Well, at least BioWare's response is pretty awesome.
Printable View
Well, at least BioWare's response is pretty awesome.
Wow. I did love his response. I'd heard about the ridiculous complaint. I'm glad to see BioWare respond so.... beautifully. And still being all polite, too.
(Deleted, can't word this right without sounding stupid)
^: well, no one judges me when I do that. :smallwink: So don't worry so much, and it should come to you again when you've calmed down a bit.
Well, yeah. Worse things get said on the national news against non-straight individuals and non-male individuals. The guy even admitted he'd had it taken down a couple of times before because he had been moderated for crossing the lines they had over there and the first post he had was responding to all of the ways the community had been calling him out for it.
So, maybe if it seemed like more of the community supported and agreed with him rather than seeing him as A. silly, B. annoying, or C. a horrible bad man, then I'd see more reason to get angry at humanity for his actions, which as far as things go, just seem rather silly and weak and like others have already taken care of chastising him as much as he could be.
Maybe I missed something really inflammatory and vile that was said though, I dunno. What about it in particular makes you cringe or your blood boil?
It wasn't really something that made my blood boil, but it certainly made me cringe. Honestly, I think the response the designer gave pretty much sums up my problems with the post, especially considering the idea that there was a large percentage (which wasn't supported with anything but anecdote) of Straight Male Gamers, and therefore there shouldn't be any (as far as I could tell from the post) gay characters in the game.
Mostly, I happen to like videogames, and for the most part, the player base seems to be not very prejudiced, or at least I don't often see cases of very visible antagonism towards LGBT people, or others in general. Maybe that is just me.
The idea that someone is actively angry because a game added an LGBT option (although they still left out having transgendered characters :smallsigh:) is just really confusing/idiotic. I also kind of react to all prejudice displayed towards LGBT and other groups in this way, though. *shrug*
Dragon Age allowed you to sleep with some T whores, IIRC.
A cross dressing character, a character that has had magic permanently change themselves.
Dissimilar to transgenderism, but characters that try to shed characteristics usually associated with their gender, cross dressing still being similar to this. Exploring areas of gender in general.
This is rarely, if ever, done in video games, something that I at least have never seen. Which is a real disappointment.
Were the "whores" explained and given context within the culture?
Dragon Age sounds fun, I should try it.
Dang. I love studies of "unusual" sexuality and gender in fantasy societies.
I don't mind anything. I think I had that same sort of reaction, before I really got to know someone who actually was transgendered well enough to actually learn about them as a person.
I honestly don't think either is explored very well, although I must commend on Dragon Age for trying, although I haven't had the chance to play it.
Dragon age irritated me because the female romance options (1 exception) were all nice but the male romance options (1 exception) were all jerks.
I wanted a gay option who wasn't a complete bleepity-bleep, durnit!
I think perhaps I should finish wrapping my head around the existence of dresses before I start thinking specifically about men in them. :smallsigh: I understand them sometimes, but then it slips out of my grasp for a bit...
I'm pretty sure one guy I knew looked good in a dress, but I can't remember it for some reason. :smallfrown:
Are transgendered individuals particularly good at making gender seem less weird? I imagine they might have a bit of insight into it...
Well that is unfortunate. :smallfrown:
There was a MtF transgendered student at my school (graduated last year :smallfrown:) who wore a tutu every day (pre-op). She was so awesome.
Well, for me at least, gender will always be kind of weird. I still don't get my own gender fully (to the extent that I would like to). Talking to transgendered people, for me, was more about getting used to transgendered people as a whole, rather than learning about gender in and of itself. The concept, similar to bisexuality, is something I can't really wrap my head around, so I like talking to people who are trans/bi so that I can understand where they come from, and understand their context. Mostly, I just haven't had a conversation with someone who is transgender that really dealt with that topic, as fascinating as it is.
Although, I am sure there are people on this forum who are transgendered and who might help explain this, if we feed them enough cookies. :smallwink::smallsmile:
Cookies solve all problems.
Mmm....cookies. Wait, they are for other people. Yes.
I wonder if I ever wore a tutu when I did ballet ... I think I wore a leotard more, but it was a while ago and I was young indeed. Hard to know. :smallsigh: Bizarre clothes. I commend her ability to figure them out and enjoy them.
Well... I aknowledge that your arguement has some validity. In the same way that regardless of what your name is, I have the "right" to call you Ronald, Bob, or Sasha as I see fit. But doing so is disrespectful and even qualifies as verbal harassment. Exactly like with transfolk. You can address them as whatever gender you want, but to consistantly and intentionally use the wrong one is a form of abuse. Generally, most pansexuals don't raise too much of a fuss about what you call them (as in most accept the term bisexual just fine) - I'm only making a fuss right now because I'm trying to raise some awareness on this forum since it seems to be a topic of rather frequent debate (which is rather reminiscent of some debates about bisexuality that I recall).
I'm not suggesting that everyone who calls themselves bisexual reassess if they fit the term pansexual and start using it if they fit the definition. All I would like for people to understand is that some people choose to use this term, it is growing in acceptance and understanding (just like the term bisexuality before it), some people find it useful, and that those of us who do utilize it have as much right to our own term as everyone else.
Flea from Chrono Trigger and Birdo from Super Mario Brothers 2 come to mind. Although I'm not sure either are particularly wonderful examples. Flea happens to be a character I'm rather fond of (regardless of their gender).
Errr... I don't usually accept the label "trans" for myself, but if there are cookies being offered I can admit to it for long enough to grab some. :smallcool:
Most transfolk are actually trying to reinforce certain gender stereotypes, so I don't feel that they really help much with making gender seem less weird or helping understand it much better. If anything they just emphasize the differences between male and female and make gender seem more strange. Genderqueer individuals seem to have a bit more insight into gender since they are more likely to have explored concepts about both and rejected the traditional binary.
I know that Birdo didn't get translated into the English at all, which is... understandable, if disappointing.
Paper Mario: Thousand Year Door apparently has two transgendered characters in it, though I haven't actually played it enough to encounter either (:smallfrown: dumb memory card requirement): Birdo (requesting to be called Birdetta) and Vivian (the latter is only transgendered in the Japanese version, though).
Wouldn't a more accurate analogy be people insisting on saying that I study "social sciences" instead of "EU-studies and communication" which I actually do. There's no ill meaning, it's just the easier word, and for most laymen the finer differences don't matter (whether we talk about studying or sexuality).
Of course, sexuality is a more personal subject and it's thus easier to take it personally when people don't bother to learn and remember the details.
But let's be fair... It's practically impossible to know everything about everything. So we're all selective (aka lazy) about stuff that doesn't concern us directly :smalltongue:
I'm not trying to disregard your point, I really think we should have more education on as many subjects as possible - especially those that have emotional impact. I just think "harassment" is a little too strong for something that doesn't seem to be caused by ill will.
Now that's just unfair and a gross mischaracterization of what has been said both this time and the times before this that the question of the difference between the two was brought up. The delineation between pan and bi is blurred and legitimate confusion results from it, so it is most definitely NOT the same thing as saying all bi people are just gay people in the middle of a transition phase.
And if you were referring to something else then you need to spell it out clearly because that's the only reference I can find that you could be making here with the language you used.
That does contribute to the problem of having it in a game without painting it as freakish. If they're being treated seriously, generally they're either passing successfully and so the player won't know unless it gets attention called to it which is almost impossible to do non-gratuitously just as it is IRL, or they're trying to and failing in a manner that'll either just be uncomfortable to watch and raise questions about why it distracted from the main plot or be uncomfortable because it'll look like they were trying to play it for laughs... and likely failing. And if they look like they're succeeding in such. :smallsigh:
I do think you make a good point here about harassment being too strong for something that isn't caused by ill will. I may have mistaken the comment I was responding to as sounding more like "I refuse to aknowledge pansexuality (or any non-standard sexual orientation) as a valid term at all" rather than "sometimes it seems like too much effort to remember/make a point of the difference since I am almost never in situations where the distinction matters." I have an issue with the former attitude and while I don't feel the latter is always a great attitude, I can certainly understand why someone might not feel it concerns, especially someone who feels they fit clearly in the traditional gender binary and has no special interest in those of us who don't fit so well.
Like my pronoun, I generally don't make a big fuss about it except in situations where it would be important to make the distinction (or to stand up for my beliefs). As in if someone cute and intersex or genderqueer is present I would care a lot more to let them know I'm pan than otherwise.
EDIT:
Well, I would like to note that memories are quite subjective, so I may be seeing similarities where other people see none (and I will admit that my point of view is quite possibly wrong). To me it feels the same to read these debates about pansexuality as it did to read or listen to people debate the legitimacy of bisexuality back when the term bi was not yet mainstream. The main difference being that back then I didn't feel as much of a social obligation as I do now. The issues between then and now are definitely not the same, but the overall pattern looks similar from my perspective.
I do feel that there was a lot of confusion of if bi was distinct from gay back before it became more commonly accepted. Plus, given that sexuality is more of a spectrum, there is some degree of blurring along the edges of bi and gay/straight. Now the difference between bi and pan might be blurrier and matter less to most people, but pansexual is still a rather newish word by comparison and I don't think there has been enough time and recognition for the word to be definitively distinct in people's minds. There is a potential for there to be a distinction, however, and time will tell if there is one. Until such a time as the word pansexual either has wider recognition or has gone out of style, we won't know for absolute certain, but I think that given there seems to be an expansion in terms to describe sexualities we should err on the side of caution and work on accepting it now (and if it disappears, then so be it).
Pretend that Morrigan is a particularly successful transexual - she is magic, after all :smallwink:
That is a great response. Possibly the best explanation of Male Priviledge(argh! Sp?) I've ever read, too.
I don't believe that pansexuality is not a valid term, I just don't believe that it is meaningfully different to bisexuality. If someone wants to be called pansexual, I'll probably call them pansexual (unless I really don't like them, in which case I'll probably go out of my way to annoy them if I talk to them at all, for better or worse), but if they call themselves pansexual because they're "attracted to people, not genitalia" or similar - which, yes, they are entitled to do - then I will probably consider them pretentious and condescending to those people they consider bisexuals, as I am entitled to do.
Serpentine: It's privilege.
It is very easy to explain the general differences of type between a bisexual, a homosexual, and a heterosexual. As has been shown through the course of the last half a dozen times this has come up, it is difficult to explain the differences of type between pan and bi. So it feels like there's something you're still not saying.
I thought this was rather good too.
Well, both the Intersex Rights and Genderqueer movements are realitively young, but I think as time progresses and they become more prevailent that it may be that bisexuality and pansexuality have more of an obvious difference - although maybe not. Still, as it currently stands, I like that someone can say they're pansexual and I can go "Awww, what a sweet person - they've thought about people like me and want me to know that they'll accept me. How considerate!" - which makes there be a meaningful difference for me.
Anyways, I should feel that I ought to add that I don't really think anyone on this forum is likely to be the kind of person who is completely dismissive of a person's choice of how to discribe their sexuality and I hope nobody has taken offence at my feelings towards people who lack such respect.
If the only distinction is "potential", doesn't that simply mean there is no distinction? :smallconfused:
Well, I would say that there currently is a distinction (which I have tried to define below), but it is one that is potentially not needed. However, it hasn't been made entirely clear yet that it isn't needed. It may also end up that the distinction will become more significant in time or that the word pansexual ends up replacing the term bisexual. I can't predict how language is going to evolve in the next decades so I prefer to avoid speaking in absolutes.
I'll try to clarify the difference then: as I understand it, the difference is that the pansexual is specifically saying that they have thought about people who reject or do not fit the binary gender system and wishes to make it known that they are accepting of non-standard gender variations.
This is not to say that bisexuals cannot accept the gender-variant or haven't thought about it - they just aren't making it known that they have thought about it. Which is why you end up with people switching between saying they're bi (so people that this distinction doesn't matter are more likely to understand) or pan (either so people ask questions or to try and make gender varient folk more comfortable) in different situations.
Also, as a caveat: most of the pansexual folk I know are or are involved with people who are or feel orphaned by the binary gender system; I do not know if other people using the term use it the same way as the pansexuals I know, but it does seem to be the intention behind the word to make gender varient people feel more comfortable.
That particular definition, as I've said, I don't have a problem with. I don't think it's either fair nor correct to say that "bisexual" necessarily suggests that it is limited to those who fit into the sexual/gender binary, but I acknowledge that in that regard "pansexual" is a more accurate term and thus possibly useful as a replacement for "bisexual". But that makes it a semantic difference - significant in terms of terminology, but not in categorisation. It's changing the name of Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus, not giving it a whole new genus.
All this talk of pan- this and pan- that is making me really want a pan-galactic gargle blaster.
Bisexual = attracted to two genders (hence the "bi").
Pansexual = attracted to two genders PLUS everything beyond and in between.
Granted, the difference is not significant to a huge amount of people (how many, statistically, are T? Wiki says 0.001%).
That's why I previously said the terms are differentiated by details.
But that detail is pretty significant to at least 0.001% of the population.
I've spent about 2 or 3 pages explaining, in part, why that definition doesn't cut it for me, including the bit you quoted.