| Author |
 Topic  |
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
 Posted - 09 Aug 2014 : 21:56:18
|
Technically, Roseweave is right. Oppression can only be performed by the dominating party. Racism worksthe same way. The minority party can hate the dominating party, can curse the ground they walk on,, but that is prejudice, not racism.
A group of queers can bully a cis, but that cis person is not oppressed, because they belong to the majority group. Only minority groups suffer from oppression because that is how oppression works.
Sorry if my descriptions offended anyone, but that is the best way I know how to describe it. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
 |
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2014 : 23:45:57
|
| On a very technical level CorellonsDevout, you are right. For some reason, someone have decided that per definition, a person belonging to a minority group can not discriminate against a majority group. Honestly, however, it's a bit silly. If two groups discriminate towards the other group in the same manner, and the only difference is the number of individuals in each group, they are guilty of the same form of discrimination/racism/oppression. The fact that we must label the acts of the two groups differently, despite that they are acting in the same manner, is somewhat...strange, in my view. Basically it's really just semantics. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1883 Posts |
Posted - 09 Aug 2014 : 23:56:20
|
NOPE. Sorry, Hammer is correct. Racism and oppression work both ways. I know this because I work in a field that sees it every.single.day.
op·pres·sion
noun
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control.
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
mental pressure or distress.
From Merriam Webster
1
a : unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses ESPECIALLY in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
2
: a sense of being weighed down in body or mind
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Emphasis on the word 'especially' is mine. I emphasized it because it does NOT mean 'only' just usually. Yes, oppression is USUALLY conducted by a those in power. Note that I do not say the majority as that is not always the case either.
Hammer of Moradin's points are valid (100% valid in my opinion). I'm not going to go into one of my little diatribes here as I've been staying way from this topic since it was first introduced. All I am going to say is this entire thread...all 10 pages of it...proves my point that the subject never should have been broached in pring.
And once again, so that certain folks here don't 'jump on me' for having that opinion. I'm not a hetero male.
Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
hammer of Moradin
Senior Scribe
USA
758 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 00:06:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
Technically, Roseweave is right. Oppression can only be performed by the dominating party. Racism worksthe same way. The minority party can hate the dominating party, can curse the ground they walk on,, but that is prejudice, not racism.
A group of queers can bully a cis, but that cis person is not oppressed, because they belong to the majority group. Only minority groups suffer from oppression because that is how oppression works.
Sorry if my descriptions offended anyone, but that is the best way I know how to describe it.
Roseweave is right, technically, in her example. However I am making the point that through all of the posts she makes it out like she cannot oppress anyone as a queer transwoman. I said as a person she can, because all people can oppress anyone else they have power over. In your example I think it can be argued that if the group is bullying a cis and the group in that situation is the one in power then, technically, they are oppressing if we are talking about active, continuous efforts to do so.
As far as racism goes, no. Just no. Anyone can be a racist. Even subminorities can be racist towards other subminorities in a minority group. Don't try to give racism another name because of circumstance or situations.
As for your descriptions, as long as they are descriptive and not oppressive it works for me. |
"Hurling himself upon his enemies, he terrified them with slaughter!"
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium
Candlekeep proverb: If a thing is said often enough, fools aplenty will believe it to be true. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 00:15:09
|
| That's why I said technically. A minority ethnic group can be "racist" towards the majority ethnic group, but on a [I]technical[I] level, it is prejudice, not racism. Can it have the sams results (hatred, bullying)? Of course, but it is [I] technically[I] not racism. The same applies to oppression. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 00:25:57
|
| Sadly enough I have to support CorellonsDevout on this issue. As I recall, the specific topic of racist behaviour by a minority group against members of a majority group, has been brought up in court here in Denmark, and the ruling in the case was that the minority group could not be guilty of racism towards members of the majority group, because they belonged to a minority group, which is in some extend subject to racist discrimination itself. |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 00:29:50
|
quote:
After reading most of your comments I can't help but feel oppressed, marginalized, and bullied, and I don't even fit in with 95% of the comments of your intended audience.
Your intended message is one I would fully support. Your method of delivery totally sucks. Therefore, message not received, and has probably turned a few people off to your message and your cause.
If you're saying this sort of stuff, then I'd say you're not that well educated at all. The whole "you're hurting your cause thing!" is a pretty common silencing/derailing tactic.
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-anger/
Also a number of arguments here are straight out of this one too -
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-retaliation/
(You have an Agenda/You're not a Team Player)
quote:
NOPE. Sorry, Hammer is correct. Racism and oppression work both ways. I know this because I work in a field that sees it every.single.day.
As opposed to someone who experiences oppression every single day.
quote:
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
A less privileged group cannot truly control the more privileged one.
quote:
However I am making the point that through all of the posts she makes it out like she cannot oppress anyone as a queer transwoman.
This is playing silly buggers here. I can be oppressive towards PoC for example or someone of a different sexual identity. Here the person I'm "oppressing" is quite clearly acting oppressively towards me.
quote:
As far as racism goes, no. Just no. Anyone can be a racist. Even subminorities can be racist towards other subminorities in a minority group. Don't try to give racism another name because of circumstance or situations.
You're acting like all forms of this "racism" are JUST AS BAD no matter where they're directed and who from with the "Don't try to give racism another name" thing as if we need to recognise it for what it is. But Racism, big proper Racism with a capital R Racism, is an institution. Not prejudice from black people to white people. It's an institution that keeps non-whites down. You can argue for anti-white racism for example in Japan where Japanese people are the insitution. But in general, White people tend to be the oppressors and benefit from racism and colonialism.
We don't really need to pay attention to anti-white "racism" because it generally only exists as an artefact of colonialism and white supremacism.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4694 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 01:21:15
|
Please moderators lock this scroll.
As far as I am concerned there is one human race. Hated, as to skin color, hair color, origins or orientation does exist, however non of this discussion has much to do with the Realms or even general discussion of D&D or role-playing. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
|
|
Jaynz
Acolyte
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 01:40:21
|
Yeah, I think it's time to lock this one. I'll give the admin/mods a cookie!
|
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 01:47:20
|
Roseweave. I realise that this entire topic is a "raw nerve" for you, and that you are emotionally speaking heavily invested in the topics we are debating here. As you've written, earlier, more or less directly, it's very difficult for you to keep your cool when debating this. However, it is a little tiring to listen to you telling people that they are engaging in silencing tactics, when people point out something that you should be smart enough to at least take under consideration, because here's the thing: If you want people to listen to you, take you seriously, and keep an open mind about what you are saying, then it is generally speaking not a good idea to get aggressive and/or offensive towards them. When you attack people, their minds go into defensive mode, and then they stop listning to what you are saying, and concentrate on defending themselves instead. The more aggressive or offensive, the less likely people are to pick up on anything but the attack.
Now, I agree with you that it is possible to use the tactics you mention, as a means of silencing or derailing a debate. But though that is possible, it is not necessarily the intention. The way you come across here, suggests to me that you have a tendency to go on "auto-pilot" whenever you read stuff like Hammer posted earlier, and which I post here. Unfortunately, as I interpret what you write, this also means that you don't stop to even considder whether or not Hammer might actually have a point in some of the stuff he's writhing. Maybe I misread what you intend to say, but in that case, the conclusion you should be drawing, is that if your audience is not getting your points, then you need to revise the means of delivery.
Now, as for what you write about the whole minorities can't be racist towards a majority group, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on that in practice, even if I believe that you are right on the technical level. As I wrote earlier, if two groups act in the same manner towards someone, they are guilty of the same behaviour, regardless of what you might then want to call it. Racism is an underlying belief in A) the existence of multiple races of humans, and B) that some races have an inherent higher value than another race, and based on that belief alone, a group of people can be judged as inferior by a racist party. No matter whether you belong to a minority group or a majority group, you can by this definition be a racist, if you believe in the two qualifiers I mention (even if the courts might disagree for some reason). Similarly a member of a minority group can be a bigot with regards to members of the majority group. To give you an example, considder a deeply religious person following a variant of their faith that preaches that true believers are superiour to all non-believers. If this individual belongs to the majority group in a country, said person would probably be considered "racist" (though "bigot" would probably be more correct). But if the same person belonged to a minority group, (s)he is suddenly labled differently.
And for the record, I have to agree that it is time to lock the thread. Though the debate is interesting enough, it's the wrong board for it. |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 02:01:27
|
Alright, I'm finally caught up with this thread. After reading everything, I decided that I wanted to make yet another post to address a few issues.
Issue 1: Population. According to the William's Institute, an organization that studies these things, the number of people in the United States that self-identify as LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) make up roughly 5% of the population. However, it should be noted that it's very hard to get an accurate estimate of how many LGBT people exist. Not only are there a lot of people out there still in the closet (yes, even today), the community is also much broader than just LGBT people. It doesn't include people such as those who are intersex, genderqueer, pansexual, asexual, etc. Entire groups of people are just not included in that data despite being members of the Queer community.
So, there are an estimated 5% of people in the United States who openly identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. How many people are five percent? Well, if you go by the population clock of the U.S. Census Website, as of this writing there are 15,931,017 LGBT people living in the United States right now.
How big is roughly 16 million people? We would be the 5th largest state in the United States, with a population greater than the state of Illinois. We're only roughly 3 million shy of being the 4th largest state, which is Florida.
If we were a nation we'd have a population greater than Denmark, Ireland, and Norway combined plus over half a million more people to spare.
Now, keep in mind that's just the LGBT people who are open and self-identify as LGBT. It's also just the people who live in the United States. If you assume that those who are LGBT make up 5% of the population universally across the entire world then we have a population of 359,219,810 world wide. That would make us the third largest country on earth, with nearly 41 million more people than the United States. The only nations who have more people would be China and India.
When compared to straight people we are indeed a minority, but when compared to other minority and cultural groups we make up a vast amount of people.
Issue 2: Visibility. A core argument being made by some who are upset about this is that the LGBT community, because we're a minority when compared to straight and cis-gender individuals, that it's somehow wrong to cater to us. That's like getting upset over the fact that WotC has a black character portrayed in the art, and complaining over it because the majority of people who play the game are white.
That's a ridiculous thing to say and think, but that's basically what some people are saying here as it relates to LGBT people. That because the majority of people who play the game are cis-gender and heterosexual, that resources and time should not be spent trying to broaden the customer base to other communities.
No one would label the portrayal of characters of color or the appropriate portrayal of females as "political correctness". Yet, somehow, merely acknowledging that LGBT people exist within the D&D Universe gets slapped with that label. Why?
Issue 3: Portrayal. Sadly, we haven't even talked about the portrayal of LGBT characters yet. That's because right now it seems that we're fighting just to make sure that it's officially acknowledged that LGBT characters can and do exist in the D&D Universe. That's a hellva long way from even actually openly portraying an honest, open, unashamed, and realistic LGBT character.
Realize where the argument is starting. The argument isn't starting over a particular character or anything of that sort. The argument is starting over the mere fact that it's acknowledged that LGBT people exist in the D&D Universe. This was something that was already assumed by pretty much everyone, and was just given official acknowledgement. Take a long moment and think about that, and how if the argument is starting here what it means for the visibility of people in the Queer community.
Issue 4: Presentation. The more and more I read the more and more I become convinced that the people who don't like it have not even bothered to read the passage in context. The passage is part of the "Sex" explanation where it's talking about the character generation. It could have written one of two things there. "Your character may be male or female." Or it could have written what was there. Those are really the only two options.
It makes perfect sense the way they handled it. WotC handled it appropriately. It isn't some random text just thrown in the book in some random location. It actually makes sense for them to write what they wrote, and to put it where they put it. I would challenge anyone who disagrees with that to read the section in question, and then write an alternative explanation for "Sex" as part of character generation.
There is a very good reason that the text in question happened to focus so heavily on biological sex and gender identity. This is why.
Issue 5: Invisibility. I would encourage every straight and cis-gender person reading this to step back and imagine something for a moment. Imagine the script on this conversation here being flipped. You're playing a game that overwhelmingly caters to LGBT people. You are the minority. The game developers make a short mention that straight and cis-gender characters do indeed exist in their universe, and you could play one if you'd like. Then LGBT people get offended over the mere fact that people like you are acknowledged to exist.
Would you not feel as if you were under attack? That the people having this discussion were trying to literally erase you from existence? Because, after all, the mere fact that you've been acknowledged is deemed "political correctness".
Perhaps even more importantly would you want to play a game where being LGBT was considered the "default"? A game where the majority of the characters were LGBT, the majority of NPC's were LGBT, and the majority of players were LGBT. Would you feel included there, even as all things referencing being straight and cis-gender were minimized to the point of being invisible? Or would you feel like an outsider?
Because that's the world that LGBT people live in both in the real world and virtually every fantasy world. Being straight and cis-gender is the default. It's the assumption. That's why it has to be stated explicitly that it is not the default, and that is why it stands out.
When I take several steps back it is often weird watching heterosexual people as a gay male. They are constantly awash in heterosexuality, and it's completely invisible to them. It's normalized to such a degree that it doesn't even seem to exist. You can't turn on the TV, listen to a song on the radio, read the news, play a game, or have a conversation without heterosexuality popping up in some form or another. It's always right there. And even to me, because I grew up in the same culture as straight people, I often don't even notice it. It's only because I'm different that I have to actually stop and think about it.
Because we are awash in heterosexuality all the time, it becomes all the more jarring when something that is non-heterosexual or cis-gender appears before us. We sit up and take notice.
So, when WotC mentions that we can play characters that step outside of the gender binary and that aren't straight we sit up and take notice. However, what if WotC had just wrote what they always have written? That you could play male or female characters... and then left it at that? How many people would have taken a moment to realize that you could actually choose to play MORE than that, and then wonder why the rules seemed to be so narrow and arbitrarily defined? Why not say that you can play those characters, but you also have the option to play more diverse characters as well? After all, as others have pointed out, even some who don't like it - this has always been true. Why not acknowledge it?
The reality is this should not be controversial. It should be common sense, and it should have been included since the very beginning of D&D. If there is any thing to be upset about, it's the fact that it's taken this long for it to be acknowledged that you can play a non-straight character or a character that doesn't fit neatly into the gender binary.
Issue 7: Sexualization. Perhaps one of the most offensive things written here, and there have been many is comparing being LGBT to BDSM and Furries. It's not offensive because something is wrong with BDSM or Furries - plenty of straight and LGBT people fall into those groups. There is nothing wrong with them.
No, it's offensive because it's devaluing same sex relationships. It's equating a relationship between two people of the same sex to a sexual fetish. This is done all the time to people, especially gay men. A gay relationship is viewed through the lens of sex by too many straight people.
It's like going up to a woman who has been in a relationship with her husband for 50 years, and cutting away the love, the commitment, the shared sacrifice, and the life they built together and reducing everything that they are down to how many times and in what way they had sex. It's an insult to them and it's an insult to their relationship.
Being gay is no different than being straight. It's a sexual orientation, not a sexual fetish. They are two very different things. It's not even an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like a comparison to apples to cows - they might have some things in common (for example you could eat both of them), but they are radically different things.
Issue 6: Equality. Why does any of this, especially a minor blurb in a gaming book even matter? Because LGBT people matter and we are still not recognized as equal in society. It matters because we have to have this discussion. If the world were different, and equality actually existed then we'd see this printed and it wouldn't even be worthy of mention. It would be expected. It would be, just like heterosexuality, completely normalized. What would be jarring to us would be if the book hadn't included this information, and it would be upsetting to everyone - gay, straight, trans, and cis-gender people alike.
What LGBT "advocates" want is social and legal equality. In order to get that equality, we cannot be invisible. This is one of the reasons coming out of the closet is so important, because the more we are seen, the more we are heard, the harder we are to ignore. Eventually, if we keep fighting long enough we will earn the same legal and social status as cis-gender heterosexuals.
We will become normalized like heterosexuals. That's really what all the fighting is about. Those who oppose equality don't want to see us, hear about us, know anything about us, for us to have equal rights, and they certainly do not consider us their equals. When we talk about something like marriage equality, our enemies are opposed to it not because they want to see us suffer unequally under the law. (Though no doubt some do, just as some would like us dead. However, the majority do not - at least in the United States.) They are opposed to marriage equality because they know that it's a stepping stone to being seen as equal to straights in society. It puts our relationships on equal footing to heterosexual relationships legally and socially.
This is a significant step toward normalization. This is something they're opposed to, because they don't see us as their equals. This is also why it's called the culture war.
A culture war arises when there are two opposing views in society that cannot be reconciled. Either you believe slavery is wrong, or you don't. There is no such thing as being half-slave and half-free. Either you believe women are equal to men or you do not. There is no such thing as half-equal. Either you believe that LGBT people are equal to straight cis-gender people or you do not. Once again, there is no such thing as half-equal.
It's a zero sum war. One side is going to win and the other is going to lose. There is no point at which you can compromise. LGBT people are not going to accept being less-than-equal, and those who truly oppose equality will never recognize it. This means one group or the other will ultimately face marginalization.
That is what they fear the most. As the tide ultimately turns toward seeing LGBT people as equal, you will see a cultural backlash against those who don't agree because straight and cis-gender people will start to identify with our struggle. Those who engage in bigotry will become the ones who are marginalized, pushed to the fringes of our society as a result of their bigoted beliefs. This is the inevitable result of -EVERY- culture war. And it will happen not at the hands of LGBT people, who are a minority, but at the hands of other straight and cis-gender people who identify with our struggle.
There is a reason that pro-slavery, pro-segregation, and anti-female equality individuals cannot operate so openly or as bold as they once could. Overt sexism and racism is condemned, and those who engage in it are socially punished. It wasn't always this way, as we all know. This doesn't mean sexism and racism are gone, of course, but overt sexism and racism is not what it once was because the culture has changed and shifted. It is no longer openly tolerated.
I do not wish for anyone, even the people who oppose me, to suffer as I have suffered. However, this is a zero sum war. There is only victory or defeat, and being a bigot is a choice. Being gay is not a choice. One can decide to not be a bigot, change their views, and be welcomed back into mainstream society. The LGBT person cannot change, their sexual orientation or gender identity is innate.
For me, personally, I am not fighting for myself. I'm fighting for those who are coming up behind me, and those who have yet to be born. I don't want for them to have to endure the things that I went through. I want to protect them, and ensure that they have better and easier lives than I did.
I know I will not live long enough to see true equality in our society. However, I may be lucky to live long enough to see full legal equality, and significant gains on the social front. When I finally die, it is my hope that those in my community in the generations that follow pick up the torch where I left it and continue the struggle. Eventually, some day, some future generation will be able to look back on our history and be able to enjoy a fair and equal world - a world that all of us were denied.
It's easy to get caught up in the big victories, such as the growing support for marriage equality. However, the culture war isn't won through those big victories. It's won through the millions upon millions of smaller individual battles. Battles just like this here, where we are simply acknowledged to exist. Those little battles - often seeming insignificant if viewed individually - eventually start to add up to massive social change. That's how we win.
We will know that we've won when being LGBT is as normalized as being heterosexual and cis-gender. It will attract as much notice and significance as someone who is left handed or who has red hair. You're different in some minor and insignificant way from the majority, but it isn't used to define you as a person. Everyone will see themselves as part of the same community, and the social division between straight and gay or cis and trans will fade away. People will not see themselves or feel separate, but instead be recognized and accepted as equal.
So, yes. WotC's acknowledgement of our existence matters. It matters in the context of the larger culture war that is constantly raging all around us. It may seem small on the surface, but that doesn't diminish it's importance. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 02:41:43
|
Well said, Aldrick. I apologize for saying the paragraph seemed random, for I indeed hadn't seen it in context. Now that you point out the context, it makes more sense. But even if it had been random, I still support WotC efforts. I volunteer at at resource center for LGBTQ youth, and we have a small library. It is -small-, in part because of lack of funds, but also because, well, LGBT literature isn't mainstream. I would love to see more novels featuring non-binary characters, and since the Realms is one of my favorite settings, I would be ecstatic to see novels featuring such characters.
If non-binary characters have always been in the Realms, then why not acknowledge them? After all, elven gods are often non-binary in their gender, and the elves depict them in both male and female forms (though they often have a "preferred" form). I don't think this thread needs to be taken down so much as it needs to return to talking about the Realms. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 02:43:40
|
^ wow that was amazing.
I kind of got negative feels about the "normalised" part though, because I don't want to be normal and I'm not sure I even want to be seen as normal. I want what's not normal to be seen as euqla in it's own right, the curiosly different to be valued as much as the familiar, albiet in a different way. |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 02:48:52
|
Also, can I point out one thing with regards locking the thread?
If you lock the thread now, it kind of means we can't continue to talk about LGBT representation in the Realms etc. because when a thread is locked, the assumption comes with it that we can't make a new similar thread for some time afterwards. Some issues are bigger than the sanctity of keeping an online messageboard relatively tame, and I have to point out that once you challenge the status quo - things will get heated. So policing heated discussion is effectively policing the marginalised.
So I'd rather this thread wasn't locked, especially after such an amazing post. I'd rather instead that those who are saying things which are dismissive of LGBT viewpoints be told by more than just myself that what they are doing is wrong and that they need to be more respectful of the marginalised and their upset when it comes to this issue. If that's done, there is no reason why we cannot continue this discussion. Punishing both sides equally by locking the thread when one side is alread punished by wider society for existing isn't really fair. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 02:52:38
|
I think Aldrick means "normalised" in the sense that it would mean someone wouldn't react to a non-binary character by going "omg, queer!" Correct me if I'm wrong, Aldrick. I think normalizing goes along the lines of acceptance. It's not normal in the sense of "blending in", as I don't really want to blend in, either  |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 03:13:47
|
| I know, but the problem is that maybe we shouldn't aspire to blend in because there's a worry that we'll conform to cis/heteronormative values. In queer culture we have different concepts for relationship models amongst other things and often a better understanding of things like consent. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 03:50:18
|
| Thus I don't really want to blend in, either. But have queer characters become more normal/common in mainstream lit would lead to acceptance. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Lilianviaten
Senior Scribe
489 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 05:18:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
I know, but the problem is that maybe we shouldn't aspire to blend in because there's a worry that we'll conform to cis/heteronormative values. In queer culture we have different concepts for relationship models amongst other things and often a better understanding of things like consent.
What do you mean by "heteronormative values"? I thought the points being made in this thread were geared toward explaining that gay relationships are in fact the same as straight relationships. And how do you arrive at the assertion that non-hetero relationships have a better understanding of "consent"? |
|
|
|
Aldrick
Senior Scribe
909 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 05:39:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roseweave
^ wow that was amazing.
I kind of got negative feels about the "normalised" part though, because I don't want to be normal and I'm not sure I even want to be seen as normal. I want what's not normal to be seen as euqla in it's own right, the curiosly different to be valued as much as the familiar, albiet in a different way.
I understand what you mean, and I agree. The truth of the matter is that we can't integrate directly with heteronormative society. That's an impossibility. The only way things work out is if we displace heteronormative values. This means that the values we hold become the dominant values - what is considered "normal" changes. Heterosexuality and the gender binary are no longer seen as the default.
For me, there is a litmus test to know when we've truly arrived and have been successful. That's the moment a self-identified heterosexual male can go to school in drag in a place like rural Mississippi. The test here is whether or not, as he is walking down the halls of his school, those who see him do not stop and gawk at him, judge him negatively, question his gender identity, or question his sexual orientation. When he can do this without shame, fear, or even the hint of anxiety, no one in society thinks twice about it - everyone seems to understand, and it's as controversial as having red hair or being left handed... then we know we've arrived.
It's because we know in that moment we've overcome every social obstacle before us. We've completely broken the back of heteronormativity and the gender binary. No one questions his sexuality, because being straight or gay isn't important in society. Every relationship is treated with equal value. No one questions his gender identity, because once he's told people that he identifies as male that's good enough. Further, it's proof that we've achieved true gender equality because a self-identified male can do something that we today regard as feminine without losing his status or value in the eyes of others.
Really, it's the struggle for gender equality and the destruction of the rigid gender binary that unites the entire Queer community, and also indirectly reaches out and pulls in people who identify as heterosexual and cis-gender as well. It's the reason that gay men and transwomen are the primary target for public attacks against the Queer community. It's also the reason that intersex people have their bodies mutilated to conform to what society deems as "normal".
For gay men and transwomen heteronormative society views us as men who have forsaken our status as men. Lesbians and transmen are viewed as women who aspire to the status of men. The type and methods of oppression we face is different. For lesbians and transmen it's about "reminding them of their place" and so we see horrible things like "corrective rape". For gay men and transwomen we face the most overt public attacks by our enemies because we're the ones who were born with male social privilege, and we willingly chose to walk away from it to embrace our authenticity. The male social power structure cannot sustain itself if men willingly turn their backs on it. It will collapse, and therefore those who seek to sustain it must fight against those who refuse to maintain it.
It's the same reason it's more acceptable for a girl to be a tomboy, than for a young boy to be regarded as feminine. A tomboy is more likely to be accepted, because she aspires to something society values (masculinity). The male child who happens to have some qualities that our culture regards as feminine (such as being sensitive)? Well... we all know how that goes.
There is a reason that being a straight man is basically defined culturally as follows: not being female and not being gay. This means that doing anything that girls do or like, or doing anything that gays do or like is forbidden. At least if you want to not have your straight guy status questioned.
It's in this way that the oppression aimed at us boomerangs back and hits the oppressors themselves. It means that straight guys can't have feelings, because those are for girls. They can't worry about what they wear. They can't have intimate and close relationships with other straight men where they can talk about how they really feel. They live in a world where they are judged for not being "normal" if they don't live up to the straight male standard.
In the context of this conversation regarding WotC, it means that if D&D begins to overtly cater to the LGBT community that some straight guys will start to feel uncomfortable. They will start to worry what others will say if it becomes known they are associated with a hobby that is overtly LGBT friendly. This is the root of the entire subtext of "chasing away straight gamers" - that's what it boils down too.
When straight men start to realize that our struggle for equality will also liberate them, and they start siding with us to break down the oppressive power structure of society... well... that's when it's going to collapse. That's how we win.
So when I speak of "normalization" I don't speak of integration in the sense that some people might imagine. I speak of the abolishment of harmful and oppressive heteronormative values (which oppress everyone) to be replaced with queer values (which liberates everyone to be themselves). It just isn't possible to fully integrate into mainstream society otherwise - it is impossible for the Queer community to live up to the standards of heteronormativity and the gender binary because our mere existence is a direct challenge to those values. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 06:20:58
|
| I like your description better than mine, Aldrick :) |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 09:45:12
|
Aldrik. I wish that this entire debate could have met that standard of presentation. Very nice and intelligent post(s).
Now, you mention a couple of things that I think originate in something I wrote earlier, and this prompts me to make the following comments.
quote:
Issue 2: Visibility. A core argument being made by some who are upset about this is that the LGBT community, because we're a minority when compared to straight and cis-gender individuals, that it's somehow wrong to cater to us. That's like getting upset over the fact that WotC has a black character portrayed in the art, and complaining over it because the majority of people who play the game are white.
That's a ridiculous thing to say and think, but that's basically what some people are saying here as it relates to LGBT people. That because the majority of people who play the game are cis-gender and heterosexual, that resources and time should not be spent trying to broaden the customer base to other communities.
No one would label the portrayal of characters of color or the appropriate portrayal of females as "political correctness". Yet, somehow, merely acknowledging that LGBT people exist within the D&D Universe gets slapped with that label. Why?
I can follow what you are saying, and in the light you are painting, it makes perfect sense. Now, what I was thinking of, when I wrote some of this stuff earlier on, was prompted by the fact that when I read the passage in question, it feels somewhat “tagged on” to me, because I have always assumed it to be naturally implied within the setting, even if it was not mentioned specifically, and thus to me it seems as needless to spell out, just as pointing out that people from various places in the Realms look different, like in our real world. Subsequent debate about this then makes it obvious that this is a big issue for the LGBT crowd, for various reasons explained at lengths elsewhere in this thread.
As for why I originally labelled it “political correctness”, I hope that I explained this part earlier on in the thread. I call it that because to me it feels fake and tagged on for reasons that are not grounded in Wizards actually wanting to support the LGBT community. I may well be wrong in this interpretation, but this is why I call it tag it as political correctness. Part of this comes back to the execution though. If it had simply been “naturally” implemented into the setting/NPC descriptions, I would have had a much better feel about it.
quote:
Issue 4: Presentation.
I’ll admit that I haven’t read the passage in context. I don’t have the book, so I don’t have anything but what is quoted to go on. Set in the context you describe, it is a natural place to put this section, if you want it in. Now, at this point I could launch into the question of physical biological gender vs. sexual orientation and how a person feels, because in my eyes there is a difference, and it’s easy for that to get somewhat complex pretty quickly, so I’ll refrain from going there at this point, and rather say that I have honestly always felt that the Sex/Gender descriptions in various games were sort of pointless, and could advantageously be ignored all together, which would allow people to interpret the matter based on the setting and NPC descriptions instead of through a superficial description.
quote:
Issue 5: Invisibility.
Good points Aldrik. Honestly I can’t say how I would feel playing such a game as you describe. Most likely the setting would be harder to identify with, but without having been there, I can’t really say for certain. I can say, however, that to me, the Realms have always been assumed to include members of the queer demographic. It’s never been controversial for me personally.
quote:
Issue 7: Sexualization. Perhaps one of the most offensive things written here, and there have been many is comparing being LGBT to BDSM and Furries. It's not offensive because something is wrong with BDSM or Furries - plenty of straight and LGBT people fall into those groups. There is nothing wrong with them.
.
.
.
Being gay is no different than being straight. It's a sexual orientation, not a sexual fetish. They are two very different things. It's not even an apples to oranges comparison. It's more like a comparison to apples to cows - they might have some things in common (for example you could eat both of them), but they are radically different things.
Now, what you write here is probably directly targeted at me, since I think I was the one who first wrote the stuff you are referring to. In short, I’m sorry that you and others have misunderstood what I was trying to say, because no. Sexual orientation is not a fetish, and you do not choose to be gay, any more than you choose how tall you are going to get, or the natural colour of your hair. When I mentioned Furries, BDSM, Alchoholics etc., it was from the perspective that I was talking about catering to a minority group, regardless of which one we talk about. I could just as well have picked any other group qualifier like red-haired, obese, or XYZ. It was not my intention for people to put anything into this, but obviously this intention failed. Again, sorry about that.
|
Edited by - Kyrel on 10 Aug 2014 09:48:51 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1883 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 13:08:43
|
I hate myself for allowing myself to get pulled back into this but...
Kyrel:
quote:
A core argument being made by some who are upset about this is that the LGBT community, because we're a minority when compared to straight and cis-gender individuals, that it's somehow wrong to cater to us. [b]That's like getting upset over the fact that WotC has a black character portrayed in the art, and complaining over it because the majority of people who play the game are white.[b]
Where in the DnD 'rules' does it say it's okay to play a black/white/asian/etc. character? The discussion as I see it is whether or not it was sensible for WotC to input their LGBTQ statement. Why was it necessary to include that statement and not make similar statements about other groups? Why is it necessary to make a statement about ANY group. No one needs permission to play a PC as they see fit (well the DM I suppose, but that's outside the bounds of WotCs conrol).
I actually fall into more than one 'minority' group...and I don't want to be catered to from any of those angles.
Do I want ALL people to be able to play the game in a safe and non-judgemental environment? Yes.
Do I think that officially run events put out by WotC or GenCon should enforce such rules? Yes, because it's a public event where folks should be safe...just like when they are in private.
But do I think the company needs to give ANY group a blurb of 'inclusion' (for any reason, really)? Nope, I don't
Because when you get down to it, if I'm an asshat gay-bashing, black-hating, misogynistic DM then the only people I'm going to play with are similarly minded asshats. Nothing WotC puts in writing will ever change that. Thus it wasn't necessary.
On the other side of that coin. If I'm an open-minded, accepting (of other people) genuine nice guy...whether I'm hetero or not...then I'm likely going to end up with similarly minded players (and I have, some of which are male but say they are female, for instance).
And I'll go back to what I said before. This one little 80-something word blurb has caused a ruckus here at CK...I can only imagine what else is going on beyond these hallowed walls. And it was all unnecessary.
Cheers. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 14:41:15
|
| Arcanamach. Your quote is from Aldric's earlier post though, not mine. Is your comment directed at me? Or should it have said Aldric (or someone else)? I ask because you and I are not going to get into any arguments over what you write here. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 16:43:07
|
| @Arcanamach: you are right in that those 82 words have become a Big Deal here in the Keep. You and others have made valid points about the inclusion of ethnicity, but orientation is different than race, and while the Realms is largely euro-centric, I will agree, they have based some of the lands off other cultures (though they don't focus as much on these places, and maybe they should give them more attention). But the novels and the setting have been hetero-normative (a man ans woman fall in love, you can play male or female). Now, with this "shout-out", Wizards is acknowledging the LGBT community, and making the Realms more open to them. Sure, gamers have been allowed to play whatever gender/orientation they want, but now it's a definite. |
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Roseweave
Learned Scribe
Ireland
212 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 16:49:44
|
^ yeah there's clearly a precedent for other ethnicities in the Realms and other settings whereas there has not been for sexualities. While the full answer is more complicated than that, this should be all you need.
I would like to see the Realms be less Eurocentric, but it also gets probelmatic when people try to write for other cultures and get it wrong. Writing what you know but still making effort to be inclusive makes the most sense, but we do eventually need to get other writers on board from other cultures to felsh out other parts of the D&D Multiverse. |
Edited by - Roseweave on 10 Aug 2014 16:51:32 |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1883 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 18:29:56
|
Kyrel: Sorry, 21 hours without sleep tends to make one a bit loopy. My comments would be directed to Aldrick, not you. Sorry for the mixup.
Btw, if my comments seemed argumentative they weren't meant to be. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
|
|
|
Kyrel
Learned Scribe
151 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 19:47:15
|
| No problem Arcana ;) I know the feeling. |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 22:31:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
@BEAST: the gods being difficult to understand doesn't mean more people should necessarily reject them. That's like saying any concept that is difficult to understand should be rejected.
If it can't be explained in a way that a commoner can understand, then it should be considered perfectly fine for a commoner to reject it. It's not right to expect a person to believe and support something, if you can't explain it to him/her in a way that he/she can understand. The failure or shortcoming is not in the commoner--it's in the explainer.
If you want acceptance of your idea, then win it, by sufficiently explaining it. Don't demand it, or threaten damnation/oblivion for not believing in it.
And don't be so quick to pooh-pooh away the notion of wholesale dismissal of un-understandable ideas. Much social progress has been made by letting go of things from the past that really just don't make much sense, upon serious contemplation and analysis. I'm talking about rejection of homophobia, as much as rejection of superstition/religion, here. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
BEAST
Master of Realmslore
USA
1714 Posts |
Posted - 10 Aug 2014 : 22:48:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by hammer of Moradin
Also, why can't there be atheists? Just because there are clerics doesn't mean most commoners have to believe their powers come from a god? To them they might equate the power with that of a mage. Even if they encounter the avatar of a deity they can still believe that it is just a powerful mortal, and some of the gods stat out that way, as mortals. I would think that with all of the magic present that there just might be a good number of atheists in the Realms.
Those are my thoughts, as well. Just because magic exists, doesn't mean that it must be seen as divine. Just because a certain magic-user says her magic came from a goddess, doesn't mean that her goddess must be seen as real. The reality of magic in the Realms does not necessarily mean the reality of the gods. That magic can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. And it should be.
As long as the gods hide behind their code of secrecy and indirect intervention, Realmsians ought to question them and posit mundane explanations for the goings-on across the kingdoms.
Let the gods step up, out into the light, if they want any more clear credit than that.
This all seems so obvious to me.
But the fact that I have to repeatedly point it out just goes to show that without little blurbs from the publisher like the one in the OP, many fans will jump to negative conclusions about minority POVs and/or lifestyles. The minority will be marginalized to the extent that many will presume and/or proclaim that they don't exist, or that it's really not possible for them to exist, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout
There are people in the Realms who don't pray to the gods or defy them (Nethril is a good example, as you pointed out), but they aren't necessarily "atheists" in the real world sense. Most Realmsians know the gods exist, even if they don't pay attention to them. Are there Realmsians who give the gods the middle finger? Yes, there are those who defy the gods. But they doesn't make them atheists.
I think you're misunderstanding what "atheist" means, CD. It only means "a person who subscribes to a way of thought/life/etc. that lacks or is without a god". It doesn't necessarily mean "one who rejects the existence of a god". That would be an outheist ("no-theist"). An atheist simply lives his/her life as if there were no god. Whether or not a god exists, is immaterial for such a person.
If you live your life based solely on the barter system, then you live a money-less life. It's not that you necessarily reject or deny that money exists. It's just that for you, money has no meaning or import.
That's what an atheist is, except dealing with gods, instead of money.
And so, as long as the gods primarily decide to stay out of people's lives, and to avoid helping people out in any tangible, discernible way, then it would seem to me that the most rational thing would be for the people to live their lives as if the gods were not real. If the gods don't do anything in your life, then for all intents and purposes they are not in your life. Thus, you essentially have a godless life.
And in time, some people might even develop the intellectual honesty to acknowledge exactly that. |
"'You don't know my history,' he said dryly."
--Drizzt Do'Urden (The Pirate King, Part 1: Chapter 2)
<"Comprehensive Chronology of R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms Works"> |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
I think WOTC entered the modern age
Topic Locked
