While there are same sex marriages, same sex children is a different story. Men shouldn't just be giving birth. Perhaps they could adopt if hte parents of another child get killed.
Gender is a universal feature of human society throughout time and space.
Their only noticeable sexual dimorphic trait is beards, and their society seems purely egalitarian; other than different words for some positions based on sex, there doesn't even seem to be gender roles in dwarven society as-implemented.
The main thing about adding procedural gender identifies is that it requires both a) procedural cultures (not implemented) and b) gender identities (similarly unimplemented). So it's something that seems possible, but implementation likely is years away.
yea I don't really want to see gender roles in the game. That isn't anything different or new, if anything DF stands out because of its depiction of equality.
Just because medieval europe had this doesn't mean it should be in the game.
Humans do frown on torture of animals. Or torture for pleasure in general. Nobody likes a psychopath except for goblins.
I think its some hairsplitting between animal cruelty (which includes bloodsports, tiny cages, force-feeding, etc.) and animal torture (which is pretty much directly harming the poor creatures for fun). There is also considerable disagreement on where the bar is for these categories. Is "necessary evil" treatment (animal testing, hunting, etc.) in the animal cruelty category just because an uneconomic alternative exists?Humans do frown on torture of animals. Or torture for pleasure in general. Nobody likes a psychopath except for goblins.
Eh, not so. Animal baiting was practically Europe's most popular sport up until the late 19th century. Large human civilizations still practice animal bloodsport for kicks. Seeing as the human ethics are based off historical European ethics according to Toady, there's no reason that animal torture should be frowned upon.
I thought animal torture is when you tie it down and whip it or something. Bloodsport is bloodsport.
I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?No, you need to add [] still to fix it.
It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.If anything wouldn't that make non-binary dwarves not really a thing? It's of so little consequence to them socially that the only classification they need is their reproductive ability.
Aww. That's a shame. That bug's been around for a shockingly long time.I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?No, you need to add [] still to fix it.
It's not a bug, it's an intentional design choice. But it is literally the easiest raw modding change possible. I can see why it is a raw thing rather than an init thing, but maybe a toggle on the LNP would be appropriate.Aww. That's a shame. That bug's been around for a shockingly long time.I thought Toady fixed the game so all dwarves have beards by default?No, you need to add [] still to fix it.
Personally I'd like to see the ability to have beards added for dwarven women. That's a totally dwarf thing and it would be a better use than marginalizing a gender within the game.Ahem, raws, ahem.
It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.Maybe because that doesn't actually add anything to the game? Well, technically, in terms of flavour, but I can see many issues arising when people discover that their soldiers who they thought were male start flinging babies at the goblins because they only identify as female. Also what Graknorke said.
Definite no from me. I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world. I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.How can you find your god's will "everything bad"? Some believer you.
Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.
Definite no from me. I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world. I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.
Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.
Personally I'd like to see the ability to have beards added for dwarven women. That's a totally dwarf thing and it would be a better use than marginalizing a gender within the game.Ahem, raws, ahem.
For that particular addition, Toady already has the necessary tags in place, you just need to put square brackets around it.It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.Maybe because that doesn't actually add anything to the game? Well, technically, in terms of flavour, but I can see many issues arising when people discover that their soldiers who they thought were male start flinging babies at the goblins because they only identify as female. Also what Graknorke said.
Definite no from me. I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world. I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.
Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.
It should never become a feature for dwarves, because they are gender equal. It is one of their "ethics" which they actually follow.
Among humans, though, males are stronger and generally dominate is a way which is not, and never should be true for dwarves. For humans, though, there should be some kind of gender roles system in place, though remember that in reality a female metalsmith would not have been astounding because wives often helped in their husbands' businesses. Armies should be male dominated unless they are defending settlements against overwhelming odds or the civilisation is so martial that everyone learns to fight (the ancient Scythians were like this, and women also learned horse archery and fought to defend camps from the enemy, hence the Amazon stories. One Scythian queen, Tomyris, led her army to defeat King Cyrus the Great of Persia and kill him.) Nonetheless, men should dominate most human societies. Animal torture should also be common.
If you do not want to play with gender roles, stick to playing dwarves, who should not have them.
I'm always surprised by how upset the idea of being more inclusive is to some people.
I'm always surprised by how upset the idea of being more inclusive is to some people.
I think people are just unsure how to implement it as gender is entirely meaningless beyond procreation and that little symbol on a Dwarfs profile. I suppose adding a little 'they identify as x' to their profile could do it. Not sure if that would be taken as overly hamfisted or not.
Having gay dwarves also "doesn't add anything to the game" except make non heterosexual people feel included.No, it adds flavour in an area that previously (and still kind of does, but less so) felt rather lacking. Dwarven relationships were something that we were told were important to them through mood screens but wasn't really reflected mechanically. Now that's got a bit more detail it seems less forced.
That being said, a lot of the posts so far keep mentioning that babies are never carried by theThat's not true, though, since when a mother dies other adults will feed her babies. They just won't pick them up.father"fertilizing parent", I've just been interpreting this as dwarves being mammals that constantly require a milk-only diet for the entirety of their infancy.
Having gay dwarves also "doesn't add anything to the game" except make non heterosexual people feel included.No, it adds flavour in an area that previously (and still kind of does, but less so) felt rather lacking. Dwarven relationships were something that we were told were important to them through mood screens but wasn't really reflected mechanically. Now that's got a bit more detail it seems less forced.
Gender identity not such a big deal. Gender roles aren't a thing and souls in general don't have much of an opinion about themselves. You'd be alluding to whether or not the individual in question conforms to a system that doesn't actually exist.
I don't see how it would at all be a detriment, it could only add to the game for people that aren't cis-gendered.Wait, cis-gendered can't appreciate "inclusiveness" or whatever you call it?
Having gay dwarves also "doesn't add anything to the game" except make non heterosexual people feel included.No, it adds flavour in an area that previously (and still kind of does, but less so) felt rather lacking. Dwarven relationships were something that we were told were important to them through mood screens but wasn't really reflected mechanically. Now that's got a bit more detail it seems less forced.
Gender identity not such a big deal. Gender roles aren't a thing and souls in general don't have much of an opinion about themselves. You'd be alluding to whether or not the individual in question conforms to a system that doesn't actually exist.
I really don't see why it shouldn't exist, even in a society that has a generally neutral stance toward gender, someone might still identify as female or non binary etc.
I don't see how it would at all be a detriment, it could only add to the game for people that aren't cis-gendered.
You are arguing that it is unnecessary detail, but DF is full of unnecessary details. They only serve to improve the game.
I really don't see why it shouldn't exist, even in a society that has a generally neutral stance toward gender, someone might still identify as female or non binary etc.Well we can't really know that, given the lack of egalitarian societies to study.
You are arguing that it is unnecessary detail, but DF is full of unnecessary details. They only serve to improve the game.It's not (exactly) that it's unnecessary. I mean, the entire game is unnecessary. It's that there's no context for it to have significance in. Every other system in the game ties in to something higher up to the fort's wellbeing in some way, even if it is just that one dwarf doesn't like plump helmet wine or whatever.
It would be nice to have non-binary genders, though. Without specific roles of their own. Transgender and genderfluid dwarves, for example, would be wonderful. There's no reason not to have them recognized as part of dwarven society since dwarves seem fairly neutral towards gender and gender roles.
Definite no from me. I find the lack of gender roles incredibly refreshing, and besides, gender roles would remind me of how, because of my religion, I feel personably culpable for everything bad in the world. I play this game to distract myself from that little problem.
Honestly, if it became a feature, I'd probably stop playing.
It should never become a feature for dwarves, because they are gender equal. It is one of their "ethics" which they actually follow.
Among humans, though, males are stronger and generally dominate is a way which is not, and never should be true for dwarves. For humans, though, there should be some kind of gender roles system in place, though remember that in reality a female metalsmith would not have been astounding because wives often helped in their husbands' businesses. Armies should be male dominated unless they are defending settlements against overwhelming odds or the civilisation is so martial that everyone learns to fight (the ancient Scythians were like this, and women also learned horse archery and fought to defend camps from the enemy, hence the Amazon stories. One Scythian queen, Tomyris, led her army to defeat King Cyrus the Great of Persia and kill him.) Nonetheless, men should dominate most human societies. Animal torture should also be common.
If you do not want to play with gender roles, stick to playing dwarves, who should not have them.
why does everything devolve to men are stronger than women. Since the beginning, plenty of women have been successful soldiers, masquerading as men. Women are perfectly capable of being soldiers. And saying women could be metalsmiths to "help their husbands" no. They should be metalsmiths because they want to be metalsmiths.
This game does not need those kind of limitations. They are an unpleasant reminder to some of us that this is very much a reality in current times.
I get that the game feels more period to you if humans are male dominated and oppressive to females and homophobic and what have you, but this is not real life. And statistically, in adventure mode, I get no physical advantages being male or female of any race, so physical strength isn't even different for even humans in this game. And physical strength was ultimately what caused the beginnings of the patriarchy.
There's literally no reason, short of say because of the ability to control women through their fertility, to have men in any of the races being superior. I don't really feel like that's a good enough reason either way.
Why make the game more exclusive instead of more inclusive.
Maybe we'll just have "overly complicated gender nonsense" as an init option or somesuch.
...I don't see how it would at all be a detriment, it could only add to the game for people that aren't cis-gendered.Wait, cis-gendered can't appreciate "inclusiveness" or whatever you call it?
I don't think the OP is trollish. Those are legitimate beliefs in the OP, not exaggerations. There were similar arguments for and against same-sex relationships. The outcome of that was Toady implementing the bare minimum of new tags in the raws such that the same-sex behavior is possible. That's the most likely outcome here, too.
It looks like the Navajo and Hindu examples are actually every bit binary on the gender levels. Just the Navajo decoupled gender from genitals, but they drew clear boundaries between allowable masculine and feminine roles, including marriage. Modern Iran does something similar: they are strongly anti-gay, but pro sex change. As long as you have people of gender A marrying people of gender B, they don't care what your birth genitals were. If Navajo had had access to sex change surgery would they have done the same? Probably, yes. I don't see it as a clear sign the Navajo were extra-progressive, it's just a slightly different take on enforcing rigid binary gender roles. The people who say that Navajo had "4 genders" are basically making a mistake that contradicts their own general position: gender is social, sex is genitals. Having a word for a dude in a dress isn't proof that they have an "extra gender". We have words for that, too. If they are thereafter treated exactly the same socially as a woman, they have the woman gender.
As said above: dwarves really are mono-gender, with the only trappings being the bare minimum for mammalian procreation.
Modding in Navajo Genders in current system
Right now, any creature token that can be modded at the caste level could be altered on a per-gender basis. Then, you could make 2 male and 2 female castes and give each one opposite gender-related tags. Presto "masculine" female dwarves and "feminine" male dwarves. This wouldn't properly model the Navajo system though, because dwarf sexuality couldn't be constrained to only doing opposite genders. But SEX + ORIENTATION tags can actually restrict mate selection in a way similar to the Navajo! So the "fix" for Navajo modelling would be to use SEX tags as socially assigned gender instead, turn OFF same-sex relationships, and then apply the baby-making tags to whichever castes have the female "sex" (which can now be different to the SEX tags since we have stolen this to indicate gender). Chuck some description tags in there and presto, your own Navajo! The only weird behavior would be a pairing of masculine female/feminine female could still have children, which isn't too bad if you assume they had a donor.
Appropriating the SEX tag as gender instead has a lot of potential, since Putnam already showed it has nothing to do with whether and individual can bear children. Right now as far as I can see the only functional purpose of that tag is mate selection.
The only issue I have is with the word "procedural" in the OP. The OP has given some examples of some societies which either do or don't decouple the sex binary from the gender binary, but he/she hasn't given much if any examples of what sort of things this "procedural" system is going to model. If you give specific examples of how that could work as a system of variables then it might be more feasible. Just saying "procedural" doesn't do anything if you haven't shown a set of variables that could be adjusted in a sensible way.
[CASTE:FEMALE]
The gender tag lets it know how breeding works.
[FEMALE]
[MULTIPLE_LITTER_RARE]
To add beards, put square brackets around the following:
BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:FACIAL_HAIR_TISSUE_LAYERS
[CASTE:MALE]
[MALE]
[SET_BP_GROUP:BY_TYPE:LOWERBODY][BP_ADD_TYPE:GELDABLE]
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:FACIAL_HAIR_TISSUE_LAYERS]
Really, for a third gender all you can do is not assign either male or female to the caste, then you have a non-gendered dwarf caste which doesn't have a mars or venus symbol. And you can name this caste "genderfluid" if you want. but since they don't have a gender for someone to decide whether they're attracted or not they probably wouldn't ever form relationships, so they'd be more like a nonsexual person.
So, you can make as many castes as you want, name them however you like and give them descriptions, and try and tweak the tags for that caste so they mimic the behavior and relationships you want, but you come up against the limits of the tags that control relationships and bearing children.
Quote[CASTE:FEMALE]
The gender tag lets it know how breeding works.
[FEMALE]
[MULTIPLE_LITTER_RARE]
To add beards, put square brackets around the following:
BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:FACIAL_HAIR_TISSUE_LAYERS
[CASTE:MALE]
[MALE]
[SET_BP_GROUP:BY_TYPE:LOWERBODY][BP_ADD_TYPE:GELDABLE]
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:FACIAL_HAIR_TISSUE_LAYERS]
This is what sex looks like for Dwarves right now. More genders should be as easy as copying and pasting and renaming. Tokens for determining creature descriptions, frequency and such can be found here: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Creature_token
Modding guide: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Modding_guide
Somewhat related: I've tested and put into practice same-sex childbearing (male and female). The game seems to handle it very well, with the relationship screen saying "father" for both parents (for example, mother also works) and one parent taking care of the baby pretty elegantly.
And yeah, the separation of sex and gender would be good. It should probably wait until the family unit is more... considered. Right now it's "person who gives birth (regardless of sex) carries the baby around" (Yeah, I tested male childbirth. It works, as long as they're a female for the birth).
Some women pretended to be men to fight, but most women who fought in history did so as women.
DF's tags and raw files are incredibly flexible, but they are not a Turing-complete language. Raw modding is limited to what tags exist in the game, which is why there was no way to manipulate sexual orientation until this release with its new ORIENTATION tags. The tags' parameters are a bit confusing, but for any civilized creature the default is to have a 75% change or being interested in marrying the opposite sex, a 20% of being interested in taking the opposite sex as a lover (but not marrying) and a 5% chance of being uninterested in the opposite gender. There is a completely separate die-roll for the same sex: 75% uninterested, 20% lover and 5% marrying. So having a Dwarf end up straight, bi, gay or asexual is already achievable.Quote[CASTE:FEMALE]
The gender tag lets it know how breeding works.
[FEMALE]
[MULTIPLE_LITTER_RARE]
To add beards, put square brackets around the following:
BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:FACIAL_HAIR_TISSUE_LAYERS
[CASTE:MALE]
[MALE]
[SET_BP_GROUP:BY_TYPE:LOWERBODY][BP_ADD_TYPE:GELDABLE]
[BODY_DETAIL_PLAN:FACIAL_HAIR_TISSUE_LAYERS]
This is what sex looks like for Dwarves right now. More genders should be as easy as copying and pasting and renaming. Tokens for determining creature descriptions, frequency and such can be found here: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Creature_token
Modding guide: http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Modding_guide
Oh so I could add like
[CASTE: TRANSSEXUAL FEMALE]
[MALE]
or [CASTE: GENDERFLUID]
[MALE]
Then a genderfluid with female, a transsexual male caste, etc etc?
Some women pretended to be men to fight, but most women who fought in history did so as women.
I don't really feel like we have the numbers for that to be certain one way or the other.
You are getting a history lesson because you engaged in a historical discussion and made some points yourself.
I do not think that gender identity would not be such a major issue for dwarves since they are gender equal and homosexuality is openly accepted. Without gender roles as such, it seems less likely that transgender dwarves would appear, and even if they did, there is not much than can be done about it with dwarven medicine.
Really, IMO it would seem rather forced given the state of societies and the opinions of individuals as they exist in the game right now. Building the roof before the walls, so to speak.I really don't see why it shouldn't exist, even in a society that has a generally neutral stance toward gender, someone might still identify as female or non binary etc.Well we can't really know that, given the lack of egalitarian societies to study.
Bringing this up because you seem to have missed it.Really, IMO it would seem rather forced given the state of societies and the opinions of individuals as they exist in the game right now. Building the roof before the walls, so to speak.I really don't see why it shouldn't exist, even in a society that has a generally neutral stance toward gender, someone might still identify as female or non binary etc.Well we can't really know that, given the lack of egalitarian societies to study.
David Reimer is different becuase he was born fully male, then lost his penis in a botched operation and was raised as female before becoming male again. That is not the same as someone with male genitals who is raised male and wants to be female. Dwarves may have these kinds of psychological problems, but they would not be stigmatised to the point where they become severely damaging (dwarves of both sexes wear dresses, for example).
There certainly is a biological process which leads people to identify with male or female gender roles (or neither) innately.(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
There certainly is a biological process which leads people to identify with male or female gender roles (or neither) innately.(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956%2810%2900158-5/abstractAlright, I'll take it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195418
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289
http://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o02ul/cmv_i_think_transgenderism_is_a_mental_health/cmih4oh?context=3
http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956%2810%2900158-5/abstractThat's pretty interesting, actually. In terms of gender roles, though... I'm not sure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21195418
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7477289
http://np.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2o02ul/cmv_i_think_transgenderism_is_a_mental_health/cmih4oh?context=3
There certainly is a biological process which leads people to identify with male or female gender roles (or neither) innately.(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
Biology and psychology are very closely linked to the point where they are often indistinguishable. I can understand that dwarves may have genital dysphoria of some sort, but what is there that they can really do about it? Acting as the opposite gender would be acting the same for them.
Would you not consider a condition that leads to desire to mutilate one's genitals, or even commit suicide, to be some form of disability? Manic depression is certainly considered such, as do various problems involving delusions. Of course, hormone treatment or even operations may be the best treatment for this, but it is still something that must be treated.
What I think the David Reimer case shows is that the mind/body are a holistic unit, and expecting to be able to make superficial changes and just mentally reshape people into another person basically is misguided, it was cases like this which discredited the 1970's dogma of gender identity being 100% a social construct.
It might be a useful distinction to separate the concepts of gender identity and gender roles. Identity is who you are on the inside, roles are what other people expect of you. "Roles" are never innate because they arise from the external dynamic.
Treating it as a mental illness only has bad consequences if the society has a very negative view of mental illness. As for problems only being caused by non acceptance, that is also an assumption - the genital dysphoria itself can be very distressing for some, seeing the wrong body all the time, regardless of anyone else's opinions.
I'm not sure sex-dysphoric is really a proper term, or what transgendered individuals would like to be referred to. It implies something is wrong with the mind, which, as I said, not just I, but the trans community would disagree with. It would be the same thing as saying gay people are mentally ill, even though, in both cases, treating it as a mental illness has very very bad effects. Which is why perhaps I seem so hostile when that was suggested.
Yes there definitely is a difference between gender roles and gender identity. And I think, even without gender roles, such as in dwarf society, there would be gender identity. That was my point. Where one line ends and the other begins... it's hard to say, tbh.
And yes, I apologize for hijacking the thread.
If you try to treat it as a mental illness, it will cause people to kill themselves.
Don't be part of that.
Since personality traits are defined at the caste level, you could contrive a species that has different castes that prefer different types of roles. A simple form would be to have a CISMALE (biologically MALE with masculine personality), CISFEMALE (biologically FEMALE with feminine personality), TRANSMALE (biologically FEMALE with masculine personality) and TRANSFEMALE (biologically MALE with feminine personality), and possibly FLUIDMALE and FLUIDFEMALE who have middling personalities.
The problem is that the vanilla game has no personality differences between genders, so adding all of this to vanilla Dwarves won't change anything.
If you try to treat it as a mental illness, it will cause people to kill themselves.
Don't be part of that.
It is funny how you use a link about bullying in attempt to bully those you disagree with.
Agree with me or else people will die. Lovely little blackmail you have going there.
Excuse me? Who am I bullying? Do you feel like I'm hurting you because I'm telling you not to torment people until they become suicidal?
I'm sorry to put you out. I mean, your feelings on this are so important. Not having anything relevant to it going on in your life. It's really important you get to express the idea that someone else is fundamentally flawed by just existing as they are.
I am not bullying you, I am giving you the reality of the situation. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
But oh look, here is a study showing the causes of transgender suicide cases.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/28/local/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127
That's from people who have done research and put effort into formulating an opinion on the matter.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/28/3214581/transgender-suicide-attempts/
Personally, I don't feel like telling a bully that they are wrong and their actions will have expected results in a form of bullying in and of itself. I am merely clarifying that that viewpoint is ignorant, flawed, and absolutely screwed up.
Excuse me? Who am I bullying? Do you feel like I'm hurting you because I'm telling you not to torment people until they become suicidal?
I'm sorry to put you out. I mean, your feelings on this are so important. Not having anything relevant to it going on in your life. It's really important you get to express the idea that someone else is fundamentally flawed by just existing as they are.
I am not bullying you, I am giving you the reality of the situation. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
But oh look, here is a study showing the causes of transgender suicide cases.
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/28/local/la-me-ln-suicide-attempts-alarming-transgender-20140127
That's from people who have done research and put effort into formulating an opinion on the matter.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/28/3214581/transgender-suicide-attempts/
Personally, I don't feel like telling a bully that they are wrong and their actions will have expected results in a form of bullying in and of itself. I am merely clarifying that that viewpoint is ignorant, flawed, and absolutely screwed up.
It was not me that you were trying to bully.
You define failing to agree with you as oppression and discrimination. You use the lives of those you died as a means to intimidate others, agree with us or else we will die. That is blackmail.
The only facts your articles have actually demonstrated is that transexuals are more likely to commit suicide than non-transexuals. They have actually demonstrated the actual reason why this is so, they claim the reason is 'oppression and discrimination' and that may well be so.
It is the way you consider disagreement with a certain viewpoint as oppression that makes you a blackmailer trying to intellectually profit from other people's deaths.
I've expressed this earlier but my feeling is it is a bad suggestion overall. Dealing with gender roles in real life is bad enough, and it would be rather restrictive to have to divy out professions based on gender, etc.
I prefer it as it is, with no gender roles.
I find it interesting when bigots try to act like they are the victim.
I don't think you understand the term blackmail, because even if you think I'm bullying you, that wouldn't be blackmail. I can't even figure out, even twisting it up, how that word would be applicable.
It seems to be a trend for the oppressor to cry foul when confronted by their actions, and pretend that they are the injured party. No, you are not being blackmailed, and I don't really care if I hurt your feelings or you feel I am bullying you.
Your opinions are formed from you own prejudices and have no bearing on reality. You have no experience with this, other than a visceral feeling that transgendered people are "not right." Presumably because they are different and you are engineered to believe that different things are bad.
I have presented very clear evidence that insisting over and over that a person is a different gender than their own will make them suicidal. I showed you an example of this happening with a cis-gendered individual, who exhibited the same problems transgendered individuals face.
I have made the point that if you do this to gay people, the same things happen. It is painfully obvious, to anyone but the most dense and intentionally obtuse person, that telling someone they are mentally ill because of their gender or sexuality is wrong and bad.
So please, get off the cross. I don't have to defend myself to you when you bring nothing to the table but a lot of crying over how "mean" I'm being and zero evidence of the ridiculous claims you, or Urist, whom I assume you agree with, bring.
GoblinCookie this thread isn't your INTERNET FIGHT arena. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, just stop posting here. Smee's gone back to discussing the actual suggestion and so should you.
I agree with you on the bolded point - and that point only. Opinions are fine. Dragging it out into accusations of bullying and blackmail when someone doesn't like your opinion, however, is not fine.GoblinCookie this thread isn't your INTERNET FIGHT arena. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute, just stop posting here. Smee's gone back to discussing the actual suggestion and so should you.I don't agree with the core idea of this thread. I do not see why the gender system should be changed at all. I think that the status quo is fine. I also do not think transexuals make sense in the status quo gender roles.
social pressure and reactions to stereotypes sound like it would be a real pita to implement, tbh.The design issue is where to define the personality traits: creature or entity? Possibly even both (innate from the creature and modified by the entity).
Also, isn't toady working on a caste sort of system for jobs anyway? I seriously doubt it would be gender based, which, as I said, would be annoying at best, offensive at worst, but it does fulfill this niche to some degree.
Random wouldn't be exactly in the spirit of the game.
Jesus christ.
That has to be satire.
Incidentally, because this, at the least, must be said you still have the definition of blackmail wrong. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blackmail?s=t)
1.
the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2.
the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions
verb (transitive)
3.
to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
4.
to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats
Jesus christ.
That has to be satire.
Incidentally, because this, at the least, must be said you still have the definition of blackmail wrong. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blackmail?s=t)Quote
1.
the act of attempting to obtain money by intimidation, as by threats to disclose discreditable information
2.
the exertion of pressure or threats, esp unfairly, in an attempt to influence someone's actions
verb (transitive)
3.
to exact or attempt to exact (money or anything of value) from (a person) by threats or intimidation; extort
4.
to attempt to influence the actions of (a person), esp by unfair pressure or threats
Based upon this I have my definition quite right. Your entire argument was indeed based upon one huge blackmail.
The whole of it consisted of, agree with X rather than Z or else Y will kill themselves. The threat of Y killing themselves is definately being used to blackmail people into intellectual compliance with X point of view.
The thing is that Z is not saying that Y should be killed nor do the words themselves have the power to kill. Instead Y is reacting to Z by killing themselves, the mere fact that someone holds Z view is not directly causing Y's death but instead Y freely chooses to kill themselves in response to Z view.
You can indeed blackmail people with suicide, either your own suicide or someone else's. The latter is what you are doing, using other people's suicides to blackmail for ideological gain; and I called you out on this 'technique'. It is not agree with me or I will myself but rather agree with me or THEY will kill themselves, but it is the same thing essentially.
Names and artefacts aren't completely random, place names are related to the place to a degree, and artefacts are influenced by the preferences of the dwarf making it.Random wouldn't be exactly in the spirit of the game.
Except for clowns, FBs, worldgen, names, artifacts...
So, question...Unless we get magic involved, I doubt it. AFAIK we can't even do this with modern technology.
(Please don't be offended, this is only applying for dwarves.)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
You just need to stop. I am not holding a knife to a transgendered person's throat and saying I will kill them (or make them do it,) if you don't respect them. That would not be blackmail, it would be a a threat of violence.
Stop accusing people who disagree with you of victimizing you in some way. That just distracts from the actual issue, because then everyone has to pander to your hurt feelings or your accusations. It is infantile.
You also continue to derail the thread with this garbage. Just. Stop.
yea sex changes still wouldn't mean the reproductive organs would be in place or work at all. That's something even modern technology is not capable of.
But dwarven medicine is not advanced enough to do anything like a sex change. And you'd need hormone therapy, which is way way beyond them.
While I would like to see transgender and intersex implemented, it would be through the dwarf identifying as the other gender and being recognized as such, not having surgery.
That could be an interesting psychological experiment.The game will trust the raws about what is acceptable, and anyone with low tolerance or high regard for "traditional values" isn't going to last very long. If the civ actually survives, it will be full of people who don't care about the (unworkable) traditions in their culture.
Most of the members of the species would have to fit within the constraints of what is "normal" for there to really be an abnormal to work off of and be made a pariah for.
For extra fun, bullying could be thrown in somewhat randomly (a particular child is marked and has to experience it, or an adult, possibly,) causing distress in the victim and maybe even modifying the personality to be less able to manage stress as a whole.
I can't think of an upside to this, though, other than tormenting the sentients of your society for arbitrary reasons.
Speaking of alternate arrangements I recently bumped into a lord with two consorts... not sure if bug or feature.
presumably by making *troll intestine condom*s and using them.Ugh. That just gives me images of a dwarf running out onto the battle field to collect a stray Xtroll intestine condomX. "Ho-boy, gunna get lucky tonight!"
presumably by making *troll intestine condom*s and using them.Ugh. That just gives me images of a dwarf running out onto the battle field to collect a stray Xtroll intestine condomX. "Ho-boy, gunna get lucky tonight!"
Treating it as a mental illness only has bad consequences if the society has a very negative view of mental illness. As for problems only being caused by non acceptance, that is also an assumption - the genital dysphoria itself can be very distressing for some, seeing the wrong body all the time, regardless of anyone else's opinions.
Was that in response to me? I didn't mean to write about slavery at all, if so.
I understand that. I wasn't suggesting that there should be sexual dimorphism, just commenting that it doesn't exist.Was that in response to me? I didn't mean to write about slavery at all, if so.Not so much in that sexual dimorphism would probably be seen as a way to attempt to justify sexism in real life if done in the main races.
Was that in response to me? I didn't mean to write about slavery at all, if so.
Not so much in that sexual dimorphism would probably be seen as a way to attempt to justify sexism in real life if done in the main races.
Actually, I only think categorising something as a mental illness is harmful if society views mental illness as something to be feared and punished, as was true around much of the world until recently and still is to some extent today. A sizable fraction of people will have some kind of mental health problem in their lives and it is important that this is not treated as any more shameful as a physical disability. There are issues with being associated with very rare "psycho killers" that only make up a miniscule fraction of the mentally ill.1
Genital dysmorphia is similar to manic depression in some ways - distressing to start with, made far worse by social rejection, can lead to suicide, and people would be much better without it.
Actually, I only think categorising something as a mental illness is harmful if society views mental illness as something to be feared and punished, as was true around much of the world until recently and still is to some extent today. A sizable fraction of people will have some kind of mental health problem in their lives and it is important that this is not treated as any more shameful as a physical disability. There are issues with being associated with very rare "psycho killers" that only make up a miniscule fraction of the mentally ill.1
Genital dysmorphia is similar to manic depression in some ways - distressing to start with, made far worse by social rejection, can lead to suicide, and people would be much better without it.
you need to stop, you are wrong. The APA, which knows much more about psychological illness than you, does not label transgender as a disorder or mental illness. Your view is based on nothing but your own assumptions. And now you are making even more wild claims.
Like I said, this is effectively gaslighting a chunk of the populace, and it will have negative results. Up to and including the suicide of people gaslighted. It is irrelevant what connotations mental illness has, and it is also irrelevant because it is not a mental illness. I will take a the Amercan Psychiatry Association's word on this over your ignorance.
Actually, I only think categorising something as a mental illness is harmful if society views mental illness as something to be feared and punished, as was true around much of the world until recently and still is to some extent today. A sizable fraction of people will have some kind of mental health problem in their lives and it is important that this is not treated as any more shameful as a physical disability. There are issues with being associated with very rare "psycho killers" that only make up a miniscule fraction of the mentally ill.1
Genital dysmorphia is similar to manic depression in some ways - distressing to start with, made far worse by social rejection, can lead to suicide, and people would be much better without it.
you need to stop, you are wrong. The APA, which knows much more about psychological illness than you, does not label transgender as a disorder or mental illness. Your view is based on nothing but your own assumptions. And now you are making even more wild claims.
Like I said, this is effectively gaslighting a chunk of the populace, and it will have negative results. Up to and including the suicide of people gaslighted. It is irrelevant what connotations mental illness has, and it is also irrelevant because it is not a mental illness. I will take a the Amercan Psychiatry Association's word on this over your ignorance.
Okay, first, you are correct.
Second, you are going about saying this very wrongly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc).
Looking more into the origins of genital dysphoria, it does not seem to be a mental illness at all. I was wrong. However, you need to find out what gaslighting actually means, because I was not doing that. Gaslighting refers to deliberately lying for abuse. It is not the same as not knowing any better. If I was gaslighting, I would have been fairly stupid to do it on a discussion which I did not know had any transgender people in it.
If I was as easily offended as you are I could pick up on your comment about things being "just" mental illness and how that could imply that these problems are not serious. However, I shall not pursue this path because I do not want to make things any worse than they already are.
Genital dysphoria and being transgender are not exactly the same thing. Transgender means changing gender identity, not necessarily the same as biological sex. Genital dysphoria is the condition of having genitals which do not match the person's sexual identity, and this may or may not be resolved by becoming transgender. Since dwarves do not have much of a concept of gender, I could more easily imagine them having genital dysphoria than changing gender identity, since this would have little effect on them.
Then on that basis I need to redefine what I think transgender means.
No, I am not going to make any comments or attacks on your psychological problems, that would be a cheap and unworthy move, not to mention plain bad argument (ad hominem is rarely a good idea). The only risk is that someone else will.
I still think that avoiding saying or doing something because it might offend someone is not a very good idea since out of the billions of people in the world there will usually be someone who will be upset about something. As long as I am not setting out of directly offend these people it is not my fault if they react badly to it.
Intersexuality has not really been mentioned here, but I would be happy to accept intersex dwarves in DF.
I still think that avoiding saying or doing something because it might offend someone is not a very good idea since out of the billions of people in the world there will usually be someone who will be upset about something. As long as I am not setting out of directly offend these people it is not my fault if they react badly to it.
This thread was a suggestion to implement gender non-conforming identities in a way that reflected reality.It wasn't even that, was it? It was just about adding gender-based societal rules, including but not particularly about things outside the male-female binary. So yeah, these derails are waaaaay out.
Tumblr, please go.This is the sort of thing that starts the derails in the first place. We have people coming in here and saying what amounts to "I don't want queers in this game". They get called out for it, and then try to convince everyone that what they said is justified, and that just digs the hole deeper. Not only does this derail threads, it also creates an atmosphere in which extremist bigots feel that they can harass others and spread hatred.
This thread was a suggestion to implement gender non-conforming identities in a way that reflected reality.It wasn't even that, was it? It was just about adding gender-based societal rules, including but not particularly about things outside the male-female binary. So yeah, these derails are waaaaay out.
I don't want queers in this game, either, and that's just as justified as someone who does want queers in the game. Fact of the matter remains that the queers are irrelevant. We're delving into a dangerous topic, and I'm trying to steer us out of it before someone gets banned.Tumblr, please go.This is the sort of thing that starts the derails in the first place. We have people coming in here and saying what amounts to "I don't want queers in this game". They get called out for it, and then try to convince everyone that what they said is justified, and that just digs the hole deeper. Not only does this derail threads, it also creates an atmosphere in which extremist bigots feel that they can harass others and spread hatred.
I don't want queers in this game, either, and that's just as justified as someone who does want queers in the game. Fact of the matter remains that the queers are irrelevant. We're delving into a dangerous topic, and I'm trying to steer us out of it before someone gets banned.Tumblr, please go.This is the sort of thing that starts the derails in the first place. We have people coming in here and saying what amounts to "I don't want queers in this game". They get called out for it, and then try to convince everyone that what they said is justified, and that just digs the hole deeper. Not only does this derail threads, it also creates an atmosphere in which extremist bigots feel that they can harass others and spread hatred.
It was a 4channer complaining about SJWs. (hope I don't get in trouble for explaining.) I mean he might not have been from 4chan, maybe Reddit or something, but he sounded 4channy.
I agree that there should be no gender roles for dwarves, since they have none. Humans should get something based on all the thousands of human societies that have existed, which is gender roles of some form with men doing most of the fighting and women doing most of the child care - the extent of this should vary, as it does from place to place. Elves and goblins can have whatever they want.
What was actually said in the deleted section? I did not see it before Toady removed it, though I am sure it was unworthy of this finely-crafted thread menacing with spikes of prejudice.
Making everybody asexual would result in no babies, unless all the males constantly ejaculated into the air like they did before the most recent update. Sexuality is an important feature for the gameplay as well as just being a background feature.I was referring to asexual biology, not behavior. Reproduction would still exist, but it wouldn't be dependent on the conception of gametes.
I seriously doubt that having 48 genders would be significantly more work than having 3. Modifiable frameworks tend to have that quality.You're probably right. Given the variety of materials, clothing, and Arms in the game, I wouldn't be surprised if Toady already plans to do something at least similar to what this thread proposes. Functionally, it's just a type social caste. Whether gender is involved or not, the system could have a lot of potential. There is also the issue of not being able to see what the castes are while you are playing. You would almost need some sort of culture profile fore each civilization, or you would have no idea what the roles and their characteristics are. I wouldn't mind having something like that as things are right now. It's hard to get a feel for the civilizations, even as you interact with them. You don't know what they wear, what they believe, or who their leaders, allies, and enemies are without doing a lot of legwork to examine and speak to dozens of citizens.
I seriously doubt that having 48 genders would be significantly more work than having 3. Modifiable frameworks tend to have that quality.
It was a 4channer complaining about SJWs. (hope I don't get in trouble for explaining.) I mean he might not have been from 4chan, maybe Reddit or something, but he sounded 4channy.
You shouldn't.
He might not have been "from" anywhere. That is also stereotyping.
We could combine this thread with the gelding one... that would give you a role with a procedure for dealing with gender!Are you thinking of something like the eunuch government officials in ancient China, or harem guards, or priests of Cybele?
I would honestly like to see two additions that are related to gender and/or sex:
1. Caste-related graphics, so you can display male/female dwarves differently.
2. Male/Female specific clothing. Shirts? Male & Female. Dress? Female. Codpiece? Male. This could be as easy as adding the specific tag to the item. Just add male, female or both tags.
I dont care for gender roles, as they add no gameplay value. As many know, I heavily focus on the game mechanics, less on the storytelling. ;)
I think just adding castes to the entity file would be easier. That way two different civs using the same creature can have completely different ideas on how to dress. A more flexible system would be putting the clothing (and permitted jobs and personality traits and so on) in the roles or stereotypes.I would honestly like to see two additions that are related to gender and/or sex:
1. Caste-related graphics, so you can display male/female dwarves differently.
2. Male/Female specific clothing. Shirts? Male & Female. Dress? Female. Codpiece? Male. This could be as easy as adding the specific tag to the item. Just add male, female or both tags.
I dont care for gender roles, as they add no gameplay value. As many know, I heavily focus on the game mechanics, less on the storytelling. ;)
Clothing by sex tag would be good, but caste-level clothing would be better, since the change would have more potential for modding. To make that work with custom castes etc, you need separate sets of tags on the clothing items and the castes, which match custom tokens (like the reaction products do). Ideally, there would be new tags on the ENTITY level, that go along with the allowed clothing tags, to specify category(s) for each piece of clothes, then, at the caste level, you have tags to allow or disallow each category of clothing.
Ignoring your earlier posts and choosing to take you seriously.
Here is the thing... It really differed not only from society to society but even within those societies themselves. What you described wasn't the norm, it is "Pop History" correct... but not factual.
I am not against Gender Roles in dwarf fortress especially since the game can just create entirely unique ones that do not have to match real life ones. Yet it should be something handled by the generator and not in some attempt to replicate popular forms of history.
Ignoring your earlier posts and choosing to take you seriously.
Here is the thing... It really differed not only from society to society but even within those societies themselves. What you described wasn't the norm, it is "Pop History" correct... but not factual.
I am not against Gender Roles in dwarf fortress especially since the game can just create entirely unique ones that do not have to match real life ones. Yet it should be something handled by the generator and not in some attempt to replicate popular forms of history.
Very well, then. Tell me what was correct. Give me the real story. I have already given examples of steppe armies being up to a third female at times due to everyone being trained to fight and mediaeval European wives taking over their husbands' businesses when they died. In many native American tribes, like the Navajo, women played prominent roles in government and property was inherited matrilineally. That does not change the fact that overall, in the most general case, armies were mostly men and carers were mostly women.
even gender specific clothing would drive me nuts. Ignoring the frustration of added gender roles, I'd have to make entirely different outfits for half my dwarves.Well, it could end up that fortresses just ignore stuff like that...
As long as robes and shoes remain unisex I don't even care. Streaker outfits all around!
We're dealing with a world where sexual dimorphism doesn't seem to be a thing for intelligent creatures other than when facial hair is concerned. Out of all societies likely to be made playable, only 1 is remotely human in terms of lifestyle.
I fail to see the rationale behind limiting possible gender roles to those that predominantly existed in history.
so either their names should be changed to "humanoids", "alleged humans" or something similar or they should have dimorphism like we know they do
even gender specific clothing would drive me nuts. Ignoring the frustration of added gender roles, I'd have to make entirely different outfits for half my dwarves.Micromanagement is indeed not fun. I guess it could be worked around by making dwarves at the moment not care and have the importance of preference (not even specifically clothing) matter more with the different embark options Toady has talked about.
Quoteso either their names should be changed to "humanoids", "alleged humans" or something similar or they should have dimorphism like we know they do
This is called a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Creating an either/or ultimatum which is just silly. There are examples of real societies where male and female wear the same clothes, and also examples where all tasks are assigned in a gender-neutral way. So you'd say Communist China in the Mao era (the Mao suit was gender neutral) or the Israeli Kibbutzim (all tasks assigned without regards to gender) are only "alleged" humans too?
A races of generic "humanoids" would obviously be worse than just calling them humans: goblins, elves, dwarves, giants etc are all humanoids. It would be even more hard for people comprehend than regular humans who lack gender roles.
And "alleged" humans would be even sillier. Who is alleging that they're humans? It makes no sense in-universe that other races only "allege" that they're humans. If they "allege" that this specific race are humans, where are the real ones? If they're the only race they know of who are called humans, they would just say "human" and that's what a human is, in that world. By that token, since elves aren't fully Tolkienesque they should also be "alleged elves".
Wow, I had not realized that 'gender roles' inside of a randomized game atmosphere was such a contested topic. I saw this thread yesterday, and had to fight the urge then to respond with "Chill out."
Some of you have clearly over-thought this idea, and are actually taking offense at it. To be honest, based on some of the responses that I read on the first page, I'm surprised that nobody is arguing we should get rid of the generated gods because that forces religion onto you (the player).
It doesn't matter if sexual dimorphism exists: what matters is how a particular culture comes to be, and how it is repeatedly re-enforced with each following generation. We're talking about a universe where there's actual angels and demons, immortality, and walking corpses, and people too stupid to realize that their king is a vampire. Or a minotaur.
One of my recent dwarf civilizations actually worshiped a male god whose sphere was fertility, pregnancy, birth, torture, and death (and I think also misery, or some other intensely negative word -- anyway, I blame him for the necromancy tower I had). It would not have been a stretch of the imagination for worshipers of this god to be complete chauvinistic asshats. The reverse would have been true for an earlier gen'd world where I had a pantheon of females lording over traditionally 'masculine' ideas.
Anyway. Point is, IF such a feature were implemented in a way that felt realistic, predictable, and consistent within a given world, I would not mind having it. It might even be fun to one day have this be a part of deeper cross-civilization interactions: perhaps a 'Male-Centric Civ' will refuse to honor a treaty with 'Neutral Civ' because it doesn't like that they don't care about gender roles, or a female-dominated bandit group may react aggressively towards male adventurers (as opposed to female ones). Just ideas.
And if it's not implemented? Oh well.
------
Re: Graknorke and specific clothing
I definitely think that an established fortress would care about what they're wearing. If you've got golden statues everywhere, you shouldn't be walking around in rags, right? I don't think micromanagement would be a big deal -- if there are no dresses for a gender that prefers dresses, then they'll just wear the next best thing, be that skirts or pants or loin clothes, and voice a complaint about it. Learning to manage this stuff is kinda up there with learning to manage how much food you have.
Quoteso either their names should be changed to "humanoids", "alleged humans" or something similar or they should have dimorphism like we know they do
This is called a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). Creating an either/or ultimatum which is just silly. There are examples of real societies where male and female wear the same clothes, and also examples where all tasks are assigned in a gender-neutral way. So you'd say Communist China in the Mao era (the Mao suit was gender neutral) or the Israeli Kibbutzim (all tasks assigned without regards to gender) are only "alleged" humans too?
A races of generic "humanoids" would obviously be worse than just calling them humans: goblins, elves, dwarves, giants etc are all humanoids. It would be even more hard for people comprehend than regular humans who lack gender roles.
And "alleged" humans would be even sillier. Who is alleging that they're humans? It makes no sense in-universe that other races only "allege" that they're humans. If they "allege" that this specific race are humans, where are the real ones? If they're the only race they know of who are called humans, they would just say "human" and that's what a human is, in that world. By that token, since elves aren't fully Tolkienesque they should also be "alleged elves".
You may have misunderstood me a little. I did not mean that humans should always have gender specific clothes, or that those should match ours - many men around the world wore kilts or tunics. What they do have is physical, biological dimorphism, and a discrepancy in strength. While modern societies like those you mentioned and others are moving away from sexism, in the primitive, grisly hellholes of DF, higher average male strength would lead to more patriarchal societies as a general rule. DF's humans are neither enlightened, progressive nor modern. As smeeprocket suggested, dimorphism may come from the harem societies of the apes that humans evolved from. A lack of dimorphism would mean different genes from humans as we know them - therefore, a different species of human like creatures.
dresses were foreign to one of my fortresses, what happens if robes and togas are foreign? Then you have to make outfits for two different castes. That's two separate articles of clothing for the guys. >.< (or women if it is random)
We should make women stronger and make them the ruling class. You know, for something different.
Nobody likes it when it's their gender being oppressed, though, even in video games.
People see what they're used to as normal. Does that surprise you?
We should make women stronger and make them the ruling class. You know, for something different.
Nobody likes it when it's their gender being oppressed, though, even in video games.
If matriarchal elves are the current system then I am very happy to accept it. Because they are elves, elves can do whatever they like on account of not having real examples that we can study, and I do not get angry at all at seeing males of fictional species in an inferior position, or real species if that reflects how things are.
Having queen goblins with male drones as their slave-soldiers would also be something I would be ready to accept.
But having human females stronger would be like having male hyenas stronger - just plain wrong, and we know it from a sample of 7 billion.
Getting back on topic, I am actually in favour of transgender and intersex dwarves, I just think that humans with no physical dimorphism should not be described as humans since they obviously have different sex chromosomes at least.
Men are not superior to women morally or intellectually. They are only really better at killing, maiming and smashing things, but in DF's orgy of horrors that is what matters a lot so patriarchy will prosper. As societies have become less violent they have also become more open to women's progress. See how the worst places for women are war zones and other barbarous places. But the whole of DF is a war zone and a barbarous place.
This is not just about dimorphism for humans, this is about dimorphism for all creatures that really have it. So stronger female hyenas, matriarchal elephants and bonobos just having a good old sexy time are also in.
I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
I disagree, inclusion is highly political and not everyone has the same perception of it as you do. Also, try to calm down, not everyone is out to get you.I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
I disagree, inclusion is highly political and not everyone has the same perception of it as you do. Also, try to calm down, not everyone is out to get you.I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
There is so much hostility and animosity towards women in gaming. Anytime I speak out about this stuff, I have to worry about some dude getting a stick up his ass and having me doxxed. I have to worry about rape and murder threats. All of us feminist gamers are scared shitless. We can't even stream without attracting the worst examples of humanity possible.
I have read the rest of the thread and I disagree with what you think. You are assuming way too much to call others prejudiced since you've already determined that I am white, straight and CiS by nothing but my disagreement with what inclusion is. Also I agreed with the idea, I only stated a problem with it which you obviously ignored.I disagree, inclusion is highly political and not everyone has the same perception of it as you do. Also, try to calm down, not everyone is out to get you.I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
you have apparently not read the rest of the thread. I am exhausted from this cyclical argument and have little patience for it now.
I don't care about perception. I, and others that are not like you and other white, straight, cis-gendered males, have just as much right to inclusion as you and it is not political. It is political for you because you are apathetic to the issue. The rest of us just want to feel like we are part of the game.
If we were to not include men in the game at all would you be okay with that? Or would you make a fuss?
I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
I'm sorry about the rape and murder threats, but I have no intention of sending you any and strongly disagree with them. I'm sorry about the doxxing fear, but I have no intention of doing that either. Nor do I have any intention of being pegged with a stick, unless it was very well lubricated. I even agree that the Assassin's Creed dev's excuse was a lame cop out.
I already said that men are only superior physically, and that should not matter in a civilised society. It does, but it should not. There is no divine right, just might makes right, and that is a rubbish system.
You are speaking to me as if I almost am one of those lowlifes who gets a hard-on by harassing women. I have no respect for them either. But the good news is that almost none of them ever do anything about it, because most of them are far too cowardly to risk actually physically attacking anyone. How many times have any of these sorry cases actually carrying through one of their threats? Very few, if ever. They are relying on empty threats to drive their targets away. But the way to win is not to treat those who are not part of that minority of male gamers as part of it.
Every single game? Have you not heard of Mass Effect?
I'm bisexual actually...
Please don't clump all of us["white, straight, cis-gendered males"] into one group. Please?I disagree, inclusion is highly political and not everyone has the same perception of it as you do. Also, try to calm down, not everyone is out to get you.I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
you have apparently not read the rest of the thread. I am exhausted from this cyclical argument and have little patience for it now.
I don't care about perception. I, and others that are not like you and other white, straight, cis-gendered males, have just as much right to inclusion as you and it is not political. It is political for you because you are apathetic to the issue. The rest of us just want to feel like we are part of the game.
If we were to not include men in the game at all would you be okay with that? Or would you make a fuss?
Please don't clump all of us["white, straight, cis-gendered males"] into one group. Please?I disagree, inclusion is highly political and not everyone has the same perception of it as you do. Also, try to calm down, not everyone is out to get you.I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
you have apparently not read the rest of the thread. I am exhausted from this cyclical argument and have little patience for it now.
I don't care about perception. I, and others that are not like you and other white, straight, cis-gendered males, have just as much right to inclusion as you and it is not political. It is political for you because you are apathetic to the issue. The rest of us just want to feel like we are part of the game.
If we were to not include men in the game at all would you be okay with that? Or would you make a fuss?
Humanity is a very diverse group of people and one set of characteristics does not make a person behave a certain way. To believe otherwise is to incite all sorts of flaws into your thinking process.
I'm mostly restraining from this discussion, but please tone down the stereotyping.
If you were not, I am deeply sorry.
OH LAWD NINJAS
I already told you that I do not care about elves' or even goblins' potential matriarchy. Even my dwarf mayor/baron is usually female, so my forts often count as matriarchies. But if any sort of dimorphism enters the game, by mod or update, humans must be included.
It's not just about me, it's about all the other male gamers that you are stereotyping and lumping in with the worst lot.
Let me know when RPGs actually start doing that, and I'll support them.Don't most? I mean the first RPG video games I think of are the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, neither of which affect stats based on the character's sex.
Stop this inductive nonsense. Just because you don't think or never seen a Trans person play this game doesn't mean this game is marginalizing or preventing them from playing it. I have introduced this game to many of my friends who are from nations you wouldn't know existed and they play the game like any other.Please don't clump all of us["white, straight, cis-gendered males"] into one group. Please?I disagree, inclusion is highly political and not everyone has the same perception of it as you do. Also, try to calm down, not everyone is out to get you.I don't believe people should push their identity politics into this game, especially "inclusion", which is very subjective. I do think however that this is a good idea to implement. One problem though is the number of people who will be non-binary pre-world generation and this can cause problems for the creation of new sites for civilizations who had less "breeders". Also, how will the gender of the people born during the world generation be determined? Its unrealistic to depend on random chance since majority of people are straight and cap for the number of non-binary people born will likely be arbitrary.
this game already has homosexuality. And inclusion isn't a politic. That's the problem, you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything.
The rest of us play the games too. You are going to have to start sharing. Get used to it.
you have apparently not read the rest of the thread. I am exhausted from this cyclical argument and have little patience for it now.
I don't care about perception. I, and others that are not like you and other white, straight, cis-gendered males, have just as much right to inclusion as you and it is not political. It is political for you because you are apathetic to the issue. The rest of us just want to feel like we are part of the game.
If we were to not include men in the game at all would you be okay with that? Or would you make a fuss?
Humanity is a very diverse group of people and one set of characteristics does not make a person behave a certain way. To believe otherwise is to incite all sorts of flaws into your thinking process.
I'm mostly restraining from this discussion, but please tone down the stereotyping.
If you were not, I am deeply sorry.
OH LAWD NINJAS
My point is, games appeal to that group almost in their entirety. It's not a statement on that particular group, but more on that groups advantages and privileges.
Let me know when RPGs actually start doing that, and I'll support them.Don't most? I mean the first RPG video games I think of are the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, neither of which affect stats based on the character's sex.
EDIT: Oh fuck all these ninjas.
You take what I'm saying personally.
You take what I'm saying personally.
You're the one making it personal when you say things like "you dudes see this as an inconvenienced on your divine right to be at the top of everything".
Female armour and clothing in most RPGs is stupid, I agree. But female player characters are NOT intrinsically different from males in their abilities in WoW or Skyrim as far as I know, unlike in COD or assassin's creed where they do not exist.
I see, all you can do is call me a troll when you are in the wrong. Dont ask anyone to take you seriously with that attitude.Let me know when RPGs actually start doing that, and I'll support them.Don't most? I mean the first RPG video games I think of are the Elder Scrolls and Fallout, neither of which affect stats based on the character's sex.
EDIT: Oh fuck all these ninjas.
no most overly sexualize their women, for starters. But if you look at earlier elder scrolls games, such as morrowind, if you go the house hlaalu route, you can purchase female slaves as wives for your men. And to get hortator, you have to purchase a dunmer female slave to marry the ashlander chieftain of one tribe. It's a very androcentric game.
Oblivion and Skyrim were better, tbh.
Fallout was also done by Bethesda, though it has a history of being neutral on this stuff. Including with sexuality.
The games you are listing are exceptional though, as well as general exceptions to the rule. If you look at most MMOs out there, the clothing, the proportions, everything about women is just demeaning. The entire thing is geared towards gamer males.
Not to mention the overwhelming majority of games that have a male protagonist. And even if you get a powerful female, they devolve into tears when the strong male lead shows up, suddenly unable to help themselves.
edit: just going to ignore the obvious troll account.
Urist, did you really reeeally use WoW as an example? Have you seen the female night elves?
edit: not to mention some of the sexist comments by devs. I got into a debate on an ESO forum about there that ended in a female telling me I was only feminist because I didn't have a man and she "felt sorry for me" christ.
http://comegetthavoodoo.blogspot.com/2014/06/rob-pardo-is-sexist-asshole.html
Because that group are their main consumers. You said women are almost half of gamers, but that is all games, including casual ones. For the titles you mentioned (COD/assassin's creed), men are still the main audience. It's consumer targeting.Basically this. It's a bullshit feedback loop fueled by money. One group buys a game > Marketing starts to put a larger amount of money to advertising to that group > that group buys the game more >Marketing puts an even larger amount of money to advertising to that group etc.
Even characters like Laura Croft and Samus have, in more recent times, be rewritten to be fragile victims that need the orders of men or mindlessly follow them.
Stuffed in the fridge? In some kind of Jeffrey Dahmer type incident, or for cryogenesis?
Again, haven't played the game...
None of these cases involve the female PC being blocked or hindered from doing things because of her gender. The game world being full of sexist arseholes does not mean the game is sexist. The stupid female "armour" does, but it does not directly affect the gameplay.
I'll admit that I don't play WoW, partly because of the stupid-looking gear, but it seems to me that gender does not block players from doing things. It is all in the portrayal.
but nasty rulers can keep their concubines because that's what nasty rulers do.
No, it doesn't prevent women from playing. It might stop them from enjoying it as much, but it doesn't stop them from playing.
If I took over WoW I would put all the female warriors into sensible armour like the men, and put more clothes on most people, but nasty rulers can keep their concubines because that's what nasty rulers do.
Stuffed in the fridge? In some kind of Jeffrey Dahmer type incident, or for cryogenesis?As in killed. It's a trope. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge)
Again, haven't played the game...
For a few examples of the shit I was referencing before, view into the spoiler.I always did wonder which shitty marketing firm advises that this is a good ad. Like, who is that actually going to get to buy their thing.
For a few examples of the shit I was referencing before, view into the spoiler.I always did wonder which shitty marketing firm advises that this is a good ad. Like, who is that actually going to get to buy their thing.
You, as a male (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that,) aren't really capable of understanding what is going to alienate or make women gamers feel unwelcome.Actually, it is possible. Not simple or easy, but also not impossible.
Hunh? Those dont operate on the Facebook game principle?
Free to P(l)ay?
I'm pretty sure it's Free-to-play, so the ads are in effect clickbait. It's bullshit, but if the forum has 300,000 posts, someone is playing it.For a few examples of the shit I was referencing before, view into the spoiler.I always did wonder which shitty marketing firm advises that this is a good ad. Like, who is that actually going to get to buy their thing.
Geez that must have been depressing.Hunh? Those dont operate on the Facebook game principle?
Free to P(l)ay?
Free to Play games can't run without money. Really, it's probably pay for perks, I used to be an admin for a mud like that, and people would drop upwards of $10k over a few years to get an edge on other people. It's addictive.
The only way it could really work would be if it's a kind of "hasn't killed you yet" reasoning. Kind of like:they were up for awhile and may still be up, so someone is buying into it.For a few examples of the shit I was referencing before, view into the spoiler.I always did wonder which shitty marketing firm advises that this is a good ad. Like, who is that actually going to get to buy their thing.
I'm pretty sure it's Free-to-play, so the ads are in effect clickbait. It's bullshit, but if the forum has 300,000 posts, someone is playing it.For a few examples of the shit I was referencing before, view into the spoiler.I always did wonder which shitty marketing firm advises that this is a good ad. Like, who is that actually going to get to buy their thing.
EDIT:Geez that must have been depressing.Hunh? Those dont operate on the Facebook game principle?
Free to P(l)ay?
Free to Play games can't run without money. Really, it's probably pay for perks, I used to be an admin for a mud like that, and people would drop upwards of $10k over a few years to get an edge on other people. It's addictive.
This thread has reached peak derail.I'd like to second this. I've read the entire thread, and there has been nothing that could be called "df suggestion" for the last 10 pages or so.
Requesting a lock as people can't seem to realize they aren't posting in General Discussion.
Stuffed in the fridge? In some kind of Jeffrey Dahmer type incident, or for cryogenesis?
Again, haven't played the game...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators
I think a lot of this is assumption and I wouldn't agree with it at all.Stuffed in the fridge? In some kind of Jeffrey Dahmer type incident, or for cryogenesis?
Again, haven't played the game...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators
And if you had the game the other way around: male PC being guided by a female NPC who is later killed off for the plot, you'd have people saying the female NPC was only there to serve the male player's needs, she's only a "helpful damsel" in distress who aids the player, not a character with her own free will or agency (she only ever thinks about what the male PC needs or should be doing, and relies 100% on him taking actions), and finally she's killed off to act as "character development" for the male PC (Anita Sarkeesian makes a specific point of this as Violence Against Women used as a plot point for male PC character development) . So it's all sexist against the female NPC. It's a very touchy issue, if you flip the genders you reverse all the arguments, and a female PC 'blindly" following after a male PC is clearly sexist against the PC not the NPC, if the male NPC gives directions on how to succeed, this is no longer subservient "helpful" behavior: it's dictatorial order-giving. If he needs her to do stuff for him or rescue him, he's a lazy asshole who can't help himself dictating that she get back in the kitchen and do the chores, etc etc.
If you're playing a woman with a male to rescue the argument goes "so she's doing it all for a man, how sexist, they're saying she has no 'self' and will do everything for a man" and the reverse (male rescuing a female) is "so it's about a guy doing it all for a woman, what is this? They're saying women can't help themselves and need a man to do it?" If two identical situations get interpreted by the same person so differently when the genders are reversed, there's no "they're saying", it's "you're saying" because those are your personal interpretations right there, not anyone else's.
I think a lot of this is assumption and I wouldn't agree with it at all.That's not quite clear whether you're saying it's all assumption on my part or assumption on the part of the people I'm citing? Because most of what I wrote was just relaying what established writers are saying. Since you say you don't agree with anything I said, I interpret that as you're saying I'm only assuming that people say all these things. That's not correct though since most of this is directly citing what established writers on the topic like Feminist Frequency say, and comparing it with what other people are saying about gender-flipped analogous situations in Metroid and Tomb Raider.
However, havning 2 dimensional characters to prop up theGame characters are mostly 2 dimensional, that's a problem by itself but not one that's quickly fixed by engineering inclusivity. Games tend to be 100% from the perspective of a single character, so it's just not a simple task of emulating "how movies do it" or "how books do it", since the design differences are non-trivial. Side characters can't have a lot of agency, because either you end up railroading the PC with dialogue that's not interactive (info dumps of character background), or that NPC more or less takes over the plot for a while (you need a lot of plot railroading to keep the high-agency NPC in the picture), or the NPC is off doing their own thing and not interacting with the PC (and therefore not really part of the game).
plot, who seem to many times be women, is a problem.
What if...there isn't a plot, but many? Life is like that, as are many stories - there is not 1 storyline that everything is in service of, so why should that be the case for games?There's a few plotless games. DF, for instance.
The number of female characters in itself does not denote sexism either. No one would expect any female characters on board a Cold War US Navy submarine, for example.
DF is hardly plotless. Minesweeper is though, last I checked.DF is certainly choose your own adventure, and the characters are essentially randomized. There isn't any definitive plot, but there are themes in which they form and revolve around.
QuoteI think a lot of this is assumption and I wouldn't agree with it at all.That's not quite clear whether you're saying it's all assumption on my part or assumption on the part of the people I'm citing? Because most of what I wrote was just relaying what established writers are saying. Since you say you don't agree with anything I said, I interpret that as you're saying I'm only assuming that people say all these things. That's not correct though since most of this is directly citing what established writers on the topic like Feminist Frequency say, and comparing it with what other people are saying about gender-flipped analogous situations in Metroid and Tomb Raider.However, havning 2 dimensional characters to prop up theGame characters are mostly 2 dimensional, that's a problem by itself but not one that's quickly fixed by engineering inclusivity. Games tend to be 100% from the perspective of a single character, so it's just not a simple task of emulating "how movies do it" or "how books do it", since the design differences are non-trivial. Side characters can't have a lot of agency, because either you end up railroading the PC with dialogue that's not interactive (info dumps of character background), or that NPC more or less takes over the plot for a while (you need a lot of plot railroading to keep the high-agency NPC in the picture), or the NPC is off doing their own thing and not interacting with the PC (and therefore not really part of the game).
plot, who seem to many times be women, is a problem.
Anyway, the general thing is that they complain that only 15% of game characters are female, now you're saying too many side characters are female too? It doesn't sound like there's a "win" condition here.
Wasn't Bayonetta supposed to be just that? A strong female character?
No, because Dwarf Fort is not a game. It was initially about Dwarf Fortress.
This debate has calmed down enough now to be fairly civil, with few obscenities and insults. There is little reason to stop it.
This thread isn't even about Dwarf Fort anymore.Fair enough
Please take your soapboxes somewhere else and let the thread die already.