Mike Krahulik donates $20000 to the Trevor Project, apologizes to trans gamers

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Long story short, Mike 'Gabe' Krahulik made off-color remarks about trans women while defending the platform PAX Australia has given to a panel called. 'Why So Serious? Has the Industry Forgotten that Games are Supposed to be Fun?'

More recently Fullbright took issue with Penny Arcade's reaction to the art in Dragon's Crown and its astonishingly greenlit description of a PAX Australia panel entitled "Why So Serious?" that read: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you're called a racist. It's gone too far and when will it all end?" (The description has since been modified.)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-21-gone-home-to-stay-home-the-fullbright-company-boycotts-pax-due-to-organisers-stance-on-a-number-of-issues

I felt Mike's initial response was wishy-washy at best. He wrote a post titled, no joke, 'Twitter sucks sometimes'. Mike initially blamed the medium for the response he got, apologized, and quoted from an email from a trans woman who supports him. In my view it's a cowardly move to apologize by cherry picking letters from one's inbox and posting something that vindicates what one is criticized for, simultaneous 'I'm right, but I'm sorry anyway'.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/06/19/twiiter-sucks-sometimes

To Mike's credit, he realized by Friday that his initial half-hearted apology wasn't enough and failed to address all the issues the community had with him. He provided a little more insight into his side of the whole affair.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/06/21/well-that-escalated-quickly

Later on he posted Going one step further, where he offered a full apology and publicly donated $20000 to the Trevor Project. [≈ Per capita income - Taiwan (2005)], thanks Dictionary Of Numbers.

I've spent the last few days trying to apologize to people I hurt. I've been doing it via email and I've given out my phone number a lot. I realize I was wrong and I'm genuinely sorry. I also realize I can't possibly apologize on the phone to each and every person I hurt. I'm going to keep trying, but I've also decided to personally make a donation to the Trevor Project of $20,000.00. I also plan to keep interacting with people on a personal level and I understand that will be an ongoing process. In the meantime I'm hoping this donation will do some real good for a group that desperately needs it.

-Gabe

Jerry 'Tycho' Holkins followed up by saying

At root, if someone wants to know if they're welcome at PAX, we've got a strong record on that front: we have panels every show that advance this very conversation, precisely because they're submitted by attendees. We don't define the show because we can't. It is, in many ways, not our show.

And it's not, like, "anybody can come, whatever." It's like seriously, you, right there, come to the show. The show is a dialogue you should be part of; the mix of people walking around is, and has been, crucial. If somebody fucks with you, I will show you a magic trick (called "Our Harassment Policy") where that person's badge disappears.

(CW)TB

Now, this pretty much confirms what I think of Gabe and Tycho, without knowing them personally: they kinda live in a bubble, they often react before thinking, but they're essentially good people. The dickwolf scandal was a more extreme version of this pattern: what started off as a rejection to a request to post 'trigger warnings' when a comic mentions a rape jokes escalated into Gabe printing 'team dickwolves' t-shirts, not understanding that this was like printing 'team rapists'. They later apologized for that stunt as well.

I've given you some of my thoughts. What's your take on this, Escapists?

Full disclosure: I'm straight, male, cis-gendered, fairly-privileged, and essentially white. I have friends and family who aren't, and I know there are lots of people out there who share their experiences. I also know that I am intrinsically affected in subtle ways by the way our culture presents people.. 'None are free until all are free,' and all that.

image

I tried starting a discussion about this in the Gaming forum. The community responded with some thoughtful commentary but also with a bunch of transphobic comments (sample: "Trannies creep me out") and the mods locked the discussion after only a few pages on the basis that it would be offensive to "all types of people" (not just transgendered people, then, but also the poor gamers who have to put up with all these minorities in their forums).

I guess The Escapist has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to trans* members. I mean, they can't stop you from being transgendered but woe betide you if you actually want to talk about it.

OT: I think the situation is resolved now that Krahulik has talked the matter over with trans* people and seems to fully regret the things he said. All the same, I wish the PA guys would learn to think before they tweet.

ThrobbingEgo:
Long story short, Mike 'Gabe' Krahulik made off-color remarks about trans women while defending the platform PAX Australia is given to a panel called. 'Why So Serious? Has the Industry Forgotten that Games are Supposed to be Fun?'

More recently Fullbright took issue with Penny Arcade's reaction to the art in Dragon's Crown and its astonishingly greenlit description of a PAX Australia panel entitled "Why So Serious?" that read: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you're called a racist. It's gone too far and when will it all end?" (The description has since been modified.)

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-06-21-gone-home-to-stay-home-the-fullbright-company-boycotts-pax-due-to-organisers-stance-on-a-number-of-issues

I'm curious if The Fullbright Company even bothered to see what exactly was going to be discussed before they decided that it was "wrong" for the "Why So Serious?" pannel to be greenlit. That said, they are free to not go to PAX if they don't want to, can't say that their absence is a big lost considering I've never heard of The Fullbright Company before.

ThrobbingEgo:

I felt Mike's initial response was wishy-washy at best. He wrote a post titled, no joke, 'Twitter sucks sometimes'. Mike initially blamed the medium, apologized, and quoted from an email from a trans woman who supports him. In my view it's cowardly apologize by cherry picking letters from the inbox and posting something that vindicates what he was criticized for, while simultaneous saying he's really sorry.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/06/19/twiiter-sucks-sometimes

To Mike's credit, he realized by Friday that his initial half-hearted apology wasn't enough and failed to address all the issues the community had with him. He provided a little more insight into his side of the whole affair.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2013/06/21/well-that-escalated-quickly

Later on he posted Going one step further, where he offered a full apology and publicly donated $20000 to the Trevor Project.

I've spent the last few days trying to apologize to people I hurt. I've been doing it via email and I've given out my phone number a lot. I realize I was wrong and I'm genuinely sorry. I also realize I can't possibly apologize on the phone to each and every person I hurt. I'm going to keep trying, but I've also decided to personally make a donation to the Trevor Project of $20,000.00 [≈ Per capita income - Taiwan (2005)]. I also plan to keep interacting with people on a personal level and I understand that will be an ongoing process. In the meantime I'm hoping this donation will do some real good for a group that desperately needs it.

-Gabe

Jerry 'Tycho' Holkins, followed up by saying

At root, if someone wants to know if they're welcome at PAX, we've got a strong record on that front: we have panels every show that advance this very conversation, precisely because they're submitted by attendees. We don't define the show because we can't. It is, in many ways, not our show.

And it's not, like, "anybody can come, whatever." It's like seriously, you, right there, come to the show. The show is a dialogue you should be part of; the mix of people walking around is, and has been, crucial. If somebody fucks with you, I will show you a magic trick (called "Our Harassment Policy") where that person's badge disappears.

(CW)TB

Now, this pretty much confirms what I think of Gabe and Tycho, without knowing them personally: they kinda live in a bubble, they often react before thinking, but they're essentially good people. The dickwolf scandal was a more extreme version of this pattern: what started off as a rejection to a request to post 'trigger warnings' when a comic mentions a rape jokes escalated into Gabe printing 'team dickwolves' t-shirts, not understanding that this was like printing 'team rapists'. They later apologized for that stunt as well.

I've given you some of my thoughts. What's your take on this, Escapists?

Again, who exactly is The Fullbright Company and why is their absence considered a serious issue? They don't like Penny Arcade... so what?

Tbh, the whole thing seems like a storm in a tea cup.

ThrobbingEgo:

Full disclosure: I'm straight, male, cis-gendered, fairly-privileged, and essentially white. I have friends and family who aren't, and I know there are lots of people out there who share their experiences. I also know that I am affected by the way our culture presents these issues. 'None are free until all are free,' and all that.

Out of curiosity, do you spend a great deal of time on Tumblr reading "SocialJustice" blogs? I ask this because I've only seen people feel the need to make the kind of statements that I highlighted on Tumblr.

Helmholtz Watson:

Full disclosure: I'm straight, male, cis-gendered, fairly-privileged, and essentially white. I have friends and family who aren't, and I know there are lots of people out there who share their experiences. I also know that I am affected by the way our culture presents these issues. 'None are free until all are free,' and all that.

Out of curiosity, do you spend a great deal of time on Tumblr reading "SocialJustice" blogs? I ask this because I've only seen people feel the need to make the kind of statements that I highlighted on Tumblr.

I'm not part of that community, whatever you might think of it. I'm disclosing what my standing is. Do you have a problem with me providing this context?

As for The Fullbright Company, they're a small developer made up of team members who worked on Bioshock Infinite and XCOM. They've got a game in the works called Going Home. They're not really the point of the story, they were just mentioned briefly in an article I quoted from for context on the situation. Not sure why it caught your attention.

ThrobbingEgo:

Helmholtz Watson:

Full disclosure: I'm straight, male, cis-gendered, fairly-privileged, and essentially white. I have friends and family who aren't, and I know there are lots of people out there who share their experiences. I also know that I am affected by the way our culture presents these issues. 'None are free until all are free,' and all that.

Out of curiosity, do you spend a great deal of time on Tumblr reading "SocialJustice" blogs? I ask this because I've only seen people feel the need to make the kind of statements that I highlighted on Tumblr.

I'm not part of that community, whatever you might think of it. I'm disclosing what my standing is. Do you have a problem with me providing this context?

As I said previously, I've only seen these "disclosure" comments frequently posted on "SocialJustice" blogs on tumblr, and those blogs tend to be...."passionate" to say the least. However seeing as you are not part of that community, you can ignore this part of the post.

ThrobbingEgo:

As for The Fullbright Company, they're a small developer made up of team members who worked on Bioshock Infinite and XCOM. They've got a game in the works called Going Home. They're not really the point of the story, they were just mentioned briefly in an article I quoted from for context on the situation. Not sure why it caught your attention.

What exactly did they do for Bioshock Infinite and XCOM? I focused on them, because it seems that their comments about PAX were taken quite seriously and that it helped lead to this whole ordeal. That said, in order to get a better understanding of what everybody was upset about, is there a site where I can view this panel and make a judgement for myself?

I'm trying to find where they were offensive or insulting... could somebody please highlight a particular quote?

At the moment I'm pulling blanks here.

Helmholtz Watson:

ThrobbingEgo:

As for The Fullbright Company, they're a small developer made up of team members who worked on Bioshock Infinite and XCOM. They've got a game in the works called Going Home. They're not really the point of the story, they were just mentioned briefly in an article I quoted from for context on the situation. Not sure why it caught your attention.

What exactly did they do for Bioshock Infinite and XCOM? I focused on them, because it seems that their comments about PAX were taken quite seriously and that it helped lead to this whole ordeal. That said, in order to get a better understanding of what everybody was upset about, is there a site where I can view this panel and make a judgement for myself?

Here's the PAX schedule site.
http://www.paxaustralia.com.au/schedule

The original text was as follows: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you're called a racist. It's gone too far and when will it all end?"

It was edited to: "Does the games industry garner too much scrutiny from outside sources and within? With review score aberrations often called into question, writers are constantly criticised and developers and publishers professionally and personally attacked. Has it all gone too far? Can we all just get along and we work together to bring a new constructive gaming age into fruition?"

As for Fullbrite, no idea. Like I said, that small developer didn't catch my attention until you brought it up. They apparently made a public statement to decide not to go. I only found out about this because I read some of the posts Mike made.

Abomination:
I'm trying to find where they were offensive or insulting... could somebody please highlight a particular quote?

At the moment I'm pulling blanks here.

Aside from supporting the panel? This probably didn't help. You can poke around Twitter for more.

@guattari2600 @juliepagano okay then I am batman. please call me Bruce.

https://twitter.com/cwgabriel/status/347752867697946624

Not hard to understand why the trans community would be upset about this.

ThrobbingEgo:

Here's the PAX schedule site.
http://www.paxaustralia.com.au/schedule

Thanks, do they upload videos to YouTube by any chance?

ThrobbingEgo:

The original text was as follows: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you're called a racist. It's gone too far and when will it all end?"

It was edited to: "Does the games industry garner too much scrutiny from outside sources and within? With review score aberrations often called into question, writers are constantly criticised and developers and publishers professionally and personally attacked. Has it all gone too far? Can we all just get along and we work together to bring a new constructive gaming age into fruition?"

So now the panel has been censored because some people were offended and felt that it was wrong to even question the idea of the video game community being "progressive"? That...that is horrible and disgusting.

It reminds me of a video where Christopher Hitchens is talking about censorship and the right to offend and how everybody should be able to voice their opinion(skip to 4:20)...

I guess the message from this PAX controversy is that all opinions are equal, but some opinions are more equal than others.

ThrobbingEgo:

Not hard to understand why the trans community would be upset about this.

See the video I just posted, because its also not hard to see that the revamping of this panel is a form of "soft" censorship.
Also, I fail to see how disagreeing with the idea that transsexuals are not "a woman trapped in a mans body" and vice versa should result in the guy having to apologize like he's some presidential candidate who is running for office. It would be one thing if he went down the street and started shouting and harassing transsexuals, but having a dissenting opinion? Nah, that doesn't warrant the need for the guy to apologize to the extent that he did.

ThrobbingEgo:

Abomination:
I'm trying to find where they were offensive or insulting... could somebody please highlight a particular quote?

At the moment I'm pulling blanks here.

Aside from supporting the panel? This probably didn't help. You can poke around Twitter for more.

@guattari2600 @juliepagano okay then I am batman. please call me Bruce.

https://twitter.com/cwgabriel/status/347752867697946624

Not hard to understand why the trans community would be upset about this.

I can see how the Batman line could get some folks nickers in a twist but this is an individual expressing his perception of sex/gender identity and using an analogy to do so.

If this is what is deemed as offensive it should only serve to enforce the panel he joined's stance. The panel itself doesn't seem anti-trans at all - there isn't even mention of trans at all in the blurb given.

Are we really at the stage where an individual can't hold a benin opinion without being called a bigot because it doesn't mesh perfectly with the offended party's worldview?

Helmholtz Watson:
So now the panel has been censored because some people were offended and felt that it was wrong to even question the idea of the video game community being "progressive"? That...that is horrible and disgusting.

It reminds me of a video where Christopher Hitchens is talking about censorship and the right to offend and how everybody should be able to voice their opinion(skip to 4:20)...

See the video I just posted, because its also not hard to see that the revamping of this panel is a form of "soft" censorship.

Also, I fail to see how disagreeing with the idea that transsexuals are not "a woman trapped in a mans body" and vice versa should result in the guy having to apologize like he's some presidential candidate who is running for office. It would be one thing if he went down the street and started shouting and harassing transsexuals, but having a dissenting opinion? Nah, that doesn't warrant the need for the guy to apologize to the extent that he did.

I fear you have the notion of free speech backwards. Free speech guarantees the freedom of critics, particularly critics of government and society from being jailed for their views. It has nothing to do with protecting people from being offended, or being called out for treating entire classes of human beings as lacking of basic dignity.

Free speech means you can legally say anything you want (in most cases, barring shouting fire in a crowded theatre, willfully deceiving others, or inciting violence). What it doesn't compel me to do is invite you to speak at my dinner table, or provide you with any platform that I may control. It also doesn't prevent me from boycotting a panel where you speak at. See, that form of protest is also a form of expression that freedom of speech guarantees. That should be a hint.

By focusing solely on offense, and it's not about offense, you're throwing away the baby for dirty bathwater.

When we speak about freedom of speech, should we be afflicting the comfortable, comforting the afflicting, speaking truth to power, or should we scrap all that to put our fingers in our ears?

Well there is certainly no shortage in the gaming community, or online in general, of hyper sensitive folks constantly on the lookout for the next reason to be horribly offended. Of course should their time not be occupied with being offended over their own personal perceived slights they are more than happy to answer the rallying cry of others of their ilk and join them in being offended so that together they can jointly bemoan the evils of those uber privileged straight white christian men who are responsible for committing all of life's woes from high atop their ivory towers.

What we need is for people to stop kowtowing to these people and start standing up to them and telling them that they can't be bothered to give the first sign of a fuck whether they were offended or not. Just like you ignore a child throwing a tantrum we should equally ignore these people out there actively searching for the next great social injustice to be offended about. People like Mike Krahulik should flat out refuse to apologize over inconsequential bullshit that was not said in malice and leave these people to either grow some thicker skin or keep on spending most of their time offended over one thing or another.

Super Not Cosmo:
People like Mike Krahulik should flat out refuse to apologize over inconsequential bullshit that was not said in malice and leave these people to either grow some thicker skin or keep on spending most of their time offended over one thing or another.

That worked well for him for all of 19 hours.

Maybe times are a-changing and it's not the nay-sayers who are leaving the progressives out anymore?

Abomination:
Are we really at the stage where an individual can't hold a benin opinion without being called a bigot because it doesn't mesh perfectly with the offended party's worldview?

Is it benign to publicly say that mixed raced couple shouldn't marry and have children? Is it benign to publicly say that gay people aren't in 'real' relationships? Is it benign to publicly say that trans men or women aren't 'really' the gender they identify as? My benign opinion is that if you deny a class of people basic dignity, you're fair game for being called out on it, or in other words criticized. You know, using free speech?

Abomination:
I can see how the Batman line could get some folks nickers in a twist but this is an individual expressing his perception of sex/gender identity and using an analogy to do so.

If this is what is deemed as offensive it should only serve to enforce the panel he joined's stance. The panel itself doesn't seem anti-trans at all - there isn't even mention of trans at all in the blurb given.

Are we really at the stage where an individual can't hold a benin opinion without being called a bigot because it doesn't mesh perfectly with the offended party's worldview?

The whole "well if you can say you're a man/woman then I can say I'm Batman/Jesus/a bear/a blue whale" thing is sort of the transgender variant of saying "well if we let the gays marry each either than people might as well be able to marry their dogs." Sure, it's just an opinion, but it's quite a silly one.

It's designed to paint transgendered people as being idiots, crazy or delusional, and to trivialise their identities, which means that the main reason it's offensive is because of how ignorant it is. Trans* people are not delusional; a transwoman does not genuinely believe that she has a vagina, she is just aware of the fact that she is a woman who has had the misfortune to have been born without female reproductive organs. Medical and psychiatric research and legal policies in most developed countries concur with this. Similarly, if a man were to lose his penis and testicles in some kind of terrible industrial accident, the government wouldn't tear up his drivers license and passport and say, "Sorry, you can't be a man any more, you lost your membership card."

Transgendered men who undergo even basic gender transitioning through hormonal treatments are virtually, if not totally, indistinguishable from cisgendered men unless they take all their clothes off. You have probably met quite a few transgendered people in your life and not been aware of it at all, "accidentally" referring to them as the correct gender. When we first meet people, we do not demand to see their genitals or a DNA test in order to work out which gender they are, and therefore it's fair to say that our understanding of what men and women are is not, practically speaking, based on what they've got between their legs.

ThrobbingEgo:

Abomination:
Are we really at the stage where an individual can't hold a benign opinion without being called a bigot because it doesn't mesh perfectly with the offended party's worldview?

Is it benign to publicly say that mixed raced couple shouldn't marry and have children? Is it benign to publicly say that gay people aren't in 'real' relationships? Is it benign to publicly say that trans men or women aren't 'really' the gender they identify as? My benign opinion is that if you deny a class of people basic dignity, you're fair game for being called out on it, or in other words criticized. You know, using free speech?

"deny a class of people basic dignity"? The basic dignity being discussed is sex/gender identitiy. To some people their sex is their gender and to other's it's different. Holding an opinion in this field is not a matter of being a bigot or not because both sides are playing on different playing fields.

They can exist alongside one another quite easily without stepping on each other's toes but that requires for both parties to respect the others' opinion. Believe it or not both parties are guilty of not respecting the other in this case.

The trans-stance seems to be the idea that it's impossible or wrong that someone else should have an opinion different to theirs where the line between sex and gender blur. The other party doesn't like being told their opinion is bigoted when it really is their personal opinion that effects nobody else.

The comparison between homosexuality and trans is not a correct one as the homosexual stance was a political one, aimed at denying homosexuals the right to marry. This trans stance has no political underlying theme, it is benign. Someone holding the opinion is not going to result in a trans person being persecuted.

As long as nobody is going out and persecuting transsexuals in a practical manner what's the issue with holding a personal opinion on where the sex/gender divide is?

Abomination:
The trans-stance seems to be the idea that it's impossible or wrong that someone else should have an opinion different to theirs where the line between sex and gender blur. The other party doesn't like being told their opinion is bigoted when it really is their personal opinion that effects nobody else.

And these 'mere opinions' don't affect who they can legally marry in many states? What they are allowed to report themselves as in legal documents? Come on, it can't be more clear that the opposition's point of view DOES impact the trans community.

The comparison between homosexuality and trans is not a correct one as the homosexual stance was a political one, aimed at denying homosexuals the right to marry. This trans stance has no political underlying theme, it is benign. Someone holding the opinion is not going to result in a trans person being persecuted.

It's exactly as political. Suppose a trans woman and a cis-gendered man want to get married. Live in the wrong state and you're SOL. Live in the right state, and you still don't have all the federal benefits... I don't know how you could have missed this.

Well he clearly feels shitty about the pretty shitty things he said and has done something substantial to show his support. He's shown he's willing to listen and expand his understanding on an issue he seemed ignorant about. Good on him? I guess?

I'm of two minds on this. I'm glad he's donating to a worthy cause...but I really hope neither he nor his detractors saw this as a necessary step to deflate the situation and he's doing this out of true remorse and/or goodwill and not out of expediency or outside pressure. I'm incredibly cynical, but I'm always afraid things like this end up being like an indulgence.

LetalisK:
I'm of two minds on this. I'm glad he's donating to a worthy cause...but I really hope neither he nor his detractors saw this as a necessary step to deflate the situation and he's doing this out of true remorse and/or goodwill and not out of expediency or outside pressure. I'm incredibly cynical, but I'm always afraid things like this end up being like an indulgence.

The thing I liked most about his follow-up post was the fact that he didn't just go on another "me-me-me" spiel about how being called transphobic was hurtful to his feelings and finish it all off with "I don't care about this anyway so I'll just stop talking about it." He actually seemed to own what he said and expressed a willingness to learn. He really didn't need to make a donation to anything (though of course The Trevor Project can definitely put that money to good use).

If anything, I've actually gained respect for the PA guys over this, not lost it. Some of their fans, on the other hand...

....wow way for the community to prove their point on the panel.

That this started a crapfest is pathetic beyond belief. I was honestly expecting something hateful rather than that extremely mild remark. It is times likes these that I wish a large asteroid would just wipe everything out.

but hey, at least a charity got something, which is the only bright spot in this entire debacle.

Fight the good fight, O warrior of social justice! It matters not that some people may have a different opinion from you, for your cause is righteous!

The Plunk:
Fight the good fight, O warrior of social justice! It matters not that some people may have a different opinion from you, for your cause is righteous!

I wonder what exactly you're trying to say here.

ThrobbingEgo:
Is it benign to publicly say that trans men or women aren't 'really' the gender they identify as?

In Dutch "geslacht" means both gender and sex.

What i'm trying to point out here is that gender and sex are extremely inter-related and some languages don't even recognize the difference as a consequence. And please don't post any links or fancy images pointing out the differences. Because i know the basic theory many people adhere to. But since gender and sex are extremely interrelated and often used interchangeably saying one's real gender isn't the same as the one they identify to isn't so wrong. In Dutch for instance you'd be 100% correct. Considering your real gender is determined by your chromosomes. Trying to compare this to interracial marriage is just an insult towards those fought against that kind of bigotry.

generals3:

ThrobbingEgo:
Is it benign to publicly say that trans men or women aren't 'really' the gender they identify as?

In Dutch "geslacht" means both gender and sex.

What i'm trying to point out here is that gender and sex are extremely inter-related and some languages don't even recognize the difference as a consequence. And please don't post any links or fancy images pointing out the differences. Because i know the basic theory many people adhere to. But since gender and sex are extremely interrelated and often used interchangeably saying one's real gender isn't the same as the one they identify to isn't so wrong. In Dutch for instance you'd be 100% correct. Considering your real gender is determined by your chromosomes. Trying to compare this to interracial marriage is just an insult towards those fought against that kind of bigotry.

So when people say gender and sex are different and unrelated, they are talking mostly about academic terms. Yes, your sex(the biological term) has often barring on the gender (the social term)

So when we try and talk about gender, we understand sex is related but it isn't the term we're examining. You can use sex in evidence to make a theory about gender and you can in term do the opposite. It does not mean you can not talk about one without talking about the other.

Gender is talking about socially constructed roles we place on the sexes. For instance saying something like "Women are better at men at sewing" for instance has no barring on the sex but rather the gender.

As such gender is something we create to put on the sexes and gender is an ever evolving idea with many different interpretations through human history and cultures for instance many cultures that exist today with more than two genders in their society such as Samoa. While the sexes remain mostly static.

As such there is no "real gender" just what society expects of the roles determined by sexes depending on what culture or time in history they happen to be born in.

As there has always been, there are those who are not satisfied with the gender role society expects of them and adhere to a different gender role or in some cases no gender role at all. Terminologically, when examining these ideas, sex is not what is being discussed.

This is a good example of why I'm a bit leery about progressive liberalism - unlike "old-school" chilled-out liberalism that allows for a range of opinions, progressive liberalism is more rigid, dogmatic, and demands conformity on certain subjects of consensus. In a way it's every bit as intolerant as the far-right, they've just switched "you can't say that, it's unChristian/unAmerican/unpatriotic/faggy/commie" with "you can't say that, it's offensive/bigoted/x-phobic". And whereas being part of the majority used to yield the moral high ground, now we've defined minority status as favourable. Different dressing, same shouty group politics.

dversion:

So when people say gender and sex are different and unrelated, they are talking mostly about academic terms. Yes, your sex(the biological term) has often barring on the gender (the social term)

So when we try and talk about gender, we understand sex is related but it isn't the term we're examining. You can use sex in evidence to make a theory about gender and you can in term do the opposite. It does not mean you can not talk about one without talking about the other.

Gender is talking about socially constructed roles we place on the sexes. For instance saying something like "Women are better at men at sewing" for instance has no barring on the sex but rather the gender.

As such gender is something we create to put on the sexes and gender is an ever evolving idea with many different interpretations through human history and cultures for instance many cultures that exist today with more than two genders in their society such as Samoa. While the sexes remain mostly static.

As such there is no "real gender" just what society expects of the roles determined by sexes depending on what culture or time in history they happen to be born in.

As there has always been, there are those who are not satisfied with the gender role society expects of them and adhere to a different gender role or in some cases no gender role at all. Terminologically, when examining these ideas, sex is not what is being discussed.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to argue sex = gender. I was merely pointing out they're extremely related and often used interchangeably (and in certain languages there is not even a difference). And in my opinion using gender as meaning sex, while being incorrect, is nowhere near as wrong/bad/bigoted as being anti mixed race marriage.

generals3:

dversion:

So when people say gender and sex are different and unrelated, they are talking mostly about academic terms. Yes, your sex(the biological term) has often barring on the gender (the social term)

So when we try and talk about gender, we understand sex is related but it isn't the term we're examining. You can use sex in evidence to make a theory about gender and you can in term do the opposite. It does not mean you can not talk about one without talking about the other.

Gender is talking about socially constructed roles we place on the sexes. For instance saying something like "Women are better at men at sewing" for instance has no barring on the sex but rather the gender.

As such gender is something we create to put on the sexes and gender is an ever evolving idea with many different interpretations through human history and cultures for instance many cultures that exist today with more than two genders in their society such as Samoa. While the sexes remain mostly static.

As such there is no "real gender" just what society expects of the roles determined by sexes depending on what culture or time in history they happen to be born in.

As there has always been, there are those who are not satisfied with the gender role society expects of them and adhere to a different gender role or in some cases no gender role at all. Terminologically, when examining these ideas, sex is not what is being discussed.

You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. I was not trying to argue sex = gender. I was merely pointing out they're extremely related and often used interchangeably (and in certain languages there is not even a difference). And in my opinion using gender as meaning sex, while being incorrect, is nowhere near as wrong/bad/bigoted as being anti mixed race marriage.

fair enough. However I would say that in either case its a pretty disrespectful thing to do. If you tell a transgendered woman that she is a man and was referring to her gender than you would be incorrect and if you were referring to her sex then you would be saying something she was already aware of and thus be sort of pointless.

Batou667:
This is a good example of why I'm a bit leery about progressive liberalism - unlike "old-school" chilled-out liberalism that allows for a range of opinions, progressive liberalism is more rigid, dogmatic, and demands conformity on certain subjects of consensus. In a way it's every bit as intolerant as the far-right, they've just switched "you can't say that, it's unChristian/unAmerican/unpatriotic/faggy/commie" with "you can't say that, it's offensive/bigoted/x-phobic". And whereas being part of the majority used to yield the moral high ground, now we've defined minority status as favourable. Different dressing, same shouty group politics.

Your parallel would only be correct if there were nothing wrong with being a bigot.

If people can be wronged, then people can be wrong.

ThrobbingEgo:

Your parallel would only be correct if there were nothing wrong with being a bigot.

If people can be wronged, then people can be wrong.

The problem is that what constitutes a bigot is completely subjective. Too many people seem to think the definition of "bigot" is "somebody who disagrees with me or holds different values to me". Not that I'm advocating complete moral relativism either - I just think both sides are equally capable of absolutist thinking, and when the alleged goal of one side is a plurality of thought and freedom of expression, that absolutism becomes somewhat hypocritical.

ThrobbingEgo:

Batou667:
This is a good example of why I'm a bit leery about progressive liberalism - unlike "old-school" chilled-out liberalism that allows for a range of opinions, progressive liberalism is more rigid, dogmatic, and demands conformity on certain subjects of consensus. In a way it's every bit as intolerant as the far-right, they've just switched "you can't say that, it's unChristian/unAmerican/unpatriotic/faggy/commie" with "you can't say that, it's offensive/bigoted/x-phobic". And whereas being part of the majority used to yield the moral high ground, now we've defined minority status as favourable. Different dressing, same shouty group politics.

Your parallel would only be correct if there were nothing wrong with being a bigot.

If people can be wronged, then people can be wrong.

The man defended a game about female masturbation for only having vaginas, and that was the initial spit fight because 'Well not all women have vaginas'. This CONFUSED him since the game, being a game to teach women how to masturbate, had only vaginas because it was teaching women how to use them better, for lack of a better phrase.

Then they started calling him a transphobic and a bigot.

That was the initial incident.

Here is the actual post he made regarding the incident prior to his donation and apology.

Now, Gabe AFAIK is involved in Pax but only as a bit of a figurehead. While they help make decisions, the 'on the ground' stuff is handled by someone else.

In this case, the mere fact that there was a panel being ALLOWED at PAX that someone disagreed with was enough to launch a shit storm against Gabe. To quote him directly: "It's important to know that all panels are submitted by the community and we try and give anyone who wants a place to speak the space to do it. I responded that you don't have to go to any panels you don't like or alternatively you could go and tell them what you think."

So it's not even that he was directly supporting the panel, more that he ALLOWED THE PANEL TO EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO BE THERE.

Can you understand why this is utterly repulsive to me, that people would be willing to completely shut down someone elses right to an opinion just because they MIGHT disagree with them? The panel hadn't happened yet, no one knew what was going to be talked about except in a kind of vague general idea, and yet THAT is enough to start breaking out cries of transphobia and bigotism.

When you water down the word bigot, racist, sexist, you make it so that people are incapable of responding to ACTUAL bigotism, racism, and sexism. For metaphor, it's like going through your whole life being punched every day by someone wearing a big foam hand, and then walking out one day and someone hitting you in the face with their fist.

Your right, freedom of speech means everyone has it, and that means no one is allowed to take it to the point where you shut down someone elses opinion. As far as I'm concerned this is no different then feminist protestors disrupting an auditorium to stop some guy speaking, even if I don't agree with what the guy is saying. He still has the right to the opinion, and he still has the right to express it freely, and people have the right to listen to it freely. No one has the right to prevent you from expressing or listening to an opinion, except in the cases of a private institution barring someone from private property. And even that's a bit tricky depending on the nature of said institution.

Bentusi16:

In this case, the mere fact that there was a panel being ALLOWED at PAX that someone disagreed with was enough to launch a shit storm against Gabe.

Has anybody actually seen said shit storm? I've seen people saying they have issues with the original description, I did as well because it made it unclear what was going on with the panel but at best didn't make it look good.

The fact it was the latest in a series of events seems to have been what generated a reaction.

Well, it was a very inappropriate hissy fit he threw over Twitter, but I've got to give him credit. When the man apologizes, he does it right. I still don't think his initial comment was "transphobic" by any stretch, just maybe a bit ignorant. The people who corrected him shouldn't have addressed him as a transphobic, just somebody who isn't quite as familiar with the mechanics of transgenderism. But then he didn't have to respond with his genuinely transphobic twitter rant.

I said it in the other thread in "Gaming Discussion", but I'm still not entirely convinced Gabe's statement warranted anything more than a simple disagreement. I'm not a "bigot", and I don't care what people do in their own lives as long as it doesn't impact mine - however I'm still just not connecting the dots here.
I guess I'm asking for some education on this one - so anyone: feel free to jump in here.

So, for me, "Women have vaginas" is a fairly correct statement, regardless of how you look at it. You have to agree to separate "woman" from "female" to even enable a disagreement with that statement. Frankly, that's not really a position that's taken by the vast, vast majority of human society. Why? 'cause that separation isn't really akin to anything else; you're separating an established fact from the word that was invented, and used, to describe those in whom that fact is true.

If someone identifies themselves as a member of the opposite sex - whatever. I'll call them whatever they want, no skin off of my nose. I honestly do not care. But it doesn't alter the hard, cold facts. Little girls have a vagina, little boys have a penis - and they up into men and women.
Me saying I'm something - even if people agree with me - doesn't make it so. I'm still what I am.
If a person believes they're the opposite of their sex - well, like I said, I do not care. I'm happy to call them whatever. But it doesn't make it inherently true. They're simply a man who believes they're a woman - or vice versa - but they're still a man.
Undergoing gender alteration surgery goes basically all the way to removing that - but it also re-validates the statement "women have vaginas".

Anyone care to jump in here?

Zeh Don:

If someone identifies themselves as a member of the opposite sex - whatever. I'll call them whatever they want, no skin off of my nose. I honestly do not care. But it doesn't alter the hard, cold facts. Little girls have a vagina, little boys have a penis - and they up into men and women.

And that right there is the attitude that people take issue with. "I'll call you what you want but you're still delusional."

It's fine to go on repeating "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina" like the toddler in Kindergarten Cop. All we're asking is that you maybe evolve your understanding of gender beyond that of a kindergartner. For starters, because as much as you like to paint it as "cold, hard facts" ... well, it's not. Simple ≠ true. It would be nice if it did, but then we wouldn't have quantum physics.

For starters, the markers that we use to divide gender lines in society - speech, behaviour, dress, interests, emotions, personality - all stem from the brain, and studies have shown that transgendered people actually have the brain structure of the gender that they identify with.

In response to that, you could insist that gender isn't in the brain. You can say that you tell a person's gender by looking at their body. But there is absolutely no clear dividing line between the shapes of male and female bodies. You could argue that women have breasts, but men have anatomically identical breasts. You can say that women have large breasts and men have very small breasts, but there are women with tiny breasts or no breast tissue at all, and there are men with huge breasts. You could argue that men are muscular and girls are not, but there are lots of big, beefy women out there and conversely a lot of skinny little guys. At what point does a body become male or female? What hip-to-waist ratio is the qualification for being a woman? How much muscle mass to be a man?

Besides which, the shape of our bodies are controlled by hormones, and hormone treatment is used during gender transition to help the outward appearance of a transgendered person. Transgendered people who have undergone hormone treatment - even before either top or bottom surgery - take on all the superficial characteristics that we commonly use to identify someone's gender by looking at them. Unless, of course, you demand to see someone's genitals before you decide for sure whether they're a man or a woman. But if you do that then you probably have bigger problems to deal with.

You can say that "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina," but that means that a boy born without a penis, or a man who loses his genitals in an accident, would stop being a man entirely. Same for a woman who gets a hysterectomy - she doesn't have complete female reproductive organs, therefore she's not a woman any more? Does that make sense?

Once "boys have penis, girls have vagina" fails, people generally move on to "fine then: men have XY chromosomes and women have XX chromosomes. That's where the line is." But there are some people who have XO chromosomes, and some people who have XXY chromosomes, and some people who have XXX chromosomes, and people who have XXYY chromosomes, and even some people who have XXXXY chromosomes. You can get men with XX chromosomes and women with XY chromosomes. Here is a group of people who, according the chromosome argument, should be men:

Unfortunately, "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina" doesn't really cut it as a catch-call. So the next time you try to tell someone that these are the "cold, hard facts," you might want to remember that they're neither as cold nor as hard as you'd like them to be.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked