Trans representation in gaming

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I also don?t know how much more real the jokes can get; that?s why they?re good.

You confuse the meaning of "real".

In the clip I posted, Bob joked about another drag queen being a meth addict. Said person would go on to nearly die from overdosing a few months later. In that sense, the joke is true.

But the emotion expressed by the joke is not real, and the audience knows that, partly because the context and format is set up to reinforce that it is not real. The distance I'm talking about is psychological distance from the emotional impact of the joke.

It is very different from me going up to someone at at their child's funeral and talking about how their kid was a loser and how much I hated them and am glad they're dead. It's not fair or reasonable to expect someone to have the emotional distance to find that funny. It's not divorced from that person's real life right now, and that's what I mean by "real?.

Ok, I get what you mean, but the funeral example isn?t even a joke; it?s just pure, crude indecency. Real ?jokes? would be several of these [https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/comedy-central-roast-of-bruce-willis-10-most-brutal-jokes/news-story/5d3addf7c874934d822c5ae75abdee6a] from the actual roast.

I particularly thought the worst was what Martha Stewart said about being surprised back in the 90?s that Dennis Rodman is still alive in 2018, when he was actually contemplating blowing his head off with a shotgun in the Palace of Auburn Hills parking lot back then.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ok, I get what you mean, but the funeral example isn?t even a joke; it?s just pure, crude indecency. Real ?jokes? would be several of these [https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/comedy-central-roast-of-bruce-willis-10-most-brutal-jokes/news-story/5d3addf7c874934d822c5ae75abdee6a] from the actual roast.

Again, you keep saying you understand this but your examples suggest that you don't.

A roast is a specific comedy space in which you are allowed to say things which would be upsetting if they were used with malicious intent, which would be a "crude indecency" in the wrong context (because the definition of indecency is inherently subjective). That's because the format exists to emotionally distance the audience from the joke. It's the same reason a lot of "edgy humour" TV shows are animated rather than live action. It's not an accident, it's because the non-realistic appearance of animation functions to create emotional distance.

Heck, speaking of animated comedy shows, you're acting like there's some kind of SJW conspiracy to get rid of transgressive humour, but The Simpsons was considered controversial when it released in 1987. Conservatives campaigned against it, Simpsons merchandise was banned in schools, heck, the president used the show as an example of the decay of American family values. Conservative TV audiences of the late 1980s genuinely believed the Simpsons was an example of the moral decay of society and should be banned. I mean, fucking hell.

It would be a decade before South Park appeared and really started the trend of TV comedy shows trying to push the envelope, and those shows were not greeted with open arms. "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" in Season 1 attracted controversy and was nearly pulled by Comedy Central because it had gay stuff in it (this was a year before Will & Grace first aired and broke ground for tired insufferable gay stereotypes to be shown on TV in a positive light).

We've gone from an age where Conservatives fought to pull The Simpsons from the air because it didn't function as explicit propaganda for right wing family values, to one in which a comedian of South Asian descent can make a successful and well recieved documentary film about the complex relationship between a racist stereotype and the community it depicts. You think this is a dark time for free speech? You think this is a bad time for transgressive humour? I find that laughable.

 

[CaitSeith]

I do blame Roseanne to the extent of her own actions. It's the ABC's prerogative to do what they want with her. However, believe it or not, I'm iffy about the concept of punishment by association, and the idea that you can't separate art from the artist.

For celebrities, their public image is part of their art. It wouldn't be difficult to separate Roseanne the show from Roseanne the real person, if the real person wasn't constantly calling for atention on the worst and most insistent ways possible: spreading 4chan conspiracy theories (and racist comments) on tweeter. Instead of being a natural act, it becomes a concentrated effort to separate them: "I enjoy this! Oh, advertisement. Let me check my tweet feed. She said WHAT!? Oh, the show continues. I... must... enjoy... this!"

PS: How did we get from trans representation in gaming to Roseanne? She hasn't even been in a game! Isn't she?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Ok, I get what you mean, but the funeral example isn?t even a joke; it?s just pure, crude indecency. Real ?jokes? would be several of these [https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/comedy-central-roast-of-bruce-willis-10-most-brutal-jokes/news-story/5d3addf7c874934d822c5ae75abdee6a] from the actual roast.

Again, you keep saying you understand this but your examples suggest that you don't.

A roast is a specific comedy space in which you are allowed to say things which would be upsetting if they were used with malicious intent, which would be a "crude indecency" in the wrong context (because the definition of indecency is inherently subjective). That's because the format exists to emotionally distance the audience from the joke. It's the same reason a lot of "edgy humour" TV shows are animated rather than live action. It's not an accident, it's because the non-realistic appearance of animation functions to create emotional distance.

Heck, speaking of animated comedy shows, you're acting like there's some kind of SJW conspiracy to get rid of transgressive humour, but The Simpsons was considered controversial when it released in 1987. Conservatives campaigned against it, Simpsons merchandise was banned in schools, heck, the president used the show as an example of the decay of American family values. Conservative TV audiences of the late 1980s genuinely believed the Simpsons was an example of the moral decay of society and should be banned. I mean, fucking hell.

It would be a decade before South Park appeared and really started the trend of TV comedy shows trying to push the envelope, and those shows were not greeted with open arms. "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" in Season 1 attracted controversy and was nearly pulled by Comedy Central because it had gay stuff in it (this was a year before Will & Grace first aired and broke ground for tired insufferable gay stereotypes to be shown on TV in a positive light).

We've gone from an age where Conservatives fought to pull The Simpsons from the air because it didn't function as explicit propaganda for right wing family values, to one in which a comedian of South Asian descent can make a successful and well recieved documentary film about the complex relationship between a racist stereotype and the community it depicts. You think this is a dark time for free speech? You think this is a bad time for transgressive humour? I find that laughable

.

I think there is a difference in understanding of the ethical useage of comedic content in general here, because I thought I clearly acknowledged the basic point in bold over my last several replies. I also never complained about a lack of transgressive humor in recent years; only that I?d be surprised if it lasts much longer (in a mainstream capacity at least) given our current social climate.

It?s also funny you mention the increase of what?s acceptable in entertainment over the last few decades, when the opposite has been occurring in general outside of that specific forum. It?s almost like comedy shows are becoming an oddly acceptable safe haven for all things ?offensive?, disclaimers and all.

 

[Xprimentyl]

PS: How did we get from trans representation in gaming to Roseanne? She hasn't even been in a game! Isn't she?

Y?know, I was wondering the same thing? I wanted to engage in the topic at hand, but as few of my post that get read/responded to, I wasn?t sure if it was even worth my effort to try and re-rail the thread?

 

[JamesStone]

I do blame Roseanne to the extent of her own actions. It's the ABC's prerogative to do what they want with her. However, believe it or not, I'm iffy about the concept of punishment by association, and the idea that you can't separate art from the artist.

For celebrities, their public image is part of their art. It wouldn't be difficult to separate Roseanne the show from Roseanne the real person, if the real person wasn't constantly calling for atention on the worst and most insistent ways possible: spreading 4chan conspiracy theories (and racist comments) on tweeter. Instead of being a natural act, it becomes a concentrated effort to separate them: "I enjoy this! Oh, advertisement. Let me check my tweet feed. She said WHAT!? Oh, the show continues. I... must... enjoy... this!"

PS: How did we get from trans representation in gaming to Roseanne? She hasn't even been in a game! Isn't she?

Because this site is being rotten from the inside from old time users with hate boners for each other from R&P, GiD and Wild West, and each and every excuse is used to engage in political discussion no matter how tired or fruitless it is.

And of course, instead of censoring it or intervining, the mods are busy enforcing the same piece of shit CoC that was a contributing factor in the decline of this site thanks to people merely finding passive-aggressive ways to insult others to the point posting in the forums became a game of Banhammer Roulette.

We need a new CoC, and maybe new mods; hopefully with the new acquisition Enthusiasm Gaming will look at this cesspool and purge the rules and enforcers and restart from scratch.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Boasting being tolerant to people who speak another language as a virtue everyone is capable of? When I say "we need more people like you here in Quebec" I kinda mean it (you'd think the language police exists only in fiction, but here is a reality).

There are many reasons to have representation in gaming. Empathy may be one; but I'd say escapism from a world more absurd than fiction is another valid one.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Instead of being a natural act, it becomes a concentrated effort to separate them: "I enjoy this! Oh, advertisement. Let me check my tweet feed. She said WHAT!? Oh, the show continues. I... must... enjoy... this!"

I'm having that issue with Extra Credits recently, honestly.

Long story short, it came out that James (The guy more or less running things) may or may not have harassed someone out of the company, after getting in a relationship with them, it falling apart, and then him insisting they keep working directly together regardless of her not wanting to. The official response was a pretty boilerplate "we hired a PR firm with a FEMALE investigator and decided that no harassment took place, we're instituting a few changes to the team, that's all" and gave no substantive information, or indeed detailing any of the "changes" they made.

Now, there's sadly limited proof, but... Given the weaksauce response, and the victim's compelling account, I can't help but be real suspicious that something did in fact go down, and this has sucked most of the joy out of watching their content because I always have those suspicions in the back of my head. :s

 

[Saelune]

PS: How did we get from trans representation in gaming to Roseanne? She hasn't even been in a game! Isn't she?

Kerg was complaining about creative freedom in entertainment to criticize the inclusion of diversity.

Because, I want more trans characters in games...but they have to be real characters, not cardboard cutouts to satisfy a diversity checklist.

The diversity checklist is the main problem, IMO. Writing a good story and good characters is obviously difficult under the best conditions because it's rare. Add in the contraints of a diversity checklist, and it seems you often end up with an awkward mess.

Imagine if Mark Twain had set out to write Huck Finn, but was forced by his editor/publisher or by societal pressures to include a member of every race and sexual orientation and gender identity on his raft. The story he originally had in mind would have probably become convoluted. He probably wouldn't have had the insight to be able to write some of the characters well, and thus those would have ended up being stereotyped cardboard cutouts. And the book would have probably been a failure.

The same thing probably happens to a lot of good artistic ideas these days, and the end result is crappier art, including video games.

I think the best art is created when the artist has creative freedom and is unencumbered by rules. And right now there are just way too many fucking rules. I imagine for a lot of artists it is stifling.

Anyways, since I am here, Mark Twain was an SJW who had intentionally included a positive black character to appeal to diversity. Just saying.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Because, I want more trans characters in games...but they have to be real characters, not cardboard cutouts to satisfy a diversity checklist.

The diversity checklist is the main problem, IMO. Writing a good story and good characters is obviously difficult under the best conditions because it's rare. Add in the contraints of a diversity checklist, and it seems you often end up with an awkward mess.

Imagine if Mark Twain had set out to write Huck Finn, but was forced by his editor/publisher or by societal pressures to include a member of every race and sexual orientation and gender identity on his raft. The story he originally had in mind would have probably become convoluted. He probably wouldn't have had the insight to be able to write some of the characters well, and thus those would have ended up being stereotyped cardboard cutouts. And the book would have probably been a failure.

The same thing probably happens to a lot of good artistic ideas these days, and the end result is crappier art, including video games.

I think the best art is created when the artist has creative freedom and is unencumbered by rules. And right now there are just way too many fucking rules. I imagine for a lot of artists it is stifling.

Anyways, since I am here, Mark Twain was an SJW who had intentionally included a positive black character to appeal to diversity. Just saying.

Lol, I think you're supposed to "drop the mic" after something like that! #NailedIt

 

[Paragon Fury]

I've always felt like an trans representation in gaming is particularly difficult simply because it seems like 99% of the ways you could go about revealing/having a trans character either wind up feeling like you're pushing/shoehorning someone to be trans, or it winds up being insulting to trans people.

Because a *good* trans representation...would impossible to tell from a regular non-trans person (because you would be able to accomplish very easily what trans people struggle to do IRL - become indistinguishable from their non-birth gender - in a video game). So then if you try to "reveal" they're trans it's a whole minefield of looking like you're either just trying to appeal to trans people or have such a reveal that winds up being stereotypical and offensive.

And if you make it obvious that they're trans up front or being "aggressive" about it becomes offensive and frustrating to trans people and, not gonna lie, frequently annoying as shit and unpleasant to deal with for non-trans people.

A perfect example of this is the Waitress in Cathrine. She spends the entire game indistinguishable from a regular woman...unless you get the Perfect Katherine Ending (Take control of your life, get rid of the demon Catherine, Make up with marry your girlfriend Katherine), wherein it's dropped in the post-credits scene that the Waitress is trans (used to be a man) after she sleeps with one of the main character's friends. When this is reveal after the fact, they have said character react by freaking out about it.

Yeah, really well handled there devs. cough

 

[Abomination]

I'm sorry, why was erttheking suspended for their post?

Is it because they used particular words in it, specifically stating those were words you could use without repercussions back in 2005?

Because that is some crazy irony that they were suspended for even saying the words while trying to state that the world was not a better place when you could use those words offensively without repercussions, but now you are suspended for MENTIONING those words.

Yes he was banned for that, back on GameTrailers I was perm-banned for just spelling out the f-word. Mods on this site are ridiculous lmao

I mean I have a clean as a whistle healthbar, but that is some hogswash if I ever saw it.

Literally talking about how those are words people should not used and getting suspended for saying them in the direct context of explaining that they are bad words.

Mindboggling.

 

[Saelune]

I've always felt like an trans representation in gaming is particularly difficult simply because it seems like 99% of the ways you could go about revealing/having a trans character either wind up feeling like you're pushing/shoehorning someone to be trans, or it winds up being insulting to trans people.

Because a *good* trans representation...would impossible to tell from a regular non-trans person (because you would be able to accomplish very easily what trans people struggle to do IRL - become indistinguishable from their non-birth gender - in a video game). So then if you try to "reveal" they're trans it's a whole minefield of looking like you're either just trying to appeal to trans people or have such a reveal that winds up being stereotypical and offensive.

And if you make it obvious that they're trans up front or being "aggressive" about it becomes offensive and frustrating to trans people and, not gonna lie, frequently annoying as shit and unpleasant to deal with for non-trans people.

A perfect example of this is the Waitress in Cathrine. She spends the entire game indistinguishable from a regular woman...unless you get the Perfect Katherine Ending (Take control of your life, get rid of the demon Catherine, Make up with marry your girlfriend Katherine), wherein it's dropped in the post-credits scene that the Waitress is trans (used to be a man) after she sleeps with one of the main character's friends. When this is reveal after the fact, they have said character react by freaking out about it.

Yeah, really well handled there devs. cough

If I remember correctly, she ends up with the blonde guy who is notably not one of the people trapped in the dream world cause he is a decent guy, and that he and her had been romantically involved since they were in high school before she transitioned, and that the guy who reacted badly is kind of a shitty person the whole time which is the point of the game?


Honestly, I mean, she is not a perfect representation, but who is? Overall I felt she was on the better side. She certainly is not 'in your face' about being trans which is what a lot of bigots complain about.

 

[The Lunatic]

If I remember correctly, she ends up with the blonde guy who is notably not one of the people trapped in the dream world cause he is a decent guy, and that he and her had been romantically involved since they were in high school before she transitioned, and that the guy who reacted badly is kind of a shitty person the whole time which is the point of the game?


Honestly, I mean, she is not a perfect representation, but who is? Overall I felt she was on the better side. She certainly is not 'in your face' about being trans which is what a lot of bigots complain about.

Well, to be fair, when dealing with those issues, unless it's revealed before romance is a thing, it can quite quickly turn something consensual into non-consensual. You do after all have a duty to inform potential partners to anything that may affect consent, after all.

So, it's a shame they went with the "Surprise, they're trans, hope that doesn't make you feel abused!" thing rather than developing it in a realistic way.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I dunno, considering his endless lusting prior, she probably figured the rest of their friend group would clue him in. Not that it would matter, I think. He's looking to hook up, not start a family, and was obviously attracted by what he saw.

It's not a surprise weenus situation.

(Then again, that's probably Satan's asshole justification for Erica getting nightmares)

 

[The Lunatic]

I dunno, considering his endless lusting prior, she probably figured the rest of their friend group would clue him in. Not that it would matter, I think. He's looking to hook up, not start a family, and was obviously attracted by what he saw.

It's not a surprise weenus situation.

(Then again, that's probably Satan's asshole justification for Erica getting nightmares)

"He/She enjoys sex, therefore they won't mind if I don't tell them stuff that might affect consent." is a pretty... Bad attitude to hold. You kinda get into the "They were wearing revealing clothes, therefore asking for it." territory.

Given the character is shown to have freaked out afterwards, the information was obviously prudent to them, even in the event of a hookup, and would probably have affected consent if he knew beforehand.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Well, to be fair, when dealing with those issues, unless it's revealed before romance is a thing, it can quite quickly turn something consensual into non-consensual.

How?

Like, let me try and put this in easy to understand terms (so apologies to trans readers for bad comparisons).

Firstly, you never know what someone looks like naked until they take their clothes off. That is not a failure of consent. They are not obligated to tell you that they have a birthmark, that they are wearing a girdle or that they are wearing a hairpiece to hide baldness. They certainly have no obligation to tell you what their genitals look like.

Secondly, consent does not work retroactively. If I sleep with someone and later find out something about them which changes my opinion of them, that has no bearing on the fact that I consented at the time. What you're confused by is that consent applies on an act by act basis, so if I agree to wear a condom and then covertly remove it without the person noticing, that is a violation of consent because sex with and without a condom are considered a separate acts under the law.

But whether a person is cisgender or transgender has no bearing on the act itself.

You do after all have a duty to inform potential partners to anything that may affect consent, after all.

Unless that thing is "I have a life-threatening STD which I know is transmittable" then that's really not true. Noone has to disclose random information about themselves to their sexual partners. Similarly, noone can force those sexual partners to do anything they don't want to do.

I realise the Crying Game situation is some kind of weird obsession and age-old joke for cisgender heterosexual people (because being attracted to a trans person might carry the risk of people treating you as badly as LGBT people get treated all the time), but let me be honest. It's never going to happen. Noone is ever going to deceive you that they're not trans in the hope that they might get to sleep with you. Noone is going to do that, because that's the kind of situation that causes you to be found strangled in a hotel room. However terrifying you find that situation and the potential loss of heterosexual legitimacy it entails, trust me, it's far more terrifying from the other side.

 

[Elijin]

I dunno, considering his endless lusting prior, she probably figured the rest of their friend group would clue him in. Not that it would matter, I think. He's looking to hook up, not start a family, and was obviously attracted by what he saw.

It's not a surprise weenus situation.

(Then again, that's probably Satan's asshole justification for Erica getting nightmares)

"He/She enjoys sex, therefore they won't mind if I don't tell them stuff that might affect consent." is a pretty... Bad attitude to hold. You kinda get into the "They were wearing revealing clothes, therefore asking for it." territory.

Given the character is shown to have freaked out afterwards, the information was obviously prudent to them, even in the event of a hookup, and would probably have affected consent if he knew beforehand.

That's absurd. If im reading this all right the person fully identifies as a woman and has the expected equipment downstairs. Do future partners need a full dossier of every bit of each persons past irrelevant information before consent can be reached?

 

[The Lunatic]

How?

A lot of people do not recognize transgendered people and so do not feel comfortable sleeping with them. Your thoughts on the validity of that are pretty irrelevant unless we get into "Corrective rape" territory, which I think we should avoid.

There are a few places that have laws on matter concerning consent after the fact. Rape by deception is the umbrella term it comes under, and cases such as R ? v ? McNally have specifically covered deception on gender and so on.

The case can be found here;
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2013/1051.html
But to summise:
Justine McNally was sentenced to three years in prison after deceiving her partner into believing that she was actually a man named Scott.

There's already pretty established laws on this, and it's about protecting people. Ultimately, you have a right to privacy with your trans status, but there's obviously a degree of trust that must come with sexual relations in which deception of any kind is not acceptable.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Why? More accurately to say, how else should they have handled it?

I can think of a few ways:

-Censure Roseanne Barr in a manner more extreme than past censuring (e.g. reduced pay, pay hiatus, temporary suspension)

-State that you don't support her comments.

-Don't make a snap decision to terminate the show, wait a bit to see how things turn out.

-If the decision has to be made to cancel it, ensure that there's as much safe transition for former employees as possible.

Again, I point to Netflix, how it handled the Kevin Spacey issue. Y'know, someone whose alleged crimes are more severe than foul mouthedness on Twitter, yet the showrunners found a way to keep the show on for at least one more season, which means that the series not only gets closure, but there's cast and crew who have work for a bit longer. Believe me, I'm going to miss Frank Underwood, but in this case, I think this is perhaps the best middle ground Netflix could have had. But scorched earth over tweets, however racist they might be? Not so much.
.

While most of that seems reasonable, the last example isn?t really apples:apples. If it hasn?t been mentioned yet, Kevin Spacey wasn?t the titular character for one, and the plot of the show was already transitioning to showcase his wife as the new lead in the last season finale. Can?t really do that with Roseanne, no matter how big John Goodman is (no pun intended).