On Gaymers and Cons

[Verlander]

The problem with gamer conventions is that the advertising and atmosphere is inescapably "straight"

AND

Gay people, while wishing equal treatment, don't want to have to conform to a personality/attitude/culture that is different to them just to get said treatment.

This is all fine, and understandable, but the truth is that making a segregated stand like this simply isn't the most positive way forward. A convention with the guts to openly support and cater to all would be the best way forward, and if there is a business case for an independent convention, there is one for an open minded convention. Seriously, be open about it in your press releases, let sponsors know what's happening, let those who don't like it not turn up, and get on with it. Would take a few tries to get it perfect, but would ultimately be worthwhile, cementing the industry as one of the few openly trying hard to promote equality. If I'm honest, I'd say a lot of the European conventions already offer this kind of support, although I've not visited every single one every single time.

As for the bigger issue, media/advertising etc being aimed at the larger audience, of which homosexual people aren't currently considered part of, well there's nothing that can be done about that. Creating a "gay specific" alternative to everything that exists isn't feasible, and definitely doesn't forward an agenda of equality. In some of the most important aspects of life, such as marriage, people have actively come out and demanded the same rights, and not just a "gay alternative". This attitude should remain consistent throughout.

A "Gaymercon" is a fake victory. If the problem exists in the community, or in the way in which conventions are ran, then that's what needs to be changed, not accepted and left alone. If they aren't willing to change, by all means start up a competitive convention, but don't make it a "Gaymercon", make it a "Better-than-your-ignorant-arse Con".

 

[Verlander]

Delete - Posted three times by mistake

 

[Verlander]

Delete - Posted three times by mistake

 

[Cory Rydell]

I don't care if gay gamers want their own convention. Have at it.

Looking at the comic... did he just compare being gay to a religion? And then compare it to a gender?

*headdesk*

That's kind of funny I hadn't realized just how blatantly poor the comparisons are until you pointed it out.
The comparison isn't the point though, it's the portrayed half-wit who's being a dick, for the sake of it.
What the writer and artist fails to realize that this is a sign of progress and not blatant bigotry

I wrote this in my first response, the comic is bad in so many ways. This is definitely another point.

Yeah, the comic itself is pretty terrible. The point it's trying to make is a good one, but the way it's getting to that point... Just awful. It's so bad that it reminds me of people trying to compare everything to cars. Trying to make a point about used games? Do it horribly by comparing them to used cars. Trying to make a point about review scores? Do it horribly by comparing them to cars (yes, somebody did this, go read the comments of the recent Jimqusition episode on review scores). In fact, I'm surprised this comic didn't have a panel comparing being gay to having a car.

Again, yeah, the point is supposed to be how stupid the guy being a dick is, and it's a good point, but they way they got there is horrible.

First off, we aren't comparing these things as directly as you assume. Our first draft of the strip had the guy asking what place a transgender bar would have in the second panel, with the first and third primarily remaining the same. This would have made the direct comparison you are assuming, but ultimately redundant (as far as the 1st and 2nd panel's points are considered) and a little off as a cultural argument. So we decided to change the second panel to something with a larger scope, originally thinking of portraying a Chinese soldier beating a monk in the background. But that's not exactly as funny as it is just dark and awful, so we opted to just put him in a shirt with the Chinese flag and have him standing on a completely over-dramatic cliff with a ridiculous representation of a mountaintop temple.

As for the argument of the comic, we are arguing that this person feels contentiously on the issue but feigns naivete (in a smug fashion) so as to not immediately call his opinion out. He isn't looking so much for a discussion as he is looking to act smug and elite, if he was actually looking for a discussion he would act genuinely and drop the attitude to talk over the issue with more civility. We point out there are proper questions on the issue, but just sitting there pretending you don't understand doesn't move the discussion forward, you need to bring up an actual criticism. I'm just not sure how you think that this dick is an example of progress.

There were some last minute tweaks and I admit we were a little inflammatory with this particular strip but as two white heterosexual males we can feel much stronger about the opinions of those with similar broadly-defined upbringings. Its an upbringing that we can claim at least some degree of knowledge about.

 

[Darken12]

Fair enough, and again we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this issue. If you're willing to let a selfish sense of pride take precedence over real and tangible benefits that's your prerogative, but I honestly hope you DON'T speak for the entire community because I think you'd be a horrendous spokesperson.

Also, I really don't think your doctor-patient analogy holds up, as affecting someone's body against their will is WILDLY different to suggesting a better alternative. I would say you have an obligation as a healthcare professional to educate the patient about different treatments and make strong, firm recommendations where possible. It's ridiculously irresponsible to just do whatever stupid quack treatment the ignorant patient read about on the internet. YOU are the doctor, YOU are responsible for their health, YOU have an obligation to do what it takes to heal them (excluding breaking the law, obviously).

I wouldn't call it pride, more like a sense of identity. Like I said, it's decisions that define who you are, and once they're made, they're indelible moments in time that cannot be changed. Everything else changes and passes (which is the problem with wanting to reach an objectively better outcome. Even if we assume such a thing exists, it's temporary), but the decisions you made are what define your identity (quoting Bioshock here, "A man chooses, a slave obeys"). But yes, obviously, I very much don't speak for the entire community. I prefer to let more enlightened people take that role.

As for the rest, I firmly insist that it's a doctor's duty to inform the patient of their situation so that they can choose what outcome they prefer. In oncology, specially, there is quite the chasm between those who are in favour of "pushing" (pressuring, coercing, manipulating the patient or their family) for life-prolonging treatments and those who accept a patient's decision to seek only symptom-relief treatments. But you're right, it's probably not the best analogy.

I think what Jerram means is that the idea of there being a flat choice of 1. Be told what to do, or 2. Be left to your own devices, is a dangerous way of filtering potential advice.

Without even considering the discussion in this topic, I certainly know if I was about to hurt myself and a student could tell me to stop because of concern I'd hear them out. Even if it turned out the concern they had was ignorant/irrelevant for whatever reason I'd certainly hear them out, simply out of mutual respect.
As much as people need to be able to make their own choices, they also need to be able to hear others. This is key to almost all positive human interaction.

This isn't to say you just lay down and let others trample you though, just to accept the possibility that those whom you believe you deserve respect from deserve some back.

I consider myself an ally to the existance of this con, and to the ideas it represents and the steps forward it's trying to make. These are all positive things. And while I'd like to support you aswell, I can't do so knowing that there is little chance of mutual respect. I'm not of the idea that someone can be infallible, regardless on their 'areas of expertise'.

I am most certainly for the idea of respect amongst peers, allies, friends and everywhere inbetween. However I'd find it to be of poor character if a friend felt the need to hold their tongue because they were afraid of offending me.

I agree with the general idea of what you're saying, but like I said before, the threat of dilution is real. Straight people are always going to outnumber us (unless it turns out that the old "we're all bisexual deep down" theory is true), so we can't let them make those decisions for us. Listening to different viewpoints is good, sure, but the decision needs to be ultimately in the hands of the LGBT community and straight allies need to at least not hamper their efforts (nobody forces them to support something they disagree with). And like I said before, to me, it's far more important that the LGBT community is allowed to make its own decisions, run its own risks and endeavours, and learn from its own mistakes, than end up always doing what well-meaning straight people think it's best.

Well said. To all of it, I mean.

I have nothing further, but thanks for putting time and effort in your response, it's a pleasure to read

Thanks and likewise.

 

[Darken12]

This time, the slight difference is that it's not someone threatening with rape, lawsuits or outright doing a hatecrime, it's just a run of the mill dude being snarky and dumb. If that's the worst you can come up with, the biggest response you'll get out of an LGBT is "Meh. At least he isn't with a group beating the shit out of us."

I don't know, escalation is a thing that happens. It starts with douchebags being snarky and dumb, then they start feeding off each other with more outrageous examples of "why does this LGBT happen?" and "why do we let LGBT people do this or that?" and then actual anger starts to seep through, and before you know it, you have bona fide hate speech. And from then on, it's just a matter of letting that anger simmer for a while and providing a window of opportunity and congrats, you have a hate crime. Which are on the rise, as demonstrated by a fellow poster in this thread.

I don't know, maybe we are being too defensive and cautious, but I'd rather be that way than put on my naivete blinders and pretend nobody wants to cause us real harm and everything is roses.

 

[Cory Rydell]

I'm just not sure how you think that this dick is an example of progress.

Because as smug as he is, he's not being, what I'd call, discriminating. Obviously he's not a model citizen, but that's besides the point.
People are asking why LGBTs are distancing themselves instead of just accepting who we are, ignoring us or protesting our group gathering.

This is a positive thing, because it shows that people are more prone to accept us or even enquire, even if some are being dicks about it.

The hate is largely kept to a minimum in this instance, it's mostly innocence mixed with ignorance, pretty basic day to day stuff that most LGBTs deal with - in other words, the outspoken select few that ask with snarky intentions are not people that deserve attention, which by the way, you're giving them

Just like you did with the rabid Mass effect 3 fans who took it overboard.
Just like you did with the haters on fake girl nerds.
Just like you did with the people threatening that feminist kickstarter girl.

All discussions, that had more valid points to them than just the usual outspoken douchebags.

"Hey! Look at these guys! What a great bunch of people they are, huh? The internet sure is a fun and great place! Boy oh boy!"

My brilliant writing aside, the dripping sarcasm is really tired and not that clever. Following that you get hundreds of pages of people arguing(which they would anyway) but with nothing to go on. Every time I'm pissed off, not entertained, wondering why half the internet is writing about these people and putting the worst of them on the frontpage, while ignoring everyone else.

This time, the slight difference is that its not someone threatening with rape, lawsuits or outright doing a hatecrime, it's just a run of the mill dude being snarky and dumb. If that's the worst you can come up with, the biggest response you'll get out of an LGBT is "Meh. At least he isn't with a group beating the shit out of us."

Fair enough, I was looking at progress as synonymous with good (as the silly liberal I am), but I guess it is an example of people not going straight for their lynching sticks so that's at least a thing. But just because he isn't the worst out there isn't exactly a reason to free him of criticism. I disagree with your point that it is innocence mixed with ignorance, some people may be innocently ignorant ,and that is fine, but we dislike those who use ignorance as a tactic to show a smug sense of superiority. Like they understand more of the issue that affect people they aren't.

It seems like you dislike the attention to the negative but we are "Critical Miss" and we try to be critical of things from time to time. Being aware of negative entities is an important aspect of change and being positive, though I agree it would be nice to be more positive generally. But when we do jokes with a positive light they don't get as many responses and that's fine and all, but it generally isn't something under our control.

Also, we aren't looking for a reaction from the LGBT community, we are looking for a response from people who avoid arguments with non-participatory actions like opting for ignorance and "agreeing to disagree", all while being a bit of a dick. I'm glad that LGBT identified individuals have grown a thick enough skin to not care about d-bags on the internet but that doesn't mean they should have to, especially on this issue.

 

[Harbinger_]

I disagree that fitting in is 'one of those numerous luxuries that comes with being straight'. I know plenty of people that are gay that have no problem fitting in and people are fine with the fact that their sexual persuasion is different.

On the same hand I know a ton of people that are straight and are outsiders even to outsiders of social circles, conventions, etc.

 

[Orekoya]

But I am still absolutely against the idea that LGBT be told how to handle LGBT issues. I will do my best to try and be as diplomatic and civil about this as I possibly can, but the truth of the matter is that I'm completely convinced that LGBT people should be allowed to do whatever they feel is best without facing undue negativity from straight people who aren't affected at all by their actions.

I guess where we differ is that I don't agree with your stance on moral relativism. I'm an objectivist, and concern myself with discovering the objectively better (i.e. objectively less oppression in an objectively shorter time frame) option and encouraging people to pursue that. If a section of a community is acting in a way that appears to be hurting their cause I have no issues with bringing that to their attention. Maybe all they needed was that difference in perspective to be able to reassess their actions and come up with much more effective campaign. I think that's much more useful than standing back shouting "You go girl!" while they run themselves into the ground.

Given the previous pages worth of nonsane belligerent posts that proceeded this one, I doubt all that is being offered is a difference in perspective by the people posting against the gaymer con. Thank you at least for not being one of those, but I disagree with objectivism. I believe life is always subjective, it's why you live in the first perspective.

 

[secretsantaone]

Firstly, the comic is fucking stupid. You could easily add "I don't see why white people would want their own drinking fountains".

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames. Hell, unless you're with a partner nobody's going to know if you're gay or not anyway. If you want to create your own little hugbox then fine, but don't then complain that people treat you differently because you're gay.

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

 

[Guestyman]

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames. Hell, unless you're with a partner nobody's going to know if you're gay or not anyway. If you want to create your own little hugbox then fine, but don't then complain that people treat you differently because you're gay.

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

Having your own home turf is not the same thing as segregation as long as you venture off it sometimes, and let other people in. Both things happen with Gaymercon. It's. Not. Segregation.

As to your second paragraph, how on Earth is that an argument as to why gaming culture *isn't* atrociously homophobic? "Oh, these people think that the worst thing they can say about someone is that they're like you, but it's okay, because they don't *know* if you are or not!"

 

[secretsantaone]

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames. Hell, unless you're with a partner nobody's going to know if you're gay or not anyway. If you want to create your own little hugbox then fine, but don't then complain that people treat you differently because you're gay.

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

Having your own home turf is not the same thing as segregation as long as you venture off it sometimes, and let other people in. Both things happen with Gaymercon. It's. Not. Segregation.

As to your second paragraph, how on Earth is that an argument as to why gaming culture *isn't* atrociously homophobic? "Oh, these people think that the worst thing they can say about someone is that they're like you, but it's okay, because they don't *know* if you are or not!"

I'm using segregation in the sense of intentionally separating yourselves, which I would say you are doing by labelling yourself a "gay gamer", simply because you're bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that the reason they use ****** is simply because people get offended by it, not because of any deep-seated fear or hatred of homosexuals. If people found "flopsy-wopsy-ears" as offensive as ******, I dare say they would use that instead.

 

[The Material Sheep]

As a gay gamer I personally don't care. It's weird that there is a con for gay gamers but meh I suppose it's just a way to meet people with similar interests. I'd never go... but that's because I'm anti social person who hates crowds.

People will be dumb, and there really is no reason to hate on the convention. Just think its cool, or be ambivalent to its existence. The only reason you need to dislike something like this, is because you personally had an issue with how things were run there or if you had a bad experience of some sort. It's okay not to give a shit about, just don't take a crap on other people's good time.

 

[Darken12]

If someone invented "Man-Con, The manly geek convention" tomorrow, what would the social backlash be? Now take that backlash, flip its target & you're half way to seeing why that kind of active exclusionary consept is wrong.

Every regular con is straight male con (or "man-con").

Regarding Gaymer-con, it seems counter-intuitive to intentionally segregate yourselves based on sexuality, especially when your sexuality has no bearing on videogames.

Um, didn't we already have that? It was just called conventions.

As for this, I'll just quote myself:

How is it implied, and whats so diferent in Gaymercon, other then whats obvious? No, im curious.

Im not against it, if the advantage of making these are so big, but I feel like it makes it harder to get to equality if people keep separating themselves, though I know im probably just freakin naive.

We're gamers, so let's look at games. For games that have the option of making a character of any race, sexuality or gender, we have a disproportionate amount of "straight white male" as the default. See the Dragon Age:Origins trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SuJ5T9sfAA], the Dragon Age II trailer [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlACgYHtWCI], the Mass Effect posters (I [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d9/Mass_Effect_poster.jpg], II [http://johnnybgamer.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mass-effect-2-poster.jpg] and III [http://www.nzgameshop.com/product_images/posters/video_game_posters/mass_effect_3_iii_maxi_poster_raw.jpg]), and this is BioWare, who is arguably the most egalitarian and inclusive studio. It gets worse from there.

Then we have a comparison between Uncharted and Tomb Raider, two similar games with protagonists of opposite gender. Uncharted has a male lead. He's covered head to toe in practical clothing [http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120715091917/fantendo/images/7/71/NathanDrake.png]. Tomb Raider's female lead, on the other hand, has exposed legs, midriff, arms and cleavage [http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_QWiwZvIq9hQ/TJuYM21bGsI/AAAAAAAAAe4/9MtjcqLtgwE/s1600/lara-croft-2.jpg]. Why? Because Lara Croft is meant to be a character for straight males to drool over, while Nathan Drake is a character for straight white males to project into. Lara Croft is a sexual fantasy, Nathan Drake is a power fantasy. Both are aimed at straight white males.

I could keep citing examples, but I think I've made my point. Most of the entertainment industry (of which games are only a sector) are catered to the straight white male demographic, not because they're a majority (if you put together all the women, non-white males and non-straight white males, you'd definitely outnumber the white straight males), but because they have the most amount of money and sociopolitical power. They're the safest and most lucrative demographic.

So as you can see, regular cons cater to that demographic as well, so I stand by my previous assertion: every con is straight male con. Probably straight white male con, but that's none of my business so I will leave it to someone better informed to speak about how racially inclusive cons usually are.

As for "is this a good thing or not", let me put it like this: it's none of your business. I know it sounds harsh and rude, but I can't think of a clearer way to get the message across. It's not something that's going to affect you, so while thinking about equality is very nice, you have no weight on this. Let LGBT people decide what's best for them. If we want our own con, let us have it. If we want more inclusion at regular cons, let us have it. If you really care about equality, listen to us and our problems instead of telling us what is and is not conducive to equality.

Also,

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

The part where "being gay is an insult to your masculinity" is actually homophobia. The part where being LGBT is an insult is homophobia (and transphobia, and biphobia), and it's pervasive in gamer culture. You can't tell us that gamer culture is this paradise of equality and we have no reason to make our own con and in the same breath admit that gamer culture sees being LGBT as an insult.

 

[secretsantaone]

Every regular con is straight male con (or "man-con").

No it's not? The point is anyone can turn up as long as their interested in videogames. Sexuality has nothing to do with it, just because most people are straight doesn't mean everyone has to be.

As for this, I'll just quote myself...

So most modern videogames are targeted towards the largest consumer base with the most money (18-25 year old straight males)?

Oh mercy me, sound the alarm because this shit's groundbreaking. Who'd have thought businesses who's products cost millions to develop would want to target a large demographic with money rather than risk appealing to smaller demographics?

If you're going so far as to classify yourself as a gamer you like videogames despite this, because it's not going to change as long as videogames cost so much. We all have a hobby that we enjoy, it seems a shame to go bringing in sexuality to divide us up when it's not relevant.

Also,

I also think that homophobia in the gaming community is vastly over-stated. If you're offended by the word "******" being used online, you're probably looking into it too much. The person saying it just wants to offend you. They have no idea if you're gay or not, they've never met you. It just so happens that ****** is the perfect insult for them because if you're gay, you'll take it as a slur, and if you're straight, you'll take it as an insult to your masculinity.

The part where "being gay is an insult to your masculinity" is actually homophobia. The part where being LGBT is an insult is homophobia (and transphobia, and biphobia), and it's pervasive in gamer culture. You can't tell us that gamer culture is this paradise of equality and we have no reason to make our own con and in the same breath admit that gamer culture sees being LGBT as an insult.

Wow thanks for telling me what I really mean buddy, I might have been able to speak for myself there.

Of course straight men being called gay is an insult to masculinity, the straight male role is intrinsically linked to their relationship with females. Implying that they don't have sex with females is essentially an insult to their virility. Also, the word "******" has also taken on the connotations of being weak, further undermining the traditional male role as the strong head of a family.

Like I said, they only say ****** to cause offense. If you're offended by the word, chances are they're gonna keep using it.

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.

 

[Guestyman]

I'm using segregation in the sense of intentionally separating yourselves, which I would say you are doing by labelling yourself a "gay gamer", simply because you're bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that the reason they use ****** is simply because people get offended by it, not because of any deep-seated fear or hatred of homosexuals. If people found "flopsy-wopsy-ears" as offensive as ******, I dare say they would use that instead.

You can't honestly believe that *we're* the ones who are bringing sexuality into this. Gaymercon is the *result* not the *cause* of gay people being isolated within gaming culture. I would like nothing better than for my sexuality not to be an issue with wider gaming culture but wider gaming culture doesn't give us that luxury.

If you're so concerned about people bringing sexuality into an area that has nothing to do with it, don't tell me. I don't want my sexuality brought into it. Tell it to the straight people who decided my sexuality was such a hot button issue that they made me feel unsafe in my own subculture. Tell the idiotic bigots on livechat and at cons that my sexuality shouldn't be brought into gaming. Gaymercon *Wouldn't need to exist* if people didn't keep on bringing other people's sexuality into places where it needn't be discussed.

And if you can't see why casual use of "******" as a slur within a group betrays a culture of homophobia within that group then there's really no hope for this discussion going forward.

 

[Guestyman]

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.

No. It hasn't. And this argument actually makes me angry. The word ******, or the use of "Gay" as an insult doesn't occur because the words have magically changed their meaning to just mean bad without also meaning homosexual. The use of "Gay" or "******" is an insult because it is performing the following logical chain.

You = homosexual
homosexual = bad
thereby through the transitive property:
you = bad

it's not because the etymological meaning of the word has magically changed so that Gay and ****** are just synonyms for "Bad thing" independent of their other 'homosexual' meaning. If it was just the word and not it's homosexual meaning it wouldn't have uniformly happened to every homosexual slurs at the same time.

Or to put it another way: Look at the words that everyone routinely claims have evolved into general pejoratives:

Fag, queer, gay, cocksucker

Do you notice what they all have in common? Do you really think it's just a coincidence that they ALL happened to be used in this way? Because that stretches the bounds of credulity for me. And to you too, I suspect. You're well spoken and can form good arguments. You seem intelligent. Therefore I respect you too much to think you actually believe that utter tripe.

 

[Darken12]

No it's not? The point is anyone can turn up as long as their interested in videogames. Sexuality has nothing to do with it, just because most people are straight doesn't mean everyone has to be.

And nobody is going to bar straight people from going to Gaymer X. Anybody can turn up so long as they're interested in videogames. The difference is that in a regular con, the focus and aim of the industry is the straight male audience. That's what's different in a gaymer con.

So most modern videogames are targeted towards the largest consumer base with the most money (18-25 year old straight males)?

Oh mercy me, sound the alarm because this shit's groundbreaking. Who'd have thought businesses who's products cost millions to develop would want to target a large demographic with money rather than risk appealing to smaller demographics?

And by producing a gaymer con, we can show the industry that we're a viable demographic with plenty of disposable money. If we go to regular cons and keep quiet, the industry is never going to realise that they can make plenty of money off other demographics too.

If you're going so far as to classify yourself as a gamer you like videogames despite this, because it's not going to change as long as videogames cost so much. We all have a hobby that we enjoy, it seems a shame to go bringing in sexuality to divide us up when it's not relevant.

Firstly, it can change if there's enough money on the table to tempt the industry. And the industry is never going to know if that money is available if we don't stand up and tell them.

Secondly, of course it's a shame for you, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the industry from your perspective, you're constantly being catered to. It's extremely easy for the rich person to say that they don't see what's wrong with the economy when they're untouched by the problems lower classes complain about.

Wow thanks for telling me what I really mean buddy, I might have been able to speak for myself there.

Of course straight men being called gay is an insult to masculinity, the straight male role is intrinsically linked to their relationship with females. Implying that they don't have sex with females is essentially an insult to their virility. Also, the word "******" has also taken on the connotations of being weak, further undermining the traditional male role as the strong head of a family.

Like I said, they only say ****** to cause offense. If you're offended by the word, chances are they're gonna keep using it.

Not to mention how the word ****** has evolved into a much more general pejorative term than just meaning gay.

Okay. I am going to rein in the massive amount of rage I feel at you right now for attempting to justify why it's okay for straight people to take being LGBT as an insult. I am going to calm down and explain things to you in the most civilised way I'm able.

While I do understand why you think that there's an intrinsic connection between straightness (in males) and virility, that's a sociocultural fabrication. If you look at it from a detached, neutral way, the two concepts are unrelated. Heterosexuality is a type of sexual attraction; and virility (or masculinity) is a collection of traits we assign to a gender, some of which are biological, but most of which are cultural. Those traits are absolutely malleable; and they're largely arbitrary, particularly in modern times. The biological components of masculinity (muscle mass, body hair, height and so on) have been proven, time and again, to be completely independent from sexual attraction. This is self-evident as well, given the amount of big, burly, hairy gay men. The cultural traits (mannerisms, fashion and so on) change from culture to culture and are obviously not linked with sexual attraction (or else all cultures would share the same desirable traits for masculinity). So if neither the biological nor the cultural traits assigned to masculinity are related to sexual attraction, we can conclude that heterosexuality in males has nothing to do with their virility.

The best argument you can make is that it's a cultural trait, something that society arbitrarily decides is associated with masculinity, such as ties or sports, which is a very weak justification for accepting homophobia, as this means that being gay should be as inconsequential in one's view of masculinity as refusing to wear ties or having no interest in sports. But even then, this is summarily disproved by any gay man who does check every box in the list of masculine traits, and the straight man who checks almost none.

Now, onto this new definition of weakness, I am simply going to point out that your implication is that gay men are somehow inferior or incapable of taking on the traditional male role of being a strong head of the family (which is quickly disproved by any gay men at the head of a family, of which there are many around the world).

-

As an aside, the sheer amount of willpower I needed to complete this post without launching into an angry tirade of obscenities has been truly awe-inspiring. I consider it a personal milestone achieved.

 

[Guestyman]

As an aside, the sheer amount of willpower I needed to complete this post without launching into an angry tirade of obscenities has been truly awe-inspiring. I consider it a personal milestone achieved.

I think it's actually a wider thing with progressive causes that we are so afraid of losing our temper. Maybe if we did launch into a tirade of obscenities once in a while instead of being so polite all the time people would see that it's not just a mild-mannered intellectual exercise. This is our lives we're talking about.

That said, I very much respect your ability to not fly off the deep end. The amount of obscenities I had to delete and find milder ways of saying is quite impressive to me too. I don't think I'm going to be able to show your restraint from here on out, though. I respect it, and I think you're awesome, but this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Darken12]

I think it's actually a wider thing with progressive causes that we are so afraid of losing our temper. Maybe if we did launch into a tirade of obscenities once in a while instead of being so polite all the time people would see that it's not just a mild-mannered intellectual exercise. This is our lives we're talking about.

That said, I very much respect your ability to not fly off the deep end. The amount of obscenities I had to delete and find milder ways of saying is quite impressive to me too. I don't think I'm going to be able to show your restraint from here on out, though. I respect it, and I think you're awesome, but this is getting ridiculous.

Thanks. I think that if I tried letting go right now, I wouldn't be able to articulate words; it'd be just one long, strangled scream of pure, concentrated rage as I punched the floor over and over. Then they'd have to take me to the ER for broken hand bones. It's happened before. It was very inconvenient.

I think the problem with progressive causes is that when we point out hate crimes, hate speech, slurs or pervading discrimination, the answers we always get are either "You can't blame us all for one asshole!" (which is true, admittedly, but the non-assholes aren't doing that much to help us either) or "Grow a thicker skin! We all have to take crap for one reason or another!" (which is bullshit, because "someone else is suffering too" doesn't mean that we should hamper each other's attempts to make things better; that's what the kyriarchy wants!).

We can't have one con. One. Fucking. Con.

EDIT: I should also take a moment to appreciate everyone else who's staying civil on this, on both sides of the issue. At least one person sincerely appreciates your restrain, because they know how hard it is.