Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters

[Casual Shinji]

On the question of one's ability to emphasize with people who don't look like them...I'm sorry, I don't buy that (fully).

I've added the caveat of "fully," because there was research done awhile back that I read about (forget where/when) that confirmed that yes, children do find it easier to emphasize with people who look like them, at least to a point. But leaving aside personal feelings on the matter, if there's a linear relationship between one's physical appearance and the type of material they're into, I'm not seeing it on the ground. I work across libraries in a variety of different locations with a variety of different backgrounds, mainly outside the Anglosphere. I've got a good sense of what "kids these days" are into, and it remains the same across locations. If there was a linear relationship between one's culture/appearance and their tastes in material, there should be some variation, but there isn't. Stuff like Harry Potter is just as popular in an area with a high level of Arabic & Chinese expats, as another area with Indian & South Korean expats, as another area where Euro-Australians are the main group. And that remains the same for all kids' series. I can answer anyone at any location what a popular kid's series is, and the answer will remain the same regardless as to what that location is.

I'll accept that what is presented by anecdote can be dismissed by anecdote (hence why I'm not bringing in personal anecdotes), but while there's definitely some relationship between appearance and ability to be invested (per the research I mentioned earlier), I'm skeptical that it's 1:1.

As for the question of historical over-representation, okay, sure, but how does that work retroactively? If you argue that it does, then you have to define how far you want to go back, cross-reference that with the presence of the group in question in the present with the question of the group in the past, and then do the math. Furthermore, you have to question whether you put it on the national level or global level. And if it's on the global level, things get even more complicated. And if you come at a figure, then what? And does this apply to real-world settings, or fictional settings? If we're going back to Overwatch, then how does one account for the presence of non-human characters, and of the human characters following fictional religions (e.g. Ana and Pharah) when it comes to balancing things out? Should Overwatch represent the demographics of today, or the projected demographics of the 2070s?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an SQW - in case I haven't made it clear in this thread, I despise SQWs, probably even more than SJWs, because they tend to be more aggressive and more toxic. It was SQWs who lost their minds with the casting of Hermione in Cursed Child, SQWs who lost their minds with Tracer, and SQWs who lost their minds with Star Wars (see Rose for instance). But on the flipside, when people bring in percentages, I don't think there's a way that argument can be won by anyone because everyone's going to use different starting points and assumptions, and there's an infinite no. of traits you can consider.

So on one hand, I have no time for people who whine about "forced diversity," because almost all the time, that isn't actually a thing. On the other, if people say "setting X needs more of group Y," then they'd need an actual argument and be able to quantify it.

I don't think you need to overthink this, just allow room for everyone. Give people from all races and orientations the same creative space. When Martin Scorsese's The Irishman came out there was some critique about Scorsese only ever making movies about (old) straight, white guys. And obviously, you can't really demand that Scorsese make movies about people from races and orientations that he's not familiar with. But it shows that these are primarily the people that the Hollywood system has given room to create and grow as artists. So you're in an awkward situation where there are more calls for representation, but that this representation is handled mostly by those who aren't part of that demographic. We saw this again recently with Sia's Music.

 

[Hawki]

I don't think you need to overthink this, just allow room for everyone. Give people from all races and orientations the same creative space.

Won't get any argument from me there.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I don't think you need to overthink this, just allow room for everyone. Give people from all races and orientations the same creative space.

Is there some restriction on who can write a book? Who can code a game? Who can film a movie? I'm pretty sure all people have the same creative opportunity.

No company is going to just hand you shit because you fall into a certain demographic. You have to create first, then try to offer it to the world, and that still doesn't guarantee that people will, or even have to, like it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Big "it's just a coincidence there are more male CEOs named John than there are female CEOs in the US" energy.
It's getting better, sure, but to pretend we're anywhere close to a meritocracy is hilarious

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I dunno about that. Many american senators with wives and kids have been caught getting gay blowjobs in very important bathrooms. It is a stereotype for a reason.

Most likely these people are bi with more leaning towards one preference or another.

Not that im excusing the practice of trying to "cure" the gay out of people either. I frankly dont understand why what gender people want to have sex with has anything to do with who they are as a person.

A great musician is a great musician no matter what. A great actor is great no matter what. A great doctor, lawyer, car salesman, and most importantly, person. A great person is great no matter race, gender, religion, or sexuallity (except the attracted to kids one).

The only reasonable conclusion to draw that our populace will likely never adhere to this man’s words is because the powers that be are making lots of $$ off of identity politics and the resulting confusion/social dissonance they’re causing. And the kicker is it’s happening right under our noses while we bicker back and forth endlessly about what “party” is more righteous. They’re both playing the people while lining their coffers at our expense.

So yeah, as a general prevention measure of insanity, when in doubt, SMH and follow the money.

Identity Politics Preserve the Elites' Power - Chronicles

The avalanche of identity politics has spurred an interest in studying income inequality along cultural lines. Surprisingly, leftists have deviated from their

www.chroniclesmagazine.org

Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left | Sheri Berman

The left needs to help citizens see what unites them, instead of focusing on their differences writes Sheri Berman, professor of political science at Barnard College

www.theguardian.com

- How ironic is that, considering identity politics is typically thought of as a leftist construct.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

When Martin Scorsese's The Irishman came out there was some critique about Scorsese only ever making movies about (old) straight, white guys. And obviously, you can't really demand that Scorsese make movies about people from races and orientations that he's not familiar with.

Like Boxcar Bertha, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Kundun?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Is there some restriction on who can write a book? Who can code a game? Who can film a movie? I'm pretty sure all people have the same creative opportunity.

There's resctriction on your book being published, you being hired as a coder, and your movie receiving any sort of finance. Even taking race and orientation out of this, the claim that everyone has the same creative oppertunities, or oppertunities in general, is utterly false. Race and orientation however can add even more restrictions, seeing as anything that falls outside of the norm can be seen as a risk and not worth investing in. 'The majority of the population isn't gay, so we fear that mainstream audiences are likely not going to care about this gay main character. I'm afraid we're going to have to decline on this movie.' If you're in a marginalized group you're not going to receive the same level of exposure by virtue of being part of the minority and not being seen as appealing enough to the majority by the people in charge (who are likely part of the majority). That's not even accounting for the people in charge who might have flat-out issues with people of a different race or orientation.

You can say 'well, that's just business', but that leaves people who aren't white, or straight, and sometimes even male, with less chances.

No company is going to just hand you shit because you fall into a certain demographic. You have to create first, then try to offer it to the world, and that still doesn't guarantee that people will, or even have to, like it.

Preference is very much a thing, and in general people prefer what they already know, and so do people in charge. Now apply that to race, gender, and orientation, and you can see how this is a problem for people who are part of a race, gender, or orientation that has been stigmatized for decades and in some cases even centuries.

 

[CriticalGaming]

There's resctriction on your book being published, you being hired as a coder, and your movie receiving any sort of finance. Even taking race and orientation out of this, the claim that everyone has the same creative oppertunities, or oppertunities in general, is utterly false. Race and orientation however can add even more restrictions, seeing as anything that falls outside of the norm can be seen as a risk and not worth investing in. 'The majority of the population isn't gay, so we fear that mainstream audiences are likely not going to care about this gay main character. I'm afraid we're going to have to decline on this movie.' If you're in a marginalized group you're not going to receive the same level of exposure by virtue of being part of the minority and not being seen as appealing enough to the majority by the people in charge (who are likely part of the majority). That's not even accounting for the people in charge who might have flat-out issues with people of a different race or orientation.

You can say 'well, that's just business', but that leaves people who aren't white, or straight, and sometimes even male, with less chances.
Preference is very much a thing, and in general people prefer what they already know, and so do people in charge. Now apply that to race, gender, and orientation, and you can see how this is a problem for people who are part of a race, gender, or orientation that has been stigmatized for decades and in some cases even centuries.

Thats bullshit. I already pointed out that there are plenty of LBGTQ main characters on tv and in film going back 30 years or more.

You are offering excuses but not legit reasons.

1. You can self publish.
2. You can make video games alone like that Minecraft guy did. Stardew valley, five nights at freddies, plenty of great games get made by one person.
3. You can make movies for YouTube.

Being creative and gaining an audience off your work is open to EVERYBODY, without exception. And if your shit is good and you gain a big audience, mainstream companies will offer you deals.

So dont give me glass ceiling excuses because they dont apply anymore.

 

[Silvanus]

1. You can self publish.
2. You can make video games alone like that Minecraft guy did. Stardew valley, five nights at freddies, plenty of great games get made by one person.
3. You can make movies for YouTube.

So... you can do it without any of the enormous support networks and infrastructure set up specifically to help people achieve success. Well, yes, but its obviously going to be harder to reach the same heights.

Yeah, this is a poor argument.

 

[CriticalGaming]

So... you can do it without any of the enormous support networks and infrastructure set up specifically to help people achieve success. Well, yes, but its obviously going to be harder to reach the same heights.

Yeah, this is a poor argument.

No it isnt. Again you are just making the excuse for not having to put the work in.

Yall acting like everybody doesnt struggle to sell their artwork. How many wannabe actors are just working in restaurants?

If your work is good you can find success easier than ever because you can literally put it out to the world yourself. Youtube, itunes, spotify, twitch...anything you create whether it is painting, writing, music, film, you can literally publish for free build a fanbase and even make shitloads of money doing it.

People who have a passion to create, do so. People who want to complain about how impossible it is to be a star, probably just suck.

 

[Asita]

I do understand, however it's ultimately the decision of the developers if they wish to engage with that sort of thing or not as it does entail a lot of extra work, as you mentioned Dragon Age has never really repeated the origin system despite it's popularity, probably because of the huge workload it generates, it's justifiable, what I'm saying is that arguing for it's removal because of that huge workload seems kinda bullshit if it's already being done, ultimately this kind of thing is bound to make more sense in the CRPG market with things like Baldur's Gate, Wasteland, Arcanum or Divinity or stuff like that, than in the AAA space where everything is huge, bombastic and voice acted.

Still it could be very interesting if someone gave it a try.

Granted, and as I admit myself, I'm a sucker for a flexible character creator. Breadth over depth does have its time, place, and audience. My point was simply that there is indeed a tradeoff between the two. The cost of making a game where the protagonist can be anyone is that the protagonist effectively becomes a nonentity that cannot be used to progress the story. Which works great for things like MMOs and spectacularly well in games like Secret World or DC Universe Online, where part of the story is that seemingly random people are suddenly awakening to incredible power and the plot is largely you faffing about reacting to an extant world. It just works considerably less well if you want a more story driven game, especially if you plan on dropping a big "To be continued" at the end. I do not mean to contest that the blank slate/<insert character here> approach has its merits, just the (presumably unintented) suggestion that it doesn't also have its drawbacks.

 

[Hades]

- How ironic is that, considering identity politics is typically thought of as a leftist construct.

Its thought of that way, but that way of thinking is wrong. Being fanatically opposed to gay rights is just as much ''identity politics'' as giving it your all to give them their rights. Trump beating up protesters so he can virtue signal about how Christian he is has the same link to identity politics as a politician pulling the gay card. Its just that one side is defending the status quo which benefits them and deems it as ''normal'' while the other side wants to change the status quo to be more inclusive.

Things like fear mongering about immigrants or minorities is a text book example of elites using identity politics to increase their power. Because they know that if the white worker and the black worker join hands they can force concessions out of the elites, something they'll be less able to do if the elites ensure those different workers see each other as enemies.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Thats bullshit. I already pointed out that there are plenty of LBGTQ main characters on tv and in film going back 30 years or more.

You are offering excuses but not legit reasons.

1. You can self publish.
2. You can make video games alone like that Minecraft guy did. Stardew valley, five nights at freddies, plenty of great games get made by one person.
3. You can make movies for YouTube.

Being creative and gaining an audience off your work is open to EVERYBODY, without exception. And if your shit is good and you gain a big audience, mainstream companies will offer you deals.

So dont give me glass ceiling excuses because they dont apply anymore.

If you honestly believe everyone has equal oppertunities in the entertainment industry then I doubt this discussion has much of a point anymore.

Like Boxcar Bertha, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Kundun?

I've heard of Kundun, but not the other two. I know he also made The Last Temption of Christ. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with the criticism though, but Scorsese does have a type of movie and character he goes for. And not that he shouldn't, he should make what he wants and focus on where his passion lies (within reasonable boundries ofcourse).

 

[Silvanus]

No it isnt. Again you are just making the excuse for not having to put the work in.

Yall acting like everybody doesnt struggle to sell their artwork. How many wannabe actors are just working in restaurants?

If your work is good you can find success easier than ever because you can literally put it out to the world yourself. Youtube, itunes, spotify, twitch...anything you create whether it is painting, writing, music, film, you can literally publish for free build a fanbase and even make shitloads of money doing it.

The notion that hard work and skill alone are enough to guarantee success is such an utter crock. What, you think the universe naturally ensures work is rewarded? That we live in an absolute meritocracy?

Its a comfortable myth peddled by those who don't want to acknowledge the fact that the world isn't fair. Its laughable nonsense.

If you genuinely believe that someone living in the sticks with no seed money has exactly the same chance of success as someone with a million-dollar record deal, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I don't think you need to overthink this, just allow room for everyone. Give people from all races and orientations the same creative space. When Martin Scorsese's The Irishman came out there was some critique about Scorsese only ever making movies about (old) straight, white guys. And obviously, you can't really demand that Scorsese make movies about people from races and orientations that he's not familiar with. But it shows that these are primarily the people that the Hollywood system has given room to create and grow as artists. So you're in an awkward situation where there are more calls for representation, but that this representation is handled mostly by those who aren't part of that demographic. We saw this again recently with Sia's Music.

Also the awkward position that you're calling for Hollywood (whose connection with even the way the rest of the USA operates and is, is increasingly tenuous) to try and represent groups and cultures it barely has any connection. Also as stupid as it is, that is what people are demanding with Scorsese because they seemingly believe he owes it to people to use is stage to help promote said group and stories and don't realise his position and stage are build and designed round telling the stories he does. Rather than build up their own Scorsese they want the already proven success working for them and their causes.

Actual true change takes time. The modern age has made people impatient and they want change now

Is there some restriction on who can write a book? Who can code a game? Who can film a movie? I'm pretty sure all people have the same creative opportunity.

No company is going to just hand you shit because you fall into a certain demographic. You have to create first, then try to offer it to the world, and that still doesn't guarantee that people will, or even have to, like it.

The latter (on movies) arguably yes it's mostly due to effective costs and actually getting the film out there. Especially in the USA market where you actually need to have a US distributor pick up the film to be allowed to have it shown in the USA or I think even sold there if you're not a US resident (Its why the distribution rights to the film Dog Soldiers in the USA is held but what's basically a farmers collective. Add to all that things like film workers unions and actors guilds and they really can shut people down unless you have the money to play by their rules or the clout to make people work for you to make sure it technically is within the rules. As another example of the issue Monty Python had issues with the US actors guild because they were accused of denying actors work because they each played multiple different characters in the cast and the Actors guild of America was demanding that the Pythons should have to hire a different actor for every role in the film.

There's resctriction on your book being published, you being hired as a coder,

With film you have a point (though even that's changing) with books and video games? yeh those have already changed. You can self publish on Amazon and other places now for books and there are other publishers who will work with lesser known entities to do basically trial run or short order book runs to test success. Hell one of my neighbours is a published author technically though it was with a fairly small limited run publisher. As for gaming, well plenty of indie devs exist

'The majority of the population isn't gay, so we fear that mainstream audiences are likely not going to care about this gay main character. I'm afraid we're going to have to decline on this movie.' If you're in a marginalized group you're not going to receive the same level of exposure by virtue of being part of the minority and not being seen as appealing enough to the majority by the people in charge (who are likely part of the majority). That's not even accounting for the people in charge who might have flat-out issues with people of a different race or orientation.

*Looks at the volume of gay slash fiction online written by women*
Yeh no you could totally sell a film with a gay main character to a decent size demographic. Though you likely wouldn't be getting straight guys in. Just like a film with lets say a lesbian main character and going borderline smut wouldn't get straight women in so much to see it.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The notion that hard work and skill alone are enough to guarantee success is such an utter crock.

Well you are right, you also need talent and then you have to be lucky enough people actually like what you are making.

But you are implying that the only measure of success is being signed by a major music label or star in a hollywood movie and obviously that is a hard thing to achieve for anyone no matter color or creed.

To say that just being LBGT makes it that much harder than everyone else is hogwash. Show me proof, show me statistic of explicit discrimination. Show me any piece of art that is fantastic but utterly failed solely on the author's sexuality or race.

The latter (on movies) arguably yes it's mostly due to effective costs and actually getting the film out there

People put there homemade films on youtube all the time. The barrier to create and get your work made and out there is incredibly low these days.

If we only measure this success by saying it only counts if you become a major recording artist, movie star, etc...is just dumb because that is a crazy hard achievement for anyone and there is no way to show any evidence that it is somehow harder if you are gay or trans.

 

[BrawlMan]

If you honestly believe everyone has equal oppertunities in the entertainment industry then I doubt this discussion has much of a point anymore.

Agreed. As much as I like CriticalGaming, he has a habit of being oblivious and naive to others misfortunes or thinking everyone has the exact same opportunities. It would be nice, but that is not the case. They are still people fighting for their rights, and they have to because others hate them for not being white/not-straight/female/gay/religious belief/lack of religious belief.

 

[Silvanus]

Well you are right, you also need talent and then you have to be lucky enough people actually like what you are making.

But you are implying that the only measure of success is being signed by a major music label or star in a hollywood movie and obviously that is a hard thing to achieve for anyone no matter color or creed.

No, obviously I'm not saying its the only thing that matters. That's not what I said. But it sure as hell makes success a great deal easier to accomplish. And yes, someone's characteristics can affect how likely a publisher or label is to assist them and invest in them.

To say that just being LBGT makes it that much harder than everyone else is hogwash. Show me proof, show me statistic of explicit discrimination. Show me any piece of art that is fantastic but utterly failed solely on the author's sexuality or race.

That's the thing about discrimination, isn't it: its difficult to explicitly prove individual cases, which makes it easy for dismissive folks to ignore it altogether and pretend it doesn't exist.

We can look at trends, of course. How many straight romantic comedies get churned out every year? And how many non-straight ones? Ill give you a hint: the discrepancy is even greater than we'd expect from the relative proportions of those two groups in the population. And how many out gay sportsmen are there? Funny, isn't it, then sportsmen tend to come out after they've retired-- and have explicitly said that their careers would have suffered if they were to come out when they were active.

But we can look at individual examples as well. Ursula Le Guin has said that cover artists would refuse to portray her characters as black on the covers of her novels, even though she was the author and the characters are black.

 

[Silvanus]

People put there homemade films on youtube all the time. The barrier to create and get your work made and out there is incredibly low these days.

Yes, and I'm certain those homemade YouTube videos make just as much profit and create just as much impact as a theatrical release of a movie.

 

[CriticalGaming]

How many straight romantic comedies get churned out every year?

But that's because most people are straight! What is that even supposed to imply?

And how many out gay sportsmen are there?

There are a lot depending on the sport. Olympic athletes, figure skating, because it's more appealing I guess. But there are a ton of LBGT athletes look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT_sportspeople

Whether that's pre or post career I don't know, but it looks like a long list to me and goes back quite a long time and it's probably not even all of them because I'm sure there are people who are just gay and don't announce it to the world because it's none of the world's business.