LGBTQ+ Representation in Horror and DBD

Bi people who are in a straight relationship can't just delete their mind and suddenly only be attracted to the opposite gender, so no, it is not the same as taking your clothes and makeup off.

Your POV isnt the same as scientific POV. You either are cisgender, or you are transgender. Transgender also including people on the "spectrum" which are nonbinary people. Nonbinary people aren't considered crossdressers either.

I'm not twisting your words though, I literally quoted you, you're just backtracking now. What speaks volumes is again other LGB people thinking it is ok to talk over trans people and compare us to crossdressers. I wish I could say I'm surprised but at this point I am not.

Well, yes. Because the lack of orthodoxy within these movements means that something can be both simultaneously praised for being x while also being demonized for being x - it's a perfect lose/lose situation these days, as you cannot appease a base that doesn't actually know what precisely it believes or wants.

Lara Croft was an icon of the genre, and not once did anyone at the time go 'oh wow, a female main character that kicks all the butt!'. Because that just wasn't something people were especially concerned about. Hell, I've always played female avatars, and it's only within the last...maybe 5 years that anyone called attention to it (apparently it's 'massively problematic' for a straight, cisgender male to play a female avatar in World of Warcraft...urgh, that was some ridiculous guild drama).

You say 'rabid'. I say 'irritated'. And it's not because these characters are female, POC or LGBT, it's because this tends to be hyperfocused on to the extent that it becomes the entire focus of the story, often to the detriment of the game, comic or story as a whole.

There probably hasn't been a time when this was completely normalized, but it was definitely a bit less...well, arch than it is now. Again, this is my opinion, but the way to normalize something is to just have it be there, not call a massive amount of attention to it. This was the case with the L and the G, with the rest of that acronym being...difficult, as even within progressive movements there are about 10 different variations, with many of the identity groups themselves being the subject of contention.

Okay, let's dig in here a bit. Again, I'm trying to balance being blunt and not offending anyone, so please read with a charitable mindset.

You are...partially correct, but I think that you're getting things a little out of order.

'Acceptance' is a point on...well, what I'm guessing is that path you're looking for.

It usually goes:

Tolerance -> Acceptance -> Normalization.

You can demand tolerance - in that people won't take actions to stop you from enjoying your identity, but may not agree or be fully comfortable with it. Acceptance and normalization are something that will occur organically, over time.

If you start attempting to bypass tolerance and instead enforce acceptance, it seldom goes well, because it often ends up feeling forced.

I don't think that hyperfocusing on this stuff, and particularly the endless and often venomous criticism or wokescolding of media for not being 'diverse' enough (or worse, 'diverse but not in the way I personally approve of' - see the Cyberpunk drama, Batwoman, MHA etc.) is productive, and may actually work against you - because when people are confronted by extreme criticism/attempts at cancellation for even well intentioned attempts at placation or inclusion, they tend to become resentful.

Also - prejudice? Sure. As long as we are talking in a legalistic sense (you can't demand that anyone thinks a specific way, only how they act). But 'fear of judgement' - that's ridiculously subjective. I don't think there is anyone in the world who doesn't at least partially fear judgement in some sense. And as for 'violence around the world'...I'm not sure that's within the scope of what anyone can demand, because there are large parts of the world where violence is horribly common and there are deeper societal issues that need to be fixed before this stuff is even on the radar.

Beware Kafkatraps - using the criticism of an action as the justification for that action, because that tends to devolve into circularity very fast.

Again - I think you're inferring a negative intent where there is none. I'd say that the vast, vast majority of gamers don't really care about their character's sexual orientation outside of RPGs, because it's not relevant to the game at all in, again, almost any game. When this stuff starts being introduced, it very quickly becomes a minefield (again, see Cyberpunk or Batwoman) and everyone loses.

I'm...not?

I'm just saying that, from where I'm standing, these are a ridiculously small minority of the people talking about this, and could very well just be individuals poking the bear (see: trolling).

The majority of people seem to be saying...roughly what I'm saying - if you enjoy this, then more power to you - but wouldn't it have been better if this had been a little bit more organic? Also - this seems to be the antithesis of normalization.

Also also: yes, I say 'hyperfocusing' for a reason - because this suddenly becomes the only important thing about the character.

At best, that leads to clumsy storytelling - and at worst sends the discourse around that media product off in all sorts of silly directions (see the 'queer erasure' stuff about David 'not looking gay enough', or how making him gay is an insult because he's not a totally new character etc.).

From the outside, it looks like there is just no way to win here - if you make a 'diverse' character, then people immediately start insisting that you make them 'diverse in the right way' - they can't have flaws, be unlikeable, or have any connections to anything that might be considered 'problematic', can't be portrayed by an actor that isn't 'gay enough' etc.

Once again, my best examples of this outside of DbD would be the Mineta thing from My Hero Academia: after it became popular in the west, fans demanded an LGBT character, but when the author revealed that a specific character might be bisexual, it caused a huge backlash because it was 'the wrong character':

The Cyberpunk ad, where a massive social media firestorm was kicked up because...it was problematic for trans people to be linked to corporate capitalism - in a game all about parodying corporate capitalism (this resulted in a bunch of stuff being cut from the game)

Or what happened regarding Batwoman:

Do you see why, from the perspective of an outsider, this might all seem a bit...well, a bit of a purity spiral?

Yeah, we're going around in circles now so I'm going to draw this to a close here.

I'm using the other stuff as an example of what I'm talking about, as this is one small part of a much wider discussion regarding the increasingly toxic discourse and reactions around progressive inclusions and alterations to media within nerd culture.

Again, I'm not holding anything against anyone. I'm just pointing out what seems to be a pretty damn clear problem.

My...claim? I already said it, didn't I?

BHVR? I'm not...well, I could, but that would unfortunately require me to refer to things that would violate the forum rules, as per moderation decisions (I literally can't be any more descriptive without putting my forum account in jeopardy).

I meant this, again, as part of a wider discussion on this stuff as it pertains to media right now.

Who...exactly is acting like that?

I'm not saying BHVR are hyperfocusing exactly (although they did make more of a fuss over this than I would have).

I'm saying that certain parts of the community are, as per the 'this is an insult, you didn't give us an original LBGT character' or 'David is queer erasure, as he doesn't look gay enough' discourse, and at a macro scale, far too much of the media consuming public who identify as progressive are too heavily focused on this stuff.

As for the rest:

• I hate to tell you this, but you can't demand that you be made to feel a certain way. All you can demand is that nobody take any discriminatory actions against you. You can't police what other people think, and you certainly can't police how other people make you feel. Because nobody gets to do that, ever. Not in any sort of free society.
• Now, those countries you are referring to - let's get more specific. What sort of cultural/political systems do they have? Are they remotely analogous to liberal western democracy, or are they ultra-conservative theocracies in the Middle East and Africa? What are human rights like as a whole in those countries and how is a videogame in the west going to alter this (considering that in many, any secular media is defacto illegal?) No, I'm not trying to strawman anyone - but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. These countries need substantial reforms in terms of general human rights and governance, but that can only come from within.
• I think that you've just made my point for me. I'm saying that any overt messaging of this nature is counterproductive, because - as I said - any endorsement of an identity exceptionalizes that identity, and you cannot be both normalized and exceptionalized.

It's a very complicated phenomenon that's probably outside of the scope of this thread, but it comes down to:

• Social media allowing a following to form around what would usually be a fringe ideological nucleus.
• The push for 'intersectionality', which often comes down to a purity spiral where you can't be granular in your beliefs and goals, and are either considered an ally or an enemy based on even slight deviations (I've literally seen the 'if you aren't with us, you're against us' chestnut whipped out multiple times this year on Twitter).
• The push for 'solidarity', which, combined with the above, tends to be interpreted as 'if you don't agree with me, you have a duty to shut up and pretend you do'.
• The normalization of the progressive stack as a concrete, applicable concept.
• Interpreting even the most minor disagreement as evidence of bigotry.

I guess that being an old-school, 'can't we all just get along?' egalitarian makes me a bit of a dinosaur in online spaces now, but it really doesn't look healthy from the outside.

Okay, then let's avoid the Cyberpunk thing - I was really just trying to give you a chance to prove your assertion, because it was a much bigger event than the others we were talking about.

Regarding the rest:

• I'm still not sure what specifically you mean by 'exclusive and destructive'. Can you specify?
• Yes, the 'T' is the current fracture line - because it's a topic that even the LGBT community can't seem to agree on even the basics of, or even what the terms being used actually mean. Is gender dysphoria a disorder, or is that bigoted? If it's not a disorder, then how do we quantify it? Is identifying enough, or does there need to be some sort of hormonal or medical intervention to qualify? What accommodations should be made societally? There needs to be some sort of agreed upon ideological foundation before we can even start talking about representation and other granular societal changes, let alone what constitutes being bigoted against it.
• People are people. Human beings are evolutionarily hardwired to categorize based on the behavior and actions of others within that category. When people are extensively exposed to what you described as 'toxic elements', be it them demanding that things they like be changed or cancelled, harassing people or saying/doing bizarre things and see no or minimal pushback, then - yes - that is going to create a barrier to acceptance. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying that this is how the human animal functions. It's not always fair - but it is what it is, and you aren't going to change that.
• Regarding the movement - that was your assertion, not mine. And yes, for a 'movement' to exist, there has to be some sort of named group, otherwise you may as well be hunting witches. As I said, yes - there will always be isolated incidents of bigotry, but a few swallows do not a summer make. You'd either need to find something objectively bigoted and systemic (which wouldn't be a movement, but it would certainly be worth discussing), or you'd have to find a specific group.
• I think that we are probably going to be using a very different definition of 'phobic' in this regard - as, talking systemically, the LGB have equal rights under the law in the modern western world, and - aside from a few granular, often nomenclature related issues still being litigated - have had them for a while. The 'T' is a lot more difficult, because it's quite new to the mainstream and even progressive groups aren't quite sure how to approach it definitionally, let alone define what constitutes being 'transphobic'. Not that this stops that word being thrown around or being used to shut down discussions or paint people as bigots - hell, I've seen people called transphobic (and literally 'immoral') because they weren't pansexual, or didn't want a partner with specific genitalia.

You mean the 'DSG' bill. That's another one which is very different from how it's being reported. Always, always go and read the bill yourself, because both left and right wing media right now are 90% spin.

All it basically says is that very young learners (kindergarten age) do not need sex ed, and thus education about sexual identities of any sort has no place in a classroom full of 5 and 6 year olds. That seems...pretty common-sensical to me.

Now, you can disagree with this assertion, but even if you do - it's in no way targeted at any specific ideology or identity.

Okay, last one from me.

• If you assert that the world is destructive for LGBT folks, then surely you must be able to imagine the converse? I said 'conquest', because you said 'world', and attempting to change the world externally - particularly the countries mentioned earlier in this thread - is not something that I can imagine being possible without conquest. It's a thought experiment - useful both for understanding how other people think, and how you think.
• Yes, I'm excluding the 'T', because it's not something that either of us can speak authoritatively on (and as this thread demonstrates, is incredibly contentious even amongst progressives). We'd basically both be speaking from our own subjective understandings of this issue, which would be completely pointless.
• Yeah...no. This is the point where you're asserting facts rather than opinions, which means that this is the point where I have to ask for specific examples (or better yet, sources). Let's stick to LGB folks - can you give me three examples of specific cases where people were discriminated against, in the modern west, because of these criteria - that wasn't later either overturned by a superior court or is pending litigation before a superior court?
• Title IX is pretty comprehensive about any sort of racial or gendered discrimination.
• Yes, there will always be people who break the law. All you can do is make things illegal - you can't make them more illegal, and thus this is the extent of what can (and probably should) be done from a governmental standpoint.
• Adoption rights...as far as I know, there is no absolute right for anyone to adopt - it's almost always at the discretion of whatever agency you are applying with, and economic/marriage status is a much bigger determiner than anything else. The adoption/fostering system is badly in need of an overhaul, but that is neither here nor there.
• That said, adoption is one that is currently being actively litigated, and in every case I've found, federal courts are siding with same sex parents. This is an issue that only the supreme courts of either state or country can really handle, because it's an issue with very little modern legal precedent for even traditional couples (adoption is ridiculously complicated and ridiculously broken for everyone, so claiming any sort of specific discrimination doesn't seem possible here).