Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters

[hanselthecaretaker]

On the gender equality paradox:


Speaking personally, for "lived experience," I don't particuarly care what the ratio in STEM is. If the reason for women being under-represented is discrimination, then yes, that's an issue, because even being someone who has no interest in STEM, I can object on a moral level. If the reason however is people choosing different career paths, then I'm left to wonder why the effort is needed. I mean, I get why governments are interested in STEM (economic dividends) as opposed to other fields, but on the field of principle, if you believe that society should be 50/50 in every area...well, then there's a hell of a lot of fields who are way more out of balance than that.

And again, back to "lived experience," the second job I ever held was a car wash job - run by men, most workers were men. Current field I work in is libraries - run by women, most workers are women. I'm going to go on a limb and assume that the people who want equality in STEM aren't the people who want a 50/50 split in car washing (have fun, because it's a shitty job), or a 50/50 split in libraries.

Driving home from work I observed in passing a road crew building a new freeway overpass over the course of a couple years. Year round, in MI. I’m going to take a stab that those jobs will never be anywhere close to 50/50. Same for pretty much any type of physical labor.

Is that sexist? Why would we even need to ask. On the other hand, is STEM even something that a certain quota of women should be encouraged to pursue?

Rotten STEM: How Technology Corrupts Education - American Affairs Journal

The U.S. education system spent more than $26 billion on technology in 2018. That’s larger than the entire Israeli military budget. By one estimate, annual global spending on technology in schools will soon total $252 billion. But the technology pushed into schools today is a threat to child...

americanaffairsjournal.org

It’s a big world, and educating younger generations about the choices available to them should be the first step, where upon if certain fields need filling more than others, then the next would be to properly incentivize the pursuance of them, regardless of whomever might take an interest.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And you think it has nothing to do with biological factors? People's choices can only ever be due to the influence around them?

Why do women buy the majority of romance novels? Is it because society says that they should read them and for no other reason? "Welp here I am at a book store and this Jurassic Park novel looks really interested but, oh well, I have a vagina and there I must by something from the romance section *sigh*."

To suggest that there isn't some biological factors than play into our decision making is severely understating the influence of natural instinct and biology of life itself.

I would love to hear about the biological impulses that only occurred starting in the '60s that turned men off from romance novels.

I mean, it would be purely coincidence that it happened around the same time that showing emotions became something only homosexuals did.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I would love to hear about the biological impulses that only occurred starting in the '60s that turned men off from romance novels.

I mean, it would be purely coincidence that it happened around the same time that showing emotions became something only homosexuals did.

Do you mean that before the '60s men read and bought more romance novels, or that men wrote more romance novels?

 

[Kae]

I just want to mention how annoying it is having cis people argue about trans people all the time, like most trans issues don't even affect cis people in like any way shape or form, yet they always have an opinion on why it's immoral, washing kids brains by converting them to trans, why medical procedures shouldn't be given to trans people as easily as they are now (As if they are easy, in most countries including certain states in the USA there are waiting lists of at least one year, this despite the fact that several of those procedures are given to people for different conditions without any fuss at all), how trans people shouldn't be allowed to transition until they reach a certain age because changes are too permanent (This despite the facts that the changes that come from not getting the treatment early in life are also permanent), and tons of other bullshit, several being things I and many other people have already explained to the exact same people making these bullshit arguments, which BTW they seemed to think were reasonable when I explained it, yet almost every other week here there's the exact same people making a fuss about trans people again, whether it is due to the inclusion of a trans character somewhere, a celebrity coming out or just talking about trans people or a some piece of media just acknowledging the existence of trans people without really having them, but every single time and it's the exact same people.

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people?!
Why do you care so much about an issue that doesn't affect you?

How come you keep bitching about trans people never shutting up about issues that actually really need to be addressed, when you're the ones that never shut up about trans people just existing?

Like seriously this thread is 20 fucking pages long, and everything from representations, what gender biology is and discrimination has been discussed, like every single fucking time that a thread about trans people is made, and again, the exact same people, don't you get tired of this exact same bullshit arguments?

Have you considered just shutting up?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Do you mean that before the '60s men read and bought more romance novels, or that men wrote more romance novels?

Yes.

 

[Hawki]

I would love to hear about the biological impulses that only occurred starting in the '60s that turned men off from romance novels.

I mean, it would be purely coincidence that it happened around the same time that showing emotions became something only homosexuals did.

The chart I gave showed authors, not readers. Though from statistics I've seen, romance is consumed primarily by female readers as well.

Also, I don't think the claim that something changed in the 60s stands up - not in the way you described. Even if there was some shift to masculinity in the 60s, that doesn't account for the fact that 'being a man' existed for...well, pretty much forever before that, across time and across cultures. Do you really think that there'd be many male readers for Jane Austen for instance? If anything, men consuming feminine material has become more, not less accepted over time.

As to why there's a surge in female authors, I think it's easily explainable - more women are able to enter the publishing industry, as well as more women being able to have their work published, ergo, writing romance is no longer the domain of male writers. Yes, every so often you get a Nicholas Sparks, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Elijin]

Annnnd Kae is ignored so they can keep quibbling

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would love to hear about the biological impulses that only occurred starting in the '60s that turned men off from romance novels.

I mean, it would be purely coincidence that it happened around the same time that showing emotions became something only homosexuals did.

Eh, people got bored with claiming that red and blue being gendered colours in our current society is due to hunter gathers and berries, I guess.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I would love to hear about the biological impulses that only occurred starting in the '60s that turned men off from romance novels.

I mean, it would be purely coincidence that it happened around the same time that showing emotions became something only homosexuals did.

As stated by Hawki above, that chart is about authors. And if i had to guess it was due to women just starting to get into the workforce for real and thus you would have more female authors spring up.

Would you like to take a stab as to why so many women took over writing romance and not i dunno action thrillers?

 

[CriticalGaming]

I just want to mention how annoying it is having cis people argue about trans people all the time, like most trans issues don't even affect cis people in like any way shape or form, yet they always have an opinion on why it's immoral, washing kids brains by converting them to trans, why medical procedures shouldn't be given to trans people as easily as they are now (As if they are easy, in most countries including certain states in the USA there are waiting lists of at least one year, this despite the fact that several of those procedures are given to people for different conditions without any fuss at all), how trans people shouldn't be allowed to transition until they reach a certain age because changes are too permanent (This despite the facts that the changes that come from not getting the treatment early in life are also permanent), and tons of other bullshit, several being things I and many other people have already explained to the exact same people making these bullshit arguments, which BTW they seemed to think were reasonable when I explained it, yet almost every other week here there's the exact same people making a fuss about trans people again, whether it is due to the inclusion of a trans character somewhere, a celebrity coming out or just talking about trans people or a some piece of media just acknowledging the existence of trans people without really having them, but every single time and it's the exact same people.

It is an unfortunately consequence towards the "acceptance" that the trans community is striving for. Us "cis" (which I take as a slur personally but whatever) have to understand what is happening in order to gain the level of acceptance that I'm sure you would be looking out for.

Unlike with homosexuality which is a fairly straightforward concept, love who you who love regardless of equipment.

The trans concept is much deeper than that, and it goes beyond "be what you feel". It is a community that appears off the rails to most....ugh "cis"...because not only is it hard for us to consider genital surgery as any sort of rational thing, but there are some extreme sides of the issue too mainly being the encouragement to transistion children.

That means there are a lot bigger hurdles to trying to make the overall position seem reasonable which is something that gay/lesbian people have mostly overcome. You'll never win over 100% of people because religion is a thing, but luckily society has adapted more and more atheistic viewpoints and is slowly removing God form most policy making. So thing are slowly improving on those fronts I think.

I am sorry that you find this annoying, because I imagine you feel like you are having to explain yourself to people, and the answer i have to that is...don't. Just don't engage in the threads if you don't want to bother with it if it bothers you. I don't see a reason to upset yourself over forum posts on a small gaming website forum.

However so long as discussion is allowed and remains civil, there isn't anything you can really do to stop conversation, and demanding that it become a taboo topic doesn't really help sway viewpoints either. Maybe talk with @Nick Calandra and see if he feels it warrants maybe not allowing this to be a topic at all, or if he feels the thread is no longer relevant to the original topic and closes the thread, which....fair enough.

 

[Silvanus]

It is an unfortunately consequence towards the "acceptance" that the trans community is striving for. Us "cis" (which I take as a slur personally but whatever) have to understand what is happening in order to gain the level of acceptance that I'm sure you would be looking out for.

Why do you personally need to feel you understand something in order to accept that other people are that thing? I don't fully understand quantum mechanics, but I recognise they exist.

And "cis" is literally the Latin preposition antonym of "trans". It makes sense.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Why do you personally need to feel you understand something in order to accept that other people are that thing? I don't fully understand quantum mechanics, but I recognise they exist.

And "cis" is literally the Latin preposition antonym of "trans". It makes sense.

I accept trans exist what are you talking about? I was just using broader language.

Ive supported every trans option in every video game that has popped up on this forum. Even starting threads that have pointed out those options with thumbs up.

Its the further discussions that loose me.

There is also a big difference in accepting something and understanding something. Do you want a lawyer than understands the laws or just accepts them?

 

[Hawki]

Annnnd Kae is ignored so they can keep quibbling

I haven't responded to Kae because nothing I've posted in this thread has to do with trans issues. I actually checked my posts, the only time I mentioned anything approaching a "trans issue" was the push for Samus Aran to be considered a trans character.

Also, on the subject of what Kae did say, there's this:

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with you people?!
Why do you care so much about an issue that doesn't affect you?

That isn't really an argument. It's very possible to care about an issue that doesn't affect you directly. In fact, if you only care about issues that affect you directly, then that potentially makes you a sociopath.

 

[Hades]

That isn't really an argument. It's very possible to care about an issue that doesn't affect you directly. In fact, if you only care about issues that affect you directly, then that potentially makes you a sociopath.

Sure to an extend that's true. However rights for sexual minorities is one of those things that don't affect those that complain about it while those that are affected by it are only affected in a very positive way. Sexual minorities gaining rights means the world to them while not costing a thing to anyone else. The minorities win and no one loses so at that point there's no valid reason to so strongly oppose it. Those that oppose it don't lose out when sexual minorities gain rights and those minorities gain a lot.

 

[Silvanus]

I accept trans exist what are you talking about? I was just using broader language.

Ive supported every trans option in every video game that has popped up on this forum. Even starting threads that have pointed out those options with thumbs up.

Its the further discussions that loose me.

Then I suppose I don't really know what you were referring to. You seemed to be arguing in post #390 that cis people need to understand it in order for trans people to gain acceptance. I was simply saying that full understanding shouldn't be a prerequisite.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Then I suppose I don't really know what you were referring to. You seemed to be arguing in post #390 that cis people need to understand it in order for trans people to gain acceptance. I was simply saying that full understanding shouldn't be a prerequisite.

But some understanding should be, because unlike in your Mathmatics example you don't have to understand anything about it because you are unlikely to ever have to interact with it unexpectedly.

With this we are talking about societal norms, we are talking about correct social behavior, we are talking about over rules and laws that even if I don't interact directly with will become part of what taxes and health insurance premiums will consider. So by that token, some understanding must come across because there is language that is being asked that I adopt, behaviors that i am being asked to adopt purely on the whim of the individual in which I might currently be interacting. Which means that a greater level of understanding other than "oh it exists" is required because social interaction must completely modify itself from the norm strictly from the presence of a trans individual. You have to be careful with pronouns, you have to be careful with names (especially if you have known this person long before trans because their reality), and while most friend circles will do their best attempts to adhere to a person's whims, those whims often also apply to the whole of society which requires the everyday folk to be aware of the potential of someone taking drastic offense to an incorrect referral. Especially with pushes in places like Canada where mis-gendering can be a crime. If it is going to become a crime, then I better fucking know the rules don't you think?

https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained

While the law currently doesn't depict specifically that misgendering is a punishable crime, it does leave openings in which someone can file a complaint against you and label it as "hate-speech" which could lead to investigation. So deny it if you want, but step one is right there. The question is, will things like this move forward or will lawmakers realize it's unreasonable and step it back. Who knows right now. If you had asked me five years ago, I never would have thought it would even get this far.

 

[Silvanus]

But some understanding should be, because unlike in your Mathmatics example you don't have to understand anything about it because you are unlikely to ever have to interact with it unexpectedly.

With this we are talking about societal norms, we are talking about correct social behavior, we are talking about over rules and laws that even if I don't interact directly with will become part of what taxes and health insurance premiums will consider. So by that token, some understanding must come across because there is language that is being asked that I adopt, behaviors that i am being asked to adopt purely on the whim of the individual in which I might currently be interacting. Which means that a greater level of understanding other than "oh it exists" is required because social interaction must completely modify itself from the norm strictly from the presence of a trans individual. You have to be careful with pronouns, you have to be careful with names (especially if you have known this person long before trans because their reality), and while most friend circles will do their best attempts to adhere to a person's whims, those whims often also apply to the whole of society which requires the everyday folk to be aware of the potential of someone taking drastic offense to an incorrect referral.

Honestly, the adaptations to your/our behaviour that are being requested are so minor and so easy to fulfil that simple recognition & compassion are enough. You don't need to "completely modify" your behaviour, any more than you do around a gay person. It's not that difficult, and an honest mistake is usually quickly forgiven.

Understanding is noble and something to strive towards, but hardly a prerequisite for compassionate behaviour.

Especially with pushes in places like Canada where mis-gendering can be a crime. If it is going to become a crime, then I better fucking know the rules don't you think?

This has been blown out of proportion by reporting. Legal experts have pointed out that misuse of gender pronouns cannot, alone, constitute a crime. Refusal to use someone's correct pronouns is given as an example of what harassment could include. It's not a binding policy or a crime in itself.

Legal codes frequently contain examples of behaviour which may be included in some contexts, but are not criminal actions themselves.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Understanding is noble and something to strive towards, but hardly a prerequisite for compassionate behaviour.

I would argue that the desire to understand IS compassion. Because I could just as easily say fuck it and ignore complaints, requests, and outcries.

This has been blown out of proportion by reporting. Legal experts have pointed out that misuse of gender pronouns cannot, alone, constitute a crime. Refusal to use someone's correct pronouns is given as an example of what harassment could include. It's not a binding policy or a crime in itself.

You didn't read the page did you. Okay hold on i'll pull the relevant quote....

"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. "

So it can escalate into a legal issue, even if it isn't an outright crime. You can be forced into sensitivity training, issuing apologies, or even paying the offended person a monetary fine.

Now let me ask you something, if you could be offended by someone not calling you he/she/they/them/whatever and then have the government force the person who hurt your feeling to PAY you.....well why wouldn't go around looking for people to make you offended. Sounds like you could make a lot of easy money for acting offended couldn't you?

You might have faith in humanity enough that you don't believe people wouldn't try this. But trust me, if someone could do it and get away with it, they would, and in so doing it would probably force the law to be changed and ruin it for people who believe they truly need some law.

But have we regressed so much as a people that we are afraid of words now? Are we suggesting that we have to protect against words, because the 2 seconds it takes to have to hear a sound you don't like would linger in your mind for so long it would debilitate you? If that is the case, then all those arguments you made previously about fair criticism don't matter because criticism is words and words can harm people therefore critique should not be allowed as it might cause emotional distress upon someone.

 

[Avnger]

You didn't read the page did you. Okay hold on i'll pull the relevant quote....

"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. "

So it can escalate into a legal issue, even if it isn't an outright crime. You can be forced into sensitivity training, issuing apologies, or even paying the offended person a monetary fine.

Now let me ask you something, if you could be offended by someone not calling you he/she/they/them/whatever and then have the government force the person who hurt your feeling to PAY you.....well why wouldn't go around looking for people to make you offended. Sounds like you could make a lot of easy money for acting offended couldn't you?

You might have faith in humanity enough that you don't believe people wouldn't try this. But trust me, if someone could do it and get away with it, they would, and in so doing it would probably force the law to be changed and ruin it for people who believe they truly need some law.

But have we regressed so much as a people that we are afraid of words now? Are we suggesting that we have to protect against words, because the 2 seconds it takes to have to hear a sound you don't like would linger in your mind for so long it would debilitate you? If that is the case, then all those arguments you made previously about fair criticism don't matter because criticism is words and words can harm people therefore critique should not be allowed as it might cause emotional distress upon someone.

"If <a black person> could go around making people offend them by <saying ni****>, why wouldn't they do that for money?"

Like this isn't that hard mate. If you repeatedly misgender someone to the point of harassment, then yes it should be treated as harassment. The same as it would be legally harassment to call someone racial slurs repeatedly. This concept isn't new or difficult. You, for whatever reason, seem to be having trouble treating trans people the same as any other group of human beings...

 

[Silvanus]

You didn't read the page did you. Okay hold on i'll pull the relevant quote....

"If someone refused to use a preferred pronoun — and it was determined to constitute discrimination or harassment — could that potentially result in jail time?

It is possible, Brown says, through a process that would start with a complaint and progress to a proceeding before a human rights tribunal. If the tribunal rules that harassment or discrimination took place, there would typically be an order for monetary and non-monetary remedies. A non-monetary remedy may include sensitivity training, issuing an apology, or even a publication ban, he says. "

So it can escalate into a legal issue, even if it isn't an outright crime. You can be forced into sensitivity training, issuing apologies, or even paying the offended person a monetary fine.

Yes, I read it. You can clearly see up there that a tribunal needs to conclude harassment and discrimination took place. And, a few sentences above: “The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime".

Now let me ask you something, if you could be offended by someone not calling you he/she/they/them/whatever and then have the government force the person who hurt your feeling to PAY you.....well why wouldn't go around looking for people to make you offended. Sounds like you could make a lot of easy money for acting offended couldn't you?

You might have faith in humanity enough that you don't believe people wouldn't try this. But trust me, if someone could do it and get away with it, they would, and in so doing it would probably force the law to be changed and ruin it for people who believe they truly need some law.

Faith in humanity has nothing to do with it. They couldn't do it. You're mistaking an example of something that can, sometimes, constitute harassment as a specific, legally-proscribed action. That's not how the law works.

Look at the CPS guidance on stalking and harassment for another example: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment

An example given of something that could constitute harassment is "repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications". Does this mean that talking to somebody twice when they don't want you to is a criminal offence? No, of course not! It can constitute harassment in some contexts. But it has to be proven to actually reach a criminal level, and it's not a criminal offence itself.

Ditto, misuse of pronouns. Misusing a pronoun alone will not, under that Canadian law, get anyone a massive fine or sent to jail. It would need to be in the context of wider behaviour, judged to be "discrimination or harassment" by a tribunal. Nobody can just claim it and that be the end of it.

But have we regressed so much as a people that we are afraid of words now? Are we suggesting that we have to protect against words, because the 2 seconds it takes to have to hear a sound you don't like would linger in your mind for so long it would debilitate you? If that is the case, then all those arguments you made previously about fair criticism don't matter because criticism is words and words can harm people therefore critique should not be allowed as it might cause emotional distress upon someone.

Nobody is arguing that. Except, as far as I can tell, Dwarvenhobble, who argued above that describing someone as "uninformed" constitutes creating a hostile work environment, and that describing people as "alt-right" should be covered by slander and libel legislation. That's the only argument so far in this thread in support of legally restricting what people can currently freely say.