Posted by Kim on June 5, 2015, 11:38am
I'm super pleased to announce that the RPR's gender options, for players and characters, have been expanded to better reflect the huge diversity of identities amongst our userbase. We've had amazing members who don't feel that they fit into a simple gender binary on the site since day 1, so it's sort of shocking we took this long to get around to adding more options!
For those of you scratching your heads and saying "Gender binary? What?", Tate has very kindly volunteered to provide us all with a more knowledgeable explanation than I ever could.
Tate wrote:
Changes abound, my fellow roleplayers! How exciting! But, in all honesty, this is a change in name only. See, Kim has heard our highly diverse community's requests, and answered, in the name of more gender options! HURRAY!
I phrase it like this because, honestly, this is nothing new. Alternative genders from Male and Female have existed throughout human history. However, I am sure this is news to some people, which is why I'm here right now! Below, I have written a brief explanation for the curious.
Let's talk about Gender Identity
Male and female - man and woman - are part of what we call a Gender Identity. But so are other terms such as agender, gender fluid, and many others. All gender identities are deserving of respect and are valid.
To quote GLAAD,
For example, a cisgender person - be they man or woman - is someone who, at birth, was assigned as male or female, and who grew to continue to identify as male or female. A transgender person is someone who was assigned a gender at birth but grew to understand that that gender was incorrect. Some transgender people transition to binary genders - male and female - while some transition to nonbinary genders, such as agender or genderqueer.
There are multiple ways of referring to people, and you should always refer to them using the pronouns they themselves use. Some examples of pronouns are: She/her; They/their (singular); Zi/hir. If you are unsure what pronouns a person uses, ask politely. Never assume a person's pronouns or gender!
Further Information
For more information on gender identities, please visit the sites below!
Trans 101, as presented by GLAAD
For more information about nonbinary genders, as presented by nonbinary.org
To learn more about what intersex means, you can check ActuallyIntersex's FAQ and wikipedia.
I phrase it like this because, honestly, this is nothing new. Alternative genders from Male and Female have existed throughout human history. However, I am sure this is news to some people, which is why I'm here right now! Below, I have written a brief explanation for the curious.
Let's talk about Gender Identity
Male and female - man and woman - are part of what we call a Gender Identity. But so are other terms such as agender, gender fluid, and many others. All gender identities are deserving of respect and are valid.
To quote GLAAD,
Quote:
Gender identity is someone's internal, personal sense of being a man, a woman, or as someone outside of that gender binary. For transgender people, the gender they were assigned at birth and their own internal gender identity do not match.
...So some transgender people seek to bring their bodies more into alignment with their gender identity.
People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, and nonbinary. Always use the descriptive term preferred by the individual.
...So some transgender people seek to bring their bodies more into alignment with their gender identity.
People under the transgender umbrella may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, and nonbinary. Always use the descriptive term preferred by the individual.
For example, a cisgender person - be they man or woman - is someone who, at birth, was assigned as male or female, and who grew to continue to identify as male or female. A transgender person is someone who was assigned a gender at birth but grew to understand that that gender was incorrect. Some transgender people transition to binary genders - male and female - while some transition to nonbinary genders, such as agender or genderqueer.
There are multiple ways of referring to people, and you should always refer to them using the pronouns they themselves use. Some examples of pronouns are: She/her; They/their (singular); Zi/hir. If you are unsure what pronouns a person uses, ask politely. Never assume a person's pronouns or gender!
Further Information
For more information on gender identities, please visit the sites below!
Trans 101, as presented by GLAAD
For more information about nonbinary genders, as presented by nonbinary.org
To learn more about what intersex means, you can check ActuallyIntersex's FAQ and wikipedia.
Thanks Tate!
You can find the full list of possibilities either in your own settings, or in the settings for any of your characters, by selecting "More Options" from the gender selection dropdown.
Next: Coming soon: a new forum, and some spit polish for the rules »
« Previous: A short-blooming deal
Comments
@Aud: There is a difference between fiction for enjoyment and a theory that is being touted as truth. One is silly and easily ignored if it doesn't suit one's tastes. The other is spreading disinformation and is not easily ignored because it is presenting itself as a truth to be acknowledged and respected, when it is not, in fact, a truth. The fact that we are on a website where we all share a common interest in writing outrageous stories does not mean that any of my observations are suddenly rendered invalid or irrelevant. If one side of the topic is worth hearing, then so is the other.
Furthermore, I do not see how spreading this theory could possibly do anything to alleviate any sort of problem. I have personally witnessed more gender theory supporters (with normal, easily identified male/female bodies) act abusive towards transsexual individuals than anyone else. A quick jaunt through certain parts of certain other social websites will readily provide you with the same experience.
Finally, I am being very respectful. The most harm I have done is present logical points to which you cannot think up an adequate answer. I have not defamed nonbinary individuals, only brought into question the validity of gender theory.
Furthermore, I do not see how spreading this theory could possibly do anything to alleviate any sort of problem. I have personally witnessed more gender theory supporters (with normal, easily identified male/female bodies) act abusive towards transsexual individuals than anyone else. A quick jaunt through certain parts of certain other social websites will readily provide you with the same experience.
Finally, I am being very respectful. The most harm I have done is present logical points to which you cannot think up an adequate answer. I have not defamed nonbinary individuals, only brought into question the validity of gender theory.
Y'all know where your posting at right?
There is a lobster astronaut and a sexy wolf on the front page. People play winged sparkle kangeroos and psuedo under age/of age shots/loli characters who are also the reincarnation of sonic the hedgehog.
Things that are in no way real must be respected.
But trans peoples lives experiences and having to respect and deal with things like cissexism, transphobia and enbyphobia, that, that is simply TOO FAR.
Take like a whole row of seats.
There is a lobster astronaut and a sexy wolf on the front page. People play winged sparkle kangeroos and psuedo under age/of age shots/loli characters who are also the reincarnation of sonic the hedgehog.
Things that are in no way real must be respected.
But trans peoples lives experiences and having to respect and deal with things like cissexism, transphobia and enbyphobia, that, that is simply TOO FAR.
Take like a whole row of seats.
I believe I can alleviate the issues going on, with regards to the first few pages here. That being said, I shall divulge up front that I am a sexologist by hobby... not a layperson.
First of all, GLAAD (and indeed, the transgender community) are unfortunately not good sources of definitions as far as this topic goes. This sort of terminology was basically mandated into popular use, and it's not at all how most experts would use it.
Milton Diamond (quite possibly the most famous sexologist of all time) wrote and published a very easy to understand paper on this topic, which can be viewed here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-sex-and-gender.html
The proper way these terms are used is detailed in these paragraphs:
"Sexual identity speaks to the way one views him or her self as a male or female. This inner conviction of identification usually mirrors one's outward physical appearance and the typically sex-linked role one develops and prefers or society attempts to impose. Gender identity is recognition of the perceived social gender attributed to a person. Typically a male is perceived as a boy or a man where boy and man are social terms with associated cultural expectations attached. Similarly, a female is perceived as a girl or woman. The distinctions made between boy and girl and man and woman are of age and usually again represent differences in societal expectations that go along with increases in maturity."
"Here the individual is obviously aware of his sex as a male but yearns to live as a woman. Although he is aware he is a male, his sexual identity is female. And he knows his gender identity, as male, the way he had been perceived by others in his community, was not in keeping with the person he imagined himself to be. His present condition at this time, before transsexual surgery, is as a woman. After male-to-female surgery his gender identity and sexual identity will match. By altering his body, in his mind and to the world, he will become she."
In this, Wizard is indeed correct. Sex and gender are two different things, and the advent of 'gender theory' did not erase the use of sex in a scientific context. One is either male, female or intersex (although some individuals have recognised 'neuter' as an additional status; Harry Benjamin was among the first to use terminology like that).
Transsexualism is still the common term used for diagnosis in the medical field, to this day. It is the condition that has a biological basis, one that has been demonstrated in science -- not even homosexuality has the weight of evidence behind it that transsexualism does. Roughly a dozen parts of the brain are different in transsexuals from controls, it's a condition that shows up on MRI scans of the brain's white matter, and so on.
While it's rather harmless to recognise people in accordance with their gender preferences, those same individuals should not go so far as to claim these preferences share a basis in biology with transsexualism. That is not the case, and co-opting the established legitimacy of something else for that purpose is duplicitous. One's own self-identification will always be a matter of subjectivity at the end of the day, and science operates on objectivity.
First of all, GLAAD (and indeed, the transgender community) are unfortunately not good sources of definitions as far as this topic goes. This sort of terminology was basically mandated into popular use, and it's not at all how most experts would use it.
Milton Diamond (quite possibly the most famous sexologist of all time) wrote and published a very easy to understand paper on this topic, which can be viewed here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2000to2004/2002-sex-and-gender.html
The proper way these terms are used is detailed in these paragraphs:
"Sexual identity speaks to the way one views him or her self as a male or female. This inner conviction of identification usually mirrors one's outward physical appearance and the typically sex-linked role one develops and prefers or society attempts to impose. Gender identity is recognition of the perceived social gender attributed to a person. Typically a male is perceived as a boy or a man where boy and man are social terms with associated cultural expectations attached. Similarly, a female is perceived as a girl or woman. The distinctions made between boy and girl and man and woman are of age and usually again represent differences in societal expectations that go along with increases in maturity."
"Here the individual is obviously aware of his sex as a male but yearns to live as a woman. Although he is aware he is a male, his sexual identity is female. And he knows his gender identity, as male, the way he had been perceived by others in his community, was not in keeping with the person he imagined himself to be. His present condition at this time, before transsexual surgery, is as a woman. After male-to-female surgery his gender identity and sexual identity will match. By altering his body, in his mind and to the world, he will become she."
In this, Wizard is indeed correct. Sex and gender are two different things, and the advent of 'gender theory' did not erase the use of sex in a scientific context. One is either male, female or intersex (although some individuals have recognised 'neuter' as an additional status; Harry Benjamin was among the first to use terminology like that).
Transsexualism is still the common term used for diagnosis in the medical field, to this day. It is the condition that has a biological basis, one that has been demonstrated in science -- not even homosexuality has the weight of evidence behind it that transsexualism does. Roughly a dozen parts of the brain are different in transsexuals from controls, it's a condition that shows up on MRI scans of the brain's white matter, and so on.
While it's rather harmless to recognise people in accordance with their gender preferences, those same individuals should not go so far as to claim these preferences share a basis in biology with transsexualism. That is not the case, and co-opting the established legitimacy of something else for that purpose is duplicitous. One's own self-identification will always be a matter of subjectivity at the end of the day, and science operates on objectivity.
@Kim: I do not feel "attacked". Feeling "attacked" because other people have opinions that differ from mine and are expressing them is an absolutely ludicrous idea. I am not personally involved here and I would rather that it stay that way. The reason I am doing what I am doing is because a theory is being presented as fact and I felt it necessary to show a small part of the wealth of shortcomings that this theory has yet to address before it can be anywhere close to widely considered as legitimate. It doesn't matter if this theory makes people 'feel good about themselves'. It is unfounded on any sort of logic. I, personally, am 100% certain that it can never be shown to have any sort of logic. If we are going to tout something like this as fact, it is my responsibility as an individual who has done the research to show the other side of the story for the many people that do not fully understand the concept being presented here but are being goaded in the direction of approving of it because they do not fully understand the concept and are being introduced to it as if it were, already, fact. Anyone who disagrees with me is free to skim by my comments and, if they feel it necessary, blacklist me, but I want this information available for anyone who is curious to hear more from a different source.
If the announcement just said "Hey, we have new, more inclusive gender options now!" that would be fine. I would maybe quirk my brows, shrug, smile and go on about my business on the RPR. But this apparent attempt to educate people about something that I have just shown is utter nonsense (and will do so again shortly) is what has inspired me to act in order to set the record straight.
@Toreth:
If the announcement just said "Hey, we have new, more inclusive gender options now!" that would be fine. I would maybe quirk my brows, shrug, smile and go on about my business on the RPR. But this apparent attempt to educate people about something that I have just shown is utter nonsense (and will do so again shortly) is what has inspired me to act in order to set the record straight.
@Toreth:
Collapsed for your convenience!
The scenario you have just described is nothing new. There have been "masculine" women for as long as women have existed. They are women, all the same. Why do we need special words only now? Indeed, why on earth would one's childhood or prenatal hormones come up in a conversation to begin with? If you are a woman with "masculine" personality traits and style, it will show. People will not mistake you for "traditionally feminine" and will generally treat you accordingly. Having to tell people how they should perceive you is a staple of insecurity, and expecting other people--strangers--to cater to your insecurity is incredibly entitled. If you want your friends to use zi/hir, fine. If they are really your friends, they'll either humor you (okay friends) or try to get to the bottom of your problems (very good friends). In any case, there is no need for this "widespread education" of a niche theory that has no way to differentiate between the concept of a "frostgender" and the considerably older and more legitimate concept of "being a woman."
The only place that I could see any of this nonsense being even vaguely relevant is on the internet, where physical and behavioral cues are mostly absent. This is why I am not directly opposed to the usage of some labels. However, this concession still does not make gender theory, or the line "all gender identities are deserving of respect and are valid", any less absurd if we are going to consider it seriously.
Perhaps we are not considering it seriously, in any academic or scientific sense. Perhaps, as you have said, it is just a crutch while we approach a more worthwhile solution. That is perfectly fine. But it is still not a fact, it has no foundation in logic, and I will continue to politely (if bluntly) correct anyone who pretends otherwise. Being 'trans' does not make one an authority on this subject. It certainly does not mean that one has any background in psychology, neuroscience, or even basic logic. All that it means is that one considers themselves to be trans.
Finally, as I expected, you have run up into the wall that threatens all of gender theory: what is a man or a woman? You describe the labels that these young women are attempting to escape as "stereotypical". Is that the final criteria for what makes a woman or a man? Stereotypes? Surely I do not have to indicate how absurd, and how horrible, that is. If one says, definitively, that being a man necessitates traits such as "practicality, strength and a physically-oriented mind", one has also just made the blanket announcement that all women with any of those qualities are actually partially men (even if they don't agree, or "identify" that way) and any man without those qualities isn't a man at all (even if he is quite secure in his masculinity).
You will disagree, perhaps, and indicate that one is only a man or a woman if they "feel like they are one", but this takes us back to the first question. What is a man or a woman? If you cannot define this concept without the reference point of the human body, you are restricted to struggling to place other aspects of the human experience into one of two undefined boxes, and you will be frustrated, because the only individual human difference between a man and a woman is the body that they have been born with. A man may have any combination of tastes, personality traits, hopes, dreams, mannerisms, inclinations, speech patterns, etc., just as any woman might. Certainly, perhaps some are more common for one sex than the other, but they are not always present in all individuals of that sex, and therefore they cannot be used to describe the sex as a whole.
Gender theory is, in fact, more restrictive than even society's flawed conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Simply by nature of having hundreds of various genders, the concepts of 'man' and 'woman' are forced into slowly shrinking categories that some people call 'traditionally masculine' or 'traditionally feminine', which, while understandable terms that are better defined than the ubiquitous 'woman/man', are the very epitome of putting an entire half of the human race in a box. This is not helping the situation. I would argue that it is worsening it dramatically by forcing people that ARE comfortable with their bodies to feel pressured to take on alternative "gender identities" in order to be seen as human beings rather than caricatures of them. It is easy to take on an alternative gender identity, and no one can contest it, because the concept of a "gender identity" is based exclusively on personal experiences that cannot be verified in any way. It is, on the other hand, very hard to remain comfortable with your body (of which there is physical, verifiable evidence) and deal with phrases like "die cis scum!" for daring to be true to yourself.
Social justice, indeed.
The only place that I could see any of this nonsense being even vaguely relevant is on the internet, where physical and behavioral cues are mostly absent. This is why I am not directly opposed to the usage of some labels. However, this concession still does not make gender theory, or the line "all gender identities are deserving of respect and are valid", any less absurd if we are going to consider it seriously.
Perhaps we are not considering it seriously, in any academic or scientific sense. Perhaps, as you have said, it is just a crutch while we approach a more worthwhile solution. That is perfectly fine. But it is still not a fact, it has no foundation in logic, and I will continue to politely (if bluntly) correct anyone who pretends otherwise. Being 'trans' does not make one an authority on this subject. It certainly does not mean that one has any background in psychology, neuroscience, or even basic logic. All that it means is that one considers themselves to be trans.
Finally, as I expected, you have run up into the wall that threatens all of gender theory: what is a man or a woman? You describe the labels that these young women are attempting to escape as "stereotypical". Is that the final criteria for what makes a woman or a man? Stereotypes? Surely I do not have to indicate how absurd, and how horrible, that is. If one says, definitively, that being a man necessitates traits such as "practicality, strength and a physically-oriented mind", one has also just made the blanket announcement that all women with any of those qualities are actually partially men (even if they don't agree, or "identify" that way) and any man without those qualities isn't a man at all (even if he is quite secure in his masculinity).
You will disagree, perhaps, and indicate that one is only a man or a woman if they "feel like they are one", but this takes us back to the first question. What is a man or a woman? If you cannot define this concept without the reference point of the human body, you are restricted to struggling to place other aspects of the human experience into one of two undefined boxes, and you will be frustrated, because the only individual human difference between a man and a woman is the body that they have been born with. A man may have any combination of tastes, personality traits, hopes, dreams, mannerisms, inclinations, speech patterns, etc., just as any woman might. Certainly, perhaps some are more common for one sex than the other, but they are not always present in all individuals of that sex, and therefore they cannot be used to describe the sex as a whole.
Gender theory is, in fact, more restrictive than even society's flawed conceptions of masculinity and femininity. Simply by nature of having hundreds of various genders, the concepts of 'man' and 'woman' are forced into slowly shrinking categories that some people call 'traditionally masculine' or 'traditionally feminine', which, while understandable terms that are better defined than the ubiquitous 'woman/man', are the very epitome of putting an entire half of the human race in a box. This is not helping the situation. I would argue that it is worsening it dramatically by forcing people that ARE comfortable with their bodies to feel pressured to take on alternative "gender identities" in order to be seen as human beings rather than caricatures of them. It is easy to take on an alternative gender identity, and no one can contest it, because the concept of a "gender identity" is based exclusively on personal experiences that cannot be verified in any way. It is, on the other hand, very hard to remain comfortable with your body (of which there is physical, verifiable evidence) and deal with phrases like "die cis scum!" for daring to be true to yourself.
Social justice, indeed.
@Toreth: I'm sorry for the misunderstanding! I never contested the existence of gender dysphoria and I'm 100% for offering an extended list of genders. And although your explanation does not put my doubts at rest, my issue was not with that to begin with. I have a lot of friends who fit in the non-binary system and I support them 100%.
The problems I have are mainly the poor (hateful, hypocritical and offensive) experiences I have had with entire communities being bulldozed to the ground over the exclusion and bullying of cis-gendered/privileged people, as well as the idea that RPR is taking an official stance in dictating that everyone should consider all genders valid based on a theory that is fully open to interpretation. (I have big problems with the idea that anyone can claim whatever they want and you may not contest it ever simply because it concerns gender, leaving people free to lie and force others to call them names to be super duper special. Then it's backed up by the 'gender theory' and empty arguments/proof to further bully people into treating others as special snowflakes. It's horrible and one of the reasons why I do not agree that everything is valid and should be respected. And yes it happens, it's not representative of the community, but it happens enough that two sites have become ruined for me already.) I left multiple communities over this and despite knowing how unlikely RPR will follow in those footsteps, I felt hugely uncomfortable with the idea that these people are now protected by the site because RPR took an official side in the issue, rather than remaining neutral.
HOWEVER, as I've come to understand now, RPR will never do such a thing. The only purpose of the list is to welcome everyone as equals and for everyone to adhere to the be nice rule. I am free to think how I think about gender dysphoria, but just because I don't believe in some of it doesn't mean I will intentionally harass them or otherwise seek them out to contest it. Chances are they'll simply be people I won't interact with, and that's fine.
I think the news post is rather unfortunately phrased in some areas that give a different impression than what the intentions are, and that's what raised my hackles a little. I love this place a lot and I don't want to have these nasty people who can't play nice be reason for my departure here too. As it stands, I'm just happy for the reassurance of the actual intentions and confidence that my opinion can coexist with being friendly regardless.
The problems I have are mainly the poor (hateful, hypocritical and offensive) experiences I have had with entire communities being bulldozed to the ground over the exclusion and bullying of cis-gendered/privileged people, as well as the idea that RPR is taking an official stance in dictating that everyone should consider all genders valid based on a theory that is fully open to interpretation. (I have big problems with the idea that anyone can claim whatever they want and you may not contest it ever simply because it concerns gender, leaving people free to lie and force others to call them names to be super duper special. Then it's backed up by the 'gender theory' and empty arguments/proof to further bully people into treating others as special snowflakes. It's horrible and one of the reasons why I do not agree that everything is valid and should be respected. And yes it happens, it's not representative of the community, but it happens enough that two sites have become ruined for me already.) I left multiple communities over this and despite knowing how unlikely RPR will follow in those footsteps, I felt hugely uncomfortable with the idea that these people are now protected by the site because RPR took an official side in the issue, rather than remaining neutral.
HOWEVER, as I've come to understand now, RPR will never do such a thing. The only purpose of the list is to welcome everyone as equals and for everyone to adhere to the be nice rule. I am free to think how I think about gender dysphoria, but just because I don't believe in some of it doesn't mean I will intentionally harass them or otherwise seek them out to contest it. Chances are they'll simply be people I won't interact with, and that's fine.
I think the news post is rather unfortunately phrased in some areas that give a different impression than what the intentions are, and that's what raised my hackles a little. I love this place a lot and I don't want to have these nasty people who can't play nice be reason for my departure here too. As it stands, I'm just happy for the reassurance of the actual intentions and confidence that my opinion can coexist with being friendly regardless.
(Please pardon the typos, I had typed this up on my phone.)
I understand where Wizard and Sanne are coming from, but gender dysphoria is a real thing -- there is a scientific literature behind the phenomenon. It's just unfortunate that most explanations of gender theory are so divorced from the underlying rationale.
From wikipedia:
"Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones."
Consider two scenarios:
Person A was born biologically female with higher than average testosterone levels. Her parents treat her as a stereotypical girl, and expect her to behave in accordance with society's norms for a woman. She never quite feels right as a girl and experiences distress when others perceive her as one. In order to relieve this anxiety, she announces that she is transgender in hopes that others will stop expecting her to behave like a stereotypical woman (and judging her when she inevitably fails to do so).
Person B is biologically female. Her parents like tomboys (or girls who deviate from traditional stereotypes), so they treat her like a boy when she's growing up, giving her short haircuts, buying her toy cars, etc. As she grows up, she begins exploring typically feminine interests but also retains some stereotypically "masculine" traits (dominance, independence, etc.) However, she still sees herself as a woman -- she does NOT experience discomfort with the notion of being a woman, even if she has "masculine" traits.
Person A was biologically predisposed to becoming a more "masculine" woman, but was raised with traditional gender roles in mind. Thus she frequently feels like she 'fails' at being a woman and wants to identify as nonbinary.
Person B was raised in an environment where gender roles are much more lax (and even subverted occasionally). She has a broader definition of what "masculinity" or "femininity" emtails, and therefore experiences no distress with being seen as a woman.
It is unfeasible for Person A to explain their gender dyspgoria to every person they meet -- therefore they need an easy-to-understand, widely acceptable term ("such as genderqueer") to say in one word what I have written in 3 paragraphs.
The purpose of these inclusive terms is convenience. They may not be comprehensive, but they're there to let people know that an individual experiences gender dysphoria without having to bring up their childhood history or prenatal hormone levels in every conversation.
Of course, if societal perceptions of masculinity and femininity were more relaxed to begin with, many people wouldn't be experiencing gender dysphoria (since distress is an important component of GID). Until that day comes, I think having inclusive terms is a decent temporary solution.
Hopefully this will put to rest any doubts you may have about the legitimacy of gender theory. It's not perfect, but it works for now.
From wikipedia:
"Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth, may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones."
Consider two scenarios:
Person A was born biologically female with higher than average testosterone levels. Her parents treat her as a stereotypical girl, and expect her to behave in accordance with society's norms for a woman. She never quite feels right as a girl and experiences distress when others perceive her as one. In order to relieve this anxiety, she announces that she is transgender in hopes that others will stop expecting her to behave like a stereotypical woman (and judging her when she inevitably fails to do so).
Person B is biologically female. Her parents like tomboys (or girls who deviate from traditional stereotypes), so they treat her like a boy when she's growing up, giving her short haircuts, buying her toy cars, etc. As she grows up, she begins exploring typically feminine interests but also retains some stereotypically "masculine" traits (dominance, independence, etc.) However, she still sees herself as a woman -- she does NOT experience discomfort with the notion of being a woman, even if she has "masculine" traits.
Person A was biologically predisposed to becoming a more "masculine" woman, but was raised with traditional gender roles in mind. Thus she frequently feels like she 'fails' at being a woman and wants to identify as nonbinary.
Person B was raised in an environment where gender roles are much more lax (and even subverted occasionally). She has a broader definition of what "masculinity" or "femininity" emtails, and therefore experiences no distress with being seen as a woman.
It is unfeasible for Person A to explain their gender dyspgoria to every person they meet -- therefore they need an easy-to-understand, widely acceptable term ("such as genderqueer") to say in one word what I have written in 3 paragraphs.
The purpose of these inclusive terms is convenience. They may not be comprehensive, but they're there to let people know that an individual experiences gender dysphoria without having to bring up their childhood history or prenatal hormone levels in every conversation.
Of course, if societal perceptions of masculinity and femininity were more relaxed to begin with, many people wouldn't be experiencing gender dysphoria (since distress is an important component of GID). Until that day comes, I think having inclusive terms is a decent temporary solution.
Hopefully this will put to rest any doubts you may have about the legitimacy of gender theory. It's not perfect, but it works for now.
I'm really happy to see RPR giving those who fall outside of the gender binary a better means to express their identities in the gender options.
I do think we need to get away from the semantics for a moment (with regards to the wording of this announcement) and take a moment to appreciate that these efforts are being to ensure that the community on this site is able to represent themselves in the way that they want to be represented. That's really what I think is important.
I do think we need to get away from the semantics for a moment (with regards to the wording of this announcement) and take a moment to appreciate that these efforts are being to ensure that the community on this site is able to represent themselves in the way that they want to be represented. That's really what I think is important.
You certainly are not required to agree with everything in this post! We are not the thought police. The only thing we ("The Site") officially require of you is to treat others with basic human respect. Well, okay, that and follow the rules. "Agree with everything everyone says" is not a rule. Heck, "Personally agree with all the rules being good rules that you like and enjoy following" isn't even a rule. "Don't attack other people" is a rule.
Happily, no one seems to be advocating that we take the options away, or that we attack, insult, publicly or privately shame, or otherwise make life hard for people who use words to describe themselves that others don't personally use, understand, or endorse, for whatever reason.
I think what I'm hearing is that you want to be acknowledged as valid, too. If you feel that you've been attacked for using language differently than Tate does, or holding different views, I'm sorry for that! I've no intent to attack or shame. I just want people who don't see themselves as part of the traditional gender binary to feel welcome, because they are.
Happily, no one seems to be advocating that we take the options away, or that we attack, insult, publicly or privately shame, or otherwise make life hard for people who use words to describe themselves that others don't personally use, understand, or endorse, for whatever reason.
I think what I'm hearing is that you want to be acknowledged as valid, too. If you feel that you've been attacked for using language differently than Tate does, or holding different views, I'm sorry for that! I've no intent to attack or shame. I just want people who don't see themselves as part of the traditional gender binary to feel welcome, because they are.
I'm afraid I have to concur with Wizard on this one. It's not that RPR is offering these options that is bothering me because I have many friends who are super happy with it, and I am happy for them! Offering these choices doesn't change anything, indeed. But the way this was announced makes it appear that RPR is officially and publicly announcing an unsupported theory as a fact that all of the community members have to abide to.
I unfortunately do not respect all gender identities for the same reasons Wizard doesn't, and it feels strange to have an official news post tell me I should. Does that make sense?
I unfortunately do not respect all gender identities for the same reasons Wizard doesn't, and it feels strange to have an official news post tell me I should. Does that make sense?
@Kim: I have in no way asserted that I feel that this update has enacted a 'sweeping societal change'. I am aware of the fact that people with various gender identities have existed on the site since its very opening day. I know that they have had their information on their profiles, and I know that having more accommodating options is great.
However, I also see that the information written in this post has publicly endorsed a theory, on behalf of the RPR, as if it were fact (when it is not, and there is plenty of opposition), and is furthermore attempting to 'educate' the public on something that they do not need to be educated in. This alone is where I have a problem.
However, I also see that the information written in this post has publicly endorsed a theory, on behalf of the RPR, as if it were fact (when it is not, and there is plenty of opposition), and is furthermore attempting to 'educate' the public on something that they do not need to be educated in. This alone is where I have a problem.
@Rigby: I am not PMing this because I want anyone who is interested to be able to read it, as surely as they can read the entirely non-RP related things linked in the news post above and your rebuttal to my comment below.
That said, enjoy your choices. Perhaps Kim ought to make the 'gender' field a fill-in-the-blank box next Time. (-;
Collapse-tagged for your convenience!
The variation in experiences that you are referring to is what is commonly known as, yes, 'being a human being.' This includes things such as possessing a body, having a personality (which is not at all tied to biological sex, or "gender"), interacting with people, and reflecting back on one's own life, experiences, and qualities. However, this has nothing to do with this imaginary term, "gender". This is about people being people. Male/female is entirely unrelated. They are two words that are used to describe the divergent natures of the bodies that people are in. That is all that they are. True, society does not always treat them that way--and so perhaps that is the issue that ought to be addressed. Perhaps, indeed, it would be better to attempt to remedy society than for every individual that has had any bad experiences, which they perceive as being related to their sex, to attempt to change themselves to better suit the flaws of the world.
Regarding intersex: this is an anomaly, not a norm. Attempting to form a movement that is designed to affect the entirety of society, with but a single anomaly as its only piece of tangible evidence, is scientifically and logically absurd. Besides, the vast majority of people claiming to have 'alternative genders' are not intersex and have probably never met an intersex individual in person in their entire lives, so this claim about 'experiences' becomes even more ridiculous when we remember that 99% of people that subscribe to gender theory have normal bodies that are easily identified as female or male. They are effectively hijacking the existence of real intersex persons to enable a movement that these intersex persons may not even agree with to begin with. Speaking for all of them is the very epitome of arrogance.
In any case, any individual that expects me, or anyone, really, to take this sort of thing seriously is overstepping their bounds. You may argue that this is an extreme segment of gender theory, and I concur. However, there are no solid regulations in gender theory that render this in any way invalid or even slightly less valid than the more common variants, and, according to the post above, "All gender identities are deserving of respect and are valid."
I will not humor this on the grounds of it being entitled and ridiculous. Maybe I am not being 'nice' or 'tolerant' or 'accepting' by modernized standards. Maybe I am a 'transphobe' for wanting facts rather than feelings. Very well. At the very least I can respect myself for being logical and seeking an alternative solution to the problems that spawned gender theory in the first place. I would rather those qualities, in myself and in others, over the condition of being nice any day.
The variation in experiences that you are referring to is what is commonly known as, yes, 'being a human being.' This includes things such as possessing a body, having a personality (which is not at all tied to biological sex, or "gender"), interacting with people, and reflecting back on one's own life, experiences, and qualities. However, this has nothing to do with this imaginary term, "gender". This is about people being people. Male/female is entirely unrelated. They are two words that are used to describe the divergent natures of the bodies that people are in. That is all that they are. True, society does not always treat them that way--and so perhaps that is the issue that ought to be addressed. Perhaps, indeed, it would be better to attempt to remedy society than for every individual that has had any bad experiences, which they perceive as being related to their sex, to attempt to change themselves to better suit the flaws of the world.
Regarding intersex: this is an anomaly, not a norm. Attempting to form a movement that is designed to affect the entirety of society, with but a single anomaly as its only piece of tangible evidence, is scientifically and logically absurd. Besides, the vast majority of people claiming to have 'alternative genders' are not intersex and have probably never met an intersex individual in person in their entire lives, so this claim about 'experiences' becomes even more ridiculous when we remember that 99% of people that subscribe to gender theory have normal bodies that are easily identified as female or male. They are effectively hijacking the existence of real intersex persons to enable a movement that these intersex persons may not even agree with to begin with. Speaking for all of them is the very epitome of arrogance.
In any case, any individual that expects me, or anyone, really, to take this sort of thing seriously is overstepping their bounds. You may argue that this is an extreme segment of gender theory, and I concur. However, there are no solid regulations in gender theory that render this in any way invalid or even slightly less valid than the more common variants, and, according to the post above, "All gender identities are deserving of respect and are valid."
I will not humor this on the grounds of it being entitled and ridiculous. Maybe I am not being 'nice' or 'tolerant' or 'accepting' by modernized standards. Maybe I am a 'transphobe' for wanting facts rather than feelings. Very well. At the very least I can respect myself for being logical and seeking an alternative solution to the problems that spawned gender theory in the first place. I would rather those qualities, in myself and in others, over the condition of being nice any day.
That said, enjoy your choices. Perhaps Kim ought to make the 'gender' field a fill-in-the-blank box next Time. (-;
Tate
June 6, 2015
2:25pm
The lists are long, yes, because there are a wide variety of genders and how people view them. It just makes complete sense that people would also want to write characters that they can identify with! C: I hope to see the list updated as time goes on, if need be.
@Pandah - It actually was discussed, re: write-in. Sad fact is that too many people would abuse it and put offensive, vulgar things in. I really, really like how Kim handled this! It is a very near option without making people feel alienated (by having to click 'other' - her word choice was very well done!), and without cluttering things.
@Pandah - It actually was discussed, re: write-in. Sad fact is that too many people would abuse it and put offensive, vulgar things in. I really, really like how Kim handled this! It is a very near option without making people feel alienated (by having to click 'other' - her word choice was very well done!), and without cluttering things.
I love that you put the list under 'more options'! Not that I don't think they are equally as good as male/female, but other sites I use who incorporate such a long list have it end up looking really unnecessarily cluttery. But this way you click 'more options' after being offered the simplified list, and its like, this sweeping list of joy. Hah! I think the options are really good- and not near as redundant as some other lists I have seen. For some other sites, I wonder why they don't just have you write your own answer in. But here, you have both options now, to either use the list or simply write it in on their page. It's adorableee
I understand that this feature is not for everyone. There's definitely not a requirement to make use of it, much like the existence of the Art & Creativity forum doesn't mean that everyone must start drawing. I also know that there's some concern about a gaming website not being the place to effect "sweeping societal change".
But it's hard for me to see this update as part of a societal change, because the actual thing that happened is that now people's self-identified genders are about three lines upward of where they had been written before, in the player bio. It doesn't even feel like a new thing to me -- we've already been welcoming and accommodating people who don't identify binary since the first day we opened, and nobody melted. We just made the tiniest move to where that information was stored, and blammo, look at how much happiness has resulted! Super cool.
That, to me, is a no-brainer slice of amazing. An admin-win of the highest order (which is not to say I want to take credit for it or say that I'm the one 'winning' here!)
A no cost to low cost, extremely easy way to make some really awesome people feel more welcome, included and comfortable, that has no discernible negative effect on those who won't use the feature? That doesn't even cause delays to other features? TOTALLY AMAZING! It's extremely rare that an opportunity so great from pretty much every way you can look at it comes across my desk.
I AM sorry that it came as a jarring surprise to some of you, or that we didn't handle the announcement the way everyone would want. I'll be announcing this month's office hours in the next week or so, and I'm very happy to chat about it "in person" to anyone who has some concerns they want addressed.
(As a point of interest, if you think THIS list is long, check out the lists that Facebook has used at various times!
)
I also know that there's some concern about a gaming website not being the place to effect "sweeping societal change".But it's hard for me to see this update as part of a societal change, because the actual thing that happened is that now people's self-identified genders are about three lines upward of where they had been written before, in the player bio. It doesn't even feel like a new thing to me -- we've already been welcoming and accommodating people who don't identify binary since the first day we opened, and nobody melted. We just made the tiniest move to where that information was stored, and blammo, look at how much happiness has resulted!
Super cool.That, to me, is a no-brainer slice of amazing. An admin-win of the highest order (which is not to say I want to take credit for it or say that I'm the one 'winning' here!)
A no cost to low cost, extremely easy way to make some really awesome people feel more welcome, included and comfortable, that has no discernible negative effect on those who won't use the feature? That doesn't even cause delays to other features? TOTALLY AMAZING! It's extremely rare that an opportunity so great from pretty much every way you can look at it comes across my desk.
I AM sorry that it came as a jarring surprise to some of you, or that we didn't handle the announcement the way everyone would want. I'll be announcing this month's office hours in the next week or so, and I'm very happy to chat about it "in person" to anyone who has some concerns they want addressed.
(As a point of interest, if you think THIS list is long, check out the lists that Facebook has used at various times!
)
I haven't even heard of most of these. Seems a little more complex than it should be, in my personal opinion. I always felt like the personality of a character illuminated the identity of that character much more thoroughly than planting them on a stereotype of some sort, be it gender, race or whatever. I think that over time, this might cause a few more problems in terms of classifying people / characters by putting staples into basic template loadouts. One word can make or break someone's opinion of a character, on the quick-sheet, and if something starts getting a bad rap for some reason... that can cause an abrupt about-face on a possible RPer.
Of course, that's just my two cents. I can't stop or change anyone's mind, just be a little bit concerned. I'll probably just keep to saying 'male-female' IC and OOC because it's easier in general, because when I say it, I'm talking about the actual biological standing point of "Does it have boobs or no?" Or if it's a hermaphrodite... "Which personality is dominant?"
Of course, that's just my two cents. I can't stop or change anyone's mind, just be a little bit concerned. I'll probably just keep to saying 'male-female' IC and OOC because it's easier in general, because when I say it, I'm talking about the actual biological standing point of "Does it have boobs or no?" Or if it's a hermaphrodite... "Which personality is dominant?"
I'm very happy to hear this feature is so liked!
Wizman, gender can be thought of as being a creation of a veritable soup of sociological, neurological and biological factors!
Now, granted, cisgender woman speaking, but my understanding is: Gender dysphoria may or may not factor into some identities. Socially, decks are stacked rather unfavorably based on gender, and there are still differing expectations for each. People like bringing up intersex, and that's because it is something tangible as a frame of reference (and an on-hand way to illustrate how the old glance-and-pick at the innies and outies method of gender assignment can really get into a poor kid's head, and our society's reliance at large on gender-based rearing) - but not all gender variant people are intersex, and not all intersex people are gender-variant.
I suppose the best you can do while things are sorted out on the objectively neurological front is listen and read about other peoples' experiences, as they're about as varied as this list itself, and the one common experience and definition they all share is "not being cisgender." It's definitely worth mining if you're interested in learning more, and that would be the human factor that Tate's mentioning. The whole thing's still firmly nestled in sociology and psychology as of now.
But back to RP because this is veering wildly into areas from which we'd probably never return (not to say that it shouldn't be veered into because it absolutely should! And I'd be happy to PM more about it) - yeah, Tate, I also realized that discrepancy five minutes after I texted that first response! Ditching the sociological implications and narrowing the scope back down to RP: you get nonhumans, you get robots, you get gods, you get ferals, and so on and so forth - they're not going to want to use "woman/man," as it isn't entirely accurate in their own contexts, either.
Anyway, yes! Choice is good!
Now, granted, cisgender woman speaking, but my understanding is: Gender dysphoria may or may not factor into some identities. Socially, decks are stacked rather unfavorably based on gender, and there are still differing expectations for each. People like bringing up intersex, and that's because it is something tangible as a frame of reference (and an on-hand way to illustrate how the old glance-and-pick at the innies and outies method of gender assignment can really get into a poor kid's head, and our society's reliance at large on gender-based rearing) - but not all gender variant people are intersex, and not all intersex people are gender-variant.
I suppose the best you can do while things are sorted out on the objectively neurological front is listen and read about other peoples' experiences, as they're about as varied as this list itself, and the one common experience and definition they all share is "not being cisgender." It's definitely worth mining if you're interested in learning more, and that would be the human factor that Tate's mentioning. The whole thing's still firmly nestled in sociology and psychology as of now.
But back to RP because this is veering wildly into areas from which we'd probably never return (not to say that it shouldn't be veered into because it absolutely should! And I'd be happy to PM more about it) - yeah, Tate, I also realized that discrepancy five minutes after I texted that first response! Ditching the sociological implications and narrowing the scope back down to RP: you get nonhumans, you get robots, you get gods, you get ferals, and so on and so forth - they're not going to want to use "woman/man," as it isn't entirely accurate in their own contexts, either.
Anyway, yes! Choice is good!
@Tate: I have made the inquiry here because I have found little or nothing, closer to nothing in serious scholarly circles, that defines the concepts of male/female distinct from biological nature. "The humanity of it" is an incredibly vague and entirely unsatisfactory answer, but it is probably the best one I have received to this question, which continues to be a significant stumbling block for my acceptance of gender theory as anything representing scientific.
Let me preface: The RPR is a poor platform for indicating a controversial position on this or any other off-site issue, but this particular issue came to my home page and I feel obligated to ascertain that all perspectives are taken into account. This idea in particular comes up all too often unchallenged, and any idea is dangerous when it has become pervasive without being scrutinized.
Right, the 'what is male/female?' question. Since I fall into one of these binary categories myself, you might suppose that I would be fit to answer, in the way that non-scholarly transpeople are permitted to define their own and others' identities. Apparently I am not, because a small proportion of the population that identifies the way that I do disagrees with me on the grounds of 'not feeling the same way'. Who is correct?
The fact is that there are no criteria offered by this movement by which to make that call. After all, all that you have to do to be a woman is say that you are one, based on 'feelings', which are impossible to evaluate by any individual save the one experiencing them. There is too much room for falsity, nonsense, self-serving interests and manipulation. There is no room for verification, logic, objectivity or any of the fundamentals by which sciences, even psychological sciences, are permitted to function. According to gender theory, anyone can say that they are a woman (or a man, or a demigirl, or any new gender) at any time, and has a theoretical "right" to expect other people to respect that.
But what is a woman? Do we define it based upon the biological side of being a woman? In this context, that is out the window. The social assumptions and expectations, then? That is meaningless, because the social perception of women varies wildly from country to country, century to century, even family to family, to say nothing of an individual's personal perceptions of themselves. Stereotypes of women, perhaps? That is not only inane and ridiculous, but a very special type of cruel.
How, then, is any sort of solid conclusion to be reached? How do we define the concepts of male and female? If we respect the fundamental platform of gender theory, that is, the divorcing of "gender" (a term that was borrowed from grammar, and had no precedence in its current meaning prior to 1963) from biological sex, we simply cannot. If we do not even have them defined, why are we taking such measures to alter them, abandon them, recreate them, rename them, shame or exalt them, and then presenting these measures as necessary or even scientific? It is madness. Perhaps such energy would be better invested in handling the issues that have made people so unhappy with the connotations given to their physical sexes that they feel an immense need to abandon them in order to be seen for who they really are.
Let me finish by saying that I personally do not care about what people choose to call themselves. If you would like to indicate that you are a biological female with a very-but-not-completely "masculine" personality by calling yourself a demiboy, by all means, proceed. What I have trouble with is the fact that this gender theory--which, I must stress, is, indeed, theory--is being presented here as something irrefutable, logical and fundamental to society to the point that all individuals ought to accept it, going so far as bending over backwards in deference to it with the assumption that any individual they meet might have special (made up) pronoun preferences. I respectfully disagree. I am not the only one. (The only one on this site, perhaps; this would not surprise me.)
I have no qualms with the update itself, just with the wording used to present the ideological concepts behind it. It is certainly alright to choose a theory and openly support it, with all of the associated costs and gains. It is not alright to talk about it as if it is fact, or more widely accepted than it actually is, or imply that anyone who disagrees with it is factually wrong or ignorant. That is called 'disinformation'.
Thank you.
Let me preface: The RPR is a poor platform for indicating a controversial position on this or any other off-site issue, but this particular issue came to my home page and I feel obligated to ascertain that all perspectives are taken into account. This idea in particular comes up all too often unchallenged, and any idea is dangerous when it has become pervasive without being scrutinized.
Right, the 'what is male/female?' question. Since I fall into one of these binary categories myself, you might suppose that I would be fit to answer, in the way that non-scholarly transpeople are permitted to define their own and others' identities. Apparently I am not, because a small proportion of the population that identifies the way that I do disagrees with me on the grounds of 'not feeling the same way'. Who is correct?
The fact is that there are no criteria offered by this movement by which to make that call. After all, all that you have to do to be a woman is say that you are one, based on 'feelings', which are impossible to evaluate by any individual save the one experiencing them. There is too much room for falsity, nonsense, self-serving interests and manipulation. There is no room for verification, logic, objectivity or any of the fundamentals by which sciences, even psychological sciences, are permitted to function. According to gender theory, anyone can say that they are a woman (or a man, or a demigirl, or any new gender) at any time, and has a theoretical "right" to expect other people to respect that.
But what is a woman? Do we define it based upon the biological side of being a woman? In this context, that is out the window. The social assumptions and expectations, then? That is meaningless, because the social perception of women varies wildly from country to country, century to century, even family to family, to say nothing of an individual's personal perceptions of themselves. Stereotypes of women, perhaps? That is not only inane and ridiculous, but a very special type of cruel.
How, then, is any sort of solid conclusion to be reached? How do we define the concepts of male and female? If we respect the fundamental platform of gender theory, that is, the divorcing of "gender" (a term that was borrowed from grammar, and had no precedence in its current meaning prior to 1963) from biological sex, we simply cannot. If we do not even have them defined, why are we taking such measures to alter them, abandon them, recreate them, rename them, shame or exalt them, and then presenting these measures as necessary or even scientific? It is madness. Perhaps such energy would be better invested in handling the issues that have made people so unhappy with the connotations given to their physical sexes that they feel an immense need to abandon them in order to be seen for who they really are.
Let me finish by saying that I personally do not care about what people choose to call themselves. If you would like to indicate that you are a biological female with a very-but-not-completely "masculine" personality by calling yourself a demiboy, by all means, proceed. What I have trouble with is the fact that this gender theory--which, I must stress, is, indeed, theory--is being presented here as something irrefutable, logical and fundamental to society to the point that all individuals ought to accept it, going so far as bending over backwards in deference to it with the assumption that any individual they meet might have special (made up) pronoun preferences. I respectfully disagree. I am not the only one. (The only one on this site, perhaps; this would not surprise me.)
I have no qualms with the update itself, just with the wording used to present the ideological concepts behind it. It is certainly alright to choose a theory and openly support it, with all of the associated costs and gains. It is not alright to talk about it as if it is fact, or more widely accepted than it actually is, or imply that anyone who disagrees with it is factually wrong or ignorant. That is called 'disinformation'.
Thank you.
Kim
June 7, 2015
10:42am