A Rose By Any Other Name...

[Paradox01]

Let's continue this discussion here.

So, what's offensive and not offensive and why? And when? "Queer" used to mean "odd", "gay" used to mean "happy", "fag" used to mean "tiring task" or "cigarette" depending on who you asked.

I say offense is only ever taken and not given, and even then it depends on context.

This is an attempt at pulling what promised to be a great discussion and an open, adult and honest exchange of ideas from a thread it was OT in to its own. Any blatant attempts to offend anyone will be met with the swiftest justice, and anyone easily offended by reading other peoples' honest opinions need not read further.

Let's have an open and adult conversation with what's bothering us about today's terminology. It's 2021, fer chrissake.

 

[Paradox01]

I'll get the ball rolling by answering this:

And I can't tell if you're overestimating or underestimating hateful people but either way, there are people who intend offense and want to hurt those who are different and it's easier for them to do so verbally.

I never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups, but I don't understand your statement about people finding it easier to insult others verbally.

That's a given. People would rather sling shit "verbally", and by "verbally" I mean online vs face-to-face. I fucking guarantee you if bigots/racists/sexists/whatever had to look their intended targets in the face versus online, 90% would reveal themselves to be fucking cowards.

 

[Wint3rRyd3r]

I'll get the ball rolling by answering this:


I never underestimate the stupidity of people in large groups, but I don't understand your statement about people finding it easier to insult others verbally.

That's a given. People would rather sling shit "verbally", and by "verbally" I mean online vs face-to-face. I fucking guarantee you if bigots/racists/sexists/whatever had to look their intended targets in the face versus online, 90% would reveal themselves to be fucking cowards.

Or they'll attack and potentially kill them and claim some BS like "trans panic" as a defense. Yes some people are cowards. But there's no way of knowing if someone's a coward until it's too late. And I mean easier as in they want to hurt someone and using an online method that gives anonymity and ease of finding who they want to insult. All someone has to do is search for whatever forum they want to harass or just hop on twitter and they can start spamming messages. No plane ticket needed. Plus as disgusting and hateful as some people are, the local legal system may not look favorably on anyone retaliating in a fit of rage. Interpretation of law is always a thing and depending on where you are, a judge and jury may not view those as "fighting words". So it's easier to use words and insult verbally as opposed to organizing a lynch mob, especially online.

 

[Paradox01]

Or they'll attack and potentially kill them and claim some BS like "trans panic" as a defense. Yes some people are cowards. But there's no way of knowing if someone's a coward until it's too late. And I mean easier as in they want to hurt someone and using an online method that gives anonymity and ease of finding who they want to insult. All someone has to do is search for whatever forum they want to harass or just hop on twitter and they can start spamming messages. No plane ticket needed. Plus as disgusting and hateful as some people are, the local legal system may not look favorably on anyone retaliating in a fit of rage. Interpretation of law is always a thing and depending on where you are, a judge and jury may not view those as "fighting words". So it's easier to use words and insult verbally as opposed to organizing a lynch mob, especially online.

Fair enough, but I think you went a little dark, there. If that's where this discussion leads, then so be it but I really intended this thread to act as a forum for those of us operating within the "abnormal sexual" boundaries to discuss what terms we should and should not use and, more importantly, WHY we should use/not use said terms.

Starting, probably, with "abnormal".

And I mean easier as in they want to hurt someone and using an online method that gives anonymity and ease of finding who they want to insult. All someone has to do is search for whatever forum they want to harass or just hop on twitter and they can start spamming messages. No plane ticket needed.

Also, this phenomenon isn't relegated to just the sexual/gender arena. Give humans more credit than that.

 

[Wint3rRyd3r]

Fair enough, but I think you went a little dark, there. If that's where this discussion leads, then so be it but I really intended this thread to act as a forum for those of us operating within the "abnormal sexual" boundaries to discuss what terms we should and should not use and, more importantly, WHY we should use/not use said terms.

Starting, probably, with "abnormal".

Fair enough. It's a legitimate fear but it was a pretty dark turn. If you look at the textbook definition of abnormal it refers to the deviation from the norm as "undesirable or worrying". But I've mostly heard it used to describe something that's unexpected or really different. I've rarely ever even used the word. But it's so benign I don't think anyone would be insulted from it. Unless it's being used as a really stuck up way to insult someone, but who unironically does that?

 

[Paradox01]

Maybe I'm more desensitized to the word "abnormal" because of my time in the medical field, but it's really a subjective term.

If my patient has always had a knot on his forehead, I note it in my paperwork as being normal for him, regardless of it's objective abnormality.

 

[Paradox01]

Also, @Wint3rRyd3r, I didn't mean to call you out. I was only trying to continue the thread started in the other forum.

 

[Wint3rRyd3r]

Also, @Wint3rRyd3r, I didn't mean to call you out. I was only trying to continue the thread started in the other forum.

I don't feel called out. Just answering questions and stuff.

 

[Tenalc13]

All this discussion reminded me of a case when I was playing an online game with a friend. After our squad was killed, he said: "I'll go get my fag, wait a few minutes." His British accent and my knowledge of English played a trick on me. I fell into a stupor for 15 minutes. When I asked him about this, he did not immediately understand, but when it came to him, he laughed at these for a very long time.
What I wanted to say by this, do not be offended by the words. For example, I just did not know the meaning of the word, some may simply confuse concepts. Except when you are deliberately insulted, but then there is such a beautiful thing as laws.

 

[Quicksilver Tongue]

There is no word so innocent that it can't be weaponize by someone who hates you enough, nor is there any word so profane that it is always offensive. Context is everything, and people ought to assume charitable interpretations. If somebody called me a child molester or something, it would prove nothing about me and everything about them. If they did it in some subtle way to try and put one over on me, then either I don't notice and haven't been harmed, or I do notice and can take the information on board that this person dislikes me. Either way, I'm only hurting myself if I go around suspecting everyone of having ill intent. Life is too damn short to go looking for problems like this.

 

[Paradox01]

Spoiler

View attachment 16843

I don't know of anybody who has ever referred to their junk as manhood or womanhood. And seeing as how it was only brought up as removal for the game and not a ban on the forum, it wouldn't harm you. If your response to someone expressing discomfort about word choices is to make it about yourself to prove a point, then it's not a good look. Missinkenoir was asking for the consideration of the removal very specific wording, not angrily calling for censorship over the game and forum. And besides, why say a mouthful (pun slightly intended) when there are shorter words that are way more commonly used?

Yeah this belongs in on the general CoC2 section or under the "Things I want thread." and not bug reports.

Thanks for making my point. Everyone that cries about how something is presented inherently makes it about themselves. No matter how much they insist they're fighting on someone else's behalf, they're a liar.

So how am I different for pointing out the hypocrisy?

 

[Undecided]

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that if someone "cries about how something is presented", it "inherently makes it about themselves" and that they're actually a liar.
You can be in agreement with others if something affects them, even if it doesn't affect you yourself. If something doesn't affect me, and I look at it from my perspective that would be my bias (I would be detached and not care because it wouldn't affect me). But if I take a look at it from their perspective and empathize with them, then that would allow for me to at least understand their stance.
Whether that leads me to agree with them or not, once again comes down to personal bias. But, even if I don't agree with them, I don't necessarily see the need to go out of my way to textually (or verbally IRL) detail that - as that's not going to change their stance (nor should it) - but it also won't really help to change anything / resolve the situation.

Additionally "fighting on someone else's behalf" seems a bit disingenuous, almost as if mentioning perceived grievances has to somehow result in conflict.
If people have their own bias or perspective on something (i.e. grievances that they're affected by), it should not matter to those who "aren't" affected by it - saying that you aren't affected by it, then claiming that you don't want change to suit those affected by it seems a bit counterintuitive - because that defeats the point of your initial stance (not necessarily saying that's something you're (Paradox01) guilty of, just generalizing a bit).
In my opinion, that is where the "conflict" would come in.

There was an alteration in TiTS to change the term "shemale" to "dick-girl" upon the use of a cheat code (poison) listed here, I think that the inclusion of something along those lines would be sufficient for those that are alienated by terms referring to genitalia by specific sexual classifications (i.e. manhood) in CoC2.
Although, I am aware that that would be a pretty time consuming undertaking, but I just thought it would be worth mentioning.

 

[Paradox01]

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that if someone "cries about how something is presented", it "inherently makes it about themselves" and that they're actually a liar.

I don't think it's presumptuous. Maybe a bit hyperbolic on my part but definitely within the realm of what actually happens.

So many of the divisive issues today are divisive only because people go out of their way to MAKE them so and 9 times out of 10, the people that argue the loudest technically don't even have a dog in the fight. That was my main point with that post.

That, and it was a bit hypocritical when someone claimed that certain terms should be changed based on their opinion without taking into account how that might affect other people. I'm all for debate but when someone presents their side of an argument as the ONLY side, well, I naturally dismiss every single thing they say.

 

[Undecided]

I don't think it's presumptuous. Maybe a bit hyperbolic on my part but definitely within the realm of what actually happens.

Alright, fair, if that's your stance then I'm not going to question it. But, bear in mind the "definitely within the realm of what actually happens" is a bias you're seemingly bringing into this scenario.
To get back to what you were saying, the reason why I said it seemed "presumptuous" was because it seemed to be an assumption that that was the case in this specific scenario.

So many of the divisive issues today are divisive only because people go out of their way to MAKE them so and 9 times out of 10, the people that argue the loudest technically don't even have a dog in the fight. That was my main point with that post.

I mean, that's your perspective. Maybe that's what you've encountered elsewhere, but then that would be the bias that you're bringing into this scenario. In any case, for this specific scenario, it seems that that stance is quite reductive.

Spoiler

Hey~ Tried out some transformations with my character and wanted to give some feedback as a trans person who has been pretty active both online and offline with the trans community.

As someone who does use they/them, I have to say that's an incredibly reductive and dismissive way of viewing the usage of alternative pronouns, but if you want to get into the specifics of why, we can take this to PMs.

Does remind me I do wish there were more pronoun options in the game but again, the coding involved....

Though I do agree, would be fun to see more mixed characters in the game. Especially if said character's parents come from very different cultures.

That, and it was a bit hypocritical when someone claimed that certain terms should be changed based on their opinion without taking into account how that might affect other people. I'm all for debate but when someone presents their side of an argument as the ONLY side, well, I naturally dismiss every single thing they say.

Again, that's your perspective. That may not have been their intent (offense is never given, only taken ?). It may come across as restrictive on their part, sure, but definitively attributing that to them and then dismissing their stance because of that narrative, in all likelihood, won't be helpful, nor resolve the situation - only result in "conflict".
Debating opinions / stances is a tedious business (often seemingly without resolution), I find that it's usually better to just let the people you disagree with just say what they want (i.e. ignore a thread / post you disagree with, unless it's directed at you personally) - and let some higher authority (i.e. the development team) decide what to do (such as implement a change, like with the TiTS "poison" cheat code change).

 

[Stupid_Goo]

A rose by any other name, eh?

Does that include the new Icy Rose TF that turns you into a popsicle- I mean a Boreal/Frost Elf?

 

[Squirrelwagon]

(You post a reply at one am and come back several hours later to a locked thread and a new thread, woof. Sorry about disappearing!

Also want to start by apologizing for assuming bad faith; I've had too many experiences where that was the case and it's made it difficult for me to remember that some people aren't out to pull a "GOTCHA!" just because they can, and that's affected how I respond to these conversations. Having taken some time away and thought it over, I regret the snarky response and will do my best to keep calm in this thread.)

Alright, so, full disclosure: I am trans, I am non-binary, I absolutely have a dog in this race and am coming at this from the perspective of someone who is actively hurt by seeing genitals described as "manhood" if it's a penis and "womanhood" if it's a vagina.

Now, the reason I'd argue it's harmful even if I weren't non-binary is because associating genitals with one's masculinity/femininity is inherently gender essentialist. You can't dissociate the two from each other, it's an explicit "you have a vagina, therefore it's your womanhood and what defines you as a woman". (I'm getting a bit blunt because yes, there are some more nuances to it than that, but that's the gist of it boiled down very simply.) There's this idea that genitals define your gender, define your personhood, define your identity in most cultures today, and having to constantly face these ideas when you don't fit in their mould is exhausting and stressful. Basically, if your genitals are a vagina, that means you're a woman, that means you're feminine; that's the ideology that's unconsciously brought up whenever genitals are described this way.

(Taking this moment to say: That doesn't mean I think you're a bad person if you use it this way, we're raised in a society, it's just what we're raised into, and it takes time to unlearn this stuff. General "you" used here. Anyway, I wish English had better terms to describe a group in unspecific terms.)

But it's not just harmful to trans, non-binary and intersex folk either: It's also harmful to cis people. (What about cis men with smaller penises compared to the "average"? That gets mocked and ridiculed and pointed out as being less than a man, etc. If you're a trans man, your lack of a penis is seen as proof you're a fake in many circles and environments, too.)

To me, uncoupling the idea of genital = gender presentation is what I hope for, especially because the game already does a pretty good job of that. You can choose your pronoun preferences in the menu and then go ham with how masculine or feminine your character is and you don't get misgendered, and it's fantastic! So it feels weird and uncomfortable to me to have that and then get to a sex scene and suddenly having my trans male character's vagina described as his womanhood because that's the description the parser pulled out of the pool, you savvy?

Especially because it just feels very out of place when compared to the other adjectives and rather unnecessary as a result. It's a porn game, do we need to use euphemisms at this point?

Aaaaaand this was probably all over the place since I'm extremely tired right now but I wanted to reply before I forgot to, hopefully it's... Understandable as a reply, or something.

 

[valk42]

Another NB chiming in here, but the points I had intended to make seem mostly covered. Being transmasc, I play a lot of dudes with pussies, and it just crashes the flow of the scene completely to run into an explicitly gendered term. Flowery language in general is tolerable, ie referring to the labia as 'your petals' or similar, but outright gendering of your/your characters' junk is both a turn-off and an unpleasant reminder of how the world reduces the entirety of your personality to a function of the shape of your sexual organs. I have decent separation of character vs self, I can stand to play a female character without doubting my own gender alignment, but it just doesn't have a place in smut intended to be enjoyable. Gender-locking those particular terms would be an amazing change.
I actually kind of like explicit terms such as herm, futa and c-boy in my porn but I am not physically intersex as far as I know without genetic testing, so my opinion doesn't count for much there.

 

[Tinman]

Now, the reason I'd argue it's harmful even if I weren't non-binary is because associating genitals with one's masculinity/femininity is inherently gender essentialist. You can't dissociate the two from each other, it's an explicit "you have a vagina, therefore it's your womanhood and what defines you as a woman". (I'm getting a bit blunt because yes, there are some more nuances to it than that, but that's the gist of it boiled down very simply.) There's this idea that genitals define your gender, define your personhood, define your identity in most cultures today, and having to constantly face these ideas when you don't fit in their mould is exhausting and stressful. Basically, if your genitals are a vagina, that means you're a woman, that means you're feminine; that's the ideology that's unconsciously brought up whenever genitals are described this way.

You're never going to decouple sex and gender because for 99.7% of the population they're the same thing. Biological sex comes with a number of physical differences that informs gender archetypes. Like all archetypes they're broad, and self-contradictory, categories that nobody fits perfectly. But by and large this categorization works and is effective. No matter how feminine a man is he's still probably physically stronger and larger than a comparably feminine woman. No matter how masculine a woman is she's probably smaller and weaker than a comparably masculine man. For 0.01% of the population being born with a penis or a vagina doesn't define you as a man or woman because genetic defects make you an exception. For another 0.1%-0.3% of people, with a number of underlying and possibly causal psychological conditions, their identity doesn't match their physical sex. For everyone else penis=man and vagina=woman is not just acceptable but preferable. Definitions are built on the norm not the exception which means that gender and sex will remain virtually interchangeable. We don't say "what goes up must come down, unless it escapes the gravity well of the planet." Not only is it less catchy, too few objects leave the planet compared to the vast number of objects that never will.

It's important to not let aesthetics define us. A small dick or boobs doesn't mean you're less masculine or feminine than others. It's also important to understand that trends are not deterministic. Just because people of one gender are more likely to enjoy or do something doesn't mean all people of that gender will or have to share that behavior. But it's also important to not go too far in the opposite direction. Undermining the meaning of words because of some small exception doesn't help the exception, it only makes language less useful. Reshaping culture for an extreme minority doesn't make that culture more inclusive, it only disrupts habits everyone forms as a result of dealing with patterns.

 

[Yami no Tenchi]

Tinman people being non-binary isn't nearly as uncommon as you are insisting. If you look up Hawaiian culture non-binary individuals were a large enough out in the open and respected part of the population that they had and still have their own term. The idea that people being non-binary is super uncommon was among the ideologies forced during widespread European colonization. Plus what you're stating overall sounds like if a minority is a small enough of a minority they can go fuck themselves. And that's the seed of types of thinking that has and is still allowing for genocides.

Plus the gradually reshaping of language has never stopped, and shouldn't be expected to. Especially not for the sake of preserving whatever the current version of normal is.

 

[Tinman]

Tinman people being non-binary isn't nearly as uncommon as you are insisting. If you look up Hawaiian culture non-binary individuals were a large enough out in the open and respected part of the population that they had and still have their own term. The idea that people being non-binary is super uncommon was among the ideologies forced during widespread European colonization. Plus what you're stating overall sounds like if a minority is a small enough of a minority they can go fuck themselves. And that's the seed of types of thinking that has and is still allowing for genocides.

Plus the gradually reshaping of language has never stopped, and shouldn't be expected to. Especially not for the sake of preserving whatever the current version of normal is.

There's a big difference between language changing naturally through usage and forcing a change because some niche group doesn't like the current usage. The former happens no matter what you do and tends to have a fairly cyclical pattern of terms becoming popular. The latter tends to result in some pretty severe backlash, like "gay" going from meaning "happy" to effectively becoming a slur while the homosexual community tried to associate their lifestyle with happiness. Also, while I'm not familiar with Hawaiian culture specifically I've seen very similar claims about terms being used for trans and non-binary people in various other cultures. Those terms always seem to be a way of emasculating gay men in order to distance them from regular society. Even without looking it up I can say with 90% certainty that's not an example you want to use. Odds are high that it is a semi-derogatory term for gay men and crossdressers who aren't widely accepted and aren't any more common than the percentages I put forward in my posts.

 

[TheShepard256]

Also, while I'm not familiar with Hawaiian culture specifically I've seen very similar claims about terms being used for trans and non-binary people in various other cultures. Those terms always seem to be a way of emasculating gay men in order to distance them from regular society. Even without looking it up I can say with 90% certainty that's not an example you want to use. Odds are high that it is a semi-derogatory term for gay men and crossdressers who aren't widely accepted and aren't any more common than the percentages I put forward in my posts.

A university course I took on sex begs to differ. In it, I learned there's a specific community somewhere in the world (Mexico or Mesoamerica, I think?) where there's an intersex condition so common the community has a name for it; it roughly translates to "boy at 12", or something like that. The people with this condition are male, but their bodies have reduced sensitivity to testosterone, which causes their genitalia to remain undescended when they're born, making them look like females; however, once they hit puberty they get enough testosterone for their genitalia to descend. Once this happens, they're not treated any differently from other males.

 

[Squirrelwagon]

Wow dude, way to show your ignorance about cultures that absolutely have recognized trans people in their histories and then also equating trans people to "being cis gays, actually". That might not have been your intention, but woof is that how it's coming off as.

Yes, there are some cultures where there's usage of terms to emasculate gay men, but that's not the case in the example that Yami no Tenchi used or even most cultures that have had historical acknowledgement of various gender identities. These are two separate issues that get conflated a lot but they're not the same.

The latter tends to result in some pretty severe backlash, like "gay" going from meaning "happy" to effectively becoming a slur while the homosexual community tried to associate their lifestyle with happiness.

So that's not entirely how "gay" started being used as a slur: It was initially a slur towards sex workers (regardless of gender) because "gai" was associated with the "degeneration" of sex and carousing and general debauchery, which then eventually made its way as usage to describe homosexual men and women in a general capacity by association.

For 0.01% of the population being born with a penis or a vagina doesn't define you as a man or woman because genetic defects make you an exception. For another 0.1%-0.3% of people, with a number of underlying and possibly causal psychological conditions, their identity doesn't match their physical sex.

I hate doing this but: Sources for your statistics, please. Because this is part of what I'm studying for my undergrad and your numbers are way off from what I've learned.

For everyone else penis=man and vagina=woman is not just acceptable but preferable. Definitions are built on the norm not the exception which means that gender and sex will remain virtually interchangeable.

Going to ignore your comparison to the gravity expression because lol these aren't even remotely the same thing. So here's the thing, I'm not saying that the problem is that vagina = woman, I'm saying the problem is vagina = woman = femininity = womanhood. I'm saying the problem is that we say that having a vagina means there are inherent psychological and emotional characteristics that define a person just because of what junk they have, which is patently false, it's socialized. I'm not arguing about the biological differences, I never said there weren't biological differences. Sexual dimorphism is a thing, yes, I know that, no one's arguing it isn't a thing, that's not my point.

The issue I'm addressing is that we're equating genitals with gender roles, with gender presentation, and with inherent traits, which is harmful to everyone because it's bullshit! Men aren't less emotional than women, but people still believe that to be the case because we're socialized to believe that. If boys cry, they get scolded for it, if girls get physically aggressive, they get scolded for it much more quickly and harshly than boys do, etc, and that's done to uphold this idea that men are more physical, violent and distant while women are more demure, emotional and vulnerable. (Again, really gross simplification of the process, but going into specifics is a bit beyond the scope of this thread.)

Uncoupling the idea of genitals = gender identity isn't just for my comfort, it's beneficial to everyone because it helps dismantle toxic ideas that have tangible harmful consequences.

 

[Tinman]

A university course I took on sex begs to differ. In it, I learned there's a specific community somewhere in the world (Mexico or Mesoamerica, I think?) where there's an intersex condition so common the community has a name for it; it roughly translates to "boy at 12", or something like that. The people with this condition are male, but their bodies have reduced sensitivity to testosterone, which causes their genitalia to remain undescended when they're born, making them look like females; however, once they hit puberty they get enough testosterone for their genitalia to descend. Once this happens, they're not treated any differently from other males.

There's also a small town in Brazil where just about every citizen is a twin. Twins are significantly more likely to have twins than non-twins regardless of whether they fraternal, identical, male, or female. But nowhere else in the world are twins common. Does this one small brazillian town mean that everyone in the rest of the world should assume they're having twins when pregnant? The obvious answer is "no". You've identified a small community where a rare genetic disorder is extremely common. That's interesting for the sake of studying the human genome but absolutely useless for defining norms in the rest of the world. It isn't even useful for defining norms in Mexico. One of the terms I've been told proves trans acceptance is the Mexican term "muxe" (probably based on "mujer" meaning "woman") which is a semi-derogatory term for crossdressers. The muxe aren't trans, they don't identify as women, but because they like crossdressing they're distanced from regular men through the language.

 

[TheShepard256]

That's interesting for the sake of studying the human genome but absolutely useless for defining norms in the rest of the world. It isn't even useful for defining norms in Mexico.

My point was not to make any general statements, but to counter your assertion that

Those terms always seem to be a way of emasculating gay men in order to distance them from regular society.

by providing an example where that's clearly not the case.

 

[Quicksilver Tongue]

The idea that people being non-binary is super uncommon was among the ideologies forced during widespread European colonization.

Except that that isn't really what happened at all. European colonization was about spreading Christianity, not heteronormativity. We have extensive historical records from before Christianity indicating that trans mentality wasn't a thing in Rome or Greece or Egypt or any of the other great historical civilizations. It's conceivable that Christian scholars found such references and were squicked enough to destroy them, but they pretty much tried to destroy all references to sex, and they didn't succeed in finding or exterminating all references to sex in the ancient world, so the possibility is unlikely that there was any great historical pattern of transsexualism that has been erased from the record.

Plus what you're stating overall sounds like if a minority is a small enough of a minority they can go fuck themselves.

That's kind of how democracy works, yeah.....

And that's the seed of types of thinking that has and is still allowing for genocides.

Well that's an exagerration and a half. You might as well claim that anyone who tries to clip a lock of your hair with a little barbers' scissors is trying to disembowel you with the same tool.

 

[Yami no Tenchi]

Except that that isn't really what happened at all. European colonization was about spreading Christianity, not heteronormativity. We have extensive historical records from before Christianity indicating that trans mentality wasn't a thing in Rome or Greece or Egypt or any of the other great historical civilizations. It's conceivable that Christian scholars found such references and were squicked enough to destroy them, but they pretty much tried to destroy all references to sex, and they didn't succeed in finding or exterminating all references to sex in the ancient world, so the possibility is unlikely that there was any great historical pattern of transsexualism that has been erased from the record.

You know that being nonbinary and/or transsexual aren't just matters of literal sex right? There's also the case of Christianity and other older European ideologies enforcing strict gender roles, which accepting of nonbinary individuals would interfere with. The works, stories, and diaries that contain evidence and implications of nonbinarism and transsexualism have been treated much the same way the ones that show evidence that homosexuality has existed for a long time amongst both men and women of multiple cultures. They are either very selectively quoted and/or interpreted, or they are kept out of all official teaching settings and have to be sought out personally in largely unknown, but still available, books.


The lead in to the genocide statement may make it an exaggeration in the general since. But even now there are genocides of very small groups either taking place in the world, or that are very recent. https://www.businessinsider.com/gen...bosnia-2017-11?op=1#the-rohingya-in-myanmar-1 https://borgenproject.org/recent-genocides/ https://www.genocidewatch.com/countries-at-risk https://genocideeducation.org/resources/modern-era-genocides/

 

[Quicksilver Tongue]

You appear to be drawing a false distinction between gender roles and literal sex, when the idea that those are in any way different is an entirely postmodernist social construct with no historical foundation on any kind of meaningful scale. When the various judeo-christian regimes were telling their people to be fruitful and multiply, they based their decision of what half of that responsibility was yours on your anatomy, not your opinion. If you had a womb, then you needed to get knocked up, even if you didn't feel like a woman. If you didn't have a womb, then you were responsible for providing for the woman you knocked up and all of the children you and her created; if you felt as though you should have the social role of being the stay at home caretaker who gets provided for, that was too damn bad. All that mattered about your life was your ability to manufacture more babies who could enter the service of God. It was a pretty oppressive regime across the board, but not especially so toward what we now perceive as LGBT issues, any more than toward any other belief not founded in scripture.

 

[Theron]

My big issue with demanding a change in nomenclature on account of offensiveness is it doesn't stop and it drives words out of language. What's inoffensive today can very easily be declared offensive tomorrow. And probably will, once the current term has sufficiently decreased in use. Why do you think we have so many euphemisms for sex and sexual equipment? Why do you think we have so many words for the same drugs? People can't use the proper terms, so they have to invent, or more likely, beg/borrow/steal a different one.
Heck, I've heard 'Bear' is not the original word for that animal. It was believed saying it's actual name would get it's attention.

If you had a womb, then you needed to get knocked up, even if you didn't feel like a woman. If you didn't have a womb, then you were responsible for providing for the woman you knocked up and all of the children you and her created; if you felt as though you should have the social role of being the stay at home caretaker who gets provided for, that was too damn bad. All that mattered about your life was your ability to manufacture more babies who could enter the service of God. It was a pretty oppressive regime across the board, but not especially so toward what we now perceive as LGBT issues, any more than toward any other belief not founded in scripture.

There's also the fact that it worked. This is a fairly stable societal setup. The slimmer the margins, the more people are going to stick to what works and insist that others do so, as well.
We live in a very prosperous age, where we can afford to care about things like self-determination.
Not to mention I very much doubt it was limited to Judeo-Christians. Any society that wants to survive long-term has to encourage it's members to reproduce. Look at what happened to the Shakers, though I admit I hadn't realized there are still a few around before reading the article. Celibate or otherwise non-reproducing groups can work, so long as they have a broader population to draw from. And the higher your attrition rate, the fewer non-reproducers you can afford.

 

[ShySquare]

It's kinda sad that this thread is attracting so many people with regressive ideas about sex and gender, especially given the kind of games this community is built around.

My big issue with demanding a change in nomenclature on account of offensiveness is it doesn't stop and it drives words out of language. What's inoffensive today can very easily be declared offensive tomorrow.

Language changes because the societies that use it changes, that's what it does. Words fall in and out of usage everyday. I fail to see the reasoning behind refusing to stop using a word just because a marginalized group said they find it offensive. Imo, it's actually a pretty good reason to stop using a word. Especially when other, less offensive synonyms exist.
The alternative to that is said marginalized group reclaiming the offensive word for themselves (thus making it innoffensive), and again, changing the language. But that's up to the marginalized community to decide, and reclaiming a slur is usually met with pushback from the mainstream (in a "that's our word we made up to insult you, how dare you use it for yourself" kind of way)

Not to mention I very much doubt it was limited to Judeo-Christians.

It wasn't, but european colonialism still crushed and """""civilized""""" a lot of societies whose views of gender and sex were very different from the european christian one (ie: societies that recognized genders other than man and woman, societies who didn't view homosexual relationships/sex as "inherently sinful" or shameful, etc.)

Any society that wants to survive long-term has to encourage it's members to reproduce.

Actually, any society that wants to survive long-term needs to balance its population with the resources available. What matters is how many people help produce/extract/refine resources and how many resources are available vs how many people need those resources.
Reproduction only very indirectly ties into this for population renewal, and so does immigration (another way to add people to your population, and usually more advantageous).

And being queer doesn't mean you can't have or want children, whether biological or adopted ; implying it does is pretty reductive, imo.

 

[Paradox01]

It's kinda sad that this thread is attracting so many people with regressive ideas about sex and gender, especially given the kind of games this community is built around.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that for the most part, folks here have their own ideas and opinions about language but they ALSO respect other peoples' ideas and opinions.

I'm an athiest, but that doesn't mean I want to burn down your church.