Obsidian accused of transmisogyny in Pillars of Eternity

[FirstNameLastName]

So, going back to the incest example (yeah, I'm bringing incest into a debate about trangenderism, fucking sue me).

Let's say there's Bob and Alice, both siblings. Bob has no sexual interest in Alice, but she does not know this for sure. In fact, she knows nothing about his opinions on the matter, only assumptions based on the fact that people wouldn't be okay with it. Alice on the other hand, has an interest in Bob.
One day, Alice disguises herself as another woman, seduces him, and proceeds to have kinky sex with her brother Bob. They use protection (so there is no chance of inbreeding) and neither of them has any STIs. They both enjoy it, until afterward, when Bob finds out what has happened.

Just like in the trans examples, no physical harm has come to Bob, only emotional distress.

So, it was Bobs fault? Should Bob have asked every single woman he intended to bed "hey, you're not my sister in disguise, right?" (ruining his chance with whatever woman he is talking to in the process)
Or, was it fine to assume not, since the other option is a rare occurrence?
Alice didn't know he would be upset over it, but it could be assumed by the fact that the majority of people (argumentum ad populum! Argumentum ad populum!) would have a problem with being deceive in this manner.

Would the morality here change if Bob never found out?

What exactly is the difference here from Bob's perspective, aside from the fact that your sibling pulling this kind of shit is even rarer? If so, why can the line be drawn at "asking every single person if they are related to you before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon" and not "asking every single person if they are transgender before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon"?

Not applicable. A trans-woman isn't a guy pretending to be a woman to have sex with men, while Alice is pretending to be someone else to sleep with Bob.

It's not about whether or not trans-women are pretending. It's about whether or not Bob is partially (or fully) to blame for this, since he failed to inquire.

If it isn't his responsibility (even though he is the one who has a problem with it), then why is it the responsibility for cis people who do not wish to sleep with trans people to ask the question?

Both Alice, and trans people, have knowledge that could completely change their sexual partner's opinion and consent, and although neither of them can be certain of the opinions of others, there is plenty of reason to suspect that their partner would be distraught to find out.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

So, going back to the incest example (yeah, I'm bringing incest into a debate about trangenderism, fucking sue me).

Let's say there's Bob and Alice, both siblings. Bob has no sexual interest in Alice, but she does not know this for sure. In fact, she knows nothing about his opinions on the matter, only assumptions based on the fact that people wouldn't be okay with it. Alice on the other hand, has an interest in Bob.
One day, Alice disguises herself as another woman, seduces him, and proceeds to have kinky sex with her brother Bob. They use protection (so there is no chance of inbreeding) and neither of them has any STIs. They both enjoy it, until afterward, when Bob finds out what has happened.

Just like in the trans examples, no physical harm has come to Bob, only emotional distress.

So, it was Bobs fault? Should Bob have asked every single woman he intended to bed "hey, you're not my sister in disguise, right?" (ruining his chance with whatever woman he is talking to in the process)
Or, was it fine to assume not, since the other option is a rare occurrence?
Alice didn't know he would be upset over it, but it could be assumed by the fact that the majority of people (argumentum ad populum! Argumentum ad populum!) would have a problem with being deceive in this manner.

Would the morality here change if Bob never found out?

What exactly is the difference here from Bob's perspective, aside from the fact that your sibling pulling this kind of shit is even rarer? If so, why can the line be drawn at "asking every single person if they are related to you before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon" and not "asking every single person if they are transgender before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon"?

First thought: You might have been better to have steered away from the "Dressing up as something you're not to deceive an unsuspecting innocent" direction with this analogy

Second thought: I swear, I have seen this hentai

The analogy is really flawed though, for one, transgender people aren't dressing up like the gender they identify with to trick people. A better analogy would be two siblings separated at birth, one of whom realized that they were siblings at some point but neglected to tell the other.

Even then, it'd still be a flawed analogy because there is no stigma or blowback on Alice if she informs Bob they're siblings, the detail isn't something personal to her that could easily skew others perception of her. Alice only loses sex in this analogy, where it can have a lot more lasting effect and substantial effect on a transgendered person

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Not applicable. A trans-woman isn't a guy pretending to be a woman to have sex with men, while Alice is pretending to be someone else to sleep with Bob.

I don't see what that has to do with his point, or how you interpreted that post that way, considering it's just rooted in the idea that using deception to create sexual consent in any situation is a bad idea. Generally for both parties. That doesn't mean he thinks transwomen or men are just guys or dudes pretending to identify as the oppposite gender, because that's frankly kind of ridiculous.

It just means that lying to somebody about the circumstances or situations that could occur should either of you choose to fuck each other is generally not a good idea for either person involved.

I am conflicted myself, considering a transperson is taking a very huge risk when revealing that information to their partner after forming a relationship. But I can't say a transperson would be blameless in deceiving somebody about their circumstances, and then being rejected after their potential partner found out. I guess that sounds like blaming the victim or something, but I think until the general populace becomes more knowledgeable and accepting of transpeople, that may just have to be how it all works out for the time being. I'm just not sure when that time will come, though I hope it's relatively soon.

edit: Before I get snapped at for using the word deception, because I'm sure I will, I don't want to say that it's done out of malice. In the case of transpeople, I'm sure it's mostly done out of the fear of the reaction of their partner, or the fear of their own life considering the general view of transpeople in society. It's a shitty situation, and I can understand why it happens, but I don't think it fully justifies inflicting emotional conflict or distress upon another person either.

 

[Jux]

I spent the weekend at a friend's birthday party telling his ridiculous family members what a bunch of idiots they are for supporting the Indiana Freedom of Religion Bill over the weekend. But, as a guy, while I can completely get how a transgendered individual might be upset at that poem I am conflicted, because I know that a big, deep part of the acceptance problem transgendered people face is that straight men and women are often deeply disturbed by the thought of an individual who faces gender identity issues, and moreso if they are seeking corrective surgery to fix the problem. So part of me says, "sure, that poem isn't actually part of the game, so it's not representing any internal story element or bit, and therefore doesn't really serve much purpose." Another part of me says, "it's funny because there's an uncomfortable truth hidden behind it." But that truth is not about transgendered women tricking men, but about the discomfort (and and sometimes outright transphobia) that I would bet a fair majority of straight men and women feel when thinking on the subject. Not least of which is because there does seem to be a fundamental psychological disconnect between those who have dealt with gender identity issues (they're indellibly wrapped up in the very essence of what it means to be one thing physically but to feel like something else mentally) and the way a straight gender-aligned person feels about it (which is that the notion of being on thing while feeling another way is almost inconceivable and deeply disconcerting).

So I guess what I'm saying is I'll be buying and playing Pillars of Eternity, and I wouldn't object if Obsidian removed that poem since it serves no real purpose. However, the real problem with the poem is much deeper than just mischaracterizing transgendered people; it's expressing a fear among the majority cisgender population that isn't readily going to go away anytime soon, and the question of whether humor can help lighten the load of such worries or not is an entirely different issue.....but in the interim this lymeric serves no real purpose (within the context of the game) so why keep it?

Agree with much of this, though the bolded part stuck out at me because, while I do think that humor can act as an icebreaker for delicate issues, I don't think that this poem really fills that role. Reading it, I don't think the average response is going to be introspection about why many people are uncomfortable with trans people, if some of the responses in this thread are any indication. The punchline seems to be more at the guy that killed himselfs expense at how he was 'tricked', and does more to reaffirm the prevailing opinions that 'trans people are weird/gross/just trying to trick me'.

Coincidentally, another joke that fell flat for me was the gag during that Hangover movie (not the first one, may have been the second) that took place in Bangkok, where Ed Helms character has sex with a transwoman, and the entire 'joke' revolves around how she has a penis and that's so totally gross amirite? And how he took it in the butt (if memory serves me correctly). There was no humanising element for the woman and her status as a trans woman was played for the 'ew thats so gross' laugh.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

So, going back to the incest example (yeah, I'm bringing incest into a debate about trangenderism, fucking sue me).

Let's say there's Bob and Alice, both siblings. Bob has no sexual interest in Alice, but she does not know this for sure. In fact, she knows nothing about his opinions on the matter, only assumptions based on the fact that people wouldn't be okay with it. Alice on the other hand, has an interest in Bob.
One day, Alice disguises herself as another woman, seduces him, and proceeds to have kinky sex with her brother Bob. They use protection (so there is no chance of inbreeding) and neither of them has any STIs. They both enjoy it, until afterward, when Bob finds out what has happened.

Just like in the trans examples, no physical harm has come to Bob, only emotional distress.

So, it was Bobs fault? Should Bob have asked every single woman he intended to bed "hey, you're not my sister in disguise, right?" (ruining his chance with whatever woman he is talking to in the process)
Or, was it fine to assume not, since the other option is a rare occurrence?
Alice didn't know he would be upset over it, but it could be assumed by the fact that the majority of people (argumentum ad populum! Argumentum ad populum!) would have a problem with being deceive in this manner.

Would the morality here change if Bob never found out?

What exactly is the difference here from Bob's perspective, aside from the fact that your sibling pulling this kind of shit is even rarer? If so, why can the line be drawn at "asking every single person if they are related to you before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon" and not "asking every single person if they are transgender before sex is stupid, since it's so uncommon"?

First thought: You might have been better to have steered away from the "Dressing up as something you're not to deceive an unsuspecting innocent" direction with this analogy

Second thought: I swear, I have seen this hentai

The analogy is really flawed though, for one, transgender people aren't dressing up like the gender they identify with to trick people. A better analogy would be two siblings separated at birth, one of whom realized that they were siblings at some point but neglected to tell the other.

Even then, it'd still be a flawed analogy because there is no stigma or blowback on Alice if she informs Bob they're siblings, the detail isn't something personal to her that could easily skew others perception of her. Alice only loses sex in this analogy, where it can have a lot more lasting effect and substantial effect on a transgendered person

I already did the "separated at birth" analogy earlier, but with a different intent. And as with above, it's not about whether or not trans-women are real women, it's about what responsibility Bob has in this scenario, and the morality of keep secrets that you have a good reason to suspect to be very important to your sexual partner.

While the morality of more actively deceiving others certainly seems more sketchy than simply being transgender and not mentioning it, both of these scenarios are about one person allowing others to draw a (most likely) false conclusion about them (based on probability), and then ignoring the fact that (based on more probability) the partner would most likely not consent, should they be aware of this secret.

As for the dangers involved, transgender people would be more likely to be violently abused if they kept the secret rather than simply being upfront. Not saying there are no people who would get violent just from flirting with a trans person (there undoubtedly are), but they would be more likely to attack if they were allowed to go all the way before finding out.

 

[Redryhno]

From all the people I've talked to, a lot of it comes from just getting accustomed to hostility for it. Doesn't help when there really isn't that much (accurate) information going around about trans people, and a large portion of the information you do see floating around comes from people complaining about them. Simply because there's a lot more people who think that transsexuality is a joke ("Oh look! I'm mentally a pony! See, I can do it too") than there are actual trans people. And it's way easier to mock someone you don't understand than to actually understand them.

In any case, there's a lot of people on this site who could answer questions you have, and from what I've seen in any of the threads dedicated to that, they have been pretty damn tolerant and understanding even in the face of some really tactless comments. Even just skimming some threads in the past might help you out if you wanted more information. Seriously, from all my time here there's some very nice people on this site if you're sincere in wanting to know more

You're joking right? The trans people on this site as a general rule are like fedora atheists, vegans, and American Lefters, they make it loud and clear who/what they are(well, at least the ones that joined ~three years ago). And outside of Dizzy(mostly because I like them too much), I've asked them in private messages if they'd be willing to talk about it so I could get more information. Most of the time I don't get anything back, but I have gotten a couple of them telling me to quit bothering them.

Like I was trying to say, there's only so much you can get if the subjects are unwilling to talk about their...condition? defect? And when the only stuff you're getting is conflicting medical journals, militant trans/advocates/otherkin attaching themselves to it, and the anti-trans group, you don't get the best picture of much of anything.

And skimming through the threads here about the vocal transfolks evokes more of the types that use cishet and cisplaining unironically. I don't know, maybe it's like my experience with gay guys nearly all being backstabbing little brats, unlucky. Or it could be my general annoyance of being around guys in general(long story short, I have like two guy friends, one of them a roommate, and like ten women I've kept in touch with since we were kids), I don't mean to be that guy here either, but transwomen seem to be the more annoying and willing to get upset of the two in my experience, sorta like lesbians being pretty laidback gals, and gay guys being the aforementioned brats.

 

[dangoball]

I had hoped this one another issue of Taco News... Internet, please change (though not in a "more governmental oversight" way, please).

 

[StorkV]

I don't understand how that is transphobia... but than again nothing makes sense lately... with the hiper political correctness...

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You know as Trans I'm a bit sensitive about these sort of jokes, because even cross-dressers are often seen as a subset of trans. There are a large number of heterosexual otherwise cis people who cross-dress for reasons other than sexual ones.

On topic: I don't find this joke blatantly offensive, or transphobic, as much as just off color. It's certainly insensitive to trans people, but on the other hand the humor of it does take some of the threat of trans people away. As humor can often open doors, and discussions, and relieve fear in some parties. For example someone has a trans friend, sees that poem, and brings it up with their trans friend, assuming the trans friend is at all rational... The trans friend would probably say: "I'd never do something like that!"

Also it's more just off color and less on the out right offensive side due to the guy who got "trapped" as it's often called was the butt of the joke in this situation, not the supposedly trans person.

 

[Ratty]

Meanwhile, in the Philipines, gangs of Neo-Nazis are killing actual transwomen. But please SJWs, do tell me about how this joke in a video game hurt your feelings/how indignant you are.

 

[wulf3n]

It's funny because "Transmisogyny" is itself a transphobic term.

 

[endtherapture]

Since Jim Sterling posted this:

Jim Sterling ‏@JimSterling 23 Min
So Tim Schafer makes a joke with a sock and it's an outrage, but a joke about a subject that's gotten trans people murdered is just lols.

on Twitter, I will now try to find out how many people got killed because of this joke. Or something similar.

Someone has sources?

(Btw: He retweeted it, and he has a huge audience, so he is partly responsible for the answer this tweet got. Which makes me kind of confused - he should really know what most people think of that.)

So glad Jim is gone from The Escapist if he's gonna peddle shit like this to everyone now.

 

[Ratty]

Since Jim Sterling posted this:

Jim Sterling ‏@JimSterling 23 Min
So Tim Schafer makes a joke with a sock and it's an outrage, but a joke about a subject that's gotten trans people murdered is just lols.

on Twitter, I will now try to find out how many people got killed because of this joke. Or something similar.

Someone has sources?

(Btw: He retweeted it, and he has a huge audience, so he is partly responsible for the answer this tweet got. Which makes me kind of confused - he should really know what most people think of that.)

So glad Jim is gone from The Escapist if he's gonna peddle shit like this to everyone now.

He's a giant hypocrite. He calls himself a consumer advocate but refuses to criticize anti-consumer behavior in his friends like Leigh Alexander, indeed defending them.

I heard he also stabbed TotalBiscuit in the back today as well, while TB was in the hospital. I can't confirm that since I don't follow him, but that's a pretty scummy thing to do if true. Especially since TB stood up for him (wrongly I think, since it clearly was just a matter of Jim being far down the list of importance) when he whined about not getting a Final Fantasy review copy.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Since Jim Sterling posted this:

Jim Sterling ‏@JimSterling 23 Min
So Tim Schafer makes a joke with a sock and it's an outrage, but a joke about a subject that's gotten trans people murdered is just lols.

on Twitter, I will now try to find out how many people got killed because of this joke. Or something similar.

Someone has sources?

(Btw: He retweeted it, and he has a huge audience, so he is partly responsible for the answer this tweet got. Which makes me kind of confused - he should really know what most people think of that.)

So glad Jim is gone from The Escapist if he's gonna peddle shit like this to everyone now.

Eh, I'm sure the silence already got raked over the rails for singling out the tweet, but I'm just gonna say.

He did not say that people could get killed because of Obsidian's joke. He's just saying that transpeople face a small chance at having to endure physical violence or even death in the situation that is presented in the poem. Still, I don't think the poem has much effect on any of those situations, or on how people perceive transfolk, so I don't view it as a huge deal. Whether you generally agree with Jim or how he handles himself or not, I wouldn't make a kneejerk reaction and say he said things he never did.

Jim's an alright person to me, but I've made my feelings known a couple times here on his content and how it seems to be rather sparse in terms of variety or much greater thought at times (not necessarily always). And I'd agree to some extent that he can be a hypocrite sometimes.

 

[endtherapture]

Since Jim Sterling posted this:

Jim Sterling ‏@JimSterling 23 Min
So Tim Schafer makes a joke with a sock and it's an outrage, but a joke about a subject that's gotten trans people murdered is just lols.

on Twitter, I will now try to find out how many people got killed because of this joke. Or something similar.

Someone has sources?

(Btw: He retweeted it, and he has a huge audience, so he is partly responsible for the answer this tweet got. Which makes me kind of confused - he should really know what most people think of that.)

So glad Jim is gone from The Escapist if he's gonna peddle shit like this to everyone now.

He's a giant hypocrite. He calls himself a consumer advocate but refuses to criticize anti-consumer behavior in his friends like Leigh Alexander, indeed defending them.

I've just finally unsubbed from Jim on YouTube after this debacle (support of removing the poem in the game). He's not a consumer advocate any more, he's a mouthpiece for the "progressive" gaming media, and his videos are not crusading or informative but have devolved into him preaching at his audience and how he's redefined a certain word, most recently censorship. Expect another video this week about censorship and how people who don't want the joke removed are awful crybabies who don't deserve an opinion.

The irony of it is lost on him because by taking this stance he's actually being anti-consumer. There's someone out here who wrote this poem and paid $500 for it to be in the game. To pander to the "offended" crowd on Twitter whilst ignoring an early investor and backer in your game is probably the most anti-consumer thing you can do. But expect Jim to ignore that because he has the subtlety of a brick through a glass window nowadays.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

This is what happens when people think the mere fact that they're offended entitles them to something. Can you imagine if Christians pulled this shit every time they encountered a piece of art that offended them? Don't forget Christians are slaughtered by the thousands every year just for being Christians. So if you buy a Dan Brown novel that questions the divinity of Christ you are literally responsible for young Christian women having acid thrown in their face and their throats slit and their houses burnt and their entire family sent to labor camps and stuff.

 

[Nazulu]

Yeah, I don't see anything extreme about this. The guy killed himself because of trauma I guess. It would upset many if something like this happened to them. It's just another one of those things in life.

It seems some here have linked this to violence to trans people in real life, as well as other jokes that are similar. That pretty much goes for everything though. A person with any sense would not attack trans people because of it, or for any joke made for that matter. Just because there are many violent impressionable nutcases out there, doesn't mean censoring everything is going to stop them, and we shouldn't base every moral decision around these bastards.

It should go with the people who are offended requesting it be removed, and then the artist can make a decision with no anger and violence ensuing. No one controlling no one. But all this has become is a storm of forcing your beliefs and opinions on others and that's it.

 

[chadachada123]

I got the impression that the "(wo)man" in the joke was in fact a cross-dresser. It's pretty sad that most of the people acting outraged by this seem to think that dressing in drag not only is no longer a thing, but also wouldn't have been plenty prevalent in the PoE setting (based on what I've read about the setting).

 

[StormShaun]

I don't know what to think of this.
On one hand, I'm a writer, and I know that this is a fictional world that probably doesn't take trans characters seriously ... or might even take them as a bad thing. The thing is, that fictional worlds are not the same as this one. I mean, jeez, this is magic, dragons, and all of that stuff. I wouldn't blame if the world creators/writers would want to get away from all of this real world stuff.

... yet it followed them.

Of course we shouldn't alienate players, but does this really alienate them? I'm not bothered to think about that. It's just that this seems to be taken way too seriously. People really should control themselves and not get angry over every little thing.

This is fiction, not reality.

Though I am a writer, so I am on one side of the scale. *shrug*
Whatever they do, it will probably still be a good game, it shouldn't harm it at all.

... I feel like buying it now.

EDIT: Ah, I see that it might be a crossdresser instead ... hmm, I still don't see much of a problem.

 

[endtherapture]

This is what happens when people think the mere fact that they're offended entitles them to something. Can you imagine if Christians pulled this shit every time they encountered a piece of art that offended them? Don't forget Christians are slaughtered by the thousands every year just for being Christians. So if you buy a Dan Brown novel that questions the divinity of Christ you are literally responsible for young Christian women having acid thrown in their face and their throats slit and their houses burnt and their entire family sent to labor camps and stuff.

You can't be offensive towards Christians because they hold instituationalised power duh, can't do anything bad to the oppressors at all mate