So about the LGBQT stuff
I am not really interested nor have much knowledge about it, all I know is it is a tag where ppl that are non straight grp up basicly and want to support each other or their rights which is totally fine and nice imo.
However I see this often, same goes to BHVR here.
Why is it so important to spread the message officially across the internet that you are gay, trans whatever? If you are really considering yourself and want to live like this then you should do it for yourself not to tell it everyone around you trying to catch their attention somehow?
It just seems to be attention seeking if you scream that out loud just like what happened with David. Again nothing against that, couldnt care less, but why all that official outroar?
Comments
-
To me its not that David is gay, that is fine. just how they went about it.
Also Most people (i know a lot do) don't go around just telling people they are gay or trans.
People want representation, I do as well.
And no people are not "Attention Seeking" For being open about themselves.
8 -
There are three ways to look at this.
- Having a character canonically 'x', where 'x' is whatever identity you've embraced, can be affirming to people at some level.
- It's certainly gotten people talking - with some lamenting and some celebrating and a whole lot arguing. There is almost no such thing as bad publicity, and it spreads awareness of your game either way.
- With the current hyper-charged political climate in online circles, it's sort of required right now for developers to insert representative characters, and tweaking the lore to make an existing character 'x' is generally much easier than making a new one (which tends to quickly become a no-win scenario as no matter what the new character is like, it will be considered extremely problematic by someone - aren't large activist bases with zero orthodoxy fun?).
That all said - there is zero overlap in this game between the lore and the gameplay. Laurie doesn't get a special bonus against Myers, for instance. It's a massive storm in a tiny teacup.
5 -
The only times I feel the need to mention my trans status and my sexuality is either in a dating setting or in a discussion about the topic.
I agree that the way BHVR went about it with the announcement was quite distasteful in my opinion.
I would rather have heard about it through the archives/tome than them to make a huge announcement about it.
David being gay? Fine. The announcement? Seemed forced to me.
16 -
It's a weird situation in this forum that's for sure.
1 -
Hm ye I mean ######### those ppl but my point is why BHVR had to make this so "official" instead of just mentioning it in the Rift? OH ye no ones reads the lore :)
1 -
I see this more as BHVR announcing they've finally followed through on a 2 year promise to add more representation more than anything else. I think had they made one of the other characters tome lore prior to this be the first gay character they would've put it in lore as a surprise but since it's been sooo long and they're giving David his second tome before others even get their first they made the announcement instead.
6 -
I kinda get it but in the other hand not.
Should I go around and tell anyone that I have asperger syndrom? Its not changing anything about me or the ppl viewing me IF they can cope with that. Yes there are some weird ppl that may interact different with you because they know that about you but this still doesnt really need now to be shouted around.
I have a trans girl as a friend so I know first hand about the interactions.
0 -
It makes sense if you remember that BHVR is a company, and a company thrives on publicity and good press.
Don't look to people who are, at the end of the day, trying to sell you something for moral affirmation.
1 -
Thats my point here, it doesnt do ANYTHING. There is literally no point in officially posting and announcing that except trying to catch the attention about that which just seems weird to me?
For instance Tracer from overwatch is lesbian, did Blizzard now start a huge celebration party? No it was just writtten in her lore page and thats it, dont see any issue with that honestly.
0 -
exactly what I mean here, honestly I think this would be SO MUCH bettter. Not just me but also even the LGBQT community, I bet they would have such amazing reactions after they discovered that themselves and talk about it in twitter and everyone would be like "what is that true?" and everyone looks that up in the rift by themselves etc.
0 -
It's hard for companies to win. Marketing or community? Maybe both? So many different ways to view this.
1 -
Now that you mention the spoiler aspect, that too. They could at least made the announcement AFTER the archives came out.
0 -
Tracer was an original character who wasn't established then.
When you take a character who's already established and verify their sexuality, people tend to freak out over it. As you can see. So an announcement or at least confirmation would be wanted anyway, which would result in an official post clarifying.
1 -
Behavior could let everybody think as they want, if David or other survivors are straight, gay, whatever. Don't mention any sexuality for existing characters, players like them as they are. Just made a new one.
So simple.
1 -
Whats to dislike about a character being gay?
5 -
That would hold up, were it not for Nurse, Legion, Felix, etc and even David's previous tome itself mentioning it already.
5 -
Yea I'm quite surprised how being transphobic is allowed in the forums and then they come with the LGBT announcements... bruh
6 -
I'd be wary labelling this stuff as 'transphobic', as the biological reality of transgenderism is a contentious topic even within progressive circles.
If you disagree - then disagree. Put your reasoning into text and post it, then be ready to defend it.
Calling people names is counterproductive.
3 -
You're really trying to make yourself a victim because a fictional character was revealed to be gay, and because you were horrifically transphobic and homophobic you're doubling down on being the victim??
7 -
I'm trans, and saying a trans woman has a man body is transphobic. If we want to focus on biologically, there is no woman or man, there is male and female, and I speak for myself, but I'm totally aware of my biology. When I go to the doctor as a trans man, I'm aware that I'm biologically female, but I am not "woman bodied". Calling a trans woman a man is not biologically accurate, since again, it's not based on biology.
Implying trans women being put in women prisons will lead to high rises of pregnancy is statistically incorrect and made with anecdotal evidence.
7 -
Yeah that...that was really weird for them to bring up.
1 -
Can we all chill please people?
Almost every single time I open disscusion on this topic today someone to someone else is so toxic.
2 -
where is someone toxic here?
0 -
Thing's that with such announcements, so many people are showing their true faces. All these discussions go the path of "I'm not against LGBT but they better not exist", then people rightfully calling them out and the thread getting closed. It would all be fine if people weren't homophobic or at least retained from making homophobic comments and kept their hatred for themseleves.
4 -
By toxic I mean just being rude or not civil or angry, etc. It just feels like this when I read all these pots.
0 -
Man, I´m not homophobic at all, maybe you will feel some relief if I will tell you that my cousin is lesbian and having a child with another girl??? And I communicate with both of them perfectly
I´m angry not with making any character gay.
I´m angry with making an officially gay one of already existing characters. A lot of people loved David to be as he was before. Just leave it to everyone’s own interpretation!
0 -
And why can't you love David still? He's not real anyway, so you can fantasize that he's still straight
7 -
No way did you just bring out the "I have gay friends so I can't be homophobic" line like?????
9 -
Cause they are changing his lore, personality, and story. Sure, I still can think and believe what I want, but all fans don´t really like it when their favorite characters are being changed so much.
For example, when a lot of survivors were reworked to have a new model, there also were a lot of people who didn't like it. Just because they liked what was before...
1 -
Okay, please take this as charitably as possible - this topic is a sodding minefield even on open forums, but I'll see if I can explain the other side of the argument here (while trying to tread...carefully).
- This comes down to semantic confusion due to the way we've classically used these terms.
- 'Male and female' versus 'man and woman'...a lot of people use these terms interchangeably, where they refer to both biology and identity. When it comes to trans stuff, these two get separated out - with male and female being biological descriptors and man and women being social descriptors.
- The problem arises where people start doing both at the same time (where in one context these meanings are separated and in another they are synonymous), and I think this is where you're making your mistake.
- Biologically, there is very clearly 'male' and 'female', we can see this at a chromosomal and neurochemical level. Whether chromosomal disorders constitute their own category...that's a very complicated and very different discussion.
- It's completely fine to say 'I identify as x', but it's a bit different to say 'I am x at a biological level'. 'Biological sex is a social construct' is fringe thinking even within progressive circles.
- There is nothing 'phobic' about separating these things out. You can ask people to respect your identity, but you cannot force them to ignore biology - and if you do, you start getting into very weird Veronica Ivy territory.
When we get down to sports, prisons, dating and the like, it gets even more complicated, and this is a contentious topic within even the most progressive circles, with it coming down to post-modernist thinking (there is no such thing as objective biological reality, therefore biology is a social construct and can be changed at will) and more pragmatic thinking.
I'm not saying that either side is completely right or wrong, but there is absolutely multiple sides to this issue and labelling the other sides as 'transphobic' isn't useful.
4 -
His personality literally hasn't been changed at all
10 -
Changing?
They're adding onto it, not changing it. What changes is your interpretation of it.
7 -
you're childish. anyway, gay men can have ex girlfriends before realizing they are gay. if you are THAT upset that he likes men i think you should go to therapy. us gay people do NOT have to conform to cishet ideals and we don't have to be quiet about us being lgbt. you're acting like you're a victim bc a cishet women who wants to have sex with a video game man. you are going out of your way to suck major ass. you already said you didn't even play him! lgbt people existing isn't an attack against you and you and the other cishets pissed about it need to learn that fact. 🏳️🌈
5 -
That's true. Character doesn't suddenly change just because you like women or men or both.
6 -
It isn't important at all. People just want attention.
1 -
Eh...this is a line of argument that I've never liked.
Someone bigoted against 'x' having 'x' friends strikes me as, at least...very odd and this inevitably turns into a Kafkatrap or a PAN trap.
3 -
You don’t understand it, that’s all. Educate yourself before saying such nonsense.
3 -
I don't think that would work here.
I have seen a lot of very vocal members of this community celebrating the occasion, rightfully so.
If behavior had just silently make the change, then there would have been accusations of behavior trying "shadow gay him", and questioning about whether they were trying to keep it hush hush. Nonsense of course, but that's what would happen.
1 -
You lost me at "Biological sex is a social construct". No trans person thinks that, otherwise we would not transition medically in the first place. We are well aware of biological sex and it's differences, that's where our dysphoria comes from. A small loud minority twitter saying biological sex is socially constructed, is not a general sentiment, far from it.
There is a lot of phobic in calling a trans woman a man, which was exactly what that person did. Like I mentioned in my post, man and woman are not biological terms, they are identities, and those yes, are socially constructed. And keep it in mind that something being social constructed doesn't mean they don't exist. Languages are socially constructed and they do exist. Female and male are biological.
They also implied with their post that trans women want to go to women prisons to make other women pregnant, which implies that trans people are predators.
5 -
Yes, trans people (or rather activists) absolutely think that. I can link you to dozens of articles and videos on the topic.
It generally comes down to post-modern confusion, in that just because we assign words to a thing doesn't mean that it lacks objective existence independent of these words.
Even the term 'dysphoria' is contentious now, as per the 'my identity is NOT a disorder!' discourse.
The problem is that 'man' and 'woman' have been classically used to refer to both biological and social identities - creating confusion when people separate them out.
A lot of people misunderstand the 'predators' argument too. It's not a matter of 'trans people are predators' and more along the lines of 'all people are potential predators, and thus we have to ensure that bad actors can't abuse the accommodations we make for trans people'.
4 -
No, woman and man have not been used in a biological sense. When you go to the doctor it says F or M, not W or M.
Again, anecdotal evidence. A loud minority is not evidence of transgender people at large thinking that.
And dysphoria is not a contentious term. It has a section on the DSM-5, I'm sure doctors have more expertise on the topic than both of us, or anyone else who is not in the field for that matter.
No, there is no misunderstanding about the predator argument. What the OP was implying was that transgender women go to women prisons to impregnate women.
3 -
It would be cool if, for once, we could politely discuss something without someone immediately screaming "transphobic!!!!" "homophobic!!!!". It's getting old, and it adds nothing to the discussion. You can get your point across without yelling tags. For example: "TRANSPHOBIC!!!!!!" it would be better to say: "Do you feel this way because you have a personal aversion towards trans people, or what's your point?"
0 -
I see no problem to the way they announced, since they posted 2 years ago on social media that they were going to be more representative going foward It feels like yesterday's post was a direct answer to that tweet, like "here, we delivered what we promised".
1 -
Tfw they both mean the same thing ✨
1 -
Absolutely not. Just yelling "transphobic" at someone is intended to mark that person negatively, and it doesn't motivate a healthy discussion. Instead, elaborating on why you'd think so about someone in the form of a question for example, that's much more productive. It's the "Twitter" mentality where people don't actually want to discuss anything or get any point across, they just want to one-up each other and hopefully "cancel" somebody that doesn't agree with them for X or Y.
1 -
Yes, they have. Because it's only recently that we've started separating out the social aspects of gender identity from the biological aspects in any sort of formal way. Even medical professionals have, until recently, used man/woman as a shorthand for male/female.
I never said 'at large'. But this does illustrate what I was alluding to - modern progressive activist bases lack orthodoxy, and will thus often believe different, at times contradictory things. It's why a lot of companies are just staying out of it - because a base without orthodoxy is impossible to please, as satisfying one part of the base will tick off another part. Just look at the stuff around Batwoman or Cyberpunk for some good examples.
That said - you saying 'loud minority' is just as anecdotal :) I don't think anyone has done a survey or poll here.
Yes, dysphoria is absolutely a contentious term, with some activists likening including it as a disorder to previous DSMs including homosexuality as a disorder. Here's a good example of the arguments being presented (it also contains some links to other articles on the topic).
I completely disagree with it - but I do understand the arguments. And the DSM 5 is...oh man, that's another discussion for another time.
I'm not sure what argument the OP was making, I'm just trying to explain the general thrust of the 'predator' argument because it's so frequently strawmanned as 'trans people are predators'.
0 -
Most people had no problem with the "leave it to your own interpretation", but that went right out the window when they started putting straight relantionships in established characters lore.
2 -
It's not at large, no, and which makes me think why did you not show sources of transgender people saying the exact opposite of the ones you linked?
I'm not sure if you are cisgender or not, but I'm going to assume you are, so I'm sure you are not used to hanging out with transgender people, specially transgender circles in real life outside of the internet, so I'm sure you'd easily see things that get loud because it's what conservatives like to boost up, for their own narrative about transgender people. They did the same with gay people before, this is just recycled talking points because they feel like gay people are accepted enough that their bigotry just won't slid so easily anymore, so they decided to go to the next marginalized group.
Being part of trans groups irl, knowing what most trans people think, is not anecdotal evidence. I'm sure me, as a transgender person, would know way more about transgender issues than someone who is not, not only by my personal experiences, but by the people that I know that have a similar life path as me.
You disagree with the DSM-5, which brings again that neither you or I are doctors. DSM-5 is made by doctors, and I'd rather side with science on this one. Again, something that conservatives seem to not be big fans of.
The predator argument was also used on gay people in the past, and now is being used against trans people. If you are not aware, please do a bit of research about current bills being purposed by republicans on the topic, I'm sure there are a lot of them, and you'll notice that is once again, mostly made of fear mongering.
2 -
I just want to play a video game. I don’t care what anyone’s sexual preferences are.
0 -
I could, naturally. Which is why I didn't say 'at large' or 'the majority', because I don't think either of us could prove that one either way :)
We are talking about the internet here - as we are on a videogame forum. But I am also a former academic (and am married to a current academic) - and there is plenty of this discourse at universities too.
And yes - what you just said is the literal definition of anecdotal evidence. 'My personal experiences, therefore x'. Which is fine, because there isn't really that much actual data on this one. But your anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence, much like mine. Although you seem to be coming from more of a 'man on the street' approach, while mine is mostly online and in academic circles.
It's not that I disagree with the DSM 5, it's that the DSM 5 is quite complicated as, unlike previous editions, the DSM 5 is designed to be constantly changing.
While I'm not a practicing psychologist, that is the area where my qualifications lie (well, criminology and clinical psychology, I'm an educator by trade) - and I can tell you that 'psychology' and 'science' are not always compatible domains. It really depends whether you go for more of a Jungian or Freudian deconstructivist/psychoanalytic approach, or something a bit more pragmatic like Klein. But again, a different discussion - I can talk psych literally all day, but we've already gone OT.
Regarding the predator thing, it's a bit different as one came from an attempt to demonize homosexuals and the other is a pragmatic concern about bad actors taking advantage based on the concessions being asked for.
Let's not make this into a left versus right thing, because this isn't a partisan issue. By 'current bill', I'm assuming you're talking about the DSG storm in a teacup?
EDIT: I should probably go and be productive for a while, so going to end this here (it's also going really off topic now). If you want to continue this one, maybe let's move to the Off Topic board later today.
0
