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

Orion · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

@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.

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 · October 2018

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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

"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 · October 2018

"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 · October 2018

"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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

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 · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

Why does this matter?

ToolboxMotley · October 2018

@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 · October 2018

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

Wahara · October 2018

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 · October 2018

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.