Michelle Rodriguez to Star in Gender-Reassignment Revenge Thriller

stormtrooper9091

New member
Jun 2, 2010
506
0
0
sorry but what exactly is the outrage here, too much trans or not enough trans? The point is lost because none of what I keep reading gives an honest piece. I know the point of everything on the internet now is to find at least one group that will be offended by whatevers to generate buzz. Is that movie gonna be any good? Is it pro-trans or anti-trans propaganda, I honestly at this point, can't strain my brain figuring out which side everyone's on lol
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
8,577
2,898
118
stormtrooper9091 said:
sorry but what exactly is the outrage here, too much trans or not enough trans?
I would say it's probably "not enough trans" in your example, by the simple fact that what is being presented in the movie isn't an accurate representation of the transgender issue/situation/etc. The operation is being portrayed as a form of personal violation, being inflicted on someone who didn't ask for it at all. This puts a fairly negative connotation on the what is for actual, real transgender people, a life affirming transition, giving their lives stability, and inner/outer consistency. At least that's my understanding of the reason why the trans community is against this movie. I'm a cis male so I could be misreading their opinions on it.

The issue (as I see it), is that it's again misrepresenting their demographic in the public eye, falsely coloring the discussion further than it already is. The issue is that in popular culture/media, the number of transgender characters are:
1) Exceedingly rare in entertainment representation
and
2) Almost always represented as either homocidally crazy due to their gender identity issues (Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs for example), or otherwise mentally unstable due to their issues.

That they don't show many examples of trans characters who are simply a person, doing regular person stuff, who just also happens to be trans.

Someone in this discussion who actually is trans, please feel free to confirm/deny what I've said, but this seems to me to be the basic issue with the movie.
 

ThatOtherGirl

New member
Jul 20, 2015
364
0
0
stormtrooper9091 said:
sorry but what exactly is the outrage here, too much trans or not enough trans? The point is lost because none of what I keep reading gives an honest piece. I know the point of everything on the internet now is to find at least one group that will be offended by whatevers to generate buzz. Is that movie gonna be any good? Is it pro-trans or anti-trans propaganda, I honestly at this point, can't strain my brain figuring out which side everyone's on lol
Here is the entire statement:

"We haven't read the script, but it's disappointing to see filmmakers turning what is a lifesaving medical procedure for transgender people into a sensationalistic plot device. We are at a crucial moment in the public?s understanding of transgender issues, and stories like these have the potential to undermine the progress we?ve worked so hard to achieve."

Basically, the outrage is largely directed at the trans community because a spokesman for a LGBT organization would dare to say that a movie called "Tomboy, A Revenger?s Tale" featuring forced gender reassignment as a sensationalist plot device probably wont give the subject good treatment and that this is disappointing, but that he doesn't know it is bad for sure because he has not actually seen the script.

Edit: As a trans woman, I am really not sure what the outrage is here on either side. The synopsis and especially the title (tomboy revenger? really?) of the movie are cringe worthy, but I wouldn't call it offensive. So I am not sure why people are getting mad at it. On the other hand, expressing reserved disappointment isn't exactly heavy handed censorship, so I am not sure why people are mad about that either.

I think it is just one of those times people find an excuse to shout at each other.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,011
1,077
118
Country
Argentina
votemarvel said:
I wonder who they are casting as the assassin before the surgery though? I would hope they pick someone who is at least physically similar to Michelle Rodriguez, after all there is only so much surgery can do.
I think I read somewhere (Variety?) that Rodriguez plays the character pre and post surgery.
 

Nailzzz

New member
Apr 6, 2015
110
0
0
I don't believe for a second that this movie has a prayer of topping "The Skin I Live In". Now that movie outraged people. People walked out of film festival showings. It was great.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Loethlin said:
Lightknight said:
Loethlin said:
Didn't realise transploitation is a thing these days.
People have begun to confuse depiction with exploitation.
No, this is exploitation. THIS [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3007302/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_11] is depiction. A lovely, touching movie with trans protagonist. See the difference?
By lovely, I don't mean funny, btw. It's lovely bc of the way it handles the subject.
Both are depiction. One is more accurate than other, but both are depiction.

ThatOtherGirl said:
"It's disappointing to see filmmakers turning what is a life-saving medical procedure for transgender people into a sensationalistic plot device."

That was the actual comment by GLAAD.


Basically, the outrage is really people getting mad at us because they imagined we are mad.
Well GLAAD is mad, just not in the way you refered to. they, after all, refer to gender reassignment procedure as "life-saving". because apparently people now die if they dont get their genders reassigned.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Loethlin said:
Lightknight said:
Loethlin said:
Lightknight said:
Loethlin said:
Didn't realise transploitation is a thing these days.
People have begun to confuse depiction with exploitation.
No, this is exploitation. THIS [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3007302/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_11] is depiction. A lovely, touching movie with trans protagonist. See the difference?
By lovely, I don't mean funny, btw. It's lovely bc of the way it handles the subject.
Even if a depiction is an offensive one does not make it exploitation. A person have a sex change operation against their will is an interesting depiction. Couldn't care less if anyone finds that offensive, offensiveness isn't what makes it exploitative.
All I got from your, frankly, weak reasoning is that you don;t give a shit.
Good for you, now be on your way.
Well, I don't give a shit. But not for the reason you seem to be thinking. This is just some movie someone is making. Bitching about someone making a movie about a topic you (royal you) don't like is as silly as bitching at an artist for painting in a style you (royal) don't like. They have every right to create their work and you (royal again) being upset by it doesn't mean one single thing. If this were a book you'd (if you align with the aforementioned royal you) be the equivalent of a book burner if you think about it if you are indeed complaining about people making a movie about a topic you disagree with and are demanding it not be made.

People seem to forget that exploitation films can pertain to nearly anything. They just have to be about something that is "trendy". For example, the movie "World Trade Center" is an exploitation film in that it is exploiting the cultural relevance of 9/11. It isn't really exploitation like we think of exploitation as far as taking advantage of the weak in an unfair way. It's exploitation in the sense of making full use of an opportunity or ability. Blaxploitation films weren't inherently bad. It was originally Hollywood trying to cater to the black demographic. It just eventually became popular with other demographics too and then we fell into the track of perpetuation of stereotypes.
 

ThatOtherGirl

New member
Jul 20, 2015
364
0
0
Strazdas said:
Loethlin said:
Well GLAAD is mad, just not in the way you refered to. they, after all, refer to gender reassignment procedure as "life-saving". because apparently people now die if they dont get their genders reassigned.
Many do. Death by suicide due to severe depression brought on by gender dysphoria. It happens alarmingly often.

And besides, there are non literal ways for something to be life saving. It is not unusual to apply the term "life saving" to some procedure or event that, strictly speaking, did not directly prevent death. I would argue that physical therapy is life saving. I would argue that surgery that saves the eyes of an individual is life saving. I would argue that modern prosthetic are life saving. Training to overcome the disadvantages of a disability is life saving. Depression medication is life saving. None of these afflictions are life threatening, but they do cause terrible damage to the individuals life. These treatments save people from a life of hopelessness, misery and pain. They save a persons life in a very real way, if not in a strictly literal sense. I would certainly classify gender dysphoria treatments in this group of figurative life saving treatments.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
80
33
Country
Free-Dom
Well, it's obviously shock schlock...but Michelle Rodriguez.

She's awesome. I like her.
ThatOtherGirl said:
Strazdas said:
Well GLAAD is mad, just not in the way you refered to. they, after all, refer to gender reassignment procedure as "life-saving". because apparently people now die if they dont get their genders reassigned.
Many do. Death by suicide due to severe depression brought on by gender dysphoria. It happens alarmingly often.

And besides, there are non literal ways for something to be life saving. It is not unusual to apply the term "life saving" to some procedure or event that, strictly speaking, did not directly prevent death. I would argue that physical therapy is life saving. I would argue that surgery that saves the eyes of an individual is life saving. I would argue that modern prosthetic are life saving. Training to overcome the disadvantages of a disability is life saving. Depression medication is life saving. None of these afflictions are life threatening, but they do cause terrible damage to the individuals life. These treatments save people from a life of hopelessness, misery and pain. They save a persons life in a very real way, if not in a strictly literal sense. I would certainly classify gender dysphoria treatments in this group of figurative life saving treatments.
Ya know.

The dissonance here coulda been resolved by simply referring to it as a "life-altering" or "life-improving" or "psychologically helpful" or...like, anything other than the same terminology people employ in reference to, say, excising cancerous tumors or something equally life-threatening.

I get that people kill themselves due to depression from dysphoria, which is a whole other topic in and of itself, but it just comes across as being hyperbolic for the sake of twisting the proverbial knife.
 

Fangface74

Lock 'n' Load
Feb 22, 2008
595
0
0
Movies are entertainment, as are games, books, poetry etc.

The inability to separate them from real life issues is the typical failing of the puritan (i.e having or displaying censorious moral beliefs)
 

ThatOtherGirl

New member
Jul 20, 2015
364
0
0
LostGryphon said:
Well, it's obviously shock schlock...but Michelle Rodriguez.

She's awesome. I like her.
ThatOtherGirl said:
Strazdas said:
Well GLAAD is mad, just not in the way you refered to. they, after all, refer to gender reassignment procedure as "life-saving". because apparently people now die if they dont get their genders reassigned.
Many do. Death by suicide due to severe depression brought on by gender dysphoria. It happens alarmingly often.

And besides, there are non literal ways for something to be life saving. It is not unusual to apply the term "life saving" to some procedure or event that, strictly speaking, did not directly prevent death. I would argue that physical therapy is life saving. I would argue that surgery that saves the eyes of an individual is life saving. I would argue that modern prosthetic are life saving. Training to overcome the disadvantages of a disability is life saving. Depression medication is life saving. None of these afflictions are life threatening, but they do cause terrible damage to the individuals life. These treatments save people from a life of hopelessness, misery and pain. They save a persons life in a very real way, if not in a strictly literal sense. I would certainly classify gender dysphoria treatments in this group of figurative life saving treatments.
Ya know.

The dissonance here coulda been resolved by simply referring to it as a "life-altering" or "life-improving" or "psychologically helpful" or...like, anything other than the same terminology people employ in reference to, say, excising cancerous tumors or something equally life-threatening.

I get that people kill themselves due to depression from dysphoria, which is a whole other topic in and of itself, but it just comes across as being hyperbolic for the sake of twisting the proverbial knife.
I don't think anyone is actually confused at what he means here. Everyone knows what life saving means in the context of a condition that wont literally kill you, it is a quite common bit of figurative speech.

And really, I don't think any of the terms you suggest are adequate to actually communicating what gender reassignment means to some trans people. "Life-improving" hardly captures the degree to which properly treating gender dysphoria helps. Getting a better job is life improving. Losing 20 pounds is life improving. Treating gender dysphoria can and does bring people all the way from suicide watch to perfectly happy and content with life. "Life altering" is no good because it is neutral, and the effects of treating gender dysphoria are positive in the extreme. "Psychologically helpful" is a mouthful, not readily clear what it actually means, hardly indicates the degree of importance on the line here, and would be jumped on by people who are desperate to classify being transgender as a mental illness and thereby force restrictions on the control trans people have over their own lives and even their own bodies.

Sometimes there are gaps in language that prevent perfectly accurate communication. Having experienced gender dysphoria myself I would say that the common figurative use of "life saving" is far, far closer to the truth than any of the alternatives you suggested, and therefore if the goal is accurate communication life saving is the correct term to use.

Edit: I think the real problem here is that people don't understand and have a hard time believing us when we try to communicate how big a problem it really is. I mean, lets consider your own post:

"it just comes across as being hyperbolic for the sake of twisting the proverbial knife."

And that is the heart of the issue. It comes off as hyperbolic because to someone who has not experienced gender dysphoria it seems unbelievable that it can easily break a person. Or, at least, it seems unbelievable that it could break a strong person.

It is like how people used to think of depression, like it is a condition that can only damage the weak. We have conclusively shown is not the case with depression.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
80
33
Country
Free-Dom
ThatOtherGirl said:
I don't think anyone is actually confused at what he means here. Everyone knows what life saving means in the context of a condition that wont literally kill you, it is a quite common bit of figurative speech.

And really, I don't think any of the terms you suggest are adequate to actually communicating what gender reassignment means to some trans people. "Life-improving" hardly captures the degree to which properly treating gender dysphoria helps. Getting a better job is life improving. Losing 20 pounds is life improving. Treating gender dysphoria can and does bring people all the way from suicide watch to perfectly happy and content with life. "Life altering" is no good because it is neutral, and the effects of treating gender dysphoria are positive in the extreme. "Psychologically helpful" is a mouthful, not readily clear what it actually means, hardly indicates the degree of importance on the line here, and would be jumped on by people who are desperate to classify being transgender as a mental illness and thereby force restrictions on the control trans people have over their own lives and even their own bodies.

Sometimes there are gaps in language that prevent perfectly accurate communication. I would say that the common figurative use of "life saving" is far, far closer to the truth than any of the alternatives you suggested, and therefore if the goal is accurate communication life saving is the correct term to use.
Er, we agree. Nobody is 'confused' by what he means here. We're taking umbrage with his choice of words, as said word choice imparts a degree of severity usually reserved for cases where, without surgery, death is a certainty.

And...well, at the risk of being a bit hypocritical, ya don't have to be quite so pedantic about it. Those would be examples off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who's the spokesperson for an organization like GLAAD could come up with a more nuanced wording that doesn't rely on hyperbole or a blatant appeal to emotion.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here though, as my understanding of the colloquial or common definition/interpretation for "life-saving" is apparently different from yours.

I see "life-saving" and I think "brain surgery," "chemotherapy," "liver transplant," or what have you and, clearly, other people have a similar association, otherwise Straz wouldn't have said anything to begin with...and the person's decision to phrase it that way reflects as much.

Edit: Gah. I missed that edit part. Had the tab open for far too long while I made dinner.

ThatOtherGirl said:
Edit: I think the real problem here is that people don't understand and have a hard time believing us when we try to communicate how big a problem it really is. I mean, lets consider your own post:

"it just comes across as being hyperbolic for the sake of twisting the proverbial knife."

And that is the heart of the issue. It comes off as hyperbolic because to someone who has not experienced gender dysphoria it seems unbelievable that it can easily break a person. Or, at least, it seems unbelievable that it could break a strong person.

It is like how people used to think of depression, like it is a condition that can only damage the weak. We have conclusively shown is not the case with depression.
Speaking as someone who's got a history of depression/social anxiety disorder/near daily suicidal thoughts, I can at least come close to comprehending the core of the issue.

Though...I understand suicide to be, on principle, a pretty cowardly and selfish act, so I'm not exactly behind the notion that, without the surgery, these folk's only recourse is to kill themselves, nor am I all right with calling it "life-saving" in an effort to conflate it with the sorts of things I mentioned above.

But.

I've never had gender identity issues, so, eh. I suppose I can just take your word for it.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
ThatOtherGirl said:
Strazdas said:
Loethlin said:
Well GLAAD is mad, just not in the way you refered to. they, after all, refer to gender reassignment procedure as "life-saving". because apparently people now die if they dont get their genders reassigned.
Many do. Death by suicide due to severe depression brought on by gender dysphoria. It happens alarmingly often.

And besides, there are non literal ways for something to be life saving. It is not unusual to apply the term "life saving" to some procedure or event that, strictly speaking, did not directly prevent death. I would argue that physical therapy is life saving. I would argue that surgery that saves the eyes of an individual is life saving. I would argue that modern prosthetic are life saving. Training to overcome the disadvantages of a disability is life saving. Depression medication is life saving. None of these afflictions are life threatening, but they do cause terrible damage to the individuals life. These treatments save people from a life of hopelessness, misery and pain. They save a persons life in a very real way, if not in a strictly literal sense. I would certainly classify gender dysphoria treatments in this group of figurative life saving treatments.
No. they do not. According to you they kill themselves from the depression, not die from not having an operation. Maybe they should contact mental health professionals to help with their depression so they would not have to end their lives? Either way, this is NOT a result of them not having the operation (if anything, you seem to think its a result of having gender dysphoria instead).

P.S. Sex change operation is not treatment of gender dysphoria, its support of it. treatment implies that there is something wrong with that and its being removed. thats not what sex change operation does.

Also i disagree that incorrect use of the term is "not unusual".
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Strazdas said:
ThatOtherGirl said:
Loethlin said:
Well GLAAD is mad, just not in the way you refered to. they, after all, refer to gender reassignment procedure as "life-saving". because apparently people now die if they dont get their genders reassigned.
Many do. Death by suicide due to severe depression brought on by gender dysphoria. It happens alarmingly often.

And besides, there are non literal ways for something to be life saving. It is not unusual to apply the term "life saving" to some procedure or event that, strictly speaking, did not directly prevent death. I would argue that physical therapy is life saving. I would argue that surgery that saves the eyes of an individual is life saving. I would argue that modern prosthetic are life saving. Training to overcome the disadvantages of a disability is life saving. Depression medication is life saving. None of these afflictions are life threatening, but they do cause terrible damage to the individuals life. These treatments save people from a life of hopelessness, misery and pain. They save a persons life in a very real way, if not in a strictly literal sense. I would certainly classify gender dysphoria treatments in this group of figurative life saving treatments.
No. they do not. According to you they kill themselves from the depression, not die from not having an operation. Maybe they should contact mental health professionals to help with their depression so they would not have to end their lives? Either way, this is NOT a result of them not having the operation (if anything, you seem to think its a result of having gender dysphoria instead).
Before I begin this, I'd like to say that I personally have nothing against gender reassignment surgery as long as it helps the individuals. I'm a facts man and those are really all I care about so the discussion below is about the facts and not about how we feel about things. If anyone has legitimate sources answering some of the missing data point I mentioned, that would be greatly appreciated.

It should be noted that the issue of suicide still remains after the procedure. Here's an interesting article from the Guardian regarding a medical review of 100 different international studies on post-op conditions for transsexuals.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

As far as I know the Guardian is admittedly left leaning so this should be taken seriously by any group. The review notes that many previous studies that show more positive results have a major issue with participants dropping out of the studies and therefore not being included in the results. One study it looked at that had 727 participants who were post-op had 495 people drop out of it. So any data it acquired was actually from just the remaining participants without any respect to the nearly 500 people who may have committed suicide or done anything else. It also noted that other studies also had clear bias against transsexuals within their study parameters. So this seems to be a really balanced review of these studies that seriously reviews legitimate bias and study construction issues.

Anyways, the study finds that 20% of post-ops regret having made the change and recommends significantly more research be done in the area.

This is a 2010 study from The National Center from Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (ergo the merits or bias of this study need not be questioned unless I'm unaware of nefarious goals of this particular organization but their site seems very pro-LGBT).

http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads/reports/reports/ntds_report_on_health.pdf

At the top of page 16 you'll see the following: "Those who have medically transitioned (45%) and surgically transitioned (43%) have higher rates of attempted suicide than those who have not (34% and 39% respectively)." The percentages here are the rates at which the groups have attempted suicide.

As an aside, I'll also point out that the most commonly cited study regarding transitioned individuals having much higher rates is comparing them to the general population and not to pre-op individuals. That study just establishes that reassignment surgery is not sufficient by itself rather than explicitly stating that it is worse than not having it. This study at least compares apples to apples.

To really know the benefit or harm we need to know the rate of "successful" suicides in the general transgender population (not the overall population). We would also benefit from knowing the rate of suicides in pre-op transgender individuals. Apparently that information is difficult to acquire since death certificates do not state the orientation or gender identity of the individual. All we really know is that post-op transgendered individuals report a higher rate of attempted suicide but we also know that if you are willing to kill yourself then you might be more willing to explore alternatives. So we don't really even know if the attempted suicides happened before or after the procedure and that's an extremely important point to make since they could have attempted suicide, gotten treatment and then never have tried again for all we know. That would be extremely beneficial to ascertain. We do see that transitioned individuals are still 19 times more likely to die from suicide than the general population and that at least is a solid data point to consider. We just need something to know the non-transitioned suicide rate (not attempted suicide rate) and we'll have a legitimate comparison.

What I'm seeing is that we're in desperate need to gather more information. If the long term effect is negligible or worse then we HAVE to learn that sooner rather than later. Also, if the long term effect is positive it would be nice to know that the medical community hasn't been actively harming most of their transitioning patients for decades now without questioning the ramifications of it. The only thing we know for certain now is that it does not sufficiently reduce the issues of dysphoria, not if 19% still succeed at killing themselves. I'm also not sure how much overlap there is between the 19% that kill themselves and the 20% that regret the procedure. A future solution may combine reassignment surgery with some additional procedure. Or there may end up being a different treatment altogether. Just don't know.

P.S. Sex change operation is not treatment of gender dysphoria, its support of it. treatment implies that there is something wrong with that and its being removed. thats not what sex change operation does.

Also i disagree that incorrect use of the term is "not unusual".
Gender dysphoria is having a state of unease with your life due to your gender. The idea of a sex change operation is to make the person more aligned with their desired gender as a means to alleviate the condition of dysphoria with respect to their gender. So it is intended as a treatment.

Keep in mind, when someone calls it a condition or mental health issue from a clinical perspective, they aren't saying that the person wanting to be male or female is the problem. They're saying the dysphoria caused by not already being the physical sex they identify as is the problem. Understand that in order to qualify for a medical procedure there must be a condition.

However, I think the term "gender dysphoria" has gone out of use because of the connotations that there is a problem with the person's gender identity rather than their dysphoria. That doesn't mean that the dysphoria isn't a problem. It certainly is if it requires medical attention or else a lot of doctors are committing some serious malpractice in prescribing a treatment for something that isn't a problem.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
So a minority of people are in a constant state of outrage that women are not given enough leading roles in mega-movies. Next on the list to cry about is a movie with two of the strongest female action leads in modern history, because they, unlike snobby elitists who see their careers through narrow-minded, self-actualizing roles are not willing to turn down every fucking job opportunity that isn't about a deep, complex, dynamic, feminist-minded lead character reflecting themselves.

Actresses are offered many roles but are turning down jobs left and right because they are not getting the characters they want to portray. Filmmakers and producers are now responsible for creating content for every kind of actor rather than an audience.

Making films people want to see and offering acting roles to women that do not appease feminists and transgender communities when a film doesn't go out of its way to idealize them, no matter what the story is, is a federal offense that should be investigated. Hopefully one day television and film production will be regulated so that studios, producers, and directors can be sued to either write projects for every class of identity or just give any actress full creative rights to rewrite and portray her character how she sees fit.

transgender rights groups like GLAAD have lambasted the film as sensationalist, gimmicky project attempting to capitalize and cash in on a controversial social movement
Because nothing says sensationalist and gimmicky with an attempt to capitalize on a social movement like a constantly outraged social activist group that thinks it regulates society's views on minority groups and is there to attack anything and make a federal case out of their own flailing outrage whenever something comes along that does not need to consult or appease social imperialists.

Everyone, remember that women are talented, intelligent, and have their hearts in the right places (unlike men in male-dominated industries). They have a right to choose and are empowered by their choices and pursuits to do what they want to do. No one should take that away from them, which of course is why Michelle and Sigourney's choices to be in this project don't mean a damn thing, because other women and men who have turned into women said so.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,845
1
3
Country
United States
Fangface74 said:
Movies are entertainment, as are games, books, poetry etc.

The inability to separate them from real life issues is the typical failing of the puritan (i.e having or displaying censorious moral beliefs)
I guess there are a lot more puritans out there than I thought

It's not that. Plenty of people do that. Because human beings are really fucking stupid.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/17/0f/e9/170fe9a5e85eb92e1326ef67222f4ac6.jpg
 

hazydawn

New member
Jan 11, 2013
237
0
0
Strazdas said:
looking purely at games released in 2013 and 2014, in majority of cases you are either playing as not a human or you can choose the sex of the character (or both sexes are available as predefined characters). From some data i collected it looks like less than 30% of games force you into a specific gender human (either male or female), though out of those that do, males do dominate. maybe you should just play a different game?
I think that's a misrepresentation. I'd need some statistics for that. Btw you fucked up the quote of me. It doesn't relate to the text under it and is actually not from me :p
To summarize, I think you both misrepresented me and reality.

Fangface74 said:
Movies are entertainment, as are games, books, poetry etc.

The inability to separate them from real life issues is the typical failing of the puritan (i.e having or displaying censorious moral beliefs)
That or they think like me that a significant part of the population is retarded and neads to be treated like children. Which doesn't mean I'd like this movie to not exist.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
hazydawn said:
Strazdas said:
looking purely at games released in 2013 and 2014, in majority of cases you are either playing as not a human or you can choose the sex of the character (or both sexes are available as predefined characters). From some data i collected it looks like less than 30% of games force you into a specific gender human (either male or female), though out of those that do, males do dominate. maybe you should just play a different game?
I think that's a misrepresentation. I'd need some statistics for that. Btw you fucked up the quote of me. It doesn't relate to the text under it and is actually not from me :p
To summarize, I think you both misrepresented me and reality.
Sorry if i messed up the quote.
The lists of games can easily be found on wikipedia. i was in the process of making analysis of this thing this summer but sadly real life interfered and the current data dump is not "presentable" yet. ill get around to finishing it when i have time. however since most raw data is already gathered and excel is fast the trends are quite obviuos now. For 2013 i believe a user here called Mutant1990 or something like that had a google spreadsheet with similar data.