The most resilient gender conventions in roleplaying games?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cealocanth

It's weird, actually, that when you find the need for an escort, every player at that table will pretty much instinctively point to that particular female player, even if an equally charismatic male character is available. I think there's probably some underlying thing in our society which is more willing to accept females as seductresses then males as seducers. This is probably why succubi tend to outnumber incubi 10 to 1.

---

This is the result of stereotypes and political correctness cutting both ways. A male seducer is a creep, skeevy, evil, malign, and horribly abusing his female victims. While the female seductress can be evil and manipulative and cruel, she doesn't have to be and is not so, inherently. Moreover, the stereotype nowadays is that men won't - and often almost can't - say "no" to an offer of sex. Socially, in fiction especially, it's expected that men are willing, eager, and actively seeking sexual encounters with women. For a seductress to act on a man, he must resist his carnal nature and usually must have a strong reason to say "no," such as a committed girlfriend/wife, an unusually (and often "quaintly") moral objection, feel that he shouldn't take advantage of this girl (despite her being the seductress), or knowing that he's doing a job that he should not betray for sex.

And it will be portrayed as a challenge for him to resist.

The stereotype is that women are not interested, at best, and often are offended at the offer/request for sexual engagement. Sex is an imposition men put upon them. The male seducer thus is portrayed as having an uphill battle AND as being a creep, because he's the used car salesman trying to sell her something she doesn't want for his own selfish gratification.


Therefore, it will be very rare to see the party turn to the charismatic male to seduce the female guard. It's "expected" to be harder to achieve, and it's socially more of a black mark, ironically, because while the male ladies' man having dozens of "conquests" in his off-screen background is fine and dandy and a woman behaving similarly is considered far less kindly, the actual act of encouraging a potentially initially unwilling partner is slimy when done by the evil predatory man, and merely taking advantage of the base nature of the target when done by the woman.


As for "sexual preference..."

Absent evidence to the contrary, the odds are VERY VERY HIGH that a given target is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. AT least, if ratios are similar to the real world's, rather than TVland's (where nearly every modern ensemble of at least 6 members has at least 1 if not 2 gay or bi individuals). In reality, the numbers are below 3% for all of homosexual and bisexual and asexual individuals combined. Of course, if you want to have a higher ratio for your setting, that's fine and dandy, but don't hold it up as a silly assumption before making it clear your ratios of homosexual-only people are higher in your fictional setting. (Because even if lots of people are bi-, bi-sexual people will be attracted regardless of your choice, so choosing the opposite sex won't hurt.)

(If you disagree with my numbers, you can look things up yourself. IF you find evidence you find compelling that I'm wrong, I don't really care to argue it with you; it simply means you should let your audience know what to expect if you expect them to change their behavior and choices regarding how they approach such problems as whether to seduce a guard of a given sex or not.)


I think, though, the first point's the biggest reason: it's assumed that sex is an inducement for men, but not for women. Therefore, seducing the male with the female is "likely to work" if she's able to convince him to give in to his baser nature. Seducing the female with the male requires convincing her not to "give in," but to overcome her "natural" aversion to the act in the first place.

i.e., from a stereotype perspective, seducing a female with a male is like trying to bribe her by asking her to pay the briber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naanomi

Exception: War Goddesses exist when the whole pantheon is female.

---

In Mystara, Vanya, Patroness of War and Conquerers, is female. There are plenty of male Immortals in that setting. There are some war-crazed male Immortals as well, but the biggest and most war-like (without bringing other racial or cultural politics into it) is Vanya.
On a tangent, Valerias of the same setting is known as the Girder-on of Weapons, not because she's particularly warlike but because she will often appear to some poor sod and give him weapons and armor so he can run off and save his beloved who has been kidnapped/forced to marry someone s/he doesn't like etc.

Worth noting: Most villainous NPCs are male for the same reason most Heroic NPCs are male.

Societal Default.

A Goblin Fighter or an Human Wizard, alignment set aside, are generally presumed to be male. We add the addendum that a character is female as a descriptive element aside from the accepted default.

Similarly, we default to White and Heterosexual in the US. Any black character must be defined by their blackness.

As far as seducing the guard: Political Correctness does not assume or paint men as being controlled by their groin. That is the standard chauvinistic excuse for sexual harrassment or infidelity which is meant to excuse a guy's behavior.

As for men doing the seducing, I'll point you to Zorro, Baron Munchausen, The Scarlet Pimpernel, Jack Sparrow, Don Juan, and a thousand other popular depictions of male seducers buckling more than swashes!

The reasons men don't seduce guards are above. Assumed male gender and assumed heterosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

In any home-brew and often in official published works matriarchal society males are at best serfs, slaves most often, and rest of the time killed on sight and/or food.

---

Neither the Realm nor the Glorious Principality of An-Teng conform to this, thankfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

The PC halfling is a male rogue. Important NPC halflings who are not rogues are female.

---

Last game of mine that had halflings in it at all, this wasn't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

PCs never have to rescue a prince from a dragon.

---

Guilty, but I did make an adventure where the PCs need to rescue a dragon from a princess. :smallamused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

In taverns, the bartender is always male. The PCs are always served by a waitress, never a waiter. The owner, if not the bartender, is male.

---

The PCs of my seafaring game have been to two taverns and two inns: one tavern had a male bartender, the other a female bartender, and both were owned by women; both inns were run by men, but one was owned by a man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

It's never a War goddess or Love god. A goddess can have War in her portfolio and a god have Love, but it's not what what they're generally known for.

---

I'll notify Cupid immediately.

Also the Exalted setting has gods and goddesses of war, ranging from Ahlat (god of southern warfare and cattle) to Siakal (goddess of western warfare and sharks) to the Maiden of Battles herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

Why, yes, I do take special notice of these things. Why do you ask?

---

Don't quit your day job. :smallamused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

The female PC with the highest charisma is almost always volunteered to seduce the guard, regardless of sexual orientation or willingness to do so. Assuming there are multiple girls at the table. Otherwise the only one gets volunteered.

---

Honestly never had the PCs try and seduce information out of a guard, so I don't have an answer for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Transgender Female NPCs are almost invariably sex workers or villains. And almost always the butt of **** jokes.

---

In the Exalted setting, the city of Chiaroscuro has the Dereth; Dereth will be doing the same thing other people of their gender do, so there would reasonably be a few female Dereth sex workers (and male ones), but more likely you'll come across a Dereth woman that runs a teahouse, or manages a household, et cetera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Transgender Male NPCs don't exist.

---

In addition to the Dereth, the Exalted setting also has the Tya, transmen who ritually scar themselves and sail the western ocean.

It might also make you happy to know that of the iconic characters of the new edition, one is transgendered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Bisexual Male NPCcs are villains.

---

My seafaring game is thankfully an exception; the thunderbird who gave the Storm King his magical cudgel has yet to grow a black goatee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pex

goddess of the Hunt, not War, and also not an RPG published or home-brew convention. Athena was who I was referring about having the portfolio of War but not generally being known by it. She's more the goddess of Wisdom.

---

Actually using the Greek Pantheon isn't that common, but they're in Deities and Demigods.

Egyptian (and next but a way behind; Norse) deities are the most likely to be lifted straight from the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Bisexual Female NPCs are player love interests who often betray them.

---

Rogues and thieves are more sexually fluid than Paladins.

We're relying on published works for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segev

you should let your audience know what to expect if you expect them to change their behavior and choices regarding how they approach such problems as whether to seduce a guard of a given sex or not.)

---

'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Closet_Skeleton

Rogues and thieves are more sexually fluid than Paladins.

---

I'm a proud owner of a sexually fluid paladin then (who also happens to be bisexual) :smalltongue:

Bisexuality isn't sexual fluidity. It's as solid a sexuality as heterosexuality. There are sex fluid individuals who shift through attraction to different genders, of course. But Bi? Solid as any other.

Basically all of my characters are bi, regardless of alignment or class... though that does bring up an interesting thought for a second thread...

Most barbarians are male.

The only female barbarian I can think of off-hand is Red Sonja.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'

---

This is actually wise to note. You may or may not be amazed by how many players would assume that NPCs (and their PC) are not going to be as easily seduced by the wrong sex as they are by the right one.

Not only is there the "dude, I'm not gay" default reaction as a blanket dismissal of attempts at seduction by the same sex, but it's a strong trope for the seductress (or seductor; this one is almost as common for the cassanova or cassanova-wannabe as it is for the femme fatale) to be failing miserably, reacting with a "this is just so wrong; I know I'm good at this so why isn't it working?" attitude, only for the target to turn out to be gay. It's usually played for laughs at the expense of the seductor who is portrayed as foolish for having assumed the wrong orientation of their target. (I think I've seen it at least played once such that, when the seductress realized the problem, revealed she was a shapeshifter and became the correct sex to try again...and succeeded.)

So saying "Charisma does it, with sexual orientation having no bearing on it" is in all honesty mechanically stating that all characters are bisexual in your setting, whether they want to be or not. They may identify otherwise, of course. But they're probably just lying to themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

I'm a proud owner of a sexually fluid paladin then (who also happens to be bisexual) :smalltongue:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Bisexuality isn't sexual fluidity. It's as solid a sexuality as heterosexuality. There are sex fluid individuals who shift through attraction to different genders, of course. But Bi? Solid as any other.

---

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I appreciate the difference. "I like chocolate ice cream today; yesterday I liked mint, but I don't feel like it today," seems the extent of it as I've heard it portrayed. That sounds a lot like "bi" but with a mood-based preference.

This is likely my own bias, but the only way I've seen it portrayed that I can wrap my head around it is when there's an honest-to-goodness physiological change involved. "When I'm in dog-form, raw meat tastes amazing," says a were-wolf who, in human form, insists on things well-done. "When I'm in rabbit-form, I actually love fresh vegetables," says the 7-year-old were-bunny who can't stand veggies in human kid-form; "Mommy makes me transform every night before bed so I'll eat them for dessert." Thus, the person whose physical gender is honestly fluid might be straight 100% of the time, and "gender-fluid" because when male he likes girls, and when female she likes boys.

Without an honest physiological change, I find it hard to buy that it's more than a change of taste and mood. (Of course, "turning gay" or "discovering you're gay" plotlines often are portrayed this way. I'm not sure, come to think of it, I've seen a plotline where a gay character suddenly discovered (s)he was straight and never went back, though the reverse is not at all uncommon.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurkmoar

Most barbarians are male.

The only female barbarian I can think of off-hand is Red Sonja.

---

The Iconic Barbarian in Pathfinder is female and actually wears clothes (baring midriff), and the barbarian in my current party is female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

'Everyone, seduction works purely on Charisma rolls, not on male or female stuff. Female-on-male has equal chance to male-on-female, assuming all other factors are equal. Don't forget that unwillingness can occure due to those other factors, such as being attracted to another person, and your character happening to smell bad on that day.'

---

Many people mistakenly assume that seduction is only sexual. Seduction itself is a many headed serpent of charm, guile, salesmanship, manipulation and temptation.

For a very good look at what seduction is check out Art of Seduction by Robert Green. It is a treatise on seduction based on actual application of seduction within politics throughout history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Political Correctness does not assume or paint men as being controlled by their groin. That is the standard chauvinistic excuse for sexual harrassment or infidelity which is meant to excuse a guy's behavior.

---

Eh, no.

The chauvinistic standard stems from an earlier, now inverted societal expectation: that all women are lustful.

The Lystrasia Gambit is the name of the trope wherein women deny their men sex in order to compel them to a certain behavior or deed. In modern fiction, this is seen (on the surface and played straight) as a powerful tool that is highly believable; men can't live without sex (never mind, for instance, there are men who are in their 30s and still virgins) and will ultimately break down in the face of needing their "fix."

In the time period from whence this tale comes, however, it was seen as a comedic act, more akin to how it would be seen now if men were to tell their women that they're witholding sex until the women change their behavior in some way.

Victorian-era social expectations were similar.

That is, at that time, it was believed that women were lustful, sensual beings who had to exercise rigid self-control and be kept away from all temptation lest they succomb to their lusts. "Lie back and think of England" was more Edwardian, IIRC, when the Victorian-era reputation for coldness became thought of as the natural state rather than a necessary iron control to overcome said natural state.

So the more chauvanistic attitude tends to portray men as non-predatory because the women are all but begging for sex, so all she needs is "an excuse."

The idea that women really aren't as interested as men, and that men are unable to think with anything but their genitals, is not "pro-man." I've seen very few instances where it was honestly used as an excuse (Piers Anthony's works being about it; he was born a dirty old man and has gotten dirtier as he's gotten older). It is typically used to portray men in a negative light. It's not an excuse; it's proof they're baser, more animalistic, and not to be trusted. It's also the source of certain double-standards in both fiction and reality, centering around the idea that men don't ever mean "no," unless the sexual partner is hideously undesirable (in which case it's usually portrayed as some sort of righteous cummuppance to show men what it's like to be pursued unwillingly).


There are times it's played more accurately, but political correctness means that men being portrayed in those fashions is "acceptable" and won't raise a loud outcry the way it would if the sexes were reversed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo v3

The Iconic Barbarian in Pathfinder is female and actually wears clothes (baring midriff), and the barbarian in my current party is female.

---

That's three. Anyone want to count up the male Barbarians?

I'll start :smallbiggrin:

-Conan
-Kalidor from the film Red Sonja(Okay, it's Conan with the serial numbers filed off)
-Darkwolf from Fire and Ice animated film. Not a hundred percent sure if Larn is a Barbarian, he doesn't rage like Darkwolf. Teegra strikes me more as a rogue.
-KORGOTH OF BARBARIA!
-Guts from Berserk
-He-Man
-Thundarr the Barbarian
-Barbarians in Diablo are depicted as male
-Warriors of Chaos from Warhammer are Barbarians, pretty sure they're male.
-Enkidu from the Epic of Gilgamesh hits all the Barbarian high notes
-Herakles/Hercules
-That guy with the Tri-Sword that shoots fromt hat film. Darn, I can't remember the name. He seemed to have been molded in the barbarian frame.

Though now I'm wondering if it just shows a skew toward male heroes over females. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

I'm a proud owner of a sexually fluid paladin then (who also happens to be bisexual) :smalltongue:

---

I know it's become easier to play non-standard races, but giving class levels to sexual fluid is a little much. :smallamused:

Segev: Make everyone lustful, whether male or female or hermaphrodite or whatever.

Problem solved =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flickerdart

I know it's become easier to play non-standard races, but giving class levels to sexual fluid is a little much. :smallamused:

---

Is that an obscure PrC? *whistles innocently*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurkmoar

That's three. Anyone want to count up the male Barbarians?

---

Krusk and some Warriors of Chaos (not all), that's all I can think of from Roleplaying games. And only rolepaying game characters matter in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segev

I'll be honest, I'm not sure I appreciate the difference. "I like chocolate ice cream today; yesterday I liked mint, but I don't feel like it today," seems the extent of it as I've heard it portrayed. That sounds a lot like "bi" but with a mood-based preference.

---

The difference is that there are folks who like both chocolate and mint all the time. Thus they are not fluid - they know what they want and it does not change. Thus when others say things to them like "you might say that, but I know you really just like chocolate", or "sure you like chocolate and mint, but you obviously like chocolate more" or even "you're just saying that, because I haven't seen you have mint in like forever" can be insulting.

Basically, if someone identifies as X, the key is to be respectful of that (assuming X is ethical obviously) until they identify otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

Is that an obscure PrC? *whistles innocently*

---

It would be remarkably obscure, given that even intelligent Oozes are profoundly asexual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goto124

Segev: Make everyone lustful, whether male or female or hermaphrodite or whatever.

Problem solved =P

---

I'm not calling it a problem or not. I'm just pointing out why things are as they are. You're welcome to attempt to change it however you like. :smallsmile:

The fact remains that the stereotypes exist and they exist for reasons, good or bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

The difference is that there are folks who like both chocolate and mint all the time. Thus they are not fluid - they know what they want and it does not change. Thus when others say things to them like "you might say that, but I know you really just like chocolate", or "sure you like chocolate and mint, but you obviously like chocolate more" or even "you're just saying that, because I haven't seen you have mint in like forever" can be insulting.

---

I'm fine with shrugging and agreeing with them as long as it doesn't get to the point of ridiculousness and begin impeding communication. Or they're getting rude/deceptive with it. Though that's less likely when dealing with sexual preferences than ice cream preferences. At least, I hope nobody would be huffy over not being offered sex by somebody they'd turned down on the grounds of not swinging that way.

(The analogy breaks down here because I could see somebody being a bit huffy if not offered ice cream, even if last time they'd turned it down because they didn't like the flavor and it's the same flavor this time. Not reasonably so, and I'd call them out on it, but I could see it happening whereas that level of entitlement when it comes to sex would be beyond rude and into terribly creepy.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Basically, if someone identifies as X, the key is to be respectful of that (assuming X is ethical obviously) until they identify otherwise.

---

Please, let's not get into "identifies as..." That...can only lead to violations of forum rules as feelings WILL be hurt (or social bullying will be applied to ensure that nobody dares speak aught but orthodoxy). Things are what they are; if you want to say you're something else, it doesn't bother me...until demands start being made of me wrt your preferences. Demanding that I accept that the Emperor identifies as wearing clothing and therefore not avert my eyes from what they're plainly seeing is, at best, annoying. If he wants to walk around naked while saying he's clothed, he's welcome to, as long as he's not telling me to celebrate his fabulous wardrobe along with him. "Live and let live" goes both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Segev

I'm fine with shrugging and agreeing with them as long as it doesn't get to the point of ridiculousness and begin impeding communication. Or they're getting rude/deceptive with it. Though that's less likely when dealing with sexual preferences than ice cream preferences. At least, I hope nobody would be huffy over not being offered sex by somebody they'd turned down on the grounds of not swinging that way.

(The analogy breaks down here because I could see somebody being a bit huffy if not offered ice cream, even if last time they'd turned it down because they didn't like the flavor and it's the same flavor this time. Not reasonably so, and I'd call them out on it, but I could see it happening whereas that level of entitlement when it comes to sex would be beyond rude and into terribly creepy.)



Please, let's not get into "identifies as..." That...can only lead to violations of forum rules as feelings WILL be hurt (or social bullying will be applied to ensure that nobody dares speak aught but orthodoxy). Things are what they are; if you want to say you're something else, it doesn't bother me...until demands start being made of me wrt your preferences. Demanding that I accept that the Emperor identifies as wearing clothing and therefore not avert my eyes from what they're plainly seeing is, at best, annoying. If he wants to walk around naked while saying he's clothed, he's welcome to, as long as he's not telling me to celebrate his fabulous wardrobe along with him. "Live and let live" goes both ways.

---

Well, I can't speak for anyone else you may have interacted with in the past - but my goal is not to apply "social bullying" to pressure anyone into "orthodoxy" or anything else along those lines. I'm merely pointing out what I feel to be the most polite method of engagement. You are perfectly free to follow my suggestion or disregard it, as you choose :smallsmile: (keeping in mind, of course, the very forum rules you mentioned.)

I'm willing to live and let live. Especially on a forum. All I ask is the same courtesy in return. Usually, I find that here, so all's well. :smallsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Closet_Skeleton

Actually using the Greek Pantheon isn't that common, but they're in Deities and Demigods.

Egyptian (and next but a way behind; Norse) deities are the most likely to be lifted straight from the real world.

---

How did you compile the data for this statistical analysis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurkmoar

Conan

---

Not the character class - Howard's Conan could best be described as "multiclassed out the wazoo."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurkmoar

He-Man

---

Crom's nipples, how is He-Man a barbarian? Aside from "he's muscular," which puts tens of thousands more people on this list, in what way does He-Man qualify? Most of his time is spent as a pampered prince, and the rest as, effectively, a demigod with a Strength of "yes."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lurkmoar

Though now I'm wondering if it just shows a skew toward male heroes over females.

---

This seems the more likely answer, sadly.

Identifies as means that someone told you who they are.

I'm a self identified bisexual woman.

I happen to be married to a man whom I love, but I still feel attraction toward other women. Most people who see me and my relationship assume I'm heterosexual, so I have to clarify through self identification.

That's all that is. Now if someone who is white tells you they identify as black they're using the term wrong and being ridiculously insulting! I know it happens, but that kinda stuff is just wrong.

Insert The More You Know gif here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Identifies as means that someone told you who they are.

I'm a self identified bisexual woman.

I happen to be married to a man whom I love, but I still feel attraction toward other women. Most people who see me and my relationship assume I'm heterosexual, so I have to clarify through self identification.

---

Sure, fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Now if someone who is white tells you they identify as black they're using the term wrong and being ridiculously insulting! I know it happens, but that kinda stuff is just wrong.

---

And here's where we run into issues. This is an arbitrary distinction. Race is, if anything, LESS inherent to your physical body than is sex.

If you want to claim something I think is false, it's usually not my place to call you on it. However, if you claim you identify as one thing despite your body disagreeing, and that's okay, but that other person identifying as another thing despite his body disagreeing is NOT okay, that's one place I draw a line. If a person can identify as a particular sex in contrast to their biological reality, then they had better respect another's identification as a particular race, regardless of that other's biological reality.

(Besides, we should be striving for color-blindness. With the exception of certain medical realities, there's nothing inherent to race which SHOULD matter to how you are treated nor permitted to behave. Which means somebody identifying as a race other than their biological reality should not matter at all.)

Race is just as SOCIALLY relevant, even if it's not biologically relevant.

Racism is an overarching systemic bias. Being white and "Identifying" as black means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.

Color Blindness doesn't work, yet. We've gotta fix a lot of problems that are related to race before we get to the point where ignoring race is useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

Race is just as SOCIALLY relevant, even if it's not biologically relevant.

Racism is an overarching systemic bias. Being white and "Identifying" as black means you're taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges. It's pretty problematic behavior.

Color Blindness doesn't work, yet. We've gotta fix a lot of problems that are related to race before we get to the point where ignoring race is useful.

---

I do not think this forum is the place to debate whether color blindness works or not; I will say that, anecdotally, it was working in my tiny world until the last decade's resurgence of insistence on attention being paid to it. But that's anecdotal.

Recognize that one could say that sex is still socially relevant, too, and that by "identifying" as a woman when you are a man, you are taking on the symbolic struggles (and victories) of women for yourself without facing the actual systemic challenges.

Spoiler: Treading as close to the line as I am willing to on this forum

Show

Similarly, "identifying" as white when you are black should be perfectly acceptable, yet the hostility anybody who dared do so would face from what currently calls itself the civil rights community is almost terrifying. Just look what happens, without "identifying" as white, to those blacks who dare speak about personal responsibility and try to hold up their own successes as examples.

In reality, I'm a realist. You are what you are. If you wish to identify differently, I honestly don't care until you start demanding things of me because of it. I play RPGs wherein I pretend to be a 60-ft. red-scaled fire-breathing shapeshifting lizard. I do not personally think I am such in real life, but as long as it's not hurting anybody else, whose business is it if, tomorrow, I did? I try to live and let live. As I've said, all I ask in return is that others return the courtesy. And preferably, treat others as they wish to be treated.

I don't understand.

How does it trouble me if a white guy feels like he shares in black struggles? How does him feeling whatever silly or stupid (or, hell, legitimate, but I just can't see it) thing he wants impacts me?

If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. And that's all well and good. You're not obligated to be upset by the same stuff that upsets others.

But it bothers the hell out of a lot of other people. So we shouldn't do it for their sake.

Kinda like how I don't have kids and don't mind cursing, but I don't take my Nephew to Chuck E. Cheese's and then fire off endless strings of profanity in front of the kids. I don't mind it, and it doesn't trouble me...

But it troubles others. So...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steampunkette

If it doesn't bother you then it doesn't bother you. And that's all well and good. You're not obligated to be upset by the same stuff that upsets others.

But it bothers the hell out of a lot of other people. So we shouldn't do it for their sake.

---

It bothers some people for people to identify as the counter-to-biological sex.

You can't restrict one kind of free speech/expression on the basis that it offends, then fail to restrict another nearly-identical type on the same basis.

Consistency is crucial.