Are There Any LGBTQ Survivors In The Game Or Planning To Be

Orion

@Wahara said:
"We don't know the sexuality of the characters so you can just pretend."

It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something. Weird.

I'd say that's your fault for not being able to project yourself onto a character without that character explicitly sharing your traits, but it's really because you don't seem to understand why the assumption comes naturally - because the majority of people are heterosexual. However, since it's not explicitly stated one way or the other, you're free to project whatever characters you want onto the character.
I assume some are heterosexual, some are homosexual, some are bisexual, and some are asexual, depending on my interpretation of their backstories. This is just as valid as assuming they're all heterosexual, or assuming they're all homosexual, or assuming they're all bisexual, and so on, because nothing has ever been explicitly said.

Orion

@Wahara said:
@Mc_Harty

1) Your point implies that the inclusion of sexuality is innately more "shoved down one's throat" than race or sex.
2) Duh? I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. That's the whole point of comparison, you describe similarities between two things that are different. The similarities being that they are both immutable characteristics.
3) YES I AGREE THAT IS THE [BAD WORD] POINT YOU DENSE MOTHER [BAD WORD]. Neither is the mere existent of LGBTQ people. You're making me facepalm into a coma.
4) I can repeat the main argument, here. If no one gives a #########, then there's no reason not to include it.
5) You didn't understand the point. It is logically contradictory to argue a neutral stance and also a negative stance. You either don't care or you do care, not both.
6) Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? What the hell do you think I'm discussing? Marching into BHVR HQ with armed drag queens? Don't be ridiculous.
7) Heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default.

1. It is, because there's no way to show sexual orientation without showing romantic and/or sexual interactions between people. In media where these don't happen normally (like, say, a horror game), the developers would have to go out of their way to include scenes that explicitly state a character's orientation. Alternatively, and more commonly, they can appeal to stereotypes, which we could do without.

Wahara

I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend." Anyone that could read something as innocuous as that in a survivors biography and think that sexuality is being shoved in their face is simply not thinking very hard.

Mc_Harty

@Wahara said:
1) Your point implies that the inclusion of sexuality is innately more "shoved down one's throat" than race or sex.

@Orion already cover 1 so read his reply.

2) Duh? I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. That's the whole point of comparison, you describe similarities between two things that are different. The similarities being that they are both immutable characteristics.

Because they're not the same. Race is obvious. Sexuality is not.

You can't shove race down someones throat to the same degree as sexuality.

3) YES I AGREE THAT IS THE [BAD WORD] POINT YOU DENSE MOTHER [BAD WORD]. Neither is the mere existent of LGBTQ people. You're making me facepalm into a coma.

You're comparing a pigment to a sexual attraction dumbass. Sexuality isn't obvious.

Stop comparing the two.

4) I can repeat the main argument, here. If no one gives a #########, then there's no reason not to include it.

Doesn't mean we should.

5) You didn't understand the point. It is logically contradictory to argue a neutral stance and also a negative stance. You either don't care or you do care, not both.

Yet you implied that was a win, since no one cares, so why not?

I don't give a ######### what BHVR does to introduced characters as long as it makes sense. You, clearly want sexual minorities just for the sake of having them.

6) Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? What the hell do you think I'm discussing? Marching into BHVR HQ with armed drag queens? Don't be ridiculous.

I'm talking to an individual who can't take whatever as an answer.

7) Heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default.

And that means you can't pretend the survivors are gay because...?

Orion

@Wahara said:
I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend."

In that way, sure, it's innocuous. Now let me ask you something: What is Sandra's sexual orientation?

Wahara

@Mc_Harty Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.

"Yet you implied that was a win, since no one cares, so why not?"

Um, no. No, I didn't. I have been clearly arguing the affirmative this whole time. I am arguing the affirmative while simultaneously pointing out the contradiction between arguing a neutral and a negative, that doesn't mean I'm arguing a neutral and a positive.

I am not neutral. I would very much like to see a LGBTQ character. Ugh, there's something else I want to mention here but I can't find the words for it. I hope it comes to me the next post.

"for the sake of having them."

Uh, yeah? People keep saying this line like it's some sort of self evident argument. That's..what representation is? Your statement, worded different, but containing the same meaning could read: "You want representation just because you want representation."

Brilliant observation, my dear Watson. throws hand up in the air You got me!

Mc_Harty

@Wahara said:
@Mc_Harty Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.

Compared to sexuality, yes, it's more obvious.

"Yet you implied that was a win, since no one cares, so why not?"

Um, no. No, I didn't.

If no one gives a ######### then there's no reason to not included it.

Yeah you did.

I have been clearly arguing the affirmative this whole time. I am arguing the affirmative while simultaneously pointing out the contradiction between arguing a neutral and a negative, that doesn't mean I'm arguing a neutral and a positive.

No, but then again multiple people don't care and they don't want to care. Accept that already.

I am not neutral. I would very much like to see a LGBTQ character. Ugh, there's something else I want to mention here but I can't find the words for it. I hope it comes to me the next post.

How do you know there's not one or multiple in the game already?

Do you need a neon sign too?

"for the sake of having them."

Uh, yeah? People keep saying this line like it's some sort of self evident argument. That's..what representation is? Your statement, worded different, but containing the same meaning could read: "You want representation just because you want representation."

Having a gay character into a video game simply because they fill a checklist is what everyone is against.

The fact you can't see the difference between pandering and respectful characters shows your desperation.

Orion

@Mc_Harty said:
Having a gay character into a video game simply because they fill a checklist is what everyone is against.

The fact you can't see the difference between pandering and respectful characters shows your desperation.

^This.

Good examples of movies with a female lead: Terminator 2, the first four Alien films, Gravity. Their characters were not created to fit a checklist; they were created with all the important details in mind (badassery, intelligence, vulnerability, etc.), while paying no attention to irrelevant ones (skin color, sex, orientation).
Bad example of a movie with a female lead: the Ghostbusters remake. The movie was made just to have an all-women remake of the original, with no concern for what made the original any good.

Good examples of movies with a black lead: the Blade trilogy, Black Panther, Django (so I hear; haven't actually watched that one). In the first case, the situation is analogous to what I described above. In the other two cases, the race of the characters fits the situation - one film is set primarily in Africa, the other is about a slave in the USA.

Wahara

"Compared to sexuality, yes, it's more obvious"

Okay. This will be fun. Please explain how it's more obvious without sounding racist. I'm dying to know how you're going to do this. Give me something good, like "I know they're black because they have dark skin and curly hair." Lololol.

Just as an example, upon seeing Tiger Woods, most people would immediately think "black guy" but he is not merely black, but of Caribbean and Indian ancestry as well.

"Yeah you did."

Okay, yeah. I did. I'll quickly concede this point so I don't make myself out to be hypocrite, having just complained earlier that a good lot of you are being willfully obtuse. In which case, I admit my mistake and stand by my revised statement: I am not neutral. I argue the affirmative, and dispute the logical consistency of arguing both neutral and negative.

"No, but then again multiple people don't care and they don't want to care. Accept that already."

I do accept that some people don't care, what I don't accept is that the people purporting to "not care" in this thread are being honest. Someone that doesn't care wouldn't be getting into a long quote fest with someone that does. For someone that doesn't care, you seem to care a great deal.

How is it "pandering" if a video game company takes notice of their queer fan base asking for representation and kindly obliges them? That's called consideration.

@Orion

Can we skip a step on that question and just get to what you're setting me up for?

Wahara

"I don't care, but I question why it's necessary. I don't care, but I question your motives for desiring their inclusion. I don't care, but their inclusion is shoving an agenda down my throat. I don't care, but you're shallow for wanting this. I don't care, but you should just play pretend"

Uh huh. Yeah. Bull mother ######### ######### you don't care.

Floofy

"Okay. This will be fun. Please explain how it's more obvious without sounding racist. I'm dying to know how you're going to do this. Give me something good, like 'I know they're black because they have dark skin and curly hair.' Lololol."

I'm Chinese. I have relatively smaller looking eyes due to my heritage and the little flaps over my eye. I have a round face, and although I am tall, I have an Asian hairstyle to boot. Most would assume that I am Asian, and they would be correct to do so. It is not racist in any way to assume my race. They are not looking down at me, they are inferring this from what they have seen. Unlike sexuality, an innate preference, there are numerous physical features on my face and my skin color to help discern my race.

Yes, some sexuality may have a trait commonly seen, such as clothing choice, but it is not as common as the racial differences. Therefore, race is not nearly as difficult to see as someone's sexuality.

Orion

@Wahara said:
@Orion

Can we skip a step on that question and just get to what you're setting me up for?

I was going to ask how you'd apply the same principle to bisexuality, asexuality, and trans. You know, the things that homosexuals often forget are also part of LGBT when they demand "LGBT" characters.

Wahara

Okay, let's back this up a bit before we get taken down a rabbit hole. The discussion on whether race is more obvious than sexuality may be a completely unfruitful discussion. Let's just say I grant you the point and that it is, why is that relevant to the argument that the representation of sexuality is "more pushy" than the representation of race?

When someone says "pushed" or "shoved" they're implying aggression. Simply because it could take more work to express sexuality than race in no way entails it is being forced on you. Further, I also mentioned sex as an immutable characteristic, but only the comparison with race was disputed. Why is that?

ToolboxMotley

@Wahara said:
Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.

And those trivialities are entirely irrelevant. Their melanin quantities are different, yaaaaay. That's as far as it needs to go. Only people obsessed with race (not a good thing) would want it to be taken farther than that.

@Wahara said:
I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend." Anyone that could read something as innocuous as that in a survivors biography and think that sexuality is being shoved in their face is simply not thinking very hard.

If it's that minor, sure, no problem. They haven't made any reference to non-parental relationships in any of the other Survivors' stories, but since it seems some gay people just do not have enough imagination to fill in the gaps on their favorite characters' pasts, their mental handicaps could be accommodated via the inclusion of a line or two like that.

@Wahara said:
Oh, you know that's an improper characterization. You yourself were argued down from "Quit being so God damned shallow" to "Okay, actually yeah it is kind of nice if it's done right"

That's how debates are typically supposed to go, reaching an understanding and, if viable and/or necessary, a compromise. Not the "I MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS" like many people seem to be taught.

I never said it was kind of nice, by the way. I still think that those who need it to happen have wildly unhealthy mindsets.

@Wahara said:
Er, to your question, I'm not sure exactly how to respond but I cannot tell whether you're phrasing your question rhetorically or whether they're being asked in good faith. Some clarification?

I was asking in good faith and offering one way I could see it being done without being obnoxious, but that good faith is waning as you continue to state that any arguments opposed to yours are simply unworthy of consideration.

Floofy

I can't say for the last point, but here. Sexuality isn't something anyone notices, nor cares about in any character whatsoever. People are free to make their own decisions on characters' sexuality, but in no way should it be confirmed. It would be forced upon it, only because the majority of the player base do not care for it, and it is unimportant to the character.

You do not relate to someone just because of their sexuality, you relate to them based on their past, their experiences. Someone being gay doesn't change anything in their story, therefore it is unneeded. People can relate to their suffering. Let's take Feng min. She's a gamer, who felt rejected by her family, and ended up doing what many sulking teens wish to do, leave home and live their dream. Of course, she took it to an extreme and ended up dying for it. But, let's say instead ofher being addicted to gaming and therefore rejected, she was rejected for being lesbian. Okay, where now? She's lesbian, does she follow the dream of being a gamer? There wasn't setup. The story doesn't work. Let's say she still is a hardcore gamer. She loved games, and was kicked out of home for it. Btw, she's gay. Does it change the story? No. It doesn't. Nothing about their sexuality changes anything in the story. There is no reason to add the sexuality. Simply let people live as they want, with their own imaginations of the character's life and ideas.

Wahara

@ToolboxMotley said:

@Wahara said:
Race/ethnic background is not always obvious. Depending on what their heritage is, further elaboration may be necessary. Unless, of course, you're claiming to be psychic and can determine the genetic and cultural makeup of someone by merely looking at them? That would be an interesting argument to make. The olive toned person you think is hispanic could actually be Arabic. The person you suspect is Asian could actually be native inuit.

And those trivialities are entirely irrelevant. Their melanin quantities are different, yaaaaay. That's as far as it needs to go. Only people obsessed with race (not a good thing) would want it to be taken farther than that.

@Wahara said:
I'm not entirely sure where you intend on going with this differentiation between how one observes race versus how one observes sexuality. Something that is visually expressed, like race, is not inherently worse or "pushier" than something that's verbally expressed, i.e. "Sandra disappeared mysteriously one night after a late dinner with her girlfriend." Anyone that could read something as innocuous as that in a survivors biography and think that sexuality is being shoved in their face is simply not thinking very hard.

If it's that minor, sure, no problem. They haven't made any reference to non-parental relationships in any of the other Survivors' stories, but since it seems some gay people just do not have enough imagination to fill in the gaps on their favorite characters' pasts, their mental handicaps could be accommodated via the inclusion of a line or two like that.

@Wahara said:
Oh, you know that's an improper characterization. You yourself were argued down from "Quit being so God damned shallow" to "Okay, actually yeah it is kind of nice if it's done right"

That's how debates are typically supposed to go, reaching an understanding and, if viable and/or necessary, a compromise. Not the "I MUST WIN AT ALL COSTS" like many people seem to be taught.

I never said it was kind of nice, by the way. I still think that those who need it to happen have wildly unhealthy mindsets.

@Wahara said:
Er, to your question, I'm not sure exactly how to respond but I cannot tell whether you're phrasing your question rhetorically or whether they're being asked in good faith. Some clarification?

I was asking in good faith and offering one way I could see it being done without being obnoxious, but that good faith is waning as you continue to state that any arguments opposed to yours are simply unworthy of consideration.

Your exact words were "If it's done right" so, you know, paraphrasing. Unless you would like to clarify that you meant that if it's done right, it...would be mediocre...? Personally, I think the purpose of a debate is to reach the most logical conclusion. Compromise can be a part of that process, but it doesn't have to be. I'm not going to give up a point because you gave up one, because that would be "fair" I'll give up a point if it's clearly wrong.

I do welcome you to point out where I have dismissed anyone's point without an honest attempt of rebuttal. I will happily correct the oversight. Conversely, if you would like me to quote the interactions where I feel justified in believing others are not properly engaging with my own, I would be happy to do so.

You and Orion are the only two participants in this discussion thus far that have come remotely close to honestly engaging with me and I suspect you know that, but I'll try not to be presumptuous. If you really do believe I'm just writing off people who disagree with me willy nilly, that's disappointing, but I think the conversation speaks for itself.

thekiller490490

Why does this matter? 

ToolboxMotley

@Floofy said:
But, let's say instead ofher being addicted to gaming and therefore rejected, she was rejected for being lesbian. Okay, where now? She's lesbian, does she follow the dream of being a gamer? There wasn't setup. The story doesn't work. Let's say she still is a hardcore gamer. She loved games, and was kicked out of home for it. Btw, she's gay. Does it change the story? No. It doesn't. Nothing about their sexuality changes anything in the story. There is no reason to add the sexuality.

Dwight now has six toes on his right foot, and Jake is now left-handed. Let us add some lines to their backstories to reflect these facts so that there is representation.

Wait, wait, no. Dwight has six toes, but also suffers from bipolar disorder. Furthermore, his favorite food is cordon bleu, and he used to make $11 an hour at his old job. He also has two sisters and a brother. Also three uncles and four aunts on his mother's side, it was a very large family. His father's name was also Dwight, but he more often went by Paul, which was his middle name. When Dwight was seven years old, his family got a dog. It was a german shepherd/border collie mix. Adorable. Its name was Jack. Dwight was sensitive to citrus, too, or really anything with citric acid. It wasn't really an allergy, exactly, but just some weird reaction that would cause a rash if it touched his lips. He really loved the Lion King movie as a small child, he'd watch it a couple times a day. His friends, Johnny and Paul (like his dad's middle name! He always found that so weird) really liked Playstation, but Dwight was more of a Sega kid. One time, Dwight tried to cut open an orange so he could eat it (this was before finding out about the citrus sensitivity), and he accidentally cut his finger. But he just put a band-aid on the cut and ate the orange anyway. What a trooper. Dwight likes to drink soda and then crush the cans with his foot. One time, the aluminum poked through the drinking hole and embedded itself into his shoe. He laughed and stomped around with it. It took eight steps before it fell off. Then he threw it away. But he was a good boy, so he put it into the recyclables bin. Not like his brother, Hank. Hank would throw his soda cans in with the food. Bad Hank. Dwight had a tendency to chew his fingernails (wait, crap, that's actually something that can be and is easily represented in-game) Dwight always wiped down instead of up when on the toilet. He'd sit down to pee, too. Silly Dwight, boys don't have to do that. When he first drove a car, it was a Ford. Fancy, Dwight, fancy. He rode a horse once, but he was scared and didn't do it again. He doesn't trust playground swings, because the chain snapped once while he was swinging and he fractured his arm. It wasn't a full-blown break, but it still hurt. Also, he used to forget deodorant a lot. Most people didn't like that, but since the Entity doesn't give the Survivors deodorant, no one minds as much now, so he sees that as a silver lining.

Now, let's add all that to his backstory. We need representation, you see.

@Wahara said:
I do welcome you to point out where I have dismissed anyone's point without an honest attempt of rebuttal. I will happily correct the oversight. Conversely, if you would like me to quote the interactions where I feel justified in believing others are not properly engaging with my own, I would be happy to do so.

You've subjectively decided that people aren't addressing your points, when I know for a fact that I have been at every step. At one point in doing that, you said I was moving the goalposts. But, yes, give me your side and explain where you think you're not being listened to.

Wahara

Alright, well, that's going to be one giant ass post that's going to require a cigarette. Hang tight.

Wahara

Okay, starting on page 3, I made this post:

**Because representation (of historically and currently under represented groups of people) is important. Let's say for the sake of argument that all characters in DBD were white, and we asked the developers if they could make characters of other races, and you responded with "why are you interested about skin color?" Or if they were all men, and we asked why there weren't any women, and you responded with "why are you so interested in gender?" that would sound just a bit obtuse, wouldn't it?

LGBTQ survivors, or even killers, would be a much welcome addition to DBD. It would add variety and make things more interesting, like say, a gay killer who's motivated to kill based on religious trauma experienced during adolescence."**

To which, everyone completely ignored and focused mostly on Legend. It contained two important arguments. 1) The illustration that the inclusion of race and sex but the exclusion of sexuality is an irrational double standard 2) A character's sexuality can indeed be relevant to their background.**

Moving on to my post on page 5.

**A few things, since the forum ate my last post. If a moderator can find and approve the last post that I made which randomly went into the queue, that would be appreciated.

A) I feel like the people claiming that it "isn't necessary" are being somewhat disingenuous. If the roster of dead by daylight survivors were only black women, I am highly skeptical the majority of you claiming this would be as encouraged to play the game versus if you had the ability to choose a character that looked like or was more similar to you. The exact same arguments repeated here could be used against the inclusion of anyone else.

In response to Soylent and the point that sexuality, paraphrasing, "isn't something that should come up or something that people should care about." - visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness. People who come into contact with diverse groups through the media that they consume become more accustomed to them. Will & Grace, for example, was one of the really large turning points in altering the average American's perception of gay people.

C) Many things aren't necessary or don't matter. It isn't necessary for me to play dead by daylight, drink coffee, go for long walks, or sleep with five pillows. I do them anyways because they make me happy. Our desires and wants aren't usually determined by necessity but by emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be emotionally appreciated by a decent amount of the player base, why would you deny them, if not simply to be a dick?

D) You can't argue "No" because "It doesn't matter" That's arguing a negative and neutral stance at the same time.**

Here, I reiterate the irrational double standard, that, again, isn't addressed. I also illustrate the argument for why representation is important and does actually matter whilst also arguing that non necessity isn't a valid basis for exclusion.

Our first attempt at engaging begins with Orion, who latches onto one small aspect while ignoring the rest:

And you are playing as a gay character, as far as you know. Just because the devs haven't said they're LGBT doesn't mean they're not LGBT. I said it in my first comment in this thread: just assume they're whatever orientation you are and be done with it.

Yet, he doesn't justify why those of us who do want explicitly queer characters should have to play pretend.

You can see the beginning of my frustration in this response:

**I understood what you said the first time, but you haven't articulated what threat the explicit inclusion of a sexual orientation would present to the game.

I have previously argued that it has the capability of adding depth and intrigue to characters, whereas you seem to be under the impression that it would do harm, or take away from the game some how. Okay, I'll bite, but you gotta give me something to work with.**

My frustration was understandable, I made detailed arguments for the affirmative which were all brushed away and was instructed to use my imagination without follow up. For the rest of my post, I went into more detail about how sexuality could be very relevant to a character's back story by writing out the concept of a gay killer.

Orion's response:

I think it's irrelevant to the lore and the characters, the same way it's irrelevant in real life unless you want to know if you can date and/or have sex with someone. I also think it's usually done as a token inclusion, and those always suck.

A clear and complete shift of the goal posts. He reiterates the irrelevancy, ignores the example to demonstrate otherwise, and shifts his concern to "tokenization"

He attempts to rephrase, but has the exact same meaning as his prior statement:

Let me rephrase: it's irrelevant to the current characters' lore.

Moving onto PolarBear:

As I said It hardly affect the lore of the game. In my opinion it's better to leave it to the imagination so if you want a character to be gay, straight, etc. then you can choose to think that way. Also if you can't represent a group of people in a meaningful way it's just better to leave it out. It doesn't make BHVR look any better if they just slap a gay tag on a character.

He simply just reasserts the irrelevancy without engaging with any of my points. He simply asserts irrelevancy, simply asserts the representation couldn't be done in a meaningful away, and simply asserts BHVR would "slap on a tag"

The next response is from you, which isn't really disagreeing with me at all, as far as I can tell. I then made my first exit from the discussion based on my annoyance.

On page 6, still, no one attempts to address my previous rebuttals but continue repeat the "It doesn't matter, therefore no." argument. Namely, Mc_Hardy and Peasant.

My next post specifically addressed the fear of sexuality being "tacked on" since I hadn't properly addressed that concern yet:

**I say I'm leaving and then come right back. I have too much time on my hands. But anyways. cracks knuckles

"We don't know the sexuality of the characters so you can just pretend."

It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something. Weird.

Also, MichaelMyers, did you know that deep throating every post that confirms your biases with capital letters makes you look really smart? You're doing great, keep it up.

There was one thing that I feel silly in hindsight for not expanding upon. When xmenfanatic mentioned that falling underneath the queer umbrella encompasses a lot more than who you want to have sex with, I should have added that gender presentation also factors into this. Characters that don't fit into their expected binary would be a welcome change, i.e. a male survivor who wears earrings and lipstick.

"I don't want their sexuality to just be tacked on."

I feel a little embarrassed for falling for this, because it's a sneaky trick. Sexuality wouldn't be "tacked on" any more than sex or race is "tacked on" It can be relevant to their story or it may not be. Neither are a valid basis for exclusion.**

Here, I show that being queer is about more than sex, but gender presentation as well. I'm completely ignored, again, whilst people like peasant and Mc_Hardy continue to go after Legend.

It is not until I start to become a real ######### in response to Peasant is when I get some takers:

**"Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?

All of you are being obtuse cowards about this very basic and [BAD WORD] simple question. Why is the representation of race and sex permissible but the representation of sexuality is not? If you cannot answer, you must accept the possibility of having an irrational double standard and take some time for a bit of self examination. Seriously.

I'll be waiting while you ignore me to regurgitate your tired points at Legend over and over again."**

After Mc_Hardy fails at the proposed challenge by arguing the neutral and negative at the same time (again) your response is that I'm just dismissing people that disagree with me:

"Once you pick away the nonsense like "viewpoints opposed to my own". PSSSH. Stoopid disagree-y people."

Am I done? Is that good enough? I really shouldn't have had to do that. You don't get to say stuff like this when everything is clearly cataloged and demonstrably shows otherwise.

To your most recent attempt to discredit me: people that have six toes, allergies, cut oranges, or make 11 dollars an hour do not have histories of endured oppression and violence stretching back millenia which still continue to the present. These groups would not benefit or appreciate from representation in the media we consume compared to a group that has been and is disenfranchised.

Wahara

This post is going to be an ugly dumpster fire because the tags aren't working properly....

Starting on page 3, I made this post:

**Because representation (of historically and currently under represented groups of people) is important. Let's say for the sake of argument that all characters in DBD were white, and we asked the developers if they could make characters of other races, and you responded with "why are you interested about skin color?" Or if they were all men, and we asked why there weren't any women, and you responded with "why are you so interested in gender?" that would sound just a bit obtuse, wouldn't it?

LGBTQ survivors, or even killers, would be a much welcome addition to DBD. It would add variety and make things more interesting, like say, a gay killer who's motivated to kill based on religious trauma experienced during adolescence.**

To which, everyone completely ignored and focused mostly on Legend. It contained two important arguments. 1) The illustration that the inclusion of race and sex but the exclusion of sexuality is an irrational double standard 2) A character's sexuality can indeed be relevant to their background.

Moving on to my post on page 5.

**A few things, since the forum ate my last post. If a moderator can find and approve the last post that I made which randomly went into the queue, that would be appreciated.

A) I feel like the people claiming that it "isn't necessary" are being somewhat disingenuous. If the roster of dead by daylight survivors were only black women, I am highly skeptical the majority of you claiming this would be as encouraged to play the game versus if you had the ability to choose a character that looked like or was more similar to you. The exact same arguments repeated here could be used against the inclusion of anyone else.

In response to Soylent and the point that sexuality, paraphrasing, "isn't something that should come up or something that people should care about." - visibility is a part of that normalization process. Familiarity breeds fondness. People who come into contact with diverse groups through the media that they consume become more accustomed to them. Will & Grace, for example, was one of the really large turning points in altering the average American's perception of gay people.

C) Many things aren't necessary or don't matter. It isn't necessary for me to play dead by daylight, drink coffee, go for long walks, or sleep with five pillows. I do them anyways because they make me happy. Our desires and wants aren't usually determined by necessity but by emotional appreciation. If the inclusion of LGBTQ characters would be emotionally appreciated by a decent amount of the player base, why would you deny them, if not simply to be a dick?

D) You can't argue "No" because "It doesn't matter" That's arguing a negative and neutral stance at the same time.**

Here, I reiterate the irrational double standard, that, again, isn't addressed. I also illustrate the argument for why representation is important and does actually matter whilst also arguing that non necessity isn't a valid basis for exclusion.

Our first attempt at engaging begins with Orion, who latches onto one small aspect while ignoring the rest:

And you are playing as a gay character, as far as you know. Just because the devs haven't said they're LGBT doesn't mean they're not LGBT. I said it in my first comment in this thread: just assume they're whatever orientation you are and be done with it.

Yet, he doesn't justify why those of us who do want explicitly queer characters should have to play pretend.

You can see the beginning of my frustration in this response:

**I understood what you said the first time, but you haven't articulated what threat the explicit inclusion of a sexual orientation would present to the game.

I have previously argued that it has the capability of adding depth and intrigue to characters, whereas you seem to be under the impression that it would do harm, or take away from the game some how. Okay, I'll bite, but you gotta give me something to work with.**

My frustration was understandable, I made detailed arguments for the affirmative which were all brushed away and was instructed to use my imagination without follow up. For the rest of my post, I went into more detail about how sexuality could be very relevant to a character's back story by writing out the concept of a gay killer.

Orion's response:

I think it's irrelevant to the lore and the characters, the same way it's irrelevant in real life unless you want to know if you can date and/or have sex with someone. I also think it's usually done as a token inclusion, and those always suck.

A clear and complete shift of the goal posts. He reiterates the irrelevancy, ignores the example to demonstrate otherwise, and shifts his concern to "tokenization"

He attempts to rephrase, but has the exact same meaning as his prior statement:

Let me rephrase: it's irrelevant to the current characters' lore.

Moving onto PolarBear:

As I said It hardly affect the lore of the game. In my opinion it's better to leave it to the imagination so if you want a character to be gay, straight, etc. then you can choose to think that way. Also if you can't represent a group of people in a meaningful way it's just better to leave it out. It doesn't make BHVR look any better if they just slap a gay tag on a character.

He simply just reasserts the irrelevancy without engaging with any of my points. He simply asserts irrelevancy, simply asserts the representation couldn't be done in a meaningful away, and simply asserts BHVR would "slap on a tag"

The next response is from you, which isn't really disagreeing with me at all, as far as I can tell. I then made my first exit from the discussion based on my annoyance.

On page 6, still, no one attempts to address my previous rebuttals but continue to repeat the "It doesn't matter, therefore no." argument. Namely, Mc_Hardy and Peasant.

My next post specifically addressed the fear of sexuality being "tacked on" since I hadn't properly addressed that concern yet:

**I say I'm leaving and then come right back. I have too much time on my hands. But anyways. cracks knuckles

"We don't know the sexuality of the characters so you can just pretend."

It's like people are saying heterosexuality isn't naturally assumed to be the default or something. Weird.

Also, MichaelMyers, did you know that deep throating every post that confirms your biases with capital letters makes you look really smart? You're doing great, keep it up.

There was one thing that I feel silly in hindsight for not expanding upon. When xmenfanatic mentioned that falling underneath the queer umbrella encompasses a lot more than who you want to have sex with, I should have added that gender presentation also factors into this. Characters that don't fit into their expected binary would be a welcome change, i.e. a male survivor who wears earrings and lipstick.

"I don't want their sexuality to just be tacked on."

I feel a little embarrassed for falling for this, because it's a sneaky trick. Sexuality wouldn't be "tacked on" any more than sex or race is "tacked on" It can be relevant to their story or it may not be. Neither are a valid basis for exclusion.**

Here, I show that being queer is about more than sex, but gender presentation as well. I'm completely ignored, again, whilst people like peasant and Mc_Hardy continue to go after Legend.

It is not until I start to become a real ######### in response to Peasant is when I get some takers:

**Is Claudette throwing her blackness in your face? Is Feng Min throwing her Asianness in your face?

All of you are being obtuse cowards about this very basic and [BAD WORD] simple question. Why is the representation of race and sex permissible but the representation of sexuality is not? If you cannot answer, you must accept the possibility of having an irrational double standard and take some time for a bit of self examination. Seriously.

I'll be waiting while you ignore me to regurgitate your tired points at Legend over and over again.**

After Mc_Hardy fails at the proposed challenge by arguing the neutral and negative at the same time (again) your response is that I'm just dismissing people that disagree with me:

Once you pick away the nonsense like "viewpoints opposed to my own". PSSSH. Stoopid disagree-y people.

Am I done? Is that good enough? I really shouldn't have had to do that. You don't get to say stuff like this when everything is clearly cataloged and demonstrably shows otherwise.

To your most recent attempt to discredit me: people that have six toes, allergies, cut oranges, or make 11 dollars an hour do not have histories of endured oppression and violence stretching back millenia which still continue to the present. These groups would not benefit or appreciate from representation in media we consume compared to a group that is disenfranchised.

Volfawott

@ChesterTheMolester
See told ya

ToolboxMotley

My most recent "attempt to discredit you" is probably the most effective way I've depicted the argument everyone is trying to make; that it's a superfluous addition and a waste of space to anyone that isn't part of the Progressive religion.

How about Jewish characters? A lot of them are still getting a pretty awful hand dealt to them. Christians? I don't know steeped you are in social justice warrior ideology, so it's possible you think Christians have always been mega-oppressors at the forefront of any and all injustices the world over, but they've been pretty screwed, too. How about the Irish? Can't really tell who's Irish at a glance, would have to have it shoved in somewhere in their bio, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go into Irish history while trying to describe the character.

Gotta ask, do you want equal treatment, or special treatment? None of the other characters have had their sexualities disclosed. That's a pretty good blank-slate approach, a way to ensure that players can impose their own stories as desired. Heterosexuality is indeed the norm, but whose fault is it for assuming that every character must be straight? Society, for not forcing everyone to be gay? Or yours, for doing the actual literal act of assuming they must all be straight?

You may not like it, but my previous post does in fact convey the main point being put forward. It is irrelevant information. Claiming that no one is listening to you and then insulting them while crying that they're moving the goalposts when they do address your arguments doesn't change that.

Victory for the LGBT acceptance movement is for sexuality to not matter. You're instead insisting that it does matter, and apparently, that society must "pay them back" for abuse that most in this day and age have never actually experienced. Some have, yes; just as some people with physical deformities, sickly tendencies, and food preferences have been abused for who they are. Sometimes, people have a crappy time thanks to other people targeting very stupid aspects of their personality. I was bullied for having long hair and liking Sonic the Hedgehog as a kid. That's not large-scale oppression, that's a few people being #########. Oppression of homosexuals is largely over, at least in the USA, and clinging to it will just keep it here for longer.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, and a line or two of flavor text wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd give a warning to the developers to not take it too far, making gay people seem like the attention whores that efforts like this have made them out to be, and a warning to you and Legend, to not let something so trivial consume the entirety of your being. You're more than who you're attracted to, and you live in the present, not the past. Your body, does, at least; your mind, well, that looks to be stuck in the past, a bit, but it can always catch up.

ToolboxMotley

Uh oh, my post needs approval before it'll go through, now. Is it time to be jailed for wrongthink?

Volfawott

Who cares about their sexuality or about slapping a lgbt-whatever character, it's pointless and stupid.

If you want to see some random ass lgbt  rubbish, look up rule 34 dead by daylight.
I'm sure you can find Dwight blowing David or some ######### like that.

Wahara

@Aari_Piggy66 said:
Who cares about their sexuality or about slapping a lgbt-whatever character, it's pointless and stupid.

If you want to see some random ass lgbt  rubbish, look up rule 34 dead by daylight.
I'm sure you can find Dwight blowing David or some ######### like that.

@ToolboxMotley

This is precisely the kind of willful refusal to engage that I'm talking about. Sorry about your post...that keeps happening to me too.

Hi, Aari. I realize that you've walked into somewhat of a mess, but it would be helpful if you followed a long. I don't deny that you may have a valid perspective, but your current post doesn't seem like it takes into account the material that has already been discussed.

MichaelAMyers

@Aari_Piggy66 said:
Who cares about their sexuality or about slapping a lgbt-whatever character, it's pointless and stupid.

If you want to see some random ass lgbt  rubbish, look up rule 34 dead by daylight.
I'm sure you can find Dwight blowing David or some ######### like that.

@ToolboxMotley said:
Uh oh, my post needs approval before it'll go through, now. Is it time to be jailed for wrongthink?

This is all that needs to be summed up can a Mod lock this thread now?

ChesterTheMolester

Aari_Piggy66 said:

@ChesterTheMolester
See told ya

I see 8 pages in fact. Holy #########

ToolboxMotley

@Wahara said:
Sorry about your post...that keeps happening to me too.

I wonder if it's an automatic thing when there are certain/too many politics-related trigger words.

ChesterTheMolester

@TheLegendDyl4n1
Look what you've done. So much chaos in one thread. Im actually impressed, having a great time seeing people go at each others throats cause of the sexual preference of pixels.

SoylentPixie

@ChesterTheMolester said:
@TheLegendDyl4n1
Look what you've done. So much chaos in one thread. Im actually impressed, having a great time seeing people go at each others throats cause of the sexual preference of pixels.

lMAO, I tapped out once the comparison to the fight for women's rights and slavery got used, i see matters have not improved since then.

RSB

I demand hetero characters in DBD, and I want them NOW!

ToolboxMotley

Aha! It finally went through. We can continue the screaming match if so desired. I'll admit to feeling a bit of burnout, though.

Volfawott

Wahara said:

@Aari_Piggy66 said:
Who cares about their sexuality or about slapping a lgbt-whatever character, it's pointless and stupid.

If you want to see some random ass lgbt  rubbish, look up rule 34 dead by daylight.
I'm sure you can find Dwight blowing David or some ######### like that.

@ToolboxMotley

This is precisely the kind of willful refusal to engage that I'm talking about. Sorry about your post...that keeps happening to me too.

Hi, Aari. I realize that you've walked into somewhat of a mess, but it would be helpful if you followed a long. I don't deny that you may have a valid perspective, but your current post doesn't seem like it takes into account the material that has already been discussed.

Sorry but I despise the idea of inclusion for inclusion sake and the it's for representation excuse means nothing to me.

Honestly the only characters sexual preference that has even been mildly internet is Ace and The Nurse everyone else is pretty much just held ambiguous so why the hell do you have the force representation into it. If you want to see David or Min as gay by all means do it.

Just don't whine for representation because in the end if you get it because of the whining it's not true representation it's pandering.

Wahara

@ToolboxMotley said:
My most recent "attempt to discredit you" is probably the most effective way I've depicted the argument everyone is trying to make; that it's a superfluous addition and a waste of space to anyone that isn't part of the Progressive religion.

How about Jewish characters? A lot of them are still getting a pretty awful hand dealt to them. Christians? I don't know steeped you are in social justice warrior ideology, so it's possible you think Christians have always been mega-oppressors at the forefront of any and all injustices the world over, but they've been pretty screwed, too. How about the Irish? Can't really tell who's Irish at a glance, would have to have it shoved in somewhere in their bio, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't go into Irish history while trying to describe the character.

Gotta ask, do you want equal treatment, or special treatment? None of the other characters have had their sexualities disclosed. That's a pretty good blank-slate approach, a way to ensure that players can impose their own stories as desired. Heterosexuality is indeed the norm, but whose fault is it for assuming that every character must be straight? Society, for not forcing everyone to be gay? Or yours, for doing the actual literal act of assuming they must all be straight?

You may not like it, but my previous post does in fact convey the main point being put forward. It is irrelevant information. Claiming that no one is listening to you and then insulting them while crying that they're moving the goalposts when they do address your arguments doesn't change that.

Victory for the LGBT acceptance movement is for sexuality to not matter. You're instead insisting that it does matter, and apparently, that society must "pay them back" for abuse that most in this day and age have never actually experienced. Some have, yes; just as some people with physical deformities, sickly tendencies, and food preferences have been abused for who they are. Sometimes, people have a crappy time thanks to other people targeting very stupid aspects of their personality. I was bullied for having long hair and liking Sonic the Hedgehog as a kid. That's not large-scale oppression, that's a few people being #########. Oppression of homosexuals is largely over, at least in the USA, and clinging to it will just keep it here for longer.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, and a line or two of flavor text wouldn't be the end of the world. I'd give a warning to the developers to not take it too far, making gay people seem like the attention whores that efforts like this have made them out to be, and a warning to you and Legend, to not let something so trivial consume the entirety of your being. You're more than who you're attracted to, and you live in the present, not the past. Your body, does, at least; your mind, well, that looks to be stuck in the past, a bit, but it can always catch up.

Not really. You're trying to make out sexuality to be superfluous and irrelevant by comparing it to inherently more superfluous and irrelevant things. If you believe that being gay is as likely to shape someone's life experiences and perspective as cutting oranges or enjoying SEGA, you're being A)intellectually dishonest or a moron. I'll let you pick which one you like better. It also doesn't address a previously made argument (Which I am irrationally crying that people aren't addressing, apparently.) that if sexuality is as superfluous and irrelevant as all those things, then so is race and sex, yet they're included.

Once again, it's hard for me to tell whether you're asking your questions rhetorically or not, but I see no reason why characters of different religions shouldn't be included.

I said that heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default. I didn't say that I assume the characters must be straight when I play. If you're going to discuss with me, fine, but don't start resorting to putting words in my mouth. The point is that since heterosexuality is the naturally assumed default, heterosexual players don't really have to go out of their way to use their imaginations whereas queer folk would. Why should we have to do that?

Honestly, your post really just confirms it more than anything. You politely requested where I believe I'm not properly being listened to or ignored. I took the time to recap nearly the entire topic and listed every single specific instance just to be told I'm crying that people aren't listening. Why did you even ask for me to show you if you were going to be obtuse any simply assert the contrary anyway?

In your next paragraph, you're really going off the rails a bit. I am asking to play as a gay character in a video game, not demanding society to "pay me back." That's such a douchey mischaracterization. If I wanted that I'd start a petition for reparations or something. What is with you? Yes, the goal of the LGBT rights movement is for sexuality to not matter, but, as I previously mentioned before, and am crying real tears as we speak because you ignored this point, representation is proven to help in that process.

I don't really see much in the way of substance in the rest of your post. I do see a lot of presumptuous preaching, though.

You're resorting to political buzz phrases like

"SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR PHILOSOPHY"

thunder cracks

and

"PROGRESSIVE RELIGION"

the earth opens up, plumes of fire shoot up and light the sky

in order to make me look less credible because you don't know how to deal with the arguments you're being faced with. How is asking for an LGBTQ character "clinging to oppression?" How is arguing why that would be a good idea make me "living in the past?"

Wahara

**Sorry but I despise the idea of inclusion for inclusion sake and the it's for representation excuse means nothing to me.

Honestly the only characters sexual preference that has even been mildly internet is Ace and The Nurse everyone else is pretty much just held ambiguous so why the hell do you have the force representation into it. If you want to see David or Min as gay by all means do it.**

Okay. I mean, I guess that's fair. If representation doesn't mean anything to you, you're entitled to that. They're are valid points for why it's important, though.

I guess I'm still hung up on this "for the sake of it" line people keep bringing up. For one, how would you reasonably determine whether a character is added for the sake of it or not? By the looks of it, it seems like people are saying any minority character who happens to be poorly written ended up that way because they were created for the sake of it. Maybe, they're just a character who is a minority who happens to be poorly written.

No one has said anything about forcing anything, either. Why is my side of the argument being characterized as forcing something, or demanding something, when in reality I am simply asking for something and articulating why I think it's logically consistent and a good idea.

@TheLegendDyl4n1
Look what you've done. So much chaos in one thread. Im actually impressed, having a great time seeing people go at each others throats cause of the sexual preference of pixels.

It's more than that. Those of us who want something as simple and innocent as playing a character who represents them are being told their visibility doesn't matter, because it doesn't matter to them. People don't really understand what they're saying when they keep repeating "It doesn't matter" What's really being said is "You don't matter."

TheLegendDyl4n1

@MichaelAMyers said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:

@MichaelAMyers said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
its not just about a video game its all LGBTQ+ people in general that arent accepted for being who they are and by adding LGBTQ+ people to videogames it would be another step to normalizing LGBTQ+ which is one very small step by adding one to this game

WHAT? JUST WHAT? literally, people been telling you it's not important because this is a video game! a HORROR VIDEO GAME! Being Gay or Lesbian or Transgender is openly free right now in 2018 ACCEPTABLE and been ACCEPTABLE for a long time! but who cares over a VIDEO GAME!

its not fully acceptaed if you would of refered to my whole post then you would of saw that in places like Florida people fire others for being LGBTQ+ and that although we are tollerated we arent acceptated since their are still people who beat up LGBTQ+ in public at nightime in alleys or other places we arent accepted and we dont have every right of a strait person. and yes this is a videogame and most other videogames dont contain LGBTQ+ people. in Overwatch the character tracer is gay but you dont see them announcing that in the game except in a few sprays. it just that i would like to relate to a gay character and just because this is a videogame does not mean it cant be added.

Overwatch=/=Dead by Daylight

im saying that OVERWATCH HAS A GAY CHARACTER not that the two games are equal and this gay character tracer it is not announced she is gay but just sprays and lore about her being with a girl

TheLegendDyl4n1

@Mc_Harty said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
if no one gives a ######### then why do i?

Because you're a very shallow individual that needs neon signs to relate to something.

but i still give a ######### and so do others

TheLegendDyl4n1

@Orion said:

@Mc_Harty said:
Having a gay character into a video game simply because they fill a checklist is what everyone is against.

The fact you can't see the difference between pandering and respectful characters shows your desperation.

^This.

Good examples of movies with a female lead: Terminator 2, the first four Alien films, Gravity. Their characters were not created to fit a checklist; they were created with all the important details in mind (badassery, intelligence, vulnerability, etc.), while paying no attention to irrelevant ones (skin color, sex, orientation).
Bad example of a movie with a female lead: the Ghostbusters remake. The movie was made just to have an all-women remake of the original, with no concern for what made the original any good.

Good examples of movies with a black lead: the Blade trilogy, Black Panther, Django (so I hear; haven't actually watched that one). In the first case, the situation is analogous to what I described above. In the other two cases, the race of the characters fits the situation - one film is set primarily in Africa, the other is about a slave in the USA.

name good examples of movies with LGBTQ+ LEADS THAT ARENT LGBTQ based movies because their isnt alot from the USA thats in english.

TheLegendDyl4n1

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
guys i really dont want to argue i just want to discuss who could be LGBTQ, why they could be, and have fun in another discussion. when people come into these discussions and say stuff like why does it matter or that its irrelevant to the game.
when you do this is saddens me because all i wanted to do was start another post about something i believe in why cant you just let me ask what i want and not campaign against it if you dont believe in it.
i want a confirmed LGBTQ character in this horror game that i have many hours into because i want to be able to relate to a character for real not just say oh this persons gay and i believe that.
so when i ask for them to confirm if in any characters lore, they believed they were LGBTQ so that i can personally relate to them for real, not just in my head its something thats reasonable.
if you dont want to talk about who you think is LGBTQ and try and find reasons why they are by looking in the current lore or coming up with lore yourself for if they were LGBTQ then leave
so, again if you dont agree with any of LGBTQ, you want to constantly go against anything any of us put, or just come up with reason after reason why this question i ask cant be added to the game's lore as a small part of it thats only one sentence long if that.
so, if you qualify as anything i said before then just go, leave, get out of this thread because no one needs you negativity in a thread thats asking for a small thing to be added that will not effect your quality of life unless you are a homophobe or transphobe or anything against LGBTQ and if you are then give good, solid reasons why its wrong to be LGBTQ (LGBTQ stands for everyone that is not strait just because there is not a letter there does not mean it is not represented) and if you can do that then go ahead and try.

i am gay, i am also a Baptist Christian going to a Christian Baptist School who believes in God. so if your argument is that it is a sin against God then your argument is invalid because we are all sinners in Gods eyes and every sin is equal.

so, if your going to be negative then just go and let me and other people who want to participate in this thread participate peacefully.

(side note if your color blind and cant read this post tell me and i will post a different version that has no color)

let me post again since people think i want to argue. if your here because your against it then why are you here? i literally said in the post we would discuss who would be LGBTQ+ and if anyone had proof of them being it before it but you didn't read the post did you? you just say add a LGBTQ+ character and that was enough for you guys arguing right? i am going to let @Wahara take this for now on since obviously no one listens to me and i dont have enough time to deal with this. also going to add i posted this reply on page 3 and look where we are now

Orion

@Wahara said:
I guess I'm still hung up on this "for the sake of it" line people keep bringing up. For one, how would you reasonably determine whether a character is added for the sake of it or not? By the looks of it, it seems like people are saying any minority character who happens to be poorly written ended up that way because they were created for the sake of it. Maybe, they're just a character who is a minority who happens to be poorly written.

No one has said anything about forcing anything, either. Why is my side of the argument being characterized as forcing something, or demanding something, when in reality I am simply asking for something and articulating why I think it's logically consistent and a good idea.

You can determine if they were a character added for the sake of it by noting their character traits. If the emphasis is on their orientation, race, or sex, then they were added because of their orientation, race, or sex. See my examples of good films and bad films.
Often, characters who were added for the sake of having characters with certain traits will also be stereotypical. Homosexuals will be flamboyant, bisexuals will be promiscuous, and so on.

Your idea (I think it was yours, correct me if I'm wrong) of having their orientation be a catalyst for whatever went wrong in their lives is good. That's something I think we can all accept, similarly to how we accept that Rin's family was ######### over by the way Japanese companies work.
Alternatively, having their orientation be presented as what it is - an irrelevant factoid - is also good. A casual reference to a same-sex partner, for example, as you also mentioned.

However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure.

TheLegendDyl4n1

@Orion said:

@Wahara said:
I guess I'm still hung up on this "for the sake of it" line people keep bringing up. For one, how would you reasonably determine whether a character is added for the sake of it or not? By the looks of it, it seems like people are saying any minority character who happens to be poorly written ended up that way because they were created for the sake of it. Maybe, they're just a character who is a minority who happens to be poorly written.

No one has said anything about forcing anything, either. Why is my side of the argument being characterized as forcing something, or demanding something, when in reality I am simply asking for something and articulating why I think it's logically consistent and a good idea.

You can determine if they were a character added for the sake of it by noting their character traits. If the emphasis is on their orientation, race, or sex, then they were added because of their orientation, race, or sex. See my examples of good films and bad films.
Often, characters who were added for the sake of having characters with certain traits will also be stereotypical. Homosexuals will be flamboyant, bisexuals will be promiscuous, and so on.

Your idea (I think it was yours, correct me if I'm wrong) of having their orientation be a catalyst for whatever went wrong in their lives is good. That's something I think we can all accept, similarly to how we accept that Rin's family was ######### over by the way Japanese companies work.
Alternatively, having their orientation be presented as what it is - an irrelevant factoid - is also good. A casual reference to a same-sex partner, for example, as you also mentioned.

However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure.

"However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure."

i said i was leaving but ######### dude i am gay, i have a transgender (MTF) sister, i also fight for all rights of all genders and sexual orientations i care about everyone who is LGBTQ+ and by saying we only care about the first two letters just means you dont know all the facts

Orion

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
name good examples of movies with LGBTQ+ LEADS THAT ARENT LGBTQ based movies because their isnt alot from the USA thats in english.

Wasn't there one that was literally nominated for an Oscar or something?

Orion

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
"However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure."

i said i was leaving but ######### dude i am gay, i have a transgender (MTF) sister, i also fight for all rights of all genders and sexual orientations i care about everyone who is LGBTQ+ and by saying we only care about the first two letters just means you dont know all the facts

You don't know all the facts either, sweetheart. Tell me, where in this thread was there a demand for a non-homosexual Survivor or even a non-homosexual character?
Every single thread I've seen asking for an LGBT character, be it for a TV series, a movie, a book, or a game, was always about a gay (usually male) character, and nothing more.

TheLegendDyl4n1

@Orion said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
name good examples of movies with LGBTQ+ LEADS THAT ARENT LGBTQ based movies because their isnt alot from the USA thats in english.

Wasn't there one that was literally nominated for an Oscar or something?

if there is name it other than Love, Simon since it is the first really good american LGBTQ+ movie that was in theatrers

TheLegendDyl4n1

@Orion said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
"However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure."

i said i was leaving but ######### dude i am gay, i have a transgender (MTF) sister, i also fight for all rights of all genders and sexual orientations i care about everyone who is LGBTQ+ and by saying we only care about the first two letters just means you dont know all the facts

You don't know all the facts either, sweetheart. Tell me, where in this thread was there a demand for a non-homosexual Survivor or even a non-homosexual character?
Every single thread I've seen asking for an LGBT character, be it for a TV series, a movie, a book, or a game, was always about a gay (usually male) character, and nothing more.

let me post my original post

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
i asked this in the questions for the Q and A but it was one of the non-picked ones (i wonder why). like are any of the survivors in the game now LGBTQ and if not are you planning on there being any? any one have any ideas or seen things that sugest there is? i would say Nea is a lesbian but you never know cause she could be MTF (male to female trans) and Dwight could be Gay. Anyone think of people they want to be LGBTQ in this game's lore?

what do you see maybe NEA IS A LESBIAN OR MTF and i do say dwight could be gay but i clearly stated ANY LGBTQ+ CHARACTER not just a gay male. and i said i only wanted like one or two LGBTQ+ characters implying all the rest would be strait.

Orion

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:

@Orion said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
"However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure."

i said i was leaving but ######### dude i am gay, i have a transgender (MTF) sister, i also fight for all rights of all genders and sexual orientations i care about everyone who is LGBTQ+ and by saying we only care about the first two letters just means you dont know all the facts

You don't know all the facts either, sweetheart. Tell me, where in this thread was there a demand for a non-homosexual Survivor or even a non-homosexual character?
Every single thread I've seen asking for an LGBT character, be it for a TV series, a movie, a book, or a game, was always about a gay (usually male) character, and nothing more.

let me post my original post

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
i asked this in the questions for the Q and A but it was one of the non-picked ones (i wonder why). like are any of the survivors in the game now LGBTQ and if not are you planning on there being any? any one have any ideas or seen things that sugest there is? i would say Nea is a lesbian but you never know cause she could be MTF (male to female trans) and Dwight could be Gay. Anyone think of people they want to be LGBTQ in this game's lore?

what do you see maybe NEA IS A LESBIAN OR MTF and i do say dwight could be gay but i clearly stated ANY LGBTQ+ CHARACTER not just a gay male. and i said i only wanted like one or two LGBTQ+ characters implying all the rest would be strait.

And afterward, it (d)evolved into the main subject - gay characters. Because the rest of LGBT don't really matter.

Orion

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:

@Orion said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
name good examples of movies with LGBTQ+ LEADS THAT ARENT LGBTQ based movies because their isnt alot from the USA thats in english.

Wasn't there one that was literally nominated for an Oscar or something?

if there is name it other than Love, Simon since it is the first really good american LGBTQ+ movie that was in theatrers

Can't remember the name. I don't really care for those films, but I know there was one released very recently that got a lot of media attention.

TheLegendDyl4n1

@Orion said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:

@Orion said:

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
"However, I will point out, again, that whenever homosexuals say "LGBT", or some variation of it, they're only concerned with representation for the first two letters. You may ask yourself why this is relevant. Well, since you claim to be interested in representation for the sake of acceptance, look up bi-erasure."

i said i was leaving but ######### dude i am gay, i have a transgender (MTF) sister, i also fight for all rights of all genders and sexual orientations i care about everyone who is LGBTQ+ and by saying we only care about the first two letters just means you dont know all the facts

You don't know all the facts either, sweetheart. Tell me, where in this thread was there a demand for a non-homosexual Survivor or even a non-homosexual character?
Every single thread I've seen asking for an LGBT character, be it for a TV series, a movie, a book, or a game, was always about a gay (usually male) character, and nothing more.

let me post my original post

@TheLegendDyl4n1 said:
i asked this in the questions for the Q and A but it was one of the non-picked ones (i wonder why). like are any of the survivors in the game now LGBTQ and if not are you planning on there being any? any one have any ideas or seen things that sugest there is? i would say Nea is a lesbian but you never know cause she could be MTF (male to female trans) and Dwight could be Gay. Anyone think of people they want to be LGBTQ in this game's lore?

what do you see maybe NEA IS A LESBIAN OR MTF and i do say dwight could be gay but i clearly stated ANY LGBTQ+ CHARACTER not just a gay male. and i said i only wanted like one or two LGBTQ+ characters implying all the rest would be strait.

And afterward, it (d)evolved into the main subject - gay characters. Because the rest of LGBT don't really matter.

no people like you guys who are against it did. because the rest of LGBTQ+ do matter and what you said is proof of why it does and it needs more recognition

Wahara

That's still unsafe to assume because emphasis can be placed on their immutable characteristics but they can also be given depth at the same time. Someone who is flamboyant isn't necessarily two dimensional. You can only really guess the motivations behind the creation of any particular character unless the creator outright says why they were included.

I also don't see the connection. If I add in a woman to a TV show because I notice that the series has only male characters up to this point, and I observe social media to notice a large chunk of my viewer base asking for a female lead, why am I inherently less likely to consider things such as her acting skills or her ability to fit in the show?

I agree with you very much on the last part.