Poll: Some simple perspective
- Thread starter Reasonable Atheist
- Start date
Recommended Videos
...Somewhat basic biology (genealogy) is really that confusing? I really should dial up my cynicism then, even if there are other combinations and SJW chant of "biological sex don't real, here are 50-odd genders".
On the proper topic, relevant gamer girls are probably like Vi/v/ian James and just want to play games without outside politics.
On the proper topic, relevant gamer girls are probably like Vi/v/ian James and just want to play games without outside politics.
I think I have got some hair stuck to my window sil if you want to split those as well.MarsAtlas said:
They actually just excluded clinically intersexed individuals by referring to genotype. (e.g. Aneuploidy)MarsAtlas said:
The connotation of genotype = sex isn't necessarily true, and they actually avoided this by referring to genotype.
The idea that genotype somehow influences gaming propensity is an interesting hypothesis, but it needs exploration. It doesn't necessarily make it sexist/transphobic. This poll is silly IMO, but still. We can just call it silly rather than saying they are wrong without any scientific backing.
The point is not to exclude anyone or anything like that! The only reason I asked that way, is it was the most scientific and cool sounding >.> I figure "Everyone has a genotype" and nobody can really disagree with it. I'm already dealing with a super small sample size, its not like im going to submit this to some university or something, The entire goal was to get a general idea. 25% was the general idea I got, if you CONSIDER yourself to be female, feel free to vote xx in combination with your gaming habits information, and vice versa for the reversal, I don't care. If anything more data is better.Irick said:
As far as I know, trans people still have genotype. The idea is not to exclude people, but to sound scientific and cool to get more people voting. Honestly it seems totally insane to me that you would jump to exclusion of anyone based on this. What would have been acceptable to you? do I need separate voting options for pre-op and post-op trans people of both genders? Or just another "offended by my asking" options with the respective play time quantifiers added for each?MarsAtlas said:
Sorry you feel that way, but Honestly I cannot be bothered to get into such gender battles with people. I just wanted to get a feel for the amount of "real" gamers who were actually women. Mostly I wanted to get a feel for this information to see if it would be you know, a good business decision to market more games to the female demographic over the male demographic. Feelings don't matter, only money matters. I think I have already come to the conclusion that yes, it might indeed be fiscally viable, although still a greater risk so not for the feint of heart or anyone who wants to crank out cheap crappy products.Elijin said:
So then riddle me this then. Imaginary individual A, who is biologically male but identifies as female where in the demographics pie chart should they fall? Would a game like Gears of War that traditionally panders to a male audience still be more appealing to them then say the sims? If they identify as female, but are still sexually attracted to females does this fact flip their demographic once again? I still do not believe asking based on genome excludes anyone, in the same way I am sure there are some straight women who are biologically women but still prefer the typical bro out game marketed heavily to males. There is always bound to be some variation in buying habits and preferences among a demographic. See the problem I am having here? I don't know jack about trans people or how they actually behave or what types of things they like, because I have never met one and I refuse to base anything on the media's portrayal of them.MarsAtlas said:
Although there has been "some" small amount of drama here, I have a feeling there still somehow would have been more if I just asked people their gender.
I believe this is starting to get a bit off topic at this point, but I am beginning to become fascinated.
Also, what is "intersex" and how is it differentiated from transgender?
Good luck with that. It is overly convenient for people to strawman than actually have a civil discussion regardless of what "side" they are on in regards to anything. It is not a coincidence that the people most likely to resort to angrily yelling about "SJWs" are among (as in not the only people to do this) the least likely to come up with any well thought out retort. Somebody once responded to me with something along the lines of "Ah, saying I'm strawmanning. That's the go-to thing for liberals when they can't argue back". What? Calling out the fallacious foundation to an argument is common whether you're partisan or not and I'm not even a liberal anyway! That's not to say calling out fallacies is the good way to disprove an argument however.Colour Scientist said:
To be perfectly fair, another reason people preempt imaginary enemies also often has to do with a lack of education on the issues, history, and philosophies pertinent to the discussion. So, as much as you may wish otherwise, without good education people are going to keep doing this because they take words like "patriarchy" and think it is an attack on them. They're more concerned with defending themselves from looking bad than empathizing. It's a bit selfish actually, but, then again, we've all done that at one point or another. Again, the same goes for people who preempt, for example, imaginary misogynists. Not saying they don't exist, but it's inappropriate to preempt when a discussion hasn't even happened yet.
Uh huh, I guess I just imagined having my arguments and opinions callously and repeatedly discarded as "uneducated" because I myself am in the majority all those times, on any number of race/class/sexuality issues. Now its not my fault for being in the majority, but for prefacing that I am in the majority? Give me a break man I am just trying to deal with with some annoying people by calling out the silliness ahead of time, do not even try to tell me the internet is not silly or frustrating.jamail77 said:Good luck with that. It is overly convenient for people to strawman than actually have a civil discussion regardless of what "side" they are on in regards to anything. It is not a coincidence that the people most likely to resort to angrily yelling about "SJWs" are among (as in not the only people to do this) the least likely to come up with any well thought out retort. Somebody once responded to me with something along the lines of "Ah, saying I'm strawmanning. That's the go-to thing for liberals when they can't argue back". What? Calling out the fallacious foundation to an argument is common whether you're partisan or not and I'm not even a liberal anyway! That's not to say calling out fallacies is the good way to disprove an argument however.Colour Scientist said:Anyway, they're no different than people who strawman Gamergaters or Republicans or whoever. Side Note:As someone who refuses to take a side, I sympathize with all sides of the argument. Sorry/not sorry if that bothers anyone. People take their bad personal experiences with the opposition and then go through a phase of heavy selection/confirmation bias to keep their prejudices when faced with something that challenges those prejudices. It's a damn shame too because humans actually have an incredible capacity for logic.
To be perfectly fair, another reason people preempt imaginary enemies also often has to do with a lack of education on the issues, history, and philosophies pertinent to the discussion. So, as much as you may wish otherwise, without good education people are going to keep doing this because they take words like "patriarchy" and think it is an attack on them. They're more concerned with defending themselves from looking bad than empathizing. It's a bit selfish actually, but, then again, we've all done that at one point or another. Again, the same goes for people who preempt, for example, imaginary misogynists. Not saying they don't exist, but it's inappropriate to preempt when a discussion hasn't even happened yet.
And straw man? What the hell, that sentence only even applies if you are going to use the "your just privileged" line of reasoning, and at that point its not even a straw man, its just patronizing idiots. Who is against patronizing idiots? The idea is to exclude arguments that are not even arguments, and I am pretty sure that one line did just that for me, but now i got people upset that I feel like i gotta use it? no-win scenario.
captcha: anti-dentite
Who comes up with the captchas? they are always so amusing, is that something other then a reference to a funny Seinfeld bit?
Whoops. I didn't mean to quote you as well. I should have taken your part out. I only wanted to address Colour Scientist's concerns, not that they were directed towards you. Sorry about that. What the heck though. I'll take a stab at your beefs anyway.Reasonable Atheist said:
I'm not saying you imagined anything; of course the Internet is silly, frustrating, heck it's damn illogical. I'm just saying that trying to preempt the silliness just comes off as overly defensive as I clarified in my last paragraph. It does not paint you as understanding and makes it seem like you have no control, which is true to an extent in that you do not have control over your environmental circumstances, but you can control your beliefs and actions. It's unnecessary as Colour Scientist said. You are already creating a hostile environment with such a statement when you do not even know if this thread will end up hostile as evidenced by the reactions from me and Coulour Scientist. You've had bad experiences and I get that, but it's like the time travel conundrum of killing somebody who did something wrong in modern times. Is killing that person moral when they did not do anything yet? Nobody has done anything yet. Calling out ahead of time does not help you in the slightest is all I am saying or at least that is my point of view. It just comes off too defensive.
I am a little confused what you mean on this point. I am stating a general phenomena that goes on from both "sides"(there's a reason I keep putting that in quotes, the sides thing is ridiculous). I am not saying you are necessarily strawmanning, but it does come off that way because you took your bad experiences and painted those you disagree with the same brush. So, you're trying to patronize idiots, the "you're privileged" argument people? That doesn't bode well for the discussion then: That's a lot of people to paint as idiotic and does not make you look good. Again, you're going to have to clarify what you mean because that is how I am taking it at the moment.
Somebody comes up with the captchas? I thought those were generated by algorithms and deals with advertisers and things like that.
OK, now I am confused on why it is unfortunate that I am interpreting you fairly well. By the way, with this clarification, I 100% agree with you (Well, except the part about freely insulting people, but that is a difference in opinion): To say such things without substance is stupid and is not a path to civil discussion. The point of "You're privileged" is to highlight how you are cut off from the problems of other groups of people, but if you say that without acknowledging the person you're talking to and their idea/argument outside of that, you're not really arguing anything at all. It's only useful if the person chooses to remain close minded and hence their idea/argument is as well, which is why I highlighted you can control your beliefs and actions despite your circumstances.Reasonable Atheist said:
It's nice to see that you are open to new information. That does bode well for the discussion. The issue is with the trend and old marketing theories and knowledge that, frankly, are now outdated regardless of changing demographics. There is an "old guard" of economists and executives fighting to keep all of those things in place because they've proven to yield high profit with less risk. They'll work for years to come, but they're outdated versus the updated stuff that the "old guard" understands less. Outside of the casual market, there are plenty of women to market big budget games too. It just scares them, not necessarily out of misogyny, not that some of that doesn't exist either, but because it's unknown.
Eh, it's alright. I've seen worse. You're actually pretty pleasant. The only thing really bothering me is the interesting way you're quoting.Reasonable Atheist said:
You're right about this as well. To quote what I saw in response to an article about TV diversity, "The best writers are able to imagine lives and viewpoints far beyond anything they ever experience and bring you along with them". In fact, when this happens it creates role models for people who feel beaten down from their dreams and they will often cite those role models as reasons for getting into the industry of their choice. The more people willing to write people not like them, the more likely it is people will be inspired to enter the industry based on role models more similar to them. That will create diversity in the workforce, diversity of writing, diversity of characters, diversity towards the work as far as personal experience influences that, all that jazz.
seriously I come on this forum to talk about games and the game section is being plagued with "Transgender characters", "should the princess be saved", "strong female characters since the last full moon"... give it a rest already. the gaming community spoke out, rather strongly I might add, to say we don't want this sort of thing being plastered on websites as articles, we want to talk about games. So here I am, in an area where the people talk about what they want to talk about and what do we have? The same crap we asked not to have.
Another Dark Souls thread is bad enough, I mean christ there's a lot of them, but at least it's actually games.
Now you might say "yeah but this is about games, it's about how long you play games" etc., but look at the content here man. 90% of this thread is about why offering only xx and xy is not appropriate anymore and people getting their "I know my shit" hat out and flinging their dick all over the place trying to be more intelligent than the next person. Stop. Y'know, just stop. I want to talk about games, I'm a video gamer not a fucking chromosome scientist.
That is all. Please stop.
Another Dark Souls thread is bad enough, I mean christ there's a lot of them, but at least it's actually games.
Now you might say "yeah but this is about games, it's about how long you play games" etc., but look at the content here man. 90% of this thread is about why offering only xx and xy is not appropriate anymore and people getting their "I know my shit" hat out and flinging their dick all over the place trying to be more intelligent than the next person. Stop. Y'know, just stop. I want to talk about games, I'm a video gamer not a fucking chromosome scientist.
That is all. Please stop.
Thanks for the uh..... Contribution to the discussion. I share some of your feelings but people are a lot less likely to go away if you tell them to go away.Danny Dowling said:
Okay, so this?
Not the best way to start a "reasonable discussion", but I'm guessing you already knew that.Reasonable Atheist said:
You know, if you want to talk about other gaming related things there are multiple solutions. You could look through more than just the home page's forum highlights of "Latest", "Most Commented", "Most Viewed" or skim past the first page of the Gaming Discussion topics for example (just assuming you're only looking at the 1st page like people do with Google search results, not saying you actually are). You could start your own topic. You could make a concerted effort to ignore the topics you do not want to get into considering that I'm looking at the 1st page of Gaming Discussions right now and see that at least 1/2 of the topics have nothing to do with gender related topics.Danny Dowling said:
You complain gamers asked not to see this stuff reported on, yet here they are all over the forum. Perhaps, the gamers asking that, at least on The Escapist, do not take up as much of the (Escapist) community as you think? Otherwise, why are the topics you dislike getting so much traffic? You dislike them. We get it. However, people have the right to continue discussing. Your dislike should not force them to stop, just like if I disliked topics you enjoyed does not mean you should stop discussing those topics.
If you want a quick fix to your conundrum of not seeing enough personally interesting discussions then, heck, I've started a few threads recently that are probably more up your alley if you want to look into those. Here:
Game(s) you're excited for but also kind of meh about [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862650-Game-s-youre-excited-for-but-also-kind-of-meh-about]
What is the weirdest thing a game has suggested you do [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.862657-What-is-the-weirdest-thing-a-game-has-suggested-you-do]
Good ol' Craaaazy gameplay [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.861724-Good-ol-Crraaaazy-gameplay]
Battle of the Action Sequences! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862425-Battle-of-the-Action-Sequences]
Not to speak for the OP, but, yeah, we've been over that if you look at the last few back and forths I had with him.Don Incognito said:
Not so much want to put myself out there as someone telling you to "go away", more of a "look at this, is this what we want?" sort of thing. sometimes it's good to check yourself y'know.Reasonable Atheist said:
Also I think the main reason I chose to air my opinions on this thread is that it has literally almost no content that you were looking for. Personally, I think the fact there's like 2 pages almost entirely dedicated to the chromosome thing and why people are more right than others is just disappointing. It's pretty pinicety tbh. But hey who am I? Just one person with an opinion.