person is a man or woman.

There are certainly trends, cismen tend to have brain structures like X and ciswomen tend to have brain structures like Y (or should I have switched those letters around, LOL). Transwomen tend to have brain structures more like Y than X and transmen tend to have brain structures more like X than Y.

But the lines are not as clear as you seem to be trying to claim.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

my brain structure is more like Q or Z, or possibly a real metal letter with an umlaut

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
No. You don't choose your visceral reaction. You do, however, have the ability and agency to choose whether to act on instinct or not.
Yeah, I think there's a lot to be said for developing a thick skin. If only Tumblr's warped mockery of the social justice movement could see things that way... ;D

So I guess it's okay to say offensive things because anyone who finds them offensive just shouldn't react? Really, it's their fault for being different and having a different response to it than you. That's a great way of showing empathy, really top notch.

And as someone on tumblr, I actually like getting the information from people who have to put up with things. All the outside sees is some parody of social justice when the actuality of it is far more complex. Besides, history tends to side with the progressive. I'm fine being seen as 'a kook' now when in X amount of years, views like this won't be seen as warped. Or maybe I'm wrong, and every instance of it happening in the past was a fluke. But feel free to pass it off as "some people are just babies" because it pushes the blame for your poor treatment of them onto the oppressed.


N. Jolly wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
No. You don't choose your visceral reaction. You do, however, have the ability and agency to choose whether to act on instinct or not.
Yeah, I think there's a lot to be said for developing a thick skin. If only Tumblr's warped mockery of the social justice movement could see things that way... ;D

So I guess it's okay to say offensive things because anyone who finds them offensive just shouldn't react? Really, it's their fault for being different and having a different response to it than you. That's a great way of showing empathy, really top notch.

And as someone on tumblr, I actually like getting the information from people who have to put up with things. All the outside sees is some parody of social justice when the actuality of it is far more complex. Besides, history tends to side with the progressive. I'm fine being seen as 'a kook' now when in X amount of years, views like this won't be seen as warped. Or maybe I'm wrong, and every instance of it happening in the past was a fluke. But feel free to pass it off as "some people are just babies" because it pushes the blame for your poor treatment of them onto the oppressed.

And we have another threadwinner!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
No. You don't choose your visceral reaction. You do, however, have the ability and agency to choose whether to act on instinct or not.
Yeah, I think there's a lot to be said for developing a thick skin. If only Tumblr's warped mockery of the social justice movement could see things that way... ;D
So I guess it's okay to say offensive things because anyone who finds them offensive just shouldn't react?

Pretty much. To be more accurate, it's not necessarily okay to say offensive things, but it's wise to learn to tell the difference between someone who meant harm and someone who's just ignorant or having fun. In turn, the social contract states that that person will not say "offensive" things around someone who is unable to cope.

Quote:
Really, it's their fault for being different and having a different response to it than you.

This is stupid. And why I don't like how some people view "social justice"--is this person disagreeing with me on how far political correctness should go? Quick, accuse him of being a bigot!

Quote:
But feel free to pass it off as "some people are just babies" because it pushes the blame for your poor treatment of them onto the oppressed.

When someone throws a fit over a nonexistent insult, yeah, they're being babies.* They should either politely inform the speaker that what he's saying might hurt some sensitive peoples' feelings, or ask him not to make that joke around them anymore. Obviously, the ideal response would be to just not care, but I would never say someone could just make themselves not care in the blink of an eye. Because that would be almost half as stupid as one of your lovely strawmen.

People who grow up with challenges of any form need to learn to develop thick skins, as I did with my several neuroses. Otherwise, their lives are going to be rather difficult. Raw skin gets hurt by the slightest breeze, after all.

*Though obviously I'm going to understand if they've been deeply traumatized due to the sort of thing they're overreacting to. It's still not an optimal reaction, but hardly one I can fault them for.

EDIT: Incidentally, it's my personal belief that while tolerance will win out over bigotry, the equation between jokes/misplaced terms and homophobia will go the same direction the "man-hating feminist" did. :P


3 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:
aboniks wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
So if this is so offensive to some, have there been any complaints about the witch class from those that are religious witches (wiccans)?

Which must perforce beg the question...

Did any non-Latin speakers feel personally affronted when the Barbarian class was announced?

Perhaps there was some feeling of persecution among Catholics when the Inquisitor hit the shelves?

Dissension in the ranks of the Special Forces at such a heinous misuse of the Ranger appellation?

Protestations of maltreatment among Christians when the Cleric burst so rudely upon the scene?

Riotous accusations of slander among the descendants of Charlemagnes court at the inclusion of Paladins?

No? How odd.

This amuses me when Paizo went out of their way to try to make the Juju mystery and specifically talked about people of whom still find this relevant to their religious beliefs, thus showing a respectfulness towards real world adherents of this religion.

This is really just a strawman, and it seems offensive when real life trans people are dismissed as this nebulous group whom are equated with descendants of Charlemagne.

I'm not sure exactly how you're connecting my post with transfolk at all. I didn't mention them, or reference them, nor did I dismiss them. None of my other comments in this thread dismissed them or treated them as a nebulous group, or in a less than respectful manner, in my opinion.

It was specifically speaking to the question of potentially being "offended" because a game uses a word that someone, somewhere, might identify with. It's ridiculous to walk though life cutting out chunks of the English vocabulary simply because somebody has decided that the non-perjorative term you want to use has suddenly become their personal property to redefine as they desire by special-snowflake fiat. It's even more ridiculous to expect other people to do that for you.

If any of my questions there were strawmen, they are such to the exact same extent that the question I was replying to was one, or the OP's original trollbait was one.

I respect everyones right to be offended when their pet words are 'misused' in equal measure to their respect for my right to see their reaction as fatuous self-absorbed nonsense.

Being trans in this word is a serious thing, with real consequences, and real discrimination involved. Getting all twisted up because somebody used a word you want to own?

Not even remotely equivalent.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I respect everyones right to be offended when their pet words are 'misused' in equal measure to their respect for my right to see their reaction as fatuous self-absorbed nonsense.

I agree, at least when it comes to the word "offended" being used. People should not be offended at things that are not meant to be offensive any more than I should be offended when people spell my name with a "c". A simple correction is all that is needed, and even that isn't crucial.

Semi-Tangential:
To clarify my position, I'm going to bring up the matter of my distinctly non-politically correct friends.
These friends of mine use "retarded" as an insult. They would ignore anybody who told them not to, though they might be a bit more tactful around whoever complained afterwards.
My friends are not ableist. They would find mocking the disabled to be abhorrent. They simply (like most of this century) do not associate "retarded", used as an insult, with the mentally impaired. And since I know there's no harm meant behind it, I don't mind. This despite the fact that I am autistic and probably have slightly more right to complain than a fedora-wearing neckbeard-stroking tumblrite. ;D

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:
So I guess it's okay to say offensive things because anyone who finds them offensive just shouldn't react?
Pretty much. To be more accurate, it's not necessarily okay to say offensive things, but it's wise to learn to tell the difference between someone who meant harm and someone who's just ignorant or having fun. In turn, the social contract states that that person will not say "offensive" things around someone who is unable to cope.

That...I can't fathom thinking that it's fine to say whatever you want based on the fact that you want to say it regardless of whom it affects and hurts. That lack of empathy is actually foreign to me. You have no idea what anyone else has ever gone through, so if they have a problem with your insensitive (possibly sexist/racist/homophobic) speech, it's their fault. That...wow...If I step on your foot, I apologize. I don't say "Hey, your foot was there and I didn't mean to step on it, why are you being such a baby about me walking here? I'm allowed to walk anywhere I want, it's not my fault your foot was in the way."

Quote:
Quote:
Really, it's their fault for being different and having a different response to it than you.
This is stupid. And why I don't like how some people view "social justice"--is this person disagreeing with me on how far political correctness should go? Quick, accuse him of being a bigot!

I'm not big on social justice, I'm big on treating people like people, regardless of if they have issues that I don't have or even don't understand. If you're going to claim it's other people's faults for having issues and that shouldn't limit you from being able to say what you want, I'm going to say something about it, as that's just abhorrent in the concept of empathy.

Quote:
Quote:
But feel free to pass it off as "some people are just babies" because it pushes the blame for your poor treatment of them onto the oppressed.

When someone throws a fit over a nonexistent insult, yeah, they're being babies.* They should either politely inform the speaker that what he's saying might hurt some sensitive peoples' feelings, or ask him not to make that joke around them anymore. Obviously, the ideal response would be to just not care, but I would never say someone could just make themselves not care in the blink of an eye. Because that would be almost half as stupid as one of your lovely strawmen.

People who grow up with challenges of any form need to learn to develop thick skins, as I did with my several neuroses. Otherwise, their lives are going to be rather difficult. Raw skin gets hurt by the slightest breeze, after all.

*Though obviously I'm going to understand if they've been deeply traumatized due to the sort of thing they're overreacting to. It's still not an optimal reaction, but hardly one I can fault them for.

So your IDEAL response is that someone makes a comment that deeply hurts you, and you just keep your mouth shut about it. Because your right to speak as insensitively as you want is more important than reminding someone of something that continues to hurt them more and more every day. Make your gay jokes, knowing that your gay friend has been threatened with death or beaten up and left in a ditch for being who they are, because hey, it's funny. It's not a strawman, it's what actually happens.

And your second statement gets me even more. You have issues with your neuroses, and you had a harder life because of it. And your response is that everyone else who's dealing with issues also deserves a harder life because you had one. I'm sure growing up you would have LOVED to have someone be willing to help you with that, to be respectful of what you were going through and take time to make sure that you felt included despite your differences. To show you that you were okay, and that you were loved.

As I've learned in the past, I don't know what's going on in everyone's head, I don't know what it's like to be trans or anything else. But I do know that they have things they like me to do to make sure they feel comfortable, like proper pronoun use and such. And I do it because it's basic human respect. I'm sorry that you had to deal with people being intolerant of your condition, but piling more hate on top of hate isn't going to help anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:


That...I can't fathom thinking that it's fine to say whatever you want based on the fact that you want to say it regardless of whom it affects and hurts.

Neither can I. So stop pretending that's what I'm saying, mmkay?

Quote:
I'm allowed to walk anywhere I want, it's not my fault your foot was in the way."

Depends on how big their foot is. If they're deliberately sticking it under my feet so they have an excuse to be mad and self-righteous, I might not apologize.

Whoops, did I step on your toes there? Oh well.

Quote:
So your IDEAL response is that someone makes a comment that deeply hurts you, and you just keep your mouth shut about it.

This is almost kind of charming. No, that's not the ideal response. The ideal response is that you just aren't hurt by it. I have a lesbian friend who is fine with people making gay jokes, because she has a thick skin and knows those who make the jokes don't mean anything by it. The ideal reality would be one in which everyone could be that way. Obviously, that's not possible, hence my emphasis of the word ideal.

Quote:
Make your gay jokes, knowing that your gay friend has been threatened with death or beaten up and left in a ditch for being who they are, because hey, it's funny. It's not a strawman, it's what actually happens.

You seem confused about what a strawman is. Let me rework the same formula for your strawman into my own:

You probably don't care if black people are enslaved. Hey, people did once enslave black people, that means this isn't a strawman!

Oh, wait. That's not what a strawman means. A strawman is you misrepresenting me by claiming I would make jokes to hurt someone who has been threatened with g*#%!#n death.

My own brother is very into the social justice movement, so I try to be at least relatively understanding, but people like you who simply can't conceive of a middle ground between "agrees with me" and "WANTS TO KILL EVERYTHING NOT CAUCASIAN AND STRAIGHT" make it very, very difficult.

Quote:
And your second statement gets me even more. You have issues with your neuroses, and you had a harder life because of it. And your response is that everyone else who's dealing with issues also deserves a harder life because you had one.

Yeah. You are either very confused or very eager to cast things in juuust the right shades so you can be the hero. Or both.

Quote:
I'm sorry that you had to deal with people being intolerant of your condition, but piling more hate on top of hate isn't going to help anyone.

Or you're just a troll.

I didn't deal with any intolerance of my "condition"--the only problem I had with it was, y'know, the condition itself. You are so determined to simplify me that you're starting to sound heavily...confused. Let's stick with that.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I didn't deal with any intolerance of my "condition"--the only problem I had with it was, y'know, the condition itself. You are so determined to simplify me that you're starting to sound heavily...confused. Let's stick with that.

A lot of problems we're facing as a society right now are the result of people choosing to get offended on the behalf of someone else who either doesn't care all that much themselves or shouldn't even be in the conversation. I find that all too often the 'indignant third party' is the issue, not the two who are content to live and let live.

Usually, that third party is very caught up in the labels you can put on people and is guilty of presuming that everyone in a particular 'group' feels or thinks a certain way and therefor needs an advocate on their behalf. Few things are as potent a force in this country as white guilt and its various other iterations.

I look at it this way:

Let's say I'm trying to build a bridge and I need people to help me build it. One guy walks up and offers to help and I say great. He says 'but I'm black' to which I respond, 'can you help me build the bridge? Yes? Then what the hell do I care if you're black - let' sget to work.' Then another guy walks up and offers to help and I say great. He says to me 'but I'm gay' to which I respond 'can you help me build a bridge? Yes? Then what the hell do I care if you're gay?' I'm just trying to get a bridge built, that's all.

However, if I then have to stop work on the bridge to hold sensitivity training, awareness seminars intended to remind everyone of how different we all are and then have to deal with resulting complaints that someone isn't being 'sensitive enough' in their behavior... well now you're not helping me get that bridge built, are you? And if the person stopping work on the bridge is an outside source stirring up discontent between my black and white and straight and gay workers on their behalf where there was none before, well that makes it all the worse.

Inclusiveness and diversity and sensitivity isn't the holy grail people with too much time on their hands make it out to be. Celebrating every time someone is 'the first black person to do X' or 'the first gay person to do Y' only serves to emphasize and exaggerate whatever divide may exist... the day we stop keeping score like that, the day we stop celebrating a person's ethnicity or sexuality over the actual person themself is the day we'll finally be past all this crap.

I could genuinely care less what race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation anyone I work or play with is because other people who look like them are going to think and feel differently about pretty much everything. The day we all could care less about it is the day we finally move forward, but that will never happen if you're beating everyone over the head with it... acknowledge and respect what makes us different, but let's focus more on celebrating the things that make us the same.


Wiggz wrote:
...wise things...

I concur.


Never say anything that might be hurtful or insulting?

Wow, what a laugh riot that person must be. I hope they don't watch anything like the Daily Show, it will probably make their head explode.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
N. Jolly wrote:


And as someone on tumblr, I actually like getting the information from people who have to put up with things. All the outside sees is some parody of social justice when the actuality of it is far more complex. Besides, history tends to side with the progressive. I'm fine being seen as 'a kook' now when in X amount of years, views like this won't be seen as warped. Or maybe I'm wrong, and every instance of it happening in the past was a fluke. But feel free to pass it off as "some people are just babies" because it pushes the blame for your poor treatment of them onto the oppressed.

No, the reality of it really ISN'T more complex. Tumblr's rampant infestation of Social Justice Bloggers are exactly as simple as they seem to be from whatever angle you look at them from. They THINK they're complex, and "bringing up necessary issues", and doing some kind of good.

They're not. Those kind of people are more hurtful to any kind of cause they could be a part of than anything else. Because they go about "helping" in a laughably stupid way...by creating drama where none exists.

They make people who are actually trying to help, bringing to light important issues, raising awareness for things that MATTER look like fools because those people then get lumped in with the SJB's because "they're all part of the same group".

99% of Tumbler's SJB's are focusing on pointless, trivial B@!*#&%% like this than anything that might conceivably matter, and hurting the real cause in the process by invalidating it for everyone else.


pres man wrote:

Never say anything that might be hurtful or insulting?

Wow, what a laugh riot that person must be. I hope they don't watch anything like the Daily Show, it will probably make their head explode.

Also, for the record, I find the accusation that I would torment a gay friend--like my sister, for instance, who came out last year--with offensive jokes, knowing that they have been beaten and mocked*, "hurtful and insulting". Maybe I'm just oversensitive, though.

*For the record, I should clarify that to the best of my knowledge, she hasn't (though she did lose a "friend" or two).

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
EvilTwinSkippy wrote:
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:
First, there is a difference between a trait having a biologicol basis and a trait being associated with a gender based on biology. Additionally, both of those concepts are completely different from saying that a trait, or the gender of a trait, is based on specific physiological differences in the brain.

Wow, your posts are becoming increasingly bizarre, and you clearly have an axe to grind.

The "gender of a trait"? Last I checked, traits don't have gender, and why would the biological basis of a trait based on gender be any different than the biological basis of any other trait? Wouldn't a trait that impacts gender have to operate under the same rules and biological parameters as traits that affect shyness or physical coordination or verbal fluency? Does our biological makeup have a particular fussy spot when it comes to the subject of gender?

For someone who claims to have a background in Psychology, you don't seem to understand much of it. Fairly simple concepts like neural plasticity seem to confound you, and you don't seem to have a handle on basic experimental design and statistics either.

You're right. There are subtleties. And you don't seem to grasp most of them.

I am horrible at trying to explain things, particularly in written form.

However, my point was that there are no gendered traits, therefore, people do not have traits because of gender, therefore, being of a gender physically does not affect your personality traits.

Right now culturally, gender is confusing and becoming more so, therefore, it is logical that children, who learn this stuff implicitly, would have issues with gender identity. Our culture is giving out mixed signals on the issue and that will inevitably lead to gender confused kids. Toss in some of the other quirks of human psychology and finding individuals who think they are the wrong gender is to be expected (from a logical point of view, though obviously not a common one)

And yes...

From a behavioural sciences perspective, the research on gender is no more confusing than the research on intelligence/aptitudes, mental illness, child development, nor any other intrinsic human trait. Much like all of the rest, gender can reasonably be expected to conform to the same influencing factors: genetic predisposition, natural variation of the trait within the species, and further shaping of the phenotype through environmental and cultural influences. Gender and sexuality have been studied quite extensively over the last 50 years, more so than many other subjects, and gender differences in the brain were seen in evidence 20+ years ago, back when I was in graduate school (mostly autopsy studies back then, now further refined by MRI and other techniques).

To argue, as you did, that there is no biological basis for gender is patently absurd. More to the point, there are exactly no human traits or characteristics that are 100% culturally determined and have no biological influence, not gender nor anything else. You have repeatedly asserted that a) gender has no biological basis and is 100% culturally determined (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever), and b) you have maintained this assertion in spite of being presented with solid evidence to the contrary (i.e. the recent Scientific American article). For someone who claims to be a student of psychology, I find this baffling. If you are finding the subject of gender confusing, I would question whether it's because you are also listening to other competing considerations, perhaps a religious belief or a political ideology. In any case, whatever is informing your views on the matter, it most certainly is not psychology, and it is not science.

I'm not sure what the point is anyway. Doesn't it make more sense that gender identity and gender expression are best described as the intersectionality of biological and cultural factors, much like personality and every other intrinsic human trait? I'm not sure you've given us anything to justify taking such an extreme position.

And are we really having the nature-nurture debate in 2014? I would think that any student past Psych 101 would know better. I'm reminded of the old joke we used to say about the Skinnerians, that they think that, "If a cat were to give birth in an oven, the offspring would be biscuits!".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
99% of Tumbler's SJB's are focusing on pointless, trivial B#!#$#!$ like this than anything that might conceivably matter, and hurting the real cause in the process by invalidating it for everyone else.

lolwut @ banbossy

Now that's how you trivialize a serious issue. (Like a boss.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
aboniks wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
99% of Tumbler's SJB's are focusing on pointless, trivial B#!#$#!$ like this than anything that might conceivably matter, and hurting the real cause in the process by invalidating it for everyone else.

lolwut @ banbossy

Now that's how you trivialize a serious issue. (Like a boss.)

Banbossy...now I feel dumber for clicking a link.

well, freedom of speech and thought, even if sometimes its a dumb thought (my opinion of course.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I thought it was something else.


Ashtathlon wrote:


well, freedom of speech and thought, even if sometimes its a dumb thought (my opinion of course.)

Yup. I respect every persons right to espouse an opinion...even if I can't respect the specific opinions, or the people who hold them.


I've had trans* friends discuss this belt as if it were no different than any other magic item. It does make me wonder how it would affect an intersexed person, though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TanithT wrote:


Very good article here: The Scholars And The Goddess

Starhawk... Now that brings up memories of a couple of stores I used to semi-frequent in the Village. I haven't read Starhawk for about thirty-five years now. I do think that the Wiccan religion has some value even though I retain my general atheism. I do think that Wiccans do need to acknowledge that their faith is essentially a new, modern creation that needs to find merit on it's own terms, not borrow legitimacy through a non-existent connection to an extinct culture.

I do find it sardonically amusing that the article author notes that Wicca has been around long enough to develop it's own brand of Fundamentalists.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I am horrible at trying to explain things, particularly in written form.

However, my point was that there are no gendered traits, therefore, people do not have traits because of gender, therefore, being of a gender physically does not affect your personality traits.

Right now culturally, gender is confusing and becoming more so, therefore, it is logical that children, who learn this stuff implicitly, would have issues with gender identity. Our culture is giving out mixed signals on the issue and that will inevitably lead to gender confused kids. Toss in some of the other quirks of human psychology and finding individuals who think they are the wrong gender is to be expected (from a logical point of view, though obviously not a common one)

And yes gender is confusing and giving mixed signals. Just look at bronies. Guys, many in the military even, being fans of a show about pastel colored ponies on their adventures of friendship. Socially, it is becoming acceptable yet at the same time there are hate crimes over this and even my own mother (who is usually unable to believe something without doing research on at least three seperate sources) calls them sexually repressed pedophilliac perverts without even researching it. Making such a judgement is out of character for her, but it points out the mixed bag it is.

What you are talking about are gender roles, not gender identity. The two are almost entirely separate things.

Liam Warner wrote:

EDIT

Wow rare to see someone else with Aspergers syndrome, Hi there.

I, too, have Aspergers...for the record. :)

LazarX wrote:
Starhawk... Now that brings up memories of a couple of stores I used to semi-frequent in the Village. I haven't read Starhawk for about thirty-five years now. I do think that the Wiccan religion has some value even though I retain my general atheism. I do think that Wiccans do need to acknowledge that their faith is essentially a new, modern creation that needs to find merit on it's own terms, not borrow legitimacy through a non-existent connection to an extinct culture.

This is mostly fair. Wicca's always had at least as much in the way of Buddhist and Hindu elements as the European religions it purports to be a successor to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I, too, have Aspergers...for the record. :)

Yo, checkin' in for the Aspergers crowd. ;D


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Quote:
I, too, have Aspergers...for the record. :)
Yo, checkin' in for the Aspergers crowd. ;D

On a geeky gaming site? Never...


Next you'll be telling me there are people here who like Lord of the Rings!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
N. Jolly wrote:


And as someone on tumblr, I actually like getting the information from people who have to put up with things. All the outside sees is some parody of social justice when the actuality of it is far more complex. Besides, history tends to side with the progressive. I'm fine being seen as 'a kook' now when in X amount of years, views like this won't be seen as warped. Or maybe I'm wrong, and every instance of it happening in the past was a fluke. But feel free to pass it off as "some people are just babies" because it pushes the blame for your poor treatment of them onto the oppressed.

No, the reality of it really ISN'T more complex. Tumblr's rampant infestation of Social Justice Bloggers are exactly as simple as they seem to be from whatever angle you look at them from. They THINK they're complex, and "bringing up necessary issues", and doing some kind of good.

They're not. Those kind of people are more hurtful to any kind of cause they could be a part of than anything else. Because they go about "helping" in a laughably stupid way...by creating drama where none exists.

They make people who are actually trying to help, bringing to light important issues, raising awareness for things that MATTER look like fools because those people then get lumped in with the SJB's because "they're all part of the same group".

99% of Tumbler's SJB's are focusing on pointless, trivial B&#~!&#* like this than anything that might conceivably matter, and hurting the real cause in the process by invalidating it for everyone else.

Look, if you want to dismiss people like that, I'm fine with it. I'm not going to say everyone on tumblr is a master of social issues and dynamics, it's a younger social media that has a younger age base than most others. And to me, that's what's so great about it, is that it's educating others. Sure, some of the time false information spreads through, and people take it far more seriously than they should. But that's part of growing and learning.

Yeah, there's people who use social issues to be bullies, but there's people who use anything to be bullies. And being able to get educated about issues that I don't know about is worth having to sort through and fact check, because it means I can be more informed, which is something tumblr offers me. You can dismiss it, but it doesn't make the more valid arguments less so because of where they came from.

As for "Ban Bossy", it's a poorly executed idea that has a strong principle behind it. This is a far better concept for the idea behind it. But getting into that route isn't going to be great.

You say it's creating drama where none exist, but the fact that it's not drama that's relating to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But again, this thread isn't about defending a social media website, even though apparently using it is grounds to be attacked and dismissed.

Also @Kobold Cleaver, I do apologize if I made you feel like a prop or misrepresented your struggles. I'm sorry for that, it wasn't my intention, and I want you to know that I regret if my words made that seem as though it was my position.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Awesome. I accept your apology. As much as I disagree with your position, I have no beef with you as long as you can keep this discussion non-personal. Like I said, my own brother's big on the Tumblr social justice movement, so I can't exactly just condemn everyone in it as jackasses.

EDIT: Though I don't really give a crap about you "misrepresenting my struggles". It's the "implying I'm okay with mocking people who've been beaten for being gay" that I have trouble with. Feel free to make as many Ass Burger jokes as you like, I don't mind.

201 to 250 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Girdle of Opposite Gender -- Offensive? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.