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

@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...?

@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!

"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.

@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.

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.

@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.

Aari_Piggy66 said:

@ChesterTheMolester
See told ya

**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."

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.