Trans representation in gaming

[Saelune]

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.

I am going to be blunt, this is an offensive thing to say. It suggests you think trans people are trying to trick or entrap people, we aren't.

For one, I am honest about it, and second, virtually everyone lies in relationships. It is not ok, but do not pretend cisgender people aren't full of lies that actually are way worse than being trans.

 

[Saelune]

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.

This leaves out a ton of 'A Time to Kill' level facts.

They met at around 13/14 years old, online, became friends over the course of like, 4 years, entered into a relationship, and MET EACHOTHER MULTIPLE TIMES and were intimate (kissing and such) before the actual 'crime' occurred.

For all I know, Scott was sure she knew he was trans.

Your summary is simply TOO brief and misleading.

 

[Terminal Blue]

A lot of people do not recognize transgendered people and so do not feel comfortable sleeping with them.

And I don't want any innocent trans people to sleep with horrible bigots, so I quite agree that any people who feel that way should try to stay as far away as possible from any trans people they might be tempted to sleep with, and preferably as far away as possible from any normal human society where they might inflict their bigotry on innocent people.

For the rest of humanity, look. I've had friends (not heterosexual friends, because as mentioned that doesn't happen) who have actually been in this situation. If you think you're attracted to someone, but then when they get naked you find you're not attracted to them any more and don't want to go through with it, then just handle that like an adult. Don't do anything you don't want to do, and don't deliberately hurt anyone.

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.

So, here's the thing.

* McNally is not trans. She does not identify as or present as a man. There were suggestions during the trial that she may have some kind of confusion about her gender identity, but these could never be substantiated, which hurt her case because it meant (if the account given was true) her primary purpose in presenting as a man was not the expression of her authentic gender identity, but her desire to persuade an (apparently) straight woman to have sex with her. That matters.

* McNally pleaded guilty. It's completely unclear why she did this, although she later claimed she "just wanted it to be over". She also seems to have been deeply confused about court procedure and the burden of proof. Actually, without this guilty plea, there really is no prosecution case. In fact, there is significant evidence to question the prosecution's version of events, and the case remains extremely controversial both for sowing myths about the law and trans people (as you're trying to do here) and for the questions it raises over whether McNally was adequately supported by her own legal counsel.

Like, don't get me wrong, it's shitty that such a thing even exists on the statute, but I really wouldn't read into it. Heck, it was partly overturned almost immediately, with the sentence being dramatically reduced.

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.

Deception of almost any kind is acceptable. I mean, let me quote from your own link:

Mr Wainwright argues that deception as to gender cannot vitiate consent; in the same way deception as to age, marital status, wealth or, following EB, HIV status being deceptions as to qualities or attributes cannot vitiate consent.

You can, under existing British law, lie about your age. You can lie about whether you are married. You can claim to be a billionaire. You can even (in some cases) lie about having a permanent and life-affecting sexually transited disease. Rape by deception applies to an incredibly limited range of situations pertaining to actual acts which occur in the bedroom. The law is not there to legislate trust.

 

[CaitSeith]

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)

IMO it was just a mere build up for a trap joke. The friends of the blonde guy never were straight enough with him about Erica (not even after he bragged about his first time having sex being with her). Too bad, because when talking about their youth, Erika's friends were ambiguous enough so the player wouldn't be able to tell she used to be a he back then.

 

[fOx]

I wish I felt more represented in my favorite artistic medium. I love games, but there aren't any trans women. There are movies with trans characters. Books with trans characters. But, when I play games, my favorite pastime, there's almost nothing. The closest I get is when you get to make your own character. But even then, in games like Dark Souls, you have to choose between two binary gender pronouns. Its sometimes enough to ruin the whole game for me from the get go.Thats why my favorite game is Saints Row 3. Why do I have to be left begging for bread crumbs? Beggars can't be choosers, I guess...

 

[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)

IMO it was just a mere build up for a trap joke. The friends of the blonde guy never were straight enough with him about Erica (not even after he bragged about his first time having sex being with her). Too bad, because when talking about their youth, Erika's friends were ambiguous enough so the player wouldn't be able to tell she used to be a he back then.

Well, yeah. Erica's one of the best representations of trans people in gaming, and she's got a lot of transphobia attached to her. It's sad, really. The expansion with another trans gal, only with surprise weenus, is not...looking good.

Might turn out to be okay, I'm not hopeful, considering literal demons are involved. But who knows, maybe they can pull a Yoko Taro and make characters all the SJWs end up liking.

 

[fOx]

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)

IMO it was just a mere build up for a trap joke. The friends of the blonde guy never were straight enough with him about Erica (not even after he bragged about his first time having sex being with her). Too bad, because when talking about their youth, Erika's friends were ambiguous enough so the player wouldn't be able to tell she used to be a he back then.

Well, yeah. Erica's one of the best representations of trans people in gaming, and she's got a lot of transphobia attached to her. It's sad, really. The expansion with another trans gal, only with surprise weenus, is not...looking good.

Might turn out to be okay, I'm not hopeful, considering literal demons are involved. But who knows, maybe they can pull a Yoko Taro and make characters all the SJWs end up liking.

I didn't like Erica. It felt like they played her for a joke, instead of writing her like a real trans person.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

And the way they ended it is kind of a nail in the coffin.Sure you could retroactively just call the final 5 minutes 'a dream' ... but at that point I feel lke you're spitting at Bruce Campbell's final 'hoo-rah'.

Not to spoil anything, I will more so say that some people are 'owed' their character and the direction of how they wish to end that character's journey. Bruce Campbell became typecast to a very figure of horror legend, and was hard done by the culture of media despite being a fantastic evolution of method acting (fite me, haters) that deserves far more screen presence over movies and televisions than he ever got ... his retirement, and his persona, is owed the finality of his choice to retire.

IMO he owns Ashley Williams. They could have more Evil Dead without him, but I would hope it's more a spin off when he was younger, etc. Don't take his final moment away from him. Which, you know ... is going to require a new cast, regardless, because of that.

Oh, screw that. They ended Ash's story perfectly. We live in a world where this happened:

Spoiler

As far as House of Cards goes, how is this in any way a controversy or question? They basically already wrote out Frank at the end of season 5, and transitioning to a post-Spacey show would be bloodless. Honestly the whole thing smells more like a pretense for Netflix to slash the budget and close out the show than find "some way to go on". Honestly part of me wonders if, after 2016, Netflix wants the show over and done with before people start looking a bit too close for comfort at it and figuring out the Underwoods are expies of the Clintons, just like Francis Urquhart was an expy of Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Elijin]

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.

That is some toxic nonsense.

A case with a minor, taking deceptive actions within the actual sex act, while assuming a persona they did not live their life as.

Very different from an actual trans person.

It only serves to create terrible legal foundations for other transphobic bs to point towards, like right now.

 

[fOx]

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.

If a person born a "man" gets an operation, and becomes a woman, that person is a woman. They're future partners do not have a right to their private information. And besides, they are a real woman. In fact, inside, they were always a woman. So why is this an issue?

 

[Erttheking]

If I was born a "man", but get an operation, and becomes a barbie/lion/napoleon/squirrel, am I that label?
If I was always that label inside, all along?

*Sigh* Don't do this man. The situations are not comparable at all. This is inches away from pulling the attack helicopter card in terms of how disrespectful it is to trans people. Namely that there's scientific research backing up transitioning from one gender to another, and this is just some stuff you made up on the spot.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Transphobic comments will not be tolerated in the forums.

If you see one just report and move on. There is no reason for this to continue, and if it does, this thread will be locked.

Final warning.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Transphobic comments will not be tolerated in the forums.

If you see one just report and move on. There is no reason for this to continue, and if it does, this thread will be locked.

Final warning.

I don't know why you guys just don't ban these treads from getting started in the first place. They never go good directions and only seem to serve as bait for people to get warnings unless they are extremely careful with words. It doesn't make for good discussion when any opinion that someone doesn't like can be flagged and that user given a warning without warrent. Just the lock the thread and save the needless drama. IMO.

 

[Hades]

And the way they ended it is kind of a nail in the coffin.Sure you could retroactively just call the final 5 minutes 'a dream' ... but at that point I feel lke you're spitting at Bruce Campbell's final 'hoo-rah'.

Not to spoil anything, I will more so say that some people are 'owed' their character and the direction of how they wish to end that character's journey. Bruce Campbell became typecast to a very figure of horror legend, and was hard done by the culture of media despite being a fantastic evolution of method acting (fite me, haters) that deserves far more screen presence over movies and televisions than he ever got ... his retirement, and his persona, is owed the finality of his choice to retire.

IMO he owns Ashley Williams. They could have more Evil Dead without him, but I would hope it's more a spin off when he was younger, etc. Don't take his final moment away from him. Which, you know ... is going to require a new cast, regardless, because of that.

Oh, screw that. They ended Ash's story perfectly. We live in a world where this happened:

Spoiler

As far as House of Cards goes, how is this in any way a controversy or question? They basically already wrote out Frank at the end of season 5, and transitioning to a post-Spacey show would be bloodless. Honestly the whole thing smells more like a pretense for Netflix to slash the budget and close out the show than find "some way to go on". Honestly part of me wonders if, after 2016, Netflix wants the show over and done with before people start looking a bit too close for comfort at it and figuring out the Underwoods are expies of the Clintons, just like Francis Urquhart was an expy of Margaret Thatcher.

I don't view the ending of season 5 as them writing Frank out of the series. They wrote him out of the white house but in doing so they were setting up a conflict between him and Claire. ''I'm going to kill her'' he says at the end. And that's a fight we will never be able to see now. Netflix made the right call but its still a bit of a shame.

The Underwoods might have started as expies of the clinton's but I'd argue they evolved into one of Trump. Its his republican rival who seems based on Clinton since he's portrayed as somewhat fake and had the election ''stolen'' from him. The investigation of Hammersmith struck me as inspired by the Mueller one too.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Transphobic comments will not be tolerated in the forums.

If you see one just report and move on. There is no reason for this to continue, and if it does, this thread will be locked.

Final warning.

I don't know why you guys just don't ban these treads from getting started in the first place. They never go good directions and only seem to serve as bait for people to get warnings unless they are extremely careful with words. It doesn't make for good discussion when any opinion that someone doesn't like can be flagged and that user given a warning without warrent. Just the lock the thread and save the needless drama. IMO.

It is entirely possible to talk about transgender representation in gaming, as shown earlier in the thread. If someone can't talk about it without resorting to underhanded methods and posting things just to get a rise out of someone then they shouldn't post.

The mod team will not stop topics such as these from showing up as the community, especially those in the LGBT community, want to discuss this.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It is entirely possible to talk about transgender representation in gaming, as shown earlier in the thread. If someone can't talk about it without resorting to underhanded methods and posting things just to get a rise out of someone then they shouldn't post.

The mod team will not stop topics such as these from showing up as the community, especially those in the LGBT community, want to discuss this.

Right but it seems that suspensions and warnings get issued to people in these threads all the time without any REAL reason. And if someone can just report someone they don't like, to use the mods as their own personal hit squad then real conversation cannot occur because the people on one-side of the discussion must walk on eggshells to not offend people on the other side of the conversation or they might get reported or just get a unknown strike because a comment is taken either out of context, or with context ignored.

Look at both CriticalGaming and ErrtheKing on this very thread. Both these people got warnings/suspensions that left other people in the thread wondering why. Now if people are confused as to why fellow forum posters are getting in trouble, then how can you sit there and possibly say that people can have legit discussions when one wrong point that someone else doesn't like means that you can get completely locked out of that discussion without the chance to defend or possible irritate their view.

The answer is you cannot.

And if these topics are so easily offensive to people, that they cannot handle disagreeing views (so long as the views are civil) then they shouldn't be having these discussions. By striking and reporting people you dont agree with means you are not trying to have a conversation, you are trying to have an echo chamber.

 

[Saelune]

Transphobic comments will not be tolerated in the forums.

If you see one just report and move on. There is no reason for this to continue, and if it does, this thread will be locked.

Final warning.

I don't know why you guys just don't ban these treads from getting started in the first place. They never go good directions and only seem to serve as bait for people to get warnings unless they are extremely careful with words. It doesn't make for good discussion when any opinion that someone doesn't like can be flagged and that user given a warning without warrent. Just the lock the thread and save the needless drama. IMO.

It is entirely possible to talk about transgender representation in gaming, as shown earlier in the thread. If someone can't talk about it without resorting to underhanded methods and posting things just to get a rise out of someone then they shouldn't post.

The mod team will not stop topics such as these from showing up as the community, especially those in the LGBT community, want to discuss this.

Doesn't closing these topics just serve the bigotry though? Like, the point of these topics is to oppose it, so if people come in and start saying terrible things against it, and it gets the topic closed, doesn't that just serve their own purposes?

 

[Terminal Blue]

snip

The purpose of this thread is quite clear, and stated in the title.

It's a discussion on trans representation in gaming.

If you don't like trans people generally, or disagree with the well established body of medical and psychological knowledge about trans people, this is probably not the place to air it.

The discussion of "should trans people be accepted for their gender identity" is not an issue with two sides. True, some people may refuse to accept the prevailing evidence, just as some people continue to believe that white people are more intelligent than black people, or that gay people cause earthquakes. These are not things we can discuss, however, because you cannot seriously expect people to defend their right to exist, or their right to be the person they are.

If you managed to get to this point in your life believing that being assigned male or female at birth is the sum total of what makes a person male or female within society, then you clearly have some kind of emotional bias towards that conclusion (or just a really sheltered life experience) which you cannot expect someone else to fix for you. You need to fix it yourself. If you're confused about basic information about trans people, I'm sure someone here can help out. But I don't want to "discuss" whether I should be accepted into normal society. That sounds a bit rubbish.

 

[CriticalGaming]

snip

The purpose of this thread is quite clear, and stated in the title.

It's a discussion on trans representation in gaming.

If you don't like trans people generally, or disagree with the well established body of medical and psychological knowledge about trans people, this is probably not the place to air it.

The discussion of "should trans people be accepted for their gender identity" is not an issue with two sides. True, some people may refuse to accept the prevailing evidence, just as some people continue to believe that white people are more intelligent than black people, or that gay people cause earthquakes. These are not things we can discuss, however, because you cannot seriously expect people to defend their right to exist, or their right to be the person they are.

If you managed to get to this point in your life believing that being assigned male or female at birth is the sum total of what makes a person male or female within society, then you clearly have some kind of emotional bias towards that conclusion (or just a really sheltered life experience) which you cannot expect someone else to fix for you. You need to fix it yourself. If you're confused about basic information about trans people, I'm sure someone here can help out. But I don't want to "discuss" whether I should be accepted into normal society. That sounds a bit rubbish.

Then this thread can be solved in fairly simple fact then.

Video games are a multi-billion dollar business. They make their money trying to sell to the biggest audience possible.

The LBGTQ community is an incredibly small portion of the market-place in general, even smaller when you factor the people that actually play video games.

Therefore, the isn't going to be great LBGTQ representation in gaming because too much of the main stream audience is sketchy on that subject matter. So until the main stream public (or until the LBGTQ marketplace overwhelms the cis marketplace) accepts these characters with open arms, then you'll not see much representation.

However the continued movement of blasting developers for including LBGTQ characters but not in the "right" way or a way that crosses all T's and dots all the I's in a way that is deemed "Acceptible", then they are going to be less willing to keep trying to create characters for you.

By all means be critical of the characters they make and point out things that can be approved, but do so constructively and without the pitchforks. The fact that there are even LBGTQ characters in games now shows that the industry is at least trying. If everyone is going to always find something objectionable or offensive regardless of what the industry tries, you'll end up finding that the industry will stop trying.

Not to mention because of all the uproar and protesting given characters cause from the LBGT community as well as the feminist and their movement, the "cis-folks" will just call every female/LBGTQ character pandering. If not pandering then they'll be annoyed about it because "reasons" like with BFV and the lady on the cover.

Just tone it down, accept the characters you do get while criticizing where needed in a reasonable fashion, and check the outright at the door. People and the industry will respond favorably and more representation will come.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Video games are a multi-billion dollar business. They make their money trying to sell to the biggest audience possible.

With you so far.

The LBGTQ community is an incredibly small portion of the market-place in general, even smaller when you factor the people that actually play video games.

The LGBT+ community is not that small, intersects with a lot of the demographics that play video games and above all tends to be extremely loyal to brands and companies which cater to them.

On the "size" of the community, one survey of 18-24 year olds in the UK found that only around half considered themselves a Kinsey 0 (exclusively heterosexual). Obviously, this isn't a measure of LGBT identification, but it does indicate a bit of a problem with your assumption that there is no market for LGBT+ content. This is also, of course, before we factor in the well evidenced fact that straight or cisgender people do consume and enjoy LGBT+ content.

Even at face value, this is essentially a repeat of that infamous debate on the Bioware forums, and it deserves the same answer. The metrics don't agree with you. That is why we are seeing more and more LGBT+ characters in games, because there is an increasingly sound business decision for adding them. That isn't going to change. Heterosexual cis men do not own video games as a medium, and they never will.

Just tone it down, accept the characters you do get while criticizing where needed in a reasonable fashion, and check the outright at the door. People and the industry will respond favorably and more representation will come.

Okay, well thanks for explaining that in a way that wasn't at all patronising.

Firstly, can you point to a single incident in which a video game developer or publisher went out of its way to cater to an LGBT+ audience and was met with broad hostility by that audience.

Secondly, explain to me why "pandering" is a bad thing.

Like, the narrative is bizarre. On one hand we are told that companies only put LGBT+ characters in game to win unearned praise. On the other hand, that the audience demanding LGBT+ representation will not praise anything and are impossible to please.

Which is it, really?