So about the LGBQT stuff

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.

Now that you mention the spoiler aspect, that too. They could at least made the announcement AFTER the archives came out.

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.

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.

Can we all chill please people?

Almost every single time I open disscusion on this topic today someone to someone else is so toxic.

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!

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.

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.

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'.

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'.

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.

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.