Trans representation in gaming

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I watched the Roast of Bruce Willis last night, and it?s definitely a leading example of shows that escape modern sjw witch hunting. Just as raunchy and offensive as ever, and probably 80% of the audience laughed their asses off at everything. The irony is that saying anything even half as offensive outside of that forum would?ve officially ended most of those people?s already-fading careers. I thought some of it was hilarious too, but it made me think what a really strange bubble of hypocrisy it is for them to take part in that which they?ve taken such a collective and dominant stance against recently.

 

[Saelune]

I watched the Roast of Bruce Willis last night, and it?s definitely a leading example of shows that escape modern sjw witch hunting. Just as raunchy and offensive as ever, and probably 80% of the audience laughed their asses off at everything. The irony is that saying anything even half as offensive outside of that forum would?ve officially ended most of those people?s already-fading careers. I thought some of it was hilarious too, but it made me think what a really strange bubble of hypocrisy it is for them to take part in that which they?ve taken such a collective and dominant stance against recently.

It is not hypocritical, you just have a lot of misconceptions of what 'SJW's' are.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Look at Roseanne for instance. It was a critical and commerical success, but Roseanne makes some tweets, and it's cancelled, just like that.

Tweets that were full of seriously nasty racially charged nastiness.

She straight up called a black woman whose politics she disagreed with an ape fused with the muslim brotherhood. Or more succinctly: "Look at that unintelligent un-evolved animal terrorist!" when black people were oppressed and enslaved for a longass time under the justification that "they're just unintelligent animals". Bringing that back up...That's not ok.

The closest thing I can come up with on the other side would be someone claiming that a bible belt republican congressman they disagree with should "go home and impregnate his pre-teen daughter while beating his son for not looking manly enough while reading the bible like 'his kind of people' do every weekend", and even that doesn't quite match the level of rosanne's tweet because there isn't centuries of oppression and literal slavery stacked on top.

If someone makes tweets of that level, on either side of the spectrum, and generated a ton of anger because of it, of course their employer is going to say "This makes us look bad, we should do damage control and probably no longer associate with this person". It's basic PR.

 

[Avnger]

I watched the Roast of Bruce Willis last night, and it?s definitely a leading example of shows that escape modern sjw witch hunting. Just as raunchy and offensive as ever, and probably 80% of the audience laughed their asses off at everything. The irony is that saying anything even half as offensive outside of that forum would?ve officially ended most of those people?s already-fading careers. I thought some of it was hilarious too, but it made me think what a really strange bubble of hypocrisy it is for them to take part in that which they?ve taken such a collective and dominant stance against recently.

Reality and "your opponents" are not black and white as you appear to believe. Context matters.

 

[CaitSeith]

Considering how many games are about bullets hitting people or hitting other people with swords, the fact someone is or is not trans is hardly important.

It's as important as the developer wants it to be.

The games that sell the best focus on bullet/sword hits person. The bullet or the sword does not do anything different when it hits a trans person.

You found the "Holy sword of smite": it does twice damage to sinners, specially effective against trans. (I apologize for this; but you can see there is no mechanical difference to how the hunter weapons do extra damage to beasts in Bloodborne... I extra-apologize for this too)

The other added hurdle is what is the difference between a MtF and a cis F person mechanically or story wise, and how do you want to depict trans people? Because there are two ways to go about it, have the MtF behave differently to the cis female and run the risk of offending due to the possible implication that MtF are not real women/behave like normal women, OR they act the same so what's the fucking difference since you can not depict penises/vaginas anyway?

You can depict doors to public bathrooms.

A trans person in their perceived optimal setting is treated the same as a member of the gender they identify as. They do not want to be treated as a trans person that is female/male. So how does one tackle it?

Be that the good ending stituation. Or be that the Act 1; then their past is revealed and things go to hell for the Act 2. Heck! Act 2 could be they suddenly find themselves in that optimal setting because of an unnatural event changed the world, and at the end of act 3 they have to choose between keeping the world like that or restoring it back to normal (it would be more of a lose-lose ending choice tho).

I actually think that Cyberpunk 2077 might have the opportunity to explore this more as one of the big themes of Cyberpunk is changing your body to meet your desires. Having the technology available to do and delving into the body modification "scene" may offer opportunities to encounter trans issues.

Also this.

 

[CaitSeith]

Tolerant of what exactly? Straight white people? Or tolerant of rapists and bigotry? Cause I am tired of being in a world that tolerates those things. We used to tolerate slavery too, glad that's done. Mostly.

Yet we still tolerate capitalism, the biggest crime of them all.

Tolerate capitalism or starve to death. Hmm... choices, choices. How about if we continue this line of discussion in R&P? We are starting to take the attention away from the trans and giving it to the same colorless group as always.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I watched the Roast of Bruce Willis last night, and it?s definitely a leading example of shows that escape modern sjw witch hunting. Just as raunchy and offensive as ever, and probably 80% of the audience laughed their asses off at everything. The irony is that saying anything even half as offensive outside of that forum would?ve officially ended most of those people?s already-fading careers.

I don't think you understand the basic format and tone of a roast as distinct from a more general setting, or even a typical comedy setting.

Like, I'm going to post an example, but I'm also actually going to have to content warning this one because this is a general forum. Please don't watch this if you don't feel like encountering holocaust jokes/racism/ableism/nasty shit today.

Spoiler

Now, I'm not saying that should be acceptable. Even a lot of people who like drag humour found that set borderline, and that's good. We should be open to having a discussion on the limits of comedy and where it stops being funny. But generally, if you pay to go and see a roast, you are consenting to hearing things which are deeply unpleasant.

Going on twitter is not consenting to hear those things, and that can become a bit of a problem when forms of humour which are meant to be a private setting with performers who know each other and an audience who is in on the joke are thrust onto the internet or mainstream television. But still, the idea that "sjws" want to get rid of transgressive humour, or that people are less tolerant of transgressive humour than they used to be, is silly. There are more opportunities for transgressive humour to hurt people, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad or less tolerated.

Ultimately, people do not have a responsibility to silently tolerate jokes which hurt or upset them. That's one of the most censorious ideas imaginable.

 

[McElroy]

Tolerant of what exactly? Straight white people? Or tolerant of rapists and bigotry? Cause I am tired of being in a world that tolerates those things. We used to tolerate slavery too, glad that's done. Mostly.

Yet we still tolerate capitalism, the biggest crime of them all.

Tolerate capitalism or starve to death. Hmm... choices, choices. How about if we continue this line of discussion in R&P? We are starting to take the attention away from the trans and giving it to the same colorless group as always.

I think a bit of joking around is allowed. You are right about the thread having some wobble on the rails. A lot of wobble. I absolve myself, and in fact, spread your message along a little.

Look at Roseanne for instance. It was a critical and commerical success, but Roseanne makes some tweets, and it's cancelled, just like that.

Roseanne snip

This matter was discussed in another thread.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I watched the Roast of Bruce Willis last night, and it?s definitely a leading example of shows that escape modern sjw witch hunting. Just as raunchy and offensive as ever, and probably 80% of the audience laughed their asses off at everything. The irony is that saying anything even half as offensive outside of that forum would?ve officially ended most of those people?s already-fading careers.

I don't think you understand the basic format and tone of a roast as distinct from a more general setting, or even a typical comedy setting.

Like, I'm going to post an example, but I'm also actually going to have to content warning this one because this is a general forum. Please don't watch this if you don't feel like encountering holocaust jokes/racism/ableism/nasty shit today.

Spoiler

Now, I'm not saying that should be acceptable. Even a lot of people who like drag humour found that set borderline, and that's good. We should be open to having a discussion on the limits of comedy and where it stops being funny. But generally, if you pay to go and see a roast, you are consenting to hearing things which are deeply unpleasant.

Going on twitter is not consenting to hear those things, and that can become a bit of a problem when forms of humour which are meant to be a private setting with performers who know each other and an audience who is in on the joke are thrust onto the internet or mainstream television. But still, the idea that "sjws" want to get rid of transgressive humour, or that people are less tolerant of transgressive humour than they used to be, is silly. There are more opportunities for transgressive humour to hurt people, but that doesn't mean it's inherently bad or less tolerated.

Ultimately, people do not have a responsibility to silently tolerate jokes which hurt or upset them. That's one of the most censorious ideas imaginable.

Oh I understand it, but it?s kinda stupid having to use the distinction as an excuse to enable the abandonment of integrity. I suppose I could become a ?comedian? and get gigs saying the kind of shit no one else should be allowed to say. I mean, there are loopholes for everything else; why not entertainment too!

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Nitpicking, but while Philosopher's Stone was published in 1997, the bulk of its story takes place in 1990/'91. So, it's not exactly a "book that takes place in the present" sort of thing, even if it's obstensibly the same society.

(And yes, I know the timeline dates are retroactive, hence "nitpicking.")

It still kelt kind of disjointed to me ... but hey, I only read the first two books ... and I am fairly certain Potter himself was only, like, 1 or 2 years older than me in the first book, and it didn't feel like it. And it didn't seem to be the case when observing other suburban youth.

Chamber of Secrets seems closer to the mark with dads actually getting into fist fights with some racially charged class struggle-style dialogue against some innocent kids and his family in general, 'dems fightin' words' and other shenanigans.

Considering how the Dursleys treat him? Hardly idealized.

Idealized as in personality traits. And I would remark, idealized personality traits of a 70s era British lad of middle class suburbia... despite the fact they treat him like a serf.

Look at Roseanne for instance. It was a critical and commerical success, but Roseanne makes some tweets, and it's cancelled, just like that.

But that had nothing to do with the show itself. That had to do with Roseanne Barr persistently pulling these kinds of stunts. They gave her a primetime spot,and she was using it partly as a platform to say Jim Crow-era garbage.

She was smart enough to know what she was doing, and she wasn't actually going to stop. So ABC made a commercial decision after realizing that. And it was purely commercial ... the whole black spot in that affair wasn't that ABC made a moral choice, they made an investor choice when people started wanting to pull out of the advertising slot. When they stopped responding to ABC's advertisement sales pitch worth up to $9 billion.

When you're coming out with stuff that's worse than a Michael Richards meltdown it torpedoes your career. Shock horror. But that's not new.

The thing is I'm fucking glad that advertisers actually put their money where their mouth is and decided to try to remove advertisement being associated with the show *regardless* of the Trump-era ... it actually gives you some hope that even completely sales driven capitalists aren't stupid enough to pretend pandering to racists should just be treated as another market strategy rather than a moral argument as to how you wish to shape your branding itself.

It was and is the lowest of possible social bars, but hey ... at least it happened. Because apparently tv networks don't have the gall to do anything but chase ratings regardless of their image.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Oh I understand it, but it?s kinda stupid having to use the distinction as an excuse to enable the abandonment of integrity. I suppose I could become a ?comedian? and get gigs saying the kind of shit no one else should be allowed to say. I mean, there are loopholes for everything else; why not entertainment too!

You know that a roast is a comedy performance, right?

I'm sorry to tell you the people who roasted Bruce Willis don't actually dislike him. They don't actually want him to feel bad, and they don't actually want anyone in the audience to feel bad. Maybe you were under come kind of mistaken impression that you were watching the Two Minutes Hate, but that's not actually what's going on here.

The entire purpose of a roast is to establish a designated space in which everyone knows that the material being presented is not hateful. That's not a "loophole" it's a basic feature of how transgressive humour works. If the audience feels that the joke is too real, it stops being entertaining. People who are good at comedy, not just comedians but people with a good sense of humour generally, know how to read the audience and how to create a safe environment for things to be funny.

I mean, if you're upset that television isn't airing serious hate-propaganda against people you don't like, then that's something a little different. But I (perhaps somewhat mistakenly) assumed that you were talking about a standard of comedy because the subject of your post was a comedy performance. Silly me, I guess.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Oh I understand it, but it?s kinda stupid having to use the distinction as an excuse to enable the abandonment of integrity. I suppose I could become a ?comedian? and get gigs saying the kind of shit no one else should be allowed to say. I mean, there are loopholes for everything else; why not entertainment too!

You know that a roast is a comedy performance, right?

I'm sorry to tell you the people who roasted Bruce Willis don't actually dislike him. They don't actually want him to feel bad, and they don't actually want anyone in the audience to feel bad. Maybe you were under come kind of mistaken impression that you were watching the Two Minutes Hate, but that's not actually what's going on here.

The entire purpose of a roast is to establish a designated space in which everyone knows that the material being presented is not hateful. That's not a "loophole" it's a basic feature of how transgressive humour works. If the audience feels that the joke is too real, it stops being entertaining.

I mean, if you're upset that television isn't airing serious hate-propaganda against people you don't like, then that's something a little different. But I (perhaps somewhat mistakenly) assumed that you were talking about a standard of comedy because the subject of your post was a comedy performance. Silly me, I guess.

Bruce got off easy compared to the roasters, if you watched it. I also don?t know how much more real the jokes can get; that?s why they?re good. The purpose of these acts is to push the envelope, largely because they know it?s the only ?safe space? they?d get away with it.

Having said that though, none of it bother me personally. I just think it?s odd how diametrically opposed human social behavior can be in the name of comedy. I suppose it?s just another form of entertainment. Wouldn?t be surprising if that brand of it eventually disappeared from the mainstream though.

 

[Ravinoff]

I think trans representation would work well in a setting that forgoes the contemporary reality of sex and gender identity. A fantasy or sci-fi setting in which changes including genderbending are common, clean, and easy enough that the concept of normal -- compared to queer -- is much more flexible than in reality. Have the PC or important NPCs go through with it, plot devices, reactions and all that. Could be fun.

That's pretty much the Culture from the exceptionally good novel series of the same name by Iain M. Banks. A galaxy-spanning civilization of posthumans and aliens (some, at least IIRC) with jaw-dropping tech of about every kind and a slight utopian bent. Gender is barely even a concept in the Culture, almost viewed more like how we'd consider getting a haircut or a tattoo since switching from male to female (or anywhere in between) is just a matter of a quick gene edit and waiting a few weeks for the new parts to grow in.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think trans representation would work well in a setting that forgoes the contemporary reality of sex and gender identity. A fantasy or sci-fi setting in which changes including genderbending are common, clean, and easy enough that the concept of normal -- compared to queer -- is much more flexible than in reality. Have the PC or important NPCs go through with it, plot devices, reactions and all that. Could be fun.

That's pretty much the Culture from the exceptionally good novel series of the same name by Iain M. Banks. A galaxy-spanning civilization of posthumans and aliens (some, at least IIRC) with jaw-dropping tech of about every kind and a slight utopian bent. Gender is barely even a concept in the Culture, almost viewed more like how we'd consider getting a haircut or a tattoo since switching from male to female (or anywhere in between) is just a matter of a quick gene edit and waiting a few weeks for the new parts to grow in.

That's not how genetics work... I have the genes to develop a functional hand, cutting it off doesn't mean I'll grow a new one.

Moreover it's not even how we develop in the womb. Moreover it's not even how we physiologically change over life. Have a look at your right hand... know that even if you have a monozygotal twin, thr vein patterning will not be the same. And it's the same for the rest of your body and brain.

It's what I like to call the 'triumph of imprecision'. It is the foundational triumph of the human over mere instruction. Frankly essentialist garbage and decent trans representation will be at odds for that reason.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

It is not hypocritical, you just have a lot of misconceptions of what 'SJW's' are.

Most likely the "Anyone who dares to talk back when referred to by an slur instead of shutting up and laughing." definition.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Look at Roseanne for instance. It was a critical and commerical success, but Roseanne makes some tweets, and it's cancelled, just like that.

Because she acts unprofessional and shows her ass in public.

 

[McElroy]

I think trans representation would work well in a setting that forgoes the contemporary reality of sex and gender identity. A fantasy or sci-fi setting in which changes including genderbending are common, clean, and easy enough that the concept of normal -- compared to queer -- is much more flexible than in reality. Have the PC or important NPCs go through with it, plot devices, reactions and all that. Could be fun.

That's pretty much the Culture from the exceptionally good novel series of the same name by Iain M. Banks. A galaxy-spanning civilization of posthumans and aliens (some, at least IIRC) with jaw-dropping tech of about every kind and a slight utopian bent. Gender is barely even a concept in the Culture, almost viewed more like how we'd consider getting a haircut or a tattoo since switching from male to female (or anywhere in between) is just a matter of a quick gene edit and waiting a few weeks for the new parts to grow in.

That's not how genetics work... I have the genes to develop a functional hand, cutting it off doesn't mean I'll grow a new one.

Moreover it's not even how we develop in the womb. Moreover it's not even how we physiologically change over life. Have a look at your right hand... know that even if you have a monozygotal twin, thr vein patterning will not be the same. And it's the same for the rest of your body and brain.

It's what I like to call the 'triumph of imprecision'. It is the foundational triumph of the human over mere instruction. Frankly essentialist garbage and decent trans representation will be at odds for that reason.

HOX genes, stem cells, splicing DNA from lizards... A decent writer can technobabble these things no problem.

 

[Hawki]

Tweets that were full of seriously nasty racially charged nastiness.

She straight up called a black woman whose politics she disagreed with an ape fused with the muslim brotherhood. Or more succinctly: "Look at that unintelligent un-evolved animal terrorist!" when black people were oppressed and enslaved for a longass time under the justification that "they're just unintelligent animals". Bringing that back up...That's not ok.

Not saying it is, but the point is that there's precedent for shutting down a commercially and critically successful show due to external matters. It wasn't just Roseanne who lost her job, it was the hundreds of people who worked on the show by extension.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

HOX genes, stem cells, splicing DNA from lizards... A decent writer can technobabble these things no problem.

There's good technobabble and bad I suppose, true. Even the cheesiest of the cheese Trekian technosplurging is pretty entertaining.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not saying it is, but the point is that there's precedent for shutting down a commercially and critically successful show due to external matters. It wasn't just Roseanne who lost her job, it was the hundreds of people who worked on the show by extension.

Commercially successful by whom? ABC could jeopardise $9 billion of fall advertising. This is particularly true when its viewership is alienated in terms of other projects they've done. This is the thing, why exactly is it ABC firing 100s of people, not Roseanne Barr getting them fired for not living up her claim of quitting Twitter because she couldn't trust herself around it...?

See, if I was running a new product launch branch of a successful company, and I fuck it up so completely and utterly and the larger parent company shuts us down and torpedoes our contracts, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would be at fault, many of my employees would be jobless because of my fault ... I was at fault.

Your argument comes off as Fountainhead-y without actually questioning the legitimacy of the fact that even the architect is an employee being asked to do a job the way the customer requires/wants. It's a bit hard to scream 'Auteur!' at the heavens and have a multimillion dollar contract that you freely signed...

Thing is I would have had sympathies if it was merely a query about artistic licence... within reason. Depending on who actually owns majority stake of the IP and the requirements of broadcasting and the possible legal ramifications that may impinge on its broadcast.... but if it was strictly artistic licence, I might actually stop and consider where a line might be.

But this isn't that.

Rules of Rarity trumps being bigoted, defamatory and actively polluting your market appeal and complaining about that as a producer of primetime market materials.