Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[oppyu]

This has probably already been covered, but I missed it because talk about biology is so incredibly fascinatin- SNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE...

Ah right, anyway, what possible relevance does gendered biology have to a comic loosely based on a game system where women are just as capable as reaching a natural 18 in STR, CON and DEX as men?

Also, holy crap, I just realised how male-centric Harry Potter is for a world where physical capability is meaningless.

[Shadowknight12]

Request, Shadow: please consistently stick to one grammatical person when referring to minorities. You keep moving between third and first.

My apologies, English isn't my first language, and grammatical persons are something I have never, ever been able to fully master.

Given that muscle development is closely tied to testosterone levels, which are biologically determined by the state of the endocrine system, which in turn, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is strongly influenced by whether or not you have a Y chromosome, I am extraordinarily skeptical that anything short of fairly radical genetic engineering policies could realise this prediction.

Actually, muscle growth and development is tied to the Growth Hormone. A study proved that the testosterone variance post-exercise that previous studies had observed in men was the result of plasma volume changes as a result of exercise, and once they corrected for that, actual testosterone levels were unchanged, while the hormone that actually changed was GH. Then there are more studies proving that the main endocrine influence on GH (after GHRH) is actually oestrogen, and how there is no gender variance in GH release in children. Shoot me a PM and I'll send you the links to all the studies, if you want.

And yes, you could imagine a fantasy setting where the genders divide everything perfectly and have exactly the same physical/psychological aptitudes, but then you're not talking about humans anymore, which means you're not really making a meaningful commentary on human gender.

I find it incredibly disturbing that you would consider that gender equality precludes humanity. Like, gut-wrenchingly disturbing.

Biological determinism taken to its absolute extreme.

Before I even read any further, I wanted to stop you right there and say that yes, there's been culture for a long time, but (roughly speaking) we've been genetically what we are now for much longer than that. All the traits we're currently talking about can be traced straight to back when biology was far from dwarfed by culture like it's been in more recent eras, and these traits have mostly been enduring since then (count the number of generations in a millenium, you'll see the gene pool isn't changing so quickly...)

Irrelevant. We're also almost genetically identical to most of the animal kingdom. Genetic similarities are irrelevant. Biology does not work like that.

You'd be surprised at how much of those "distant" ancestors there still is in the modern human... You think we've changed a lot genetically since we've become refined and civilized?

Biology does not work like that. Genetic similarities are irrelevant.

Also, the answer's yes, by the way. Different cultures have genetical differences, and the same culture in different periods of time have genetical differences. That's the entire point of epigenetics, genetic plasticity and polymorphisms.

Genetics does not dictate behaviour in species capable of developing culture.

I hate to be accused of moving the goalposts, it's something I always strive to never do.

The three things you mentioned are pretty much the same idea, if you can read between the lines... (and no, I never did say fantasy *must* be based in anything, any fantasy author is free to do whatever he/she wants... I just pointed out there is a documented fantasy genre that tends to share certain characteristics.)

Here, just to settle this sub-point, looking no further than wikipedia; quoted are the first few sentences of the wiki article on fantasy.

"commonly uses magic", "predominantly of the medievalist form", "has also included wizards, sorcerers, witchcraft, etc." I did not invent this...

Nobody's saying you invented it. My point of content is your determinism. You seem to imply that because something has been, or is, then it must be. Nobody is refuting the historical facts that you are bringing up. What is being refuted is the conclusion that you derive from them.

Merging that into a single coherent sentence so you won't accuse me of goalpost moving any more, "authors might want their stories to appeal to the readers' sensibilities, which are generally likely to be influenced by the cultural inertia of the fantasy genre, which in turn is like that because it was itself influenced by western medieval culture"

Nobody is asking you to defend authors who do that, because nobody is attacking them. That sentence that you composed? We all know that. That's why nobody is accusing the Giant of anything, because we understand that he has the creative freedom to do as he wills, and that when it comes to making sacrifices to the Money God, marginalised groups are the first to go. We know that.

What we are arguing is that it doesn't have to be that way.

If you do... then do you think it's a good reason, or that it's a bad reason? If you'd rather not answer and let that point rest, no problem. I just felt like asking, because that's the kind of question your statement really seems to want to trigger...

I don't understand the question. The reason is irrelevant. I don't care why an author chooses to do something. It is beyond my influence and control, and an author telling me "I gotta feed my family" does not make me feel better about the fact that I have little to no characters in fiction I can relate to. It is not my place to question why an author does what they do, but it's also not the author's place to tell me I have no right to feel bad at the lack of inclusion in fiction.

[FujinAkari]

My apologies, English isn't my first language.

Foreigner High-Five!

[Raineh Daze]

Fujin, are you summoned by mention of English as a second (or third, or fourth, etc.) language, or have you been reading this?

Irrelevant. We're also almost genetically identical to most of the animal kingdom. Genetic similarities are irrelevant. Biology does not work like that.

I think I recall something like 60% genetic similarity with cucumbers.

[Shadowknight12]

Foreigner High-Five!

Foreigner High-Five!

I think I recall something like 60% genetic similarity with cucumbers.

And 50% with bananas!

[SaintRidley]

And 50% with bananas!

I'm half banana? I knew my parents were hiding something from me.

[Carry2]

Actually, muscle growth and development is tied to the Growth Hormone. A study proved that the testosterone variance post-exercise that previous studies had observed in men was the result of plasma volume changes as a result of exercise, and once they corrected for that, actual testosterone levels were unchanged...

The effects of exercise may well be moderated by GH, but I'm not talking about exercise, which is by definition a form of environment-mediated training, not an innate biological capacity. Higher testosterone allows muscle to be built faster and/or with less effort, and a glance at wikipedia will tell you why.

This is why, despite decades of effort, the very best women bodybuilders still fall substantially short of the results obtained by the best male bodybuilders. If this is not adequate evidence for you- based on the idea that some form of environmental impediment *must* have indefinitely crippled the physique of every woman who ever tried to bodybuild- then you have essentially created an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You are demanding a standard of proof that can never be satisfied.

I find it incredibly disturbing that you would consider that gender equality precludes humanity...

I would consider a species that shows absolutely no physical or mental differences between genders to be non-human, yes. I mean, taken literally, that means erasing differences like breasts and genitals and body-hair distribution. That's what gender is. It's 'biologically deterministic' in the same sense as pointing out that 'black people have darker skin', and the fact that people can get varying degrees of a tan does not alter this basic difference in biology.

[Raineh Daze]

I would consider a species that shows absolutely no physical or mental differences between genders to be non-human, yes. I mean, taken literally, that means erasing differences like breasts and genitals and body-hair distribution. That's what gender is. It's 'biologically deterministic' in the same sense as pointing out that 'black people have darker skin', and the fact that people can get varying degrees of a tan does not alter this basic difference in biology.

I object. ._.

[Carry2]

I object. ._.

Okay, I was going to avoid touching on this topic, but how do you reconcile the gender-is-a-social-construct hypothesis with transsexuality, which is after all a hard-wired biological compulsion to express certain gender traits in the face of enormous environmental pressures to the contrary?

[Raineh Daze]

... because it's not a hardwired biological compulsion?

[jere7my]

D&D, along with many, perhaps most, RPG systems, is indeed mechanically gender-blind

It wasn't always, and there were huuuuuge arguments about it in Dragon magazine's Forum.

The arguments against eliminating the male-character strength bonus looked a lot like some of the arguments in this thread. Thirty years ago.

[SaintRidley]

Okay, I was going to avoid touching on this topic, but how do you reconcile the gender-is-a-social-construct hypothesis with transsexuality, which is after all a hard-wired biological compulsion to express certain gender traits in the face of enormous environmental pressures to the contrary?

By understanding the difference between sex and gender, obviously.

Gender's the social construct, sex is biology.

[Carry2]

... because it's not a hardwired biological compulsion?

This argument appears to be content-free.

[Acanous]

Okay, I was going to avoid touching on this topic, but how do you reconcile the gender-is-a-social-construct hypothesis with transsexuality, which is after all a hard-wired biological compulsion to express certain gender traits in the face of enormous environmental pressures to the contrary?

Transsexuals identify as the opposite sex, and associate roles and behaviors traditionally tied to that sex as conductive to their goal(Of being as "like" that sex as possible.).
Thus they mimic those behaviors, often assigning more importance to them than people actually of that sex to make up for thier lack of primary sexual characteristics.

Gender roles are mostly a social construct. There are a few carry-overs from hunter/gatherer times, or ones that make use of the male's higher upper-body strength, but the rest? Totally irrelevant.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm half banana? I knew my parents were hiding something from me.

And about 90% cat, too. Every girl is a catgirl.

This is why, despite decades of effort, the very best women bodybuilders still fall substantially short of the results obtained by the best male bodybuilders. If this is not adequate evidence for you- based on the idea that some form of environmental impediment *must* have indefinitely crippled the physique of every woman who ever tried to bodybuild- then you have essentially created an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You are demanding a standard of proof that can never be satisfied.

First of all, I take issue at your conception of unfalsifiable hypothesis. That is not what unfalsifiable means. It does not mean demanding a standard of proof that can never be satisfied, it means that it cannot be disproved. And yes, unfalsifiability is bad, but that's because hypothesis need to be falsifiable to be epistemologically sound. Well, as far as Karl Popper goes.

Secondly, there is an environmental impediment that is crippling every woman, and it's an inadequate secretion of GH during childhood and puberty. GH not only handles muscle growth, it also handles bone growth and general size. A woman whose GH secretion is inadequate will never be as strong as she could have been when she reaches adulthood.

That is precisely why infantile undernourishment, for example, is such a critical affair, because the biological potential lost in childhood and puberty cannot be recovered in adulthood. Endocrine balance during formative stages is crucial for reaching full adult potential.

I would consider a species that shows absolutely no physical or mental differences between genders to be non-human, yes. I mean, taken literally, that means erasing differences like breasts and genitals and body-hair distribution. That's what gender is. It's 'biologically deterministic' in the same sense as pointing out that 'black people have darker skin', and the fact that people can get varying degrees of a tan does not alter this basic difference in biology.

You are confusing gender with biological sex. While the conception of gender includes, formally, biological sex, it also carries severe purely cultural connotations, and in the scientific community, distinction between both is absolutely vital. To avoid confusion, gender is described as the cultural baggage on top of biological sex, and biological sex refers only to reproductive organs and the primary and secondary sexual characteristics.

I object. ._.

As well you should. That is literally dehumanising.

Okay, I was going to avoid touching on this topic, but how do you reconcile the gender-is-a-social-construct hypothesis with transsexuality, which is after all a hard-wired biological compulsion to express certain gender traits in the face of enormous environmental pressures to the contrary?

Gender disphoria is not a hard-wired biological compulsion. It is a form of highly specific psychological distress at one's self-perception not matching one's exterior form.

[Raineh Daze]

This argument appears to be content-free.

I fail to see the problem in using this as a response to an assertion I've never seen conclusive proof for.

[Carry2]

It wasn't always, and there were huuuuuge arguments about it in Dragon magazine's Forum...

Again, I'm not sure how this modifies the point I was making. Assuming it's important, how does D&D help us to understand or grapple with real-world gender concerns?

By understanding the difference between sex and gender, obviously.

No, seriously, address the point. If you're saying that the physical/mental differences men and women are purely the result of environmental pressures, then this would preclude the existence of transsexuality in societies that have strong traditional gender roles. Which flies in the face of thousands of actual case histories. This theory does not fit the facts.

[SaintRidley]

No, seriously, address the point. If you're saying that the physical/mental differences men and women are purely the result of environmental pressures, then this would preclude the existence of transsexuality in societies that have strong traditional gender roles. Which flies in the face of thousands of actual case histories. This theory does not fit the facts.

Transsexuality isn't about gender. It's about sex. Strong gender roles have nothing to do with that. If you think that societies with strong gender roles preclude the possibility of transsexuality, then you don't understand that basic difference which does make the theory fit the facts. And that's all I need to say about that.

[Acanous]

No, seriously, address the point. If you're saying that the physical/mental differences men and women are purely the result of environmental pressures, then this would preclude the existence of transsexuality in societies that have strong traditional gender roles. Which flies in the face of thousands of actual case histories. This theory does not fit the facts.

Wait, what?
Transsexuality would be MORE apparent where there are rigidly defined gender roles.
When there is nothing you can do that would make you seem manly/womanly, a transsexual raised in that culture would be almost impossible to detect from casual observation.

[jere7my]

Again, I'm not sure how this modifies the point I was making. Assuming it's important, how does D&D help us to understand or grapple with real-world gender concerns?

The point here is that D&D switched from a system in which physical sex affected gameplay to one in which it didn't, and despite all the howling from "realists" and "biological determinists" the game didn't change. D&D humans didn't suddenly become nonhuman. The game just became a little more welcoming to women.

[Acanous]

The point here is that D&D switched from a system in which physical sex affected gameplay to one in which it didn't, and despite all the howling from "realists" and "biological determinists" the game didn't change. D&D humans didn't suddenly become nonhuman. The game just became a little more welcoming to women.

That being said, there is a player bias to assign higher STR to male characters, and higher CHA to female characters.

If you assign stats for your players, but allow them to choose class, race, and sex, you will see the same pattern.

[Carry2]

First of all, I take issue at your conception of unfalsifiable hypothesis. That is not what unfalsifiable means...
Secondly, there is an environmental impediment that is crippling every woman, and it's an inadequate secretion of GH during childhood and puberty...

It is unfalsifiable for all practical intents and purposes. And again, what evidence do you have that GH differences are not themselves biological? Because typically, the juices that your own body secretes are not considered an aspect of external environment.

You are confusing gender with biological sex. While the conception of gender includes, formally, biological sex, it also carries severe purely cultural connotations...

Thank you for the distinction, but that, to me, is rather the point under contention. Or rather, what the dividing line between the biological and cultural actually is. Because if there is any aspect of traditional gender roles that is genuinely rooted in biology, then yes, there is no way to erase that without erasing sex-as-we-know it.

Gender disphoria is not a hard-wired biological compulsion...

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense, and potentially very damaging nonsense. There are established differences in brain structures, body morphology and gene expression strongly associated with this condition, and no environmental explanation can say as much for potential sufferers. Improving the identification and diagnosis of this condition therefore depends crucially on the acceptance of a biological origin.

[Shadowknight12]

That being said, there is a player bias to assign higher STR to male characters, and higher CHA to female characters.

If you assign stats for your players, but allow them to choose class, race, and sex, you will see the same pattern.

Only if you are unaware of the arbitrariness of gender. I do the exact opposite precisely to spit in the face of gender constructs.

It is unfalsifiable for all practical intents and purposes. And again, what evidence do you have that GH differences are not themselves biological? Because typically, the juices that your own body secretes are not considered an aspect of external environment.

Sending you a PM with the studies.

Also, read up a bit on GH. It's one of the most environmentally dependent hormones in our bodies. And it is highly dependant on exercise (and its intensity and frequency), which is an environmental factor.

Thank you for the distinction, but that, to me, is rather the point under contention. Or rather, what the dividing line between the biological and cultural actually is. Because if there is any aspect of traditional gender roles that is genuinely rooted in biology, then yes, there is no way to erase that without erasing sex-as-we-know it.

Science has already been there and done that. No matter what badly regurgitated pop science tells you, the only purely biological differences between the sexes are the three I mentioned in my previous post: reproductive organs, primary sexual characteristics, and secondary sexual characteristics.

Anything else? All that often-cited bit about hormones having an influence in mood and behaviour? Still up in the air. For every study that supports one finding, there is another that contradicts it, and another one that proposes a third different thing.

Of course, the studies that get touted are those that support the oppressive status quo, misapplying science to support oppression, biological determinism and socially harmful practices.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense, and potentially very damaging nonsense. There are established differences in brain structures, body morphology and gene expression strongly associated with this condition, and no environmental explanation can say as much for potential sufferers. Improving the identification and diagnosis of this condition therefore depends crucially on the acceptance of a biological origin.

That is not gender dysphoria. You are not citing gender dysphoria. You are citing biological explanations for transexuality, which is not the same. Gender dysphoria is psychological distress with highly specific causes and symptoms. If you took a cis-gendered girl in our current world and raised her as though she was a boy, she would experience gender dysphoria. It is not a phenomenon purely reserved for trans people.

Whether transexuality is biological or not is still up for debate. There is evidence that supports it, yes, and there is evidence that contradicts those findings or supports other theories.

[Raineh Daze]

Biology isn't going to help with identification or diagnosis. Best case scenario: nothing changes. Worst case scenario: people that have a legitimate problem are ignored because the criteria chosen are wrong. >_>

About the only thing I could say I'm suffering from at the moment is irritation from seeing someone talk about things they don't fully understand. Also kind of awkward to see things phrased as if I'm not here.

[Shadowknight12]

About the only thing I could say I'm suffering from at the moment is irritation from seeing someone talk about things they don't fully understand. Also kind of awkward to see things phrased as if I'm not here.

Not sure if that was aimed at me, but if it is, I apologise for any irritation I might have inadvertently caused, and I am willing to drop the subject if you think I'm not helping. The last thing I want to do is to make anyone uncomfortable or unwelcome.

[Carry2]

Also, read up a bit on GH. It's one of the most environmentally dependent hormones in our bodies. And it is highly dependant on exercise (and its intensity and frequency), which is an environmental factor...

And again, what gives you the impression that every single female olympian has suffered from a severe lack of exercise during childhood?

That is not gender dysphoria. You are not citing gender dysphoria...

You cited gender dysphoria. I was talking about transsexualism. If there is an irrelevancy here, I did not introduce it.

I'm not seeing any specific evidence for your other points.

[Shadowknight12]

And again, what gives you the impression that every single female olympian has suffered from a severe lack of exercise during childhood?

Current childrearing mores, obviously. I highly doubt any Olympian woman was raised as a boy. Even the most athletically inclined parents rear their children differently according to gender.

You cited gender dysphoria. I was talking about transsexualism. If there is an irrelevancy here, I did not introduce it.

I'm not seeing any specific evidence for your other points.

It is a touchy subject, with good reason, so if you want our conversation to continue, send me a PM. If not, I will consider your argument dropped.

[Carry2]

Transsexuality isn't about gender. It's about sex. Strong gender roles have nothing to do with that. If you think that societies with strong gender roles preclude the possibility of transsexuality...

No, they don't. That's exactly my point. The culture-only perspective on gender differences would predict the non-existence of TS individuals in such societies. Given that they nonetheless exist, I believe this refutes the culture-only hypothesis on gender differences.

[Raineh Daze]

Can we please drop this topic? It's not contributing, it's biological determinism again, and it's thoroughly unpleasant.

[lio45]

Irrelevant. We're also almost genetically identical to most of the animal kingdom.

Not at all... the difference between you/I and a cat is a large number of orders of magnitude bigger than the difference we're talking about in this discussion, i.e. between you/I and our respective ancestors (many are certainly the same) some 40-100 generations ago.

Genetically, between the following trio: a modern human, his direct caveman ancestor, and a cat, two are super close and one is incredibly far away. The fact that all lifeforms on this planet share a big part of their genes (which is absolutely not surprising) is a total red herring in this discussion, shame on you for even thinking about bringing it up...

Also, the answer's yes, by the way. Different cultures have genetical differences, and the same culture in different periods of time have genetical differences. That's the entire point of epigenetics, genetic plasticity and polymorphisms.

The answer's actually no; those genetical differences are actually tiny. You might decide that you consider them huge, from whatever relative POV you want to adopt for the purpose of finding them huge, but they're actually not, in the relevant POV for the discussion.

Genetics does not dictate behaviour in species capable of developing culture.

I disagree, genetics definitely play a role, and on many levels.

Nobody's saying you invented it. My point of content is your determinism. You seem to imply that because something has been, or is, then it must be.

A little correction: I was more or less saying that because something has been, or is, then it's somewhat understandable that people will, currently, tend to default to it over the "has not yet been" option.



OK, it's been interesting, and I'm not leaving this thread forever, but I'm off for the night. My gf and I just played heads or tails to decide which one of us was going to breastfeed the baby tonight, and it fell on me, so duty time.

;)