On Gaymers and Cons

[Orekoya]

I did read that, and I get where people are coming from to a degree, and yes there is an unfortunately large percentage of the industry that thinks their audience consists of average white hetero male. But I'm talking the players, the people who enjoy playing the games, not the creators.

The terms that I am talking about are the players, I agree with everything about equality and giving them their own space to be comfortable in as well as being able to join in as an ally (I like the term they chose for that ) and the con having a name that more or less tells you what it is about makes sense, but why make a term for gay gamers? When they are just gamers, I just have trouble understanding it is all. I'm not seeking to annoy or enrage anyone, I'm just confused on this part.

Because language is shared. Players share the language with the industry, and having different meanings for the same word gets very confusing. People instinctively agree on the same meaning for vague words precisely to avoid confusion (most of the time, at least), so by necessity, the word 'gamer' gets shared between the players and the industry. The industry thinks 'gamer' means straight white male who likes to game. Most of the people who identify themselves as gamer are straight white males who like to game. So the industry caters to them and the straight white males who like to game band together and establish their subculture.

Women and LGBT people (and perhaps people of colour as well) see that and think "that's not who I am, that's not who they refer to when they say 'gamer', that's not a term that welcomes me on equal standing or caters to my difference in gender, sexuality or race". So why use the same terms when it doesn't apply in anything but the shallowest, most superficial way?

Well didn't you waste a lot of my typing in a reply with this elucidative post.

 

[Abomination]

It took me at least three looks to notice that the guy in the last panel isn't wearing any pants.

Honestly, I've asked the "why do they want their own con" question myself. Mostly because I don't know what one would do at a gay con that one wouldn't do at a regular con.

Not feel discriminated against, I suppose? These aren't gay-exclusive cons, they're gay focused, much how like a regular gaming con will likely be straight-focused (those booth babes are probably not for lesbians). It's so they have a guaranteed safe place to go and chill and talk without, like, being called a ****** 'r whatever. And people who aren't gay can show up and chill, too. It's not about excluding people. It's about being ultra-inclusive!

...dismissing any kind of gay agenda, anyway. >_>

<_<

However, how soon until some gay hate group (looking at you WBC) notices there's a nice big congregation of the evil homosexuals gathering at a rather public event?

Part of me hopes they do because of the potential fallout such an event could have. Then we'll be able to see if video games REALLY make people violent?

 

[Darken12]

Well didn't you waste a lot of my typing in a reply with this elucidative post.

Oh, sorry, I hate it when that happens. Feel free to chime in, though, I don't want to monopolise the conversation.

Yeah you can go with them...

God forbid a gay guy is annoying!! When a straight guy is annoying and in your shit it's cool to rip on him for being a bro, but when a gay guy is annoying and in your shit you have to pretend you like it...

No. If I rip on a straight guy, there's a very real possibility (depending on where I am located geographically) that he's gonna get his straight bros and beat me up. And then the police is going to look the other way because I started it and the f*g just got what he deserved. There's an actual legal defence called "gay panic" which excuses assailants (almost always straight men) for inflicting violence on LGBT people because the victim "made untoward advances" or somehow made the attack justifiable by virtue of being LGBT.

Anyone who plays games is a gamer... this segregation bullshit is juvenile and I don't like how it seems to be leaking into my favorite hobby. Hopefully you all get over yourselves soon and we can go back to playing video games instead of arguing about a made-up, trite play on words to define the homosexuals that play video games.

GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Let me put it this way: you don't get to decide if a word is suitable for the LGBT community or not. That's the business of the LGBT community. You may have the idealistic desire to see us all united, but that doesn't mean squat when you're not part of the LGBT community.

 

[Orekoya]

Again, WHY do they want it... WHAT is this "want"? Why is a gay-friendly gaming con required? Are regular gaming cons NOT gay friendly? Are they anti-gay? There is an entire convention going on, I shouldn't have to ask someone AT the convention itself.

I haven't attended a gaming convention so I honestly do not know what potential anti-homosexual shenanigans are got up to there. What particular itch does a normal gaming convention not scratch?

If I had to guess what is the want, I would say the want might be for an environment where they can express their love of gaming without any lingering social expectancy to inhibit expressions of their sexuality. People forget how invasive sexuality is to the other aspects of life because people tend to ignore just how it fills in the cracks. In the middle of an online game with verbal chat, a spouse/lover calls out with an intimate term. Some level of affection that shows when parting with a beloved: a hug, a kiss or a fond squeezing of hands. A single act that becomes so routine it would be done without considering how appropriate it is for the surroundings. The comfort and concern one shows to their beloved when threatened, sick or injured. I'm not even describing things exclusive to any one sexuality, these expressions of affection are pretty universal to all forms of sexuality.

I don't feel left out like some people are saying, I just don't see why we can't all get together for this stuff.

You don't know because you don't experience it. Instead of saying "Well *I* don't see what the problem is, so let's stop this nonsense", you might want to try listening to the people who experience the actual problems.

Sure, there would be the occasion annoying stereotypical flamer guy, but the normal ones would smell SO much better than the average con goer.

I think we should take the obnoxious, forced activist gays and the fat straight slobs who don't use deodorant and "let" them have their own con(s?). Then we can all game as one.

Those 'annoying flamer guys' and those 'obnoxious forced activist gays' could be pretty damn tired of this attitude and wish to go somewhere where they don't have to take this kind of crap. Just venturing a guess.

Yeah you can go with them...

God forbid a gay guy is annoying!! When a straight guy is annoying and in your shit it's cool to rip on him for being a bro, but when a gay guy is annoying and in your shit you have to pretend you like it...

Anyone who plays games is a gamer... this segregation bullshit is juvenile and I don't like how it seems to be leaking into my favorite hobby. Hopefully you all get over yourselves soon and we can go back to playing video games instead of arguing about a made-up, trite play on words to define the homosexuals that play video games.

GET OVER YOURSELVES.

Do adjectives bother you? Or are you so bland you can think of one word that properly describes everything there is to know about you?

What's juvenile is that STILL it has to be explained that this is not segregation because people are still screaming that it is with no reason. Over and over again, as it has been done over the past ten pages.

Well didn't you waste a lot of my typing in a reply with this elucidative post.

Oh, sorry, I hate it when that happens. Feel free to chime in, though, I don't want to monopolise the conversation.

I was going to go a different route and point out how if what he was saying was true then I should be able to Google image search the term 'gamer' and get an wide variety of different people gaming rather than the disproportionate amount of white men that Google actually returns.

 

[Xanex]

My two cents is that this can be a dangerous course to take. Humans have a long and sad history of turning specialty groups and events into exclusive groups and events. Acceptence has never been found by seperating one group from another.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Umm... I actually don't understand why the LGBT -community would need their own gaming convention. There isn't anything dickish about it though, and I don't see why that particular question even would be dickish.

From what I understand from this comic the Gaymer convention is going to take place in a secluded mountain temple and the activities will include homosexual pooping and peeing... maybe some application of makeup.

While I will not ever attempt to stop a Gaymer convention I don't see why one is needed. In almost every circle of gaming I interact on I have at least 3 homosexual friends and one trans(vestite/sexual)... I seem to attract them or something.

Certainly there are those who are disrespectful to homosexuals (homophobia is a terrible term, it implies an irrational FEAR, not petty malice and hatred) but I believe you will find them everywhere. Are there gay sporting events, gay debate clubs, gay chess clubs, gay boxing clubs? It just seems so redundant and self-segregating.

Would I be allowed to attend this Gaymer convention despite my sexual orientation? Do I require a homosexual escort while on premises? Do I have to be blindfolded on the trip there and back?

The problem is that it's self segregation. I can understand why they'd want to do it, but not convinced it's a good thing.

Read the epilogue text underneath the comic and then rethink your statements.
Here, I even found the relevant bit for you: "They ask why a minority pushing for acceptance and integration would "segregate" themselves. They're innocent questions, but they come from minds that, quite often, don't comprehend that being able to "fit in" (hoho) pretty much anywhere is one of the numerous luxuries that come with being straight. Indeed, feeling like you fit in is pretty much the entire point of going to a con isn't it?"

Also:

Would I be allowed to attend this Gaymer convention despite my sexual orientation? Do I require a homosexual escort while on premises? Do I have to be blindfolded on the trip there and back?

Yes. Why wouldn't you be able to attend if you were straight? Also your following questions are exactly the veiled dickishness that Cory/Grey are talking about. Don't be so naive/insultingly ignorant.

Also also:

Are there gay sporting events, gay debate clubs, gay chess clubs, gay boxing clubs?

Yes there are. Do you have any idea how gays are treated/shunned in the sporting world? It's slightly better than it was now but it's still not great. In a predominantly straight-male dominated event, it takes a while before change/equality comes along.

Someone has probably commented on this by now, but in case they haven't: does this strike anyone as ironic? We have debates on a regular basis where people who were nerds back when that alone was enough to get one ostracized are made fun of for being unhappy about how the very people who ostracized them back in the day are now identifying as geeks. Now we're telling nerds they don't know what it's like to be ostracized just because they're straight males? I mean, sure, it may be on a different level, but geek culture is all about misfits having a place to belong. I can't quite place my finger on it, but there's just something not quite right about this attitude.

Edit: Also, minor nitpick, that's not a heterosexual flag on that guy's T-shirt in the first panel. It's an asexual flag. Kind of an odd mistake to make on a site that has such an unusually high percentage of self proclaimed asexuals.

 

[Darken12]

Someone has probably commented on this by now, but in case they haven't: does this strike anyone as ironic? We have debates on a regular basis where people who were nerds back when that alone was enough to get one ostracized are made fun of for being unhappy about how the very people who ostracized them back in the day are now identifying as geeks. Now we're telling nerds they don't know what it's like to be ostracized just because they're straight males? I mean, sure, it may be on a different level, but geek culture is all about misfits having a place to belong. I can't quite place my finger on it, but there's just something not quite right about this attitude.

Straight people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being LGBT. This isn't a controversial statement, it's a tautological fact. If you're not a member of group A, you don't know what it's like to be discriminated for being a member of group A. Now that doesn't mean that you're unfamiliar with discrimination (see: my post on the kyriarchy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.397621-On-Gaymers-and-Cons?page=10#16243554]), but it does mean that straight people never have to face the consequences of being non-straight (because they're straight. It's a tautology).

Like I said before, whether this con is a step in the right direction or not in terms of overall equality is up to the LGBT community to decide on their own.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Someone has probably commented on this by now, but in case they haven't: does this strike anyone as ironic? We have debates on a regular basis where people who were nerds back when that alone was enough to get one ostracized are made fun of for being unhappy about how the very people who ostracized them back in the day are now identifying as geeks. Now we're telling nerds they don't know what it's like to be ostracized just because they're straight males? I mean, sure, it may be on a different level, but geek culture is all about misfits having a place to belong. I can't quite place my finger on it, but there's just something not quite right about this attitude.

Straight people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being LGBT. This isn't a controversial statement, it's a tautological fact. If you're not a member of group A, you don't know what it's like to be discriminated for being a member of group A. Now that doesn't mean that you're unfamiliar with discrimination (see: my post on the kyriarchy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.397621-On-Gaymers-and-Cons?page=10#16243554]), but it does mean that straight people never have to face the consequences of being non-straight (because they're straight. It's a tautology).

Like I said before, whether this con is a step in the right direction or not in terms of overall equality is up to the LGBT community to decide on their own.

True, but I was talking more about the post I was quoting than the con in general. Being able to fit in anywhere may be a perk of being straight, but for a lot of us growing up, it was one that was almost completely negated by our choice of hobby. Just something to think about.

 

[Darken12]

True, but I was talking more about the post I was quoting than the con in general. Being able to fit in anywhere may be a perk of being straight, but for a lot of us growing up, it was one that was almost completely negated by our choice of hobby. Just something to think about.

That's the signature style of the kyriarchy. Take a white male with a regular job. Everything goes well until he comes out or the office finds out about his sexuality. Suddenly he's being passed for promotions that he was a shoe-in for, his coworkers "forget" to invite him to parties or drinks, he gets saddled with the work nobody wants to do, and he can say goodbye to anyone offering help or even companionship. One change of label and suddenly he's at the bottom of the social pyramid, because the kyriarchy deems it so. And it gets worse, obviously, there's the lack of gay marriage and adoption, the hate crimes, the hate speech, the institutionalised homophobia and so on.

The kyriarchy always finds a way to screw you over, because that's what it does best. It doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems of one of the oppressed minorities because there's another minority that has it bad as well.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

True, but I was talking more about the post I was quoting than the con in general. Being able to fit in anywhere may be a perk of being straight, but for a lot of us growing up, it was one that was almost completely negated by our choice of hobby. Just something to think about.

That's the signature style of the kyriarchy. Take a white male with a regular job. Everything goes well until he comes out or the office finds out about his sexuality. Suddenly he's being passed for promotions that he was a shoe-in for, his coworkers "forget" to invite him to parties or drinks, he gets saddled with the work nobody wants to do, and he can say goodbye to anyone offering help or even companionship. One change of label and suddenly he's at the bottom of the social pyramid, because the kyriarchy deems it so. And it gets worse, obviously, there's the lack of gay marriage and adoption, the hate crimes, the hate speech, the institutionalised homophobia and so on.

The kyriarchy always finds a way to screw you over, because that's what it does best. It doesn't mean that we should ignore the problems of one of the oppressed minorities because there's another minority that has it bad as well.

Which is what I'm saying. That post rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. It was basically "gays are ostracized. You are not gay, therefore you do not know what it's like to be ostracized." Not "Ostracized for being gay," just straight up ostracized. If there's one thing nerds understand[footnote]aside from reams of trivia [/footnote] it's what ostracism feels like.

 

[Darken12]

Which is what I'm saying. That post rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. It was basically "gays are ostracized. You are not gay, therefore you do not know what it's like to be ostracized." Not "Ostracized for being gay," just straight up ostracized. If there's one thing nerds understand it's what ostracism feels like.

A lot of people understand what ostracism feels like. That's the point. If you're female, a person of colour, LGBT, low-class, disabled/handicapped, foreigner, a nerd and so on, you understand what ostracism feels like. People who haven't been ostracised are a tiny minority, which is why your argument rings hollow. Just because one group knows what ostracism feels like doesn't give them the right to judge another group for their methods of dealing with such ostracism, particularly when the latter group is a subgroup within the former.

If you really feel a kinship with LGBT people regarding ostracism, support them instead of criticising and judging them. After all, that's probably what the non-gamer majority did when the first gamer cons were getting started. Let's not be like them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Which is what I'm saying. That post rubbed me the wrong way, I guess. It was basically "gays are ostracized. You are not gay, therefore you do not know what it's like to be ostracized." Not "Ostracized for being gay," just straight up ostracized. If there's one thing nerds understand it's what ostracism feels like.

A lot of people understand what ostracism feels like. That's the point. If you're female, a person of colour, LGBT, low-class, disabled/handicapped, foreigner, a nerd and so on, you understand what ostracism feels like. People who haven't been ostracised are a tiny minority, which is why your argument rings hollow. Just because one group knows what ostracism feels like doesn't give them the right to judge another group for their methods of dealing with such ostracism, particularly when the latter group is a subgroup within the former.

If you really feel a kinship with LGBT people regarding ostracism, support them instead of criticising and judging them. After all, that's probably what the non-gamer majority did when the first gamer cons were getting started.

Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community[footnote]yes, a part. I have a feeling if I took a poll of my gay friends and relatives, support for the self imposed segregation we're seeing here wouldn't exactly be universal[/footnote] wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.

 

[Darken12]

Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.

I highly doubt anyone's saying that. I think there was probably a miscommunication of sorts and it ended up in a misunderstanding. Nobody's saying that nerds don't know what bullying feels like. The problem is that several people in and out of this thread are very much contradicting your position that "most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like" because they are displaying a remarkable lack of sympathy regarding why a minority may want to have their own safe space. You really can't have it both ways, sorry. You can't have a majority of "Why do gaymers want their own con? That's ridiculous!" posts while claiming that nerds know exactly what LGBT people feel. Clearly, they don't. Or, if they do, they lack the necessary sympathy.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Like I said, it's not even the con that's the problem. It was the condescension embodied in that post. Gaymer con is... a thing, I guess. It doesn't affect me one way or another, and I guess if a part of the LGBT community wants its own gaming con, that's their business. Just don't tell a bunch of nerds that their confusion at the need for such an event is a sign of how they've never been bullied, and therefore can't understand. We may not have been bullied for that specific reason, but I think most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like. In other words, cut the condescension and try explaining it in terms of bullying, and we just might get it.

I highly doubt anyone's saying that. I think there was probably a miscommunication of sorts and it ended up in a misunderstanding. Nobody's saying that nerds don't know what bullying feels like. The problem is that several people in and out of this thread are very much contradicting your position that "most of us are in an unusually good place to understand what it feels like" because they are displaying a remarkable lack of sympathy regarding why a minority may want to have their own safe space. You really can't have it both ways, sorry. You can't have a majority of "Why do gaymers want their own con? That's ridiculous!" posts while claiming that nerds know exactly what LGBT people feel. Clearly, they don't. Or, if they do, they lack the necessary sympathy.

Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.

 

[Darken12]

Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

The problem with this is that you're still judging, criticising and telling LGBT people what to do. That's what's not cool. It's okay to have opinions, but this just doesn't affect you in any way. It doesn't detract from regular cons and they won't be banning straight people from entering. This doesn't affect people outside the LGBT community in any way, so it is quite firmly none of their business. Again, whether this is good or not for equality is up for debate, but it's a debate straight people have no place in.

Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.

Pretty much, yes. With the advent of casual gaming and gaming becoming more mainstream, now a gamer isn't automatically an ostracised nerd. And besides, the evil genius in the Kyriarchy is that it gets oppressed people to oppress each other. What happens here is a clear example of that. Gamers are quick to react with violent outrage at the accusation that games might be homophobic, racist or sexist because they've endured attacks from the media, their families, authority figures, peers and society in general. And this is another example of that. One of the most common reactions in this thread has been "Why? What's wrong with regular cons? Are you saying there's something wrong with regular cons? There's nothing wrong with regular cons! There's nothing wrong with gamer culture! We're all enlightened progressive individuals! Now shut up, I don't want to hear any of you minorities!"

It's an understandable reaction, but it doesn't help at all.

 

[Peithelo]

"Straightmers" already exist. They're called gamers. That's why we have "girl gamers" too, because the default is the straight white male.

I think it is an important distinction to make that homosexuals and heterosexuals do not play video games, people do. That is to say that they are people first, everything else at least should come secondary. It is true that the majority of these people consequently happen to be heterosexual males. Currently this majority is being blatantly targeted in various ways in the industry and society in general, but a person's sexuality doesn't have to have anything to do with the medium or their way of living nor should it. It shouldn't be a defining factor, a simple piece of information that is consciously taken into account and misused.

I just don't see how further seperating people who for example happen to play video games into various subgroups of sexuality, gender or race helps create equality in the long-term. A momentary sense of recognition and belonging perhaps, but not of equality or societal unity.

 

[mgirl]

People are still seriously either likening a convention aimed at gay gamers to segregation, or outright calling it segregation? Ugh.

 

[LagomorphX]

Equality is not the same as uniformity.

Even though gays should receive the same rights and acceptance as everyone else, they should also be able to have their own events, clubs, literature, etc. Arguing that gays shouldn't be able to hold their own con if they want to be accepted as equal, is similar to saying that Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Jewish and other cultures should not be allowed to conduct their own (religious and secular) festivals and customs in a predominantly Christian/anglo-saxon society.

I'm a Singapore-born Chinese living in Australia, and in past decades the Asian-Australian community has received condemnation from a small (but vocal) minority for refusing to integrate and forming "ghettos". Should Asians be able to function within Australian society at a minimal level? Yes I think we should. But must we subscribe and conform to every single aspect of the "Aussie lifestyle" that is presented in the mainstream media, without any means to celebrate our unique cultural niche? Of course not! Gaymer X is just an event held by and for gaymers, with other groups welcome, just as Chinese New Year is something done by and for Chinese people, but we don't mind if other people come and sample the delicious treats. And while there may be lingering religious aspects of Chinese New Year, it's basically Christmas for us (if not even more secular).

Ultimately, none of these events aimed at target groups are carried out in order to get away from the "insufferable straight/white/male/18-25 year old demographic". They merely provide a comforting background where we can relax and get in touch with a facet of ourselves (Those who were arguing sexuality doesn't define us are partially wrong; sexuality doesn't define ALL of us, only one small crystal of our precious snowflakes), and engage with others who share that facet which may not be shared in the mainstream, just as gaming and other "geek" cons were created so gamers (gay or not) and geeks could share their interests.

(sorry long post)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Or maybe it's a miscommunication on all fronts? I find it kind of silly in that it's exclusionary. Explicitly, sure, everyone is welcome. But implicitly, it's just flipping the tables. It's still segregation, just repackaged as a positive thing. You know, instead of pushing for acceptance in the main cons, creating an LGBT ghetto. Giving up. What I'm saying is, it's entirely possible to be completely cool with LGBT people, and to have an issue with a gaming convention explicitly for gays. They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

The problem with this is that you're still judging, criticising and telling LGBT people what to do. That's what's not cool. It's okay to have opinions, but this just doesn't affect you in any way. It doesn't detract from regular cons and they won't be banning straight people from entering. This doesn't affect people outside the LGBT community in any way, so it is quite firmly none of their business. Again, whether this is good or not for equality is up for debate, but it's a debate straight people have no place in.

Granted, a lot of gamers /are/, in fact, homophobic fuckheads. But then a lot of gamers these days aren't really nerds, either. One of the downsides of a hobby going mainstream, you lose a lot of the shared experience. It's also one of the upsides, since kids today aren't likely to get bullied over it the way those of us in our 20's or older did. Other nerdy things, yeah. Gaming, not so much. Which ties right back into the concept of the Kyriarchy.

Pretty much, yes. With the advent of casual gaming and gaming becoming more mainstream, now a gamer isn't automatically an ostracised nerd. And besides, the evil genius in the Kyriarchy is that it gets oppressed people to oppress each other. What happens here is a clear example of that. Gamers are quick to react with violent outrage at the accusation that games might be homophobic, racist or sexist because they've endured attacks from the media, their families, authority figures, peers and society in general. And this is another example of that. One of the most common reactions in this thread has been "Why? What's wrong with regular cons? Are you saying there's something wrong with regular cons? There's nothing wrong with regular cons! There's nothing wrong with gamer culture! We're all enlightened progressive individuals! Now shut up, I don't want to hear any of you minorities!"

It's an understandable reaction, but it doesn't help at all.

Do you not see the exclusion you're promoting, though? You're taking the perception that gays aren't welcome at regular cons, and basically saying "well, since we're not welcome there, you're not welcome in this discussion." It doesn't really come across as inclusive to me. It's not even really a debate, anyway. More some people expressing confusion at the need for a gay specific con, and then other people first saying "well you couldn't possibly understand," and once someone comes in saying they probably could, being told they don't have a place in the discussion, because they're straight. Which is really ironic, since this is supposed to be a completely inclusive convention. Although why they didn't just call it something like "gamers without labels[footnote]something better could easily be thought of, that name took me two seconds[/footnote]" if that's what they wanted is beyond me.

 

[5ilver]

Gay-only conventions seem silly to me. Who cares what your orientation or race or sex is? We're here to play games, nothing else should matter.