Trans representation in gaming

[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?

 

[Saelune]

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.

Ignoring minorities, which is what you are advocating, is a bad thing.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

Something that you can hardly blame on the feminists or the GLBTQ community. That some people can't handle not being exclusively catered to anymore is not the problem of the people being included, nor should they be blamed for it.

For perspective: Would you blame black people for the outrage white people in the US felt when segregation was formally outlawed?

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

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 problem I have with this argument is that you're assuming the LGBTQ market is somehow a mutually exclusive audience. Just because a video game has a trans character in it doesn't mean cis people are suddenly prohibited from buying it. Sure you might lose some people who let their views influence them but is that a larger or smaller audience than you might get from not alienating the LGBTQ crowd? Because I think it might be smaller

 

[Wakey87]

At the end of the day it's just too of a hot topic to cover in games these days.
Some people will be put off by it and on the other side people will be screaming misrepresentation.
Trans characters are not something you can creatively have fun with but something you have to pussy foot around or fear a back lash.

I'd like to see more trans in video games but when you have doctors being fired in real life for saying "gender is decided at birth" because you know, chromosomes. people ain't going touch that subject with a barge pole.

 

[Nedoras]

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.

Uh, the problem with this line of thinking is that it's assuming that only that community wants this. Plenty of people either want this, or wouldn't be bothered by it. I'm in that category of people, hell I'm all for it with open arms and baked goods at the ready. You don't need to be gay or trans to enjoy playing as a character who is in a video game. Sure, maybe people can't personally relate to a character because they're not the same gender, or have a different skin color, or have different ideals, or have different struggles...but does that matter? Someone doesn't have to look like you, talk like you, or be like you, for you to come to understand them and enjoy the character. For example I couldn't even remotely relate to the characters in Life is Strange. The difference between myself and the main characters was polarizing, but I still enjoyed it and they really grew on me. I'm glad I played it. People can grow to like and understand characters who are nothing like them, and personally those are characters that I tend to enjoy the most.

And I understand that focus testing done by the publishers has told them otherwise for decades, but people are starting to openly say otherwise and there has been a reaction to it. Hell we're seeing more female protagonists lately and it doesn't seem to be hurting sales at all despite all the people whining about it. Because it turns out that most people don't give a damn who or what they play as. As long as the game is good or the characters are compelling or well written, people will enjoy it. Due to the subject matter, will there be bumps along the road? Sure, there already have been. But I think developers should keep trying, and not just give in due to fear.