LGBTAI+ Questions and Discussion thread II: Make It Double

[Axinian]

Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men. I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

Well, also has other people have pointed out, there HAVE been significant calls for equality in these areas (especially coal mining) so the images are just straight up wrong.

[Coidzor]

Simple: Men and women are not equal.

That inequality and the double standards for men and women exist is part of the problem, yes. And this image is either denying the inequalities and injustices that women face or it's saying that Feminism is a poison that has taken over the world. So, either way, it's way off-base there, as has been pointed out earlier.

Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men.

It's already been pointed out earlier that this is not the case because women do face additional barriers to entry, above and beyond mere brute strength. If you've got something to show otherwise, then, well, good for your corner of the world, I suppose.

I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

I should hope so, though your tone seems to indicate that you doubt women actually suffer sexual harassment which is slightly confusing unless you're like, in Sweden or something.

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

As Kesnit pointed out, it depends on the game. As others have pointed out earlier, it has come up directly in their games. It's been hinted at, but a character's sexual, gender, and romantic orientation can have an influence on their behavior and characterization beyond the simple direct component of whether they're trying to get with anyone and who they're trying to get with.

Well, the appeal is that it's a different kind of story from killing dragons, at the most basic level, though I can't speak to all of the motivations and appeal because I prefer to keep things segregated so that something is either shared erotica, roleplaying, or my own personal fiction that may or may not eventually be turned into something publishable.

[SiuiS]

Is that really relevant in a RPG?

I may sound very childish but most of the time I play I want to kill dragons and save the world not try to seduce a NPC that the DM is interpreting(I'm the DM most of the time anyway).

What is the fun of doing that? Can someone explain to me?

The purpose of role playing is to play a role. Sometimes that's the hero, sometimes that's the merchant. It's actually a thing in European LARPs for example, that people will go out for a week long retreat... To play a farmer or shop keeper and not a mighty warrior.

Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement. Sufficiently strong women are welcome to work those jobs, but they would be subject to the same strength requirement as the men. I'd be pretty annoyed if such a woman suffered sexual harassment at work though, same as any other workplace.

Eh. This is obfuscation. The jobs self-select for potential; while women trend towards weaker than men, the women who apply for these jobs do not trend toward below the benchmarks needed.

[Mono Vertigo]

Simple: Men and women are not equal. Women genuinely are weaker than men, a fact which is recognised in, for example, health & safety law regarding safe lifting of heavy loads. For those jobs in which no significant call for "equality" has been raised, upper body strength is a genuine occupational requirement.

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

[noparlpf]

Seems pretty reasonable considering fairly similar hypotheses for sexual dimorphism in other apes.

[Heliomance]

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

That's all well and good, but a known side effect of HRT is decreased strength (if going MtF) or increased strength (if going FtM).

[golentan]

That's all well and good, but a known side effect of HRT is decreased strength (if going MtF) or increased strength (if going FtM).

Well, if the relevant genes affect the bodies' response to androgen hormones and are not sex chromosome linked, rather than there being a gene on the Y chromosome that causes increased muscle mass there's no reason that doesn't fit the hypothesis.

[SowZ]

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

However, even girls that do sports and work out and exercise regularly? They can become stronger than the average man, but not really stronger than the average man who works out the same amount. It is worth noting that in ROTC, (the army college program,) everyone follows a similar work out regimen. They also all take a physical fitness test. In the entire history of ROTC, not a single woman has ever equaled the male average, much less the male high end. As for social pressures encouraging women to be mothers and not athletes, that would only affect evolution if it favored women who were naturally, (genetically,) stronger or weaker. In which case it is selection pressure, which is nature. So yeah, there's truth to that hypothesis probably. Still. Social pressures are a common driver for evolution. But what the parents of a child decide to do, how much nutrition they get, etc. doesn't change evolution. You may as well suggest that getting an arm cut off makes you more likely to birth armless children.

Although social factors do certainly widen the strength gap. Men and women who work out similarly have fairly similar constitutions and leg strength, (still a difference, but far less than upper body.) A more common theory, (I believe it is a theory as opposed to a hypothesis,) is that men devote more of their energy towards muscles growth, (one reason they typically have larger appetites, but of course this varies,) because they are prone to be the warriors because they are more disposable than women. We see this in other mammals and to a much greater extent in insects. If a man in the tribe dies, it's not that big of a deal. The men left may be less likely to die. If a woman dies, it hurts the tribes ability to grow significantly, making them less disposable from a purely evolutionary standpoint. Of course both genders are equally important, but as far as individuals more men can afford to die. This is not to make any sort of ethical statement.

Anyway. This evolutionary value placed on genders is largely irrelevant in modern society where people are largely monogamous and humans are approaching their population plateau. It is worth noting that all the genetic information men use, women have stored away and vice-versa. Every line of code. Other than hormones, there may be other ways to activate these genes that we'll discover eventually. Who knows. I'd like to see that, personally.

[golentan]

Just to point out, there are more species where females are physically stronger, larger, or dominant than male dominated species. Also, that is a really simplistic view of genetics and gene expression.

Spoiler

Show

[SowZ]

Just to point out, there are more species where females are physically stronger, larger, or dominant than male dominated species. Also, that is a really simplistic view of genetics and gene expression.

Spoiler

Show

Absolutely, there are plenty of species that fit that model, (where women are larger.) And plenty of species where the female is more valuable, (it would be bad if she died,) and still much physically stronger. I mentioned insects. But humans don't really fit those models. We are more similar to to other mammals that fit the model I described. The graph above is not of mammals but all animals. Mammals pretty much across the board have stronger males. There's a few notable exceptions. Certain bats. A few others.

And everything I said is just one factor, not the only one by a longshot. Other factors may be present in other species resulting in larger females. However, what I described is a factor in deciding why men are more prone to be the fighters, and not a small one by any margin. Just as strong a factor, though, is that men fight amongst themselves to compete for mates. This is something we see in most mammals, too. What I described above explains why this behavior benefits the species as a whole. This is no way means people are obligated to follow this trend. There have been women who have fought in every major war in history and done very well.

Do you also want to talk about epigenetics or something? Feel free. And please don't try and discredit me with vague statements implying you know more about genetics than me but otherwise leaving it unaddressed. You may very well know more, but that kind of tactic is insulting. Point to specific statements you disagree with, please.

[SiuiS]

It's relevant to note, I think, that we're still researching why they're not equal, and whether it's because of nature or nurture. There's a hypothesis, which I find interesting, that over many generations, girls used to receive less food or care than boys, hindering their developments, and that physically weaker women were more likely to become mothers and pass on their genes (and therefore the genetic part of their physical traits). And, of course, boys are encouraged more than girls to do sports and physical activites. Hence, you end up with women that are, on average, quite a bit inferior physically to guys.

Alas, I can't remember a specific study or article about that, nor do I have the time right now to research it, so unless it's confirmed as a real scientific hypothesis, this falls under "pulling stuff out of your backside" rule, therefore, I'll have to GM my own solo game, and include Drizz't and a Kender in the party.
... this rule might have a tiny loophole somewhere.

That is a current hypothesis but it's more to find out the amount attributed to upbringing versus the amount based on hormones. Testosterone increases muscle mass yield from exercise, especially ballistic exercise for fast twitch muscle growth. It also does something to the nerve receptors allowing the muscle to contract faster. Estrogen comes with increased muscular recovery and pain tolerance but actively converts muscle tissue to adipose. Bone structure changes also occur although some of those are likely informed by muscular growth and dynamic force.

Existing sex hormones do control maximum muscular strength and ease of gain. That's not what is required for a lot of these jobs however; the benchmark for labor is not ballistic strength but endurance. This is what muscle tissue under female hormones excels at provided they have the tissue mass to lift or haul in the first place.

The issue is the bone structure. Some women are just tiny, and the jobs are default for certain sizes (which goes both ways, my job is designed for people six inches shorter than me and it's damaging my back and knees...).

Well, if the relevant genes affect the bodies' response to androgen hormones and are not sex chromosome linked, rather than there being a gene on the Y chromosome that causes increased muscle mass there's no reason that doesn't fit the hypothesis.

However, even girls that do sports and work out and exercise regularly? They can become stronger than the average man, but not really stronger than the average man who works out the same amount. It is worth noting that in ROTC, (the army college program,) everyone follows a similar work out regimen. They also all take a physical fitness test.

This regimen does not train for strength as we commonly know it. Many strong men come out of service training leaner and weaker, because the muscle mass for that extra power was a hindrance in all other arenas.

[SowZ]

That is a current hypothesis but it's more to find out the amount attributed to upbringing versus the amount based on hormones. Testosterone increases muscle mass yield from exercise, especially ballistic exercise for fast twitch muscle growth. It also does something to the nerve receptors allowing the muscle to contract faster. Estrogen comes with increased muscular recovery and pain tolerance but actively converts muscle tissue to adipose. Bone structure changes also occur although some of those are likely informed by muscular growth and dynamic force.

Existing sex hormones do control maximum muscular strength and ease of gain. That's not what is required for a lot of these jobs however; the benchmark for labor is not ballistic strength but endurance. This is what muscle tissue under female hormones excels at provided they have the tissue mass to lift or haul in the first place.

The issue is the bone structure. Some women are just tiny, and the jobs are default for certain sizes (which goes both ways, my job is designed for people six inches shorter than me and it's damaging my back and knees...).





This regimen does not train for strength as we commonly know it. Many strong men come out of service training leaner and weaker, because the muscle mass for that extra power was a hindrance in all other arenas.

Sure, a female body builder or strength trainer might easily trounce the vast majority of male military serviceman at strength contests. The ROTCS thing was just an example of when men and women are training along similar guidelines. If we instead compared the peak of men and women who strength train, and compared Olympians or other strength competitions, the gender gap remains. This is not to say it is at all in-feasible for a woman to be stronger than the average man. Just that when a man and woman train the same amount and equally hard, and both are in shape and not of drastically different builds, the man is almost always going to have more raw strength.

It is not something I prefer to believe, I would probably prefer to believe something different that doesn't make my feminist sensibilities uncomfortable, but it is something that numbers show and something that is true in other apes and most mammals. I am very open to alternate opinions and evidence that is contrary to this, but as it stands, I find no other viewpoint that has the data to back it up and is as consistent with an evolutionary perspective.

[SiuiS]

My point is that the gender gap exists but isn't relevant. If a job requires right hours of lifting fifty pounds, then restricting women because they max out at one hundred instead of two hundred "because men are stronger" is deliberate malicious obfuscation of fact, and routinely happens.

Gender gap exists. Whether it needs to be brought up and considered every time it is is a different matter.

[SowZ]

My point is that the gender gap exists but isn't relevant. If a job requires right hours of lifting fifty pounds, then restricting women because they max out at one hundred instead of two hundred "because men are stronger" is deliberate malicious obfuscation of fact, and routinely happens.

Gender gap exists. Whether it needs to be brought up and considered every time it is is a different matter.

Then we are in agreement. Women are perfectly capable of working such jobs. If anything, some research indicates they are more like to stay more focused and have fewer accidents. Even soldiers, women have been competent warriors for all time even if there's fewer of them. There is even research to indicate that for firearms, if you take a man and a women with similar aptitudes and training, the women is more like to be the better of the pair at marksmanship.

[Coidzor]

Then we are in agreement. Women are perfectly capable of working such jobs. If anything, some research indicates they are more like to stay more focused and have fewer accidents. Even soldiers, women have been competent warriors for all time even if there's fewer of them. There is even research to indicate that for firearms, if you take a man and a women with similar aptitudes and training, the women is more like to be the better of the pair at marksmanship.

Well that was a rather pointless tangent then if you were just going to end up saying you agreed all along.

[golentan]

My objection was more to the sweeping statements about evolutionary value and the expression of genes. When you used insects as an example of male disposability that really bugged me.

[SowZ]

My objection was more to the sweeping statements about evolutionary value and the expression of genes. When you used insects as an example of male disposability that really bugged me.

Pun intended? It was in no way a moral or ethical statement. The moral value of a male and female life are equal. When I say that it matters less when a male member of a mammal pack dies, it is in no way related to ethics. Nature couldn't care less who dies. And both genders as a whole are equally valuable. And of course male disposability from an evolutionary standpoint is far more extreme in insects than mammals, so it isn't a very good equivalence on my part. Gene expression is complicated, and something I'll admit I'd like to understand a lot better, but is there anything specific you think is not true about my statement?

Well that was a rather pointless tangent then if you were just going to end up saying you agreed all along.

Just for posterities sake. I agree that women should be equal in physically intense fields, but using proper logic to arrive at the correct conclusion is, to me, as important as having the correct conclusion. I think women should work in such fields with no discrimination, and that they are just as able to perform well in such fields, but I want to believe this for valid reasons. Ultimately, though, you are probably right that drawing such a fine distinction was probably a waste of time on my part.

[golentan]

Well, in general genes are expressed or controlled by activation due to chemical messengers (primarily hormones) which are released by environmental factors or other genes. Phenotype doesn't always match Genotype, and you also have to consider the animal's Proteome as the measure of what's being expressed. It's nowhere near as simple as expressing it in terms of "all the same code is there," because the code may well be dormant. For example in any given female cell only one X chromosome is being expressed, and in males the Y chromosome controls almost nothing except the activation sequence to make the gonads develop as testes.

I'm sorry if I offended earlier, by the by.

[SowZ]

Well, in general genes are expressed or controlled by activation due to chemical messengers (primarily hormones) which are released by environmental factors or other genes. Phenotype doesn't always match Genotype, and you also have to consider the animal's Proteome as the measure of what's being expressed. It's nowhere near as simple as expressing it in terms of "all the same code is there," because the code may well be dormant. For example in any given female cell only one X chromosome is being expressed, and in males the Y chromosome controls almost nothing except the activation sequence to make the gonads develop as testes.

I'm sorry if I offended earlier, by the by.

Sure. I can't say I could have recalled the term Proteome, (I'll research it in the next couple days, I'm sure, danke,) but I know the general concept. Chemical activation, genotype, all that jazz. But all the same information is in both genders, even if some of it is dormant.

Otherwise, I'm being over-sensitive, I've been grumpy all day. You didn't really say anything that offensive

[golentan]

Otherwise, I'm being over-sensitive, I've been grumpy all day. You didn't really say anything that offensive

You and me both, brother. I'm sleep deprived and achey.

[Ifni]

How often do other folks here play characters in RPGs with different sexual/romantic/gender orientations than yourself, and what's your orientation? I'm curious to see if there are trends (I'm currently playing a homosexual male alchemist as a male bisexual, but in general I like playing characters with a wide range of tastes and flavors: For a long time I had a no lesbian/bisexual women rule for fear of being mistaken for "that guy," but I've since relented).

I play mostly cis female characters, but with a fairly wide range of sexual orientations (straight, gay, bi and ace, at least). I've played cis male characters but find it both easier and more interesting in spaces where the other players and GM don't know my actual gender, which means I haven't done it for a while. I am hesitant to play a trans character because of worries about misrepresentation, as I don't have close trans friends. In contrast, I'm fine with playing people who feel sexual/romantic attraction even though I'm ace/aro - since allosexuals/alloromantics are the majority, I feel like I have sufficient data on that one (and I'm not likely to accidentally propagate some horrible stereotype about allosexual/alloromantic people).

I've had a few fairly rewarding romance arcs in PbP Exalted games, all in male/female relationships, although one of those PCs was definitely bi, one was bi in my headcanon although it never came up in-game, and the third apparently came across as bi even though I never said it outright. (It is possible my characters tend to default to bi/pan because I find strictly-gender-based sexual attraction to be another level of "do not grok" over sexual attraction itself.) I basically regard romance arcs as an interesting way to motivate characters and get them to develop; the currently-active character who has a romance arc also has a roughly equally important and powerful arc involving a platonic friendship. I'm now mostly playing games with a heavy focus on "cooperative storytelling" over dungeon-crawling, though.

[Axinian]

Gender gap exists. Whether it needs to be brought up and considered every time it is is a different matter.

And people have an unfortunate tendency to say that men and women aren't "equal." Strinctly speaking, yes, but using the term equal has unfortunate value implications, as though one sex is lesser than the other. There are differences yes, but both have equal value as human beings and should have equal rights and privileges. Saying that men and women are different seems to be more accurate to me, as it doesn't imply that one is worth less. It just means there are differences in certain areas and frankly, those differences are irrelevant most of the time.

Edit: I just realize I was unclear in that I meant in the context of this conversation which was concerning ability in various areas.

[golentan]

The way I like to think of it, sapient lives are infinities. Infinity is not equal to infinity, attempting to compare infinity with another infinity always returns a result of undefined. No two human lives are equal, but it's impossible to say one is more or less valuable than another.

[SowZ]

The way I like to think of it, sapient lives are infinities. Infinity is not equal to infinity, attempting to compare infinity with another infinity always returns a result of undefined. No two human lives are equal, but it's impossible to say one is more or less valuable than another.

Although some infinities are objectively larger than others.

[golentan]

Although some infinities are objectively larger than others.

Yeah. That's when you get into nonhumans, or perhaps future humans though. Deliberately engineered and improved minds. Sapience seems to be binary, you have it or you don't, but once you have it you can start making improvements. You people are at the lowest rung of a very tall ladder, and I'm looking forward to watching you make the climb.

[SiuiS]

And people have an unfortunate tendency to say that men and women aren't "equal." Strinctly speaking, yes, but using the term equal has unfortunate value implications, as though one sex is lesser than the other.

Aye. It's why I sort of campaign against the common use of technicalities and 'logic'. It's impossible to separate the emotional response from the thoughts connected to it. As long as people insist on bringing up the technical inequality, it will be form in people's minds, as you say. I find it better to not insist on technical accuracy when that accuracy isn't relevant to the points made. Ancillary, I believe? No. There's a word that means applicable but unnecessary. Darn, that would be a good word to remember.

Yeah. That's when you get into nonhumans, or perhaps future humans though. Deliberately engineered and improved minds. Sapience seems to be binary, you have it or you don't, but once you have it you can start making improvements. You people are at the lowest rung of a very tall ladder, and I'm looking forward to watching you make the climb.

It's a good feeling to know in not alone. Thank you, dear friend.

[SowZ]

Yeah. That's when you get into nonhumans, or perhaps future humans though. Deliberately engineered and improved minds. Sapience seems to be binary, you have it or you don't, but once you have it you can start making improvements. You people are at the lowest rung of a very tall ladder, and I'm looking forward to watching you make the climb.

Can I ask what you are talking about?

[golentan]

Can I ask what you are talking about?

The future! I give it tops 20 years before you people have computerized children or start fiddling with your own brains.

[SowZ]

The future! I give it tops 20 years before you people have computerized children or start fiddling with your own brains.

Sure, I'm a transhumanist. I mean speaking in the third person.

[golentan]

Sure, I'm a transhumanist. I mean speaking in the third person.

"Human" is a subset of the superset "People." Depending on definition, I'm not sure I could count as a member of the smaller set, and I don't care to include myself whether or not I could. Consider me a sympathetic third party.