Let's Queer Up Starfinder!

[Descrud]

What, specifically, don't you get?

[Violet Hargrave]

Aerotan wrote:

So, very slight necro, but I notice that the Serum of sex shift doesn't say the set of characteristics you choose need to match the conventional combinations. Is there any particular reason a drinker can't choose some features from one sex and some from another? Say, the obvious primary characteristics of a male human, but with the rounded features, body mass distribution, and proportions of a female?

If I properly recall, the item is rather explicitly worded to allow for that, and also explicitly says it only works when taken voluntarily. Both of which are pretty great aspects of it, and why I mentioned the only thing that strikes me as even potentially worth complaining about is being SO good and convenient as to be arguably trivializing.

Also, there's no -ed at the end of transgender. It's an adjective, not a verb.

[Ikiry0]

Well, it could be be a verb if there was a jackass transmutation mage going about putting people in bodies they don't want.

[Violet Hargrave]

Ikiry0 wrote:

Well, it could be be a verb if there was a jackass transmutation mage going about putting people in bodies they don't want.

A- That still wouldn't quite be grammatically correct.

B- That's not the context it's being used in here.
C- There are, in the real world, a surprisingly large number of people with surprisingly large platforms constantly spouting elaborate fiction about a terrible trans cabal forcing children to be trans, who routinely throw the "-ed" on in that exact sort of context, which is what makes it such an upsetting thing for us to see when deployed accidentally.

[Wikrin]

I find the punishment sub-topic super weird. If someone forcibly changed my sex in a one-off that had no side-effects, I'm fair certain my response would be mild, momentary confusion. Even if I got stuck in my present sex (admittedly, not preferred), I feel like at worst, that's disappointing. Like, I can't pull off any aesthetic I find remotely tenable; sucks, but there are worse things.

I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong for feeling differently on the matter. I'm just surprised it's something people feel so strongly about. Kind of alien to me, you know? I guess that's why some people are such jerks about it. Gotta be manly, gotta be ladylike. I can't imagine tying that much of my identity in something I had no control over. Which, actually, ties back to so many different kinds of discrimination I hadn't even considered in relation to this topic. Man, I don't even know. I don't have enough of a horse in the race, I guess. A more clever person than I would work that into a Li'l Sebastian reference, I think.

[VixieMoondew]

Wikrin wrote:

I lack don't have enough of a horse in the race, I guess. A more clever person than I would work that into a Li'l Sebastian reference, I think.

Darlin' it's betta

Don't care about genda
take it from me!

...Wrong Sebastian?

[Ikiry0]

Wikrin wrote:

I find the punishment sub-topic super weird. If someone forcibly changed my sex in a one-off that had no side-effects, I'm fair certain my response would be mild, momentary confusion. Even if I got stuck in my present sex (admittedly, not preferred), I feel like at worst, that's disappointing. Like, I can't pull off any aesthetic I find remotely tenable; sucks, but there are worse things.

Yeah but say you were a drow matriarch. You are now a second class citizen. It's not a general purpose punishment but with a sufficiently messed up culture it could be one.

[Aerotan]

Actually, looking at the prices I'm not sure how affordable it is for common folk. It's easily within the range of an adventurer, even a level 1 newbie, but it's about the price of half a dozen computers or 70 high-end meals. Granted, it's probably better than current RL prices, especially with the stigmas that this side of the dice has that the Absalom System doesn't seem to.

[Torbyne]

More about the serum than queering things up but the serum lets you have a lot of say over what your new form looks like, doesnt it? So you could knock back two of them and have a permanent ideal body of your original sex? No more blemishes, scars, eye stigma, crooked teeth? Sure it is a little pricey for the average citizen but not exactly beyond their means and i dont see most people doing this repeatedly but dang... can it cause you to regrow limbs or otherwise regenerate? Its already causing the growth or removal of several organs and presumably height and body mass so getting your arm back doesnt seem like a stretch.

[thejeff]

Torbyne wrote:

More about the serum than queering things up but the serum lets you have a lot of say over what your new form looks like, doesnt it? So you could knock back two of them and have a permanent ideal body of your original sex? No more blemishes, scars, eye stigma, crooked teeth? Sure it is a little pricey for the average citizen but not exactly beyond their means and i dont see most people doing this repeatedly but dang... can it cause you to regrow limbs or otherwise regenerate? Its already causing the growth or removal of several organs and presumably height and body mass so getting your arm back doesnt seem like a stretch.

"You have some mild

control over the details of this change, but you retain a strong
“family resemblance” to your former appearance." and "Your new anatomy is as healthy and functional as your previous body’s", so I would assume the "blemishes, scars, eye stigma, crooked teeth" carry through, much less regrowing limbs and things.

[Torbyne]

thejeff wrote:

Torbyne wrote:

More about the serum than queering things up but the serum lets you have a lot of say over what your new form looks like, doesnt it? So you could knock back two of them and have a permanent ideal body of your original sex? No more blemishes, scars, eye stigma, crooked teeth? Sure it is a little pricey for the average citizen but not exactly beyond their means and i dont see most people doing this repeatedly but dang... can it cause you to regrow limbs or otherwise regenerate? Its already causing the growth or removal of several organs and presumably height and body mass so getting your arm back doesnt seem like a stretch.

"You have some mild

control over the details of this change, but you retain a strong
“family resemblance” to your former appearance." and "Your new anatomy is as healthy and functional as your previous body’s", so I would assume the "blemishes, scars, eye stigma, crooked teeth" carry through, much less regrowing limbs and things.

That actually bothers me, the thing can rewrite your DNA, change half your chromosomes, grow entirely new organs and painless remove old ones but it cant help your skin heal? But i bet no one has stretch marks from all the other morphological changes the body undergoes.

[evilnerf]

Oooh, here's an interesting idea. Say there is a pair of mated Shirren, and they fall in love with a human as a host!

So they take the Human into the family unit as a host, and use science to overcome the biological limitation of not actually being able to host.

[VixieMoondew]

evilnerf wrote:

Oooh, here's an interesting idea. Say there is a pair of mated Shirren, and they fall in love with a human as a host!

So they take the Human into the family unit as a host, and use science to overcome the biological limitation of not actually being able to host.

I love this idea??? Hecking adorable!

[starlite_cutie]

Violet Hargrave wrote:

Oh yeah, there is a fantastic argument to make for (nearly) every shirren just using they.

I wouldn't think that the Shirren would like to be called they, though, since the species that broke away from the Swarm is all about individuality. Using they would bring up nasty thoughts or memories about being in the Swarm.

Since this is a thread about how to refer to all of the species gender identities from a human's perspective, maybe getting it wrong could lead to actual RP interactions (good or bad). Perhaps a failed social interaction roll can be explained this way (Oh, you got a 5? Yeah, you said they, and now you are being attacked by 10 Shirren).

Unless the game creators issue actual lore, it may be up to each GM to decide and each player to enact how they want anyways.

[evilnerf]

I decided to explore that space a little.

Marcel and Ralzbix have been partners in the Stewards for a while. During their many adventures, they've grown closer and even though they are different species, the sexual tension is undeniable.

Eventually, Ralzbix has Marcel over for dinner and introduces him to his wife, Heljynne. They all get along fantastically and marcel is surprised by how intimate he can be with the both of them. Soon, they discuss becoming a mated set and have a child.

Marcel is initially reluctant, but soon realizes that he loves Ralzbix and Heljynne and wants to spend the rest of his life with them. The three are joined in a traditional Hylaxian wedding (Marcel converted). Even Marcel's grumpy parents admit that it's a lovely ceremony.

Luckily, Heljynne is a Scholar and a doctor, and having thought about it, has figured out a way to make this work. She and Ralzbix will deposit their egg and seed into an ovation chamber, which Marcel will be tasked with tending and protecting.

Marcel takes his duty very seriously. He makes sure to process the nutrient mix at all the right times (even though it's something that can be automated, all of the set agree it's best for the child if Marcel puts in the effort), and performs the traditional Shirren vocal ceremonies with the help of Wand of Share Language.

The three of them know that their arrangement is more than a little strange to both Human and Shirren, but in the end, they're happy and that's what is really important.

[Silentman73]

Violet Hargrave wrote:

I picked up my copy of Starfinder over GenCon, and as I read through it, I'm pondering ways to throw characters around who aren't all cis and straight. Let's start with a quick look through the races!

Androids- Specific thought was given to the notion that a race that doesn't reproduce sexually is going to have a whole lot of agender, genderfluid, and non-binary people, and this is even reflected in the iconic operative. A

Humans- Eh, they're humans. Iconic is explicitly a lesbian though, so that's a good precedent. B+

Kasathas- Nothing really jumps out at me here since they're basically just humans-with-more-arms, but there is a note about barely perceivable gender differences which... none of the artists seem to have caught. C-

Lashuntas- If I am reading between the lines correctly, roughly half of all lashuntas are now explicitly trans, and there is specific language differentiating a given lashunta's actual gender vs. their dimorphic body type. I am absolutely delighted to see that, even if I don't necessarily think the designers meant to do it. A+

Shirrens- Between having 3 genders, and a culture explicitly based around celebrating individualism, this is hands down the race I'm most excited about in the specific context of making queer as hell characters, but also the one with the greatest need to clarify a hell of a lot of things first. Like, what is the whole pronoun situation here? If I had to guess, I'd say males go he/him, hosts go she/her (specific reference in the stat block to 'queens' and all), and females have their own pronoun set going on. This is something that really needs to be sorted out officially before anyone can really properly write about any non-male shirren NPCs.

Also having 3 genders calls for a lot of specialized terminology for attraction. If you're straight, or ace, that's fine. A certain percentage of them being trisexual is a given. If you're specifically only interested in others of your own gender, that's manageable. But, what if you're, say, a host who's...

I suppose a better question, to me at least, is why this is a concern at all. Representation matters, and I get that, but putting an active focus on it just winds up politicizing things that don't need to be politicized. To a certain degree, high-level exploration of identity politics matters when you're discussing a fundamentally asexual race like androids, or a race where gender plays heavily into societal norms like the lashunta, but aside from that? I would think it would have more to do with an individual player's character than it would with active exploration of this in the rulebook.

This may just be a byproduct of the area I live in, which is so heavily involved in identity politics, but I know that with how touchy that subject can be (as a gay friend of mine has put it, "I'm kind of frustrated with the alphabet soup that being gay has turned into"), the last thing I want in a game is an explicit focus on identity politics.

Put another way, if I'm negotiating with someone in a back alley on Absalom Station, or doing a run 'n gun fleeing locals on a non-Pact world, their gender identity isn't of much concern to me. Whether they're trying to burn away my body or stick an energy blade into it is.

By nature of dealing with not just different ethnicities but actual different species, Starfinder's setting would have such a cosmopolitan perspective that these things just don't seem terribly likely to enter into most folks' minds (which is kind of the goal to begin with, isn't it?).

[starlite_cutie]

Another thought, perhaps Shirren refer to themselves in the third person. That would be somewhat fitting, and also hilarious to certain other species. Could be like that Seinfeld episode where the cast couldn't figure out who this guy was talking about (ending up being himself).

"Xaco does not want to board the ship until the mission is complete!"

[evilnerf]

Can we take the "Does queer representation matter?" and "Has queer representation in the game gone too far?" and take them to another thread?

I for one would vastly prefer thread take those answers as a given and have people just posting their ideas on how to introduce queer characters, groups and stories into their Starfinder games.

[Silentman73]

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

[thejeff]

starlite_cutie wrote:

Another thought, perhaps Shirren refer to themselves in the third person. That would be somewhat fitting, and also hilarious to certain other species. Could be like that Seinfeld episode where the cast couldn't figure out who this guy was talking about (ending up being himself).

"Xaco does not want to board the ship until the mission is complete!"

"No one ever listens to Zathras. "

[Rysky the Dark Solarion]

It damn well is the purview of officially published material to give us representation.

A purview Paizo is more than happy to oblige.

If you or someone else is uncomfortable with the "alphabet soup" and acknowledge that it exists, that's on you.

[thejeff]

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

[evilnerf]

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

I'm not uncomfortable, just bored. You can't surf the internet without tripping over a million discussions that are basically, "Yes, but is it TOO gay?" It's all the same shit everyone else says. You either want more queer stories, or you don't.

I want to see new stuff, awesome character concepts, and story ideas for those of us who want more queer content in our games.

PS. The idea that being tolerant means that you should be tolerant of everything always is such laughable idea in this day and age that I'm not even going to argue it.

[Silentman73]

Rysky the Dark Solarion wrote:

It damn well is the purview of officially published material to give us representation.

A purview Paizo is more than happy to oblige.

If you or someone else is uncomfortable with the "alphabet soup" and acknowledge that it exists, that's on you.

It's the "special snowflake" syndrome, as gauche as that term's become of late (and this isn't in reference to any particular political or moral ideology, lest someone try to take it down that road). Distinctions ultimately become meaningless when everyone demands their own unique social, biological & ideological designation. If a particular play group wants to explore those concepts, I wholly believe they should. But grading the level of inclusivity in the rulebook for a game seems like nothing more than an invitation to start segmenting the playing populace in ways that serve to do nothing more than further cement the factionalism that's, now empirically in real life, only managing to force people to feel like they have to either kowtow to the race to greatest marginalization or just dig in so deep on their own definitions that all ability to function in an ideologically diverse society is wholly lost.

thejeff wrote:

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

Then it's probably good those aren't the words I used, isn't it?

evilnerf wrote:

I'm not uncomfortable, just bored. You can't surf the internet without tripping over a million discussions that are basically, "Yes, but is it TOO gay?" It's all the same s$#@ everyone else says. You either want more queer stories, or you don't.

I want to see new stuff, awesome character concepts, and story ideas for those of us who want more queer content in our games.

PS. The idea that being tolerant means that you should be tolerant of everything always is such laughable idea in this day and age that I'm not even going to argue it.

Questions of "Is it too gay" or "Is it not gay enough?" aren't questions I'm presenting. I think that's up to individuals within their own groups. I personally see no point to making those kinds of questions the primary focus of content in a science-fantasy role playing game about intergalactic heroes (or villains) going on adventures, but that isn't a rejection of the importance of those issues themselves, merely a request to avoid turning the game into a platform for hot button issues that may wind up moving the focus off heroic adventures and onto things that, while more divisive than they should be, are nonetheless divisive. It isn't without cause that almost every gaming group I've been a part of in the long time I've been involved in the RPG hobby has a general rule of not discussing politics or religion during play. It's one thing to discuss hanging out in some other social venue, but to make it the focus of a play session (much less Adventure Path or rules supplement) seems needlessly inviting of conflict that only serves to make the game less fun for some (or all), if only BECAUSE it's so personal and involving of deeply-held convictions.

I didn't use the word "tolerant". I pointed out inclusivity, a lofty goal that's overall a good thing to strive for, within the context of attempting to control the parameters of a discussion with your own statement of "I for one would vastly prefer thread take those answers as a given..." You might prefer it, but if the discussion is to be had, you need to be ready for interactions with that discussion which might not line up with your own preferences. Though as a tangent, you don't personally have to be tolerant of ideas or statements you personally find objectionable, but that doesn't remove the right of those espousing such notions to present them. Be intolerant (or tolerant) if you like, as that's a personal choice - but whichever direction you lean on that spectrum, it doesn't provide objective authority sufficient to silence whatever (or whomever) you disagree with.

[Ouachitonian]

thejeff wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

If you only include those who agree with you, you're being pretty exclusive.

[KingOfAnything]

Ouachitonian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

If you only include those who agree with you, you're being pretty exclusive.

We dealt with that paradox in the 40s. Time to move on.

[thejeff]

Silentman73 wrote:

Questions of "Is it too gay" or "Is it not gay enough?" aren't questions I'm presenting. I think that's up to individuals within their own groups. I personally see no point to making those kinds of questions the primary focus of content in a science-fantasy role playing game about intergalactic heroes (or villains) going on adventures, but that isn't a rejection of the importance of those issues themselves, merely a request to avoid turning the game into a platform for hot button issues that may wind up moving the focus off heroic adventures and onto things that, while more divisive than they should be, are nonetheless divisive. It isn't without cause that almost every gaming group I've been a part of in the long time I've been involved in the RPG hobby has a general rule of not discussing politics or religion during play. It's one thing to discuss hanging out in some other social venue, but to make it the focus of a play session (much less Adventure Path or rules supplement) seems needlessly inviting of conflict that only serves to make the game less fun for some (or all), if only BECAUSE it's so personal and involving of deeply-held convictions.

I didn't use the word "tolerant". I pointed out inclusivity, a lofty goal that's overall a good thing to strive for, within the context of attempting to control the parameters of a discussion with your own statement of "I for one would vastly prefer thread take those answers as a given..." You might prefer it, but if the discussion is to be had, you need to be ready for interactions with that discussion which might not line up with your own preferences. Though as a tangent, you don't personally have to be tolerant of ideas or statements you personally find objectionable, but that doesn't remove the right of those espousing such notions to present them. Be intolerant (or tolerant) if you like, as that's a personal choice - but whichever direction you lean on that spectrum, it doesn't provide objective authority sufficient to silence whatever (or whomever) you disagree with.

1) It's far from the primary focus of content in Starfinder, however much we're talking about it in this thread. It is a thing that Paizo considered, because that's how they roll, but if you think they're making it the focus of the game or of adventures, you're going to need to show that.

Various LGBTQ characters have come up in adventures and setting material in the past, but even when they've been the focus, they're queerness usually hasn't been.

2) A request to focus the thread has no power to silence anyone. As you say, it has no authority. OTOH, there are no "rights" here either. Go far enough in the intolerant direction and the Paizo mods will silence you. They have the authority to do so.
Often, how they use that authority depends on the nature and intent of the thread in question.
A discussion of cool ways to "queer up" your game is not really a good place to argue that you shouldn't "queer up" your game anymore than a thread for powergaming tips is a good place to argue that you shouldn't powergame.

[thejeff]

Ouachitonian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

If you only include those who agree with you, you're being pretty exclusive.

If you try to include those who won't include you, you're liable to wind up excluded pretty damn quick.

[Ouachitonian]

KingOfAnything wrote:

Ouachitonian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

If you only include those who agree with you, you're being pretty exclusive.

We dealt with that paradox in the 40s. Time to move on.

So everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist? I rather doubt that.

[KingOfAnything]

Ouachitonian wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

Ouachitonian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

If you only include those who agree with you, you're being pretty exclusive.

We dealt with that paradox in the 40s. Time to move on.

So everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist? I rather doubt that.

What sort of left field did that comment come from? I was talking about the philosophical paradox of tolerance that was outlined in 1945...

[thejeff]

Ouachitonian wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

Ouachitonian wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Silentman73 wrote:

Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal considerations for all perspectives, no? Is it truly so problematic to note that it isn't really the purview of officially published material to delve into issues that are A) Ultimately personal and B) Are so emotionally charged that they can't help but veer into areas of conversation that may grow uncomfortable for some?

"Inclusivity by its nature mandates equal consideration for exclusivity."

Not sure I'm buying it.

If you only include those who agree with you, you're being pretty exclusive.

We dealt with that paradox in the 40s. Time to move on.

So everyone who disagrees with you is a fascist? I rather doubt that.

Ah, binaries. Note that I never said "only include those who agree with you". I said "exclusivity".

It's a common rhetorical trick to cast discrimination as a matter of opinion and then accuse those not accepting it of not tolerating any difference of opinion.

I'm perfectly happy to include all sorts of people who disagree with my on all sorts of issues. There probably isn't anyone who agrees with me on everything. Including me - I often look at stuff I've said in the past and think past me is a jerk. I'm sure future me thinks the same.

But people who disagree on fundamental issues - like in this case whether queerness belongs in the game or in the larger context, should be tolerated at all? No, I don't need to include them. Sorry.

[Wikrin]

So, about that original topic...

A buddy of mine recently pointed out that I play a lot of "androgynous" characters. I've played a couple asexual (orientation) characters and a couple of neuter (physical sex) characters, a few gay characters, and one trans character. This has been across a handful of systems. I am probably joining a buddy of mine's stream game once it goes live. We're going to be rolling stats, so depending on how that goes I may or may not be able to run with a sub-optimal concept. Was considering going with a sterile Shirren host Envoy Icon that is borderline K-pop star in her/their style and mannerisms, but mothers people a bit too much. Could work for a couple other classes. Alternatively, an ascetic, Android priest of Triune that associates sexuality with the base, animal nature of organic life. Doesn't disparage or try to dissuade, just refuses to use gendered words and gets sullen, disappointed when people play to tropes. ("You could be better than that," sort of deal.) Possibly a gender fluid Lashunta actor with muted sexual characteristics and a focus on Disguise, because it's fun to come up with roles to play, and how good can an actor be if they can only play half the parts? Not super confident on what "gender fluid" means, though (and yes, it has been explained) so it would probably be safer to just say gender is not a major aspect of their identity, and they are comfortable no matter its expression.

Never had much fun playing "guy with sword." A lot of my characters fall within the purview of this thread. So, what are some good character options that happen to coincide with the thread?

[Kobold Catgirl]

Also, guys, just ignore anyone who tries to waste time fretting about a game being "too queer", or better still, fretting that "anti-queer representation" voices aren't being "tolerated". They want you to engage with them: The more attention they get, the longer these arguments go on, the more likely a pro-queer representation thread is to get locked. This is deliberate threadjack sabotage. Don't enable it. Ignore the trolls and move on.

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

*runs into room*
*throws glitter in the air*
*runs out*