Sexism in games (Kingdoms of Amalur case study)

[Jetsetlemming]

There's a reason the process takes a lot of time and a lot of talking to psychologists. Gender identity isn't clear black and white "man or woman", there's grey area, and it's entirely possible for people to fit in there and be comfortable and attached enough to their current physical form not to change it. I still stand by my original statement however: A Transwoman is always a woman, and has always been a woman. Nobody "becomes" a man or woman after the fact. Transpeople actually tend to get offended by the usage of the word "become". In their eyes reassignment is them transitioning to their real gender, rather than changing it. If a woman wants to avoid sexism, they cannot simply walk into a plastic surgeon's office and come out a man and take on a masculine, gamestop-approved role in life.

[bobby 55]

I'm certainly not going to argue the point with you on that coz I have limited knowledge of the subject. It does make me wonder if people see us as we see ourselves...I'm guessing not.

[DDL]

So JSL, aside from the fact that your massive quote used (very very liberally) the qualifiers of "severe" and "profound" to describe the level of GID you'd need to actually have your bits operated on, thus directly implying that there are less severe, less profound states on the spectrum, I'm still flat out wrong for pointing out that a spectrum exists? And for pointing out that you want to be damn fucking sure you're at the severe, profound end of that spectrum before having your bits operated on?

In fact, every last thing in that huge quote validates my post.

You have the weirdest definitions of "wrong".

You seem to have a "no true scotsman" tendency to a lot of your posts, so that you make a sweeping statement about transgender people being ALL WOMAN ALL THE TIME or whatever, and then when I point out it's a spectrum phenomenon, you say I'm wrong, point out it's a spectrum phenomenon and then say "but of course TRUE trangender peeps are ALL WOMAN ALL THE TIME" (or male equiv, obviously).

Personally I'd say that anything that exhibits a spectrum phenomenon in human psychology (or indeed biology) doesn't have genuine, defined "ends": saying "this person is a TRUE transgender person, but this person is only on the spectrum between non-GID and full GID" is nonsensical, it's simply they're both on the spectrum but one exceeds an essentially arbitrarily-defined clinical threshold, the other doesn't. You mention grey areas, but fail to see that THE WHOLE THING IS A GREY AREA. This is not genetics, where you can say "ok, you have this mutation, whereas that guy doesn't", it's a combination of unknown genetics (possibly), prenatal hormone exposure (possibly) and a whole fuckton of incredibly poorly-understood environmental cues. It is not, and never has been, a yes/no phenomenon: we just set arbitrary thresholds based on the best evidence, and then treat it as if it were yes/no, because when you're considering (and again, I stress) irreversible genital surgery, you really, totally, utterly cannot deal in "maybe".

[Jetsetlemming]

When I said I didn't want to talk about this topic there was a good goddamn reason for it. DDL, you can be wrong while still stating true things. When I say "Transwomen are real women" and you reply with "Some people are misdiagnosed or don't have severe GID", You're saying something true to try and counter another true statement that is not at all at odds with what you're saying- in other words, you're being WRONG.
Now for the love of fuck let's drop the topic.

[DDL]

No, you're just redefining the meaning of "right" so you can claim I'm wrong.

Which is fucking stupid, given that I'm not even technically disagreeing with you.

Also, you REALLY like the idea of a black and white world, don't you? It's like you live in a technicolour peter molyneux universe or something.

[AEmer]

Rant about america

I agree that every one of those things you mention in your rant about america is problematic. I agree with why things stink. I, however, am also danish.

(yes, I have friends; apparently I am much more sufferable IRL)

You're not the only one who's way more sufferable in real life
I presume it's the case for many of us. Except Jonas, he's every bit as much of
an amazing person in real life.

I really don't want to see Aemer or Vector commenting on trans issues

Well fuck you too =P For a person arguing against discrimination based on prejudice, you don't seem to be taking that stance to heart.

I brought it up to illustrate how ridiculous it would be for a woman to solve sexism by passing as a man when she shouldn't have to. It was never about whether she was transsexual in the psychological sense of the word. You can legally change sex without getting your genitals mutilated.
The point was, you can change things and pass for belonging to another stereotype, but you shouldn't have to.

And for the record, I agree with you and DDL both on the subject of transsexuals, though I also think the idea of mutilating a persons genitals is horrifying and I wish trans people could stick to keeping their genitals and changing everything else.

yes, the language you speak has a significant role in determining your thought processes

That's really f'in cool. Does that mean it's possible to prove that, say, swiss people tend to be bigger assholes? Are some languages better for maths?

@ Gamer re: using statistics to make business decisions

Well, I think it's unfair to a lot of people who get wrongfully classified, but I agree that it's a necessary practice. Not everything can be exactly fair, and businesses relying on statistical stereotypes sometimes only function because they do so. I think that's ok. I think acting on some stereotypes should be illegal, because certain ones create huge social issues that are worth combatting...but I don't think it should be illegal to classify health risk according to how fat a person is. Or to set insurance premiums based on age. I think it's unfair, but I don't think it's wrong, all things considered.

The really fun issue is this one: A small business has 3 employees. The employer prefers hiring males, or women over 40 or below 20, because he can't afford a person being off on maternity leave; the business would need close if any one employee couldn't come in for 3 months and he'd have to keep the position open for her.

Is this person wrong to screen in this fashion to protect his business?

[VectorM]

VectorM I really can't reply to that post without being rude to you, sorry.

Grow a pair.

My decision not to respond to you is not one of cowardice, but rather respect for proper decorum on the forums. I'm not here for a pissing match, or a dick waving contest. I'm not even here to convert people to feminism. I just posted a negative impression of Kingdom of Amalur's barbie-esque representation of women and other posters challenged me on that. I'm ok with light conversation, even rational debate. But I will not fight you, and my reaction to your latest posts is too negative to politely respond to, beyond simply not responding.

So you are incapable of making a rational argument, without resorting to pure insults? Because that is what I get from this post. You can be rude without braking the forum you know. Not to mention a little thing called "PM".

Wait my arguments are mentioned in the same sentence as VectorM's arguments which all boil down to "fuck you"?

Maybe because your latest reponces to anything I wrote were exactly that

[Jetsetlemming]

Well fuck you too =P For a person arguing against discrimination based on prejudice, you don't seem to be taking that stance to heart.

I find it really weird that you find being judged for your actions is the same as an unknown individual being judged based on prejudices about a group they're a member of. I'm not prejudiced against you, I'm judging you, not pre, but post, based on what you've already posted in this thread. Are you actually a commune sharing one forums account, and some OTHER guy was posting earlier under your name? That'd explain it, I guess. That's still pretty weird of you all, though.

[gamer0004]

@AEmer: those kind of issues are rather interesting. I would say that it's perfectly fine to refuse hiring women or men wanting to have kids. For some jobs, having kids (especially around birth) just doesn't get along with getting the job done (CEOs and other critical elements in any organization). It has become a right to have kids and get leave and it's forbidden to discriminate on that, but that's... pretty stupid IMO. Not that I have anything against having kids (I am absolutely sure I want kids about 10 years from now), but for some jobs, it just doesn't work. People should accept that. Life is all about making choices.
Also, I think men should get as much paternity leave as women get minus the time women need to restore physically from giving birth. In the Netherlands it's only 3 days IIRC. Which is pretty shitty. Extending this also reduces the reason for employers to hire men rather than women from fear of losing valuable time and effort.

[VectorM]

I would say that it's perfectly fine to refuse hiring women or men wanting to have kids. For some jobs, having kids (especially around birth) just doesn't get along with getting the job done (CEOs and other critical elements in any organization). It has become a right to have kids and get leave and it's forbidden to discriminate on that, but that's... pretty stupid IMO. Not that I have anything against having kids (I am absolutely sure I want kids about 10 years from now), but for some jobs, it just doesn't work. People should accept that. Life is all about making choices.
Also, I think men should get as much paternity leave as women get minus the time women need to restore physically from giving birth. In the Netherlands it's only 3 days IIRC. Which is pretty shitty. Extending this also reduces the reason for employers to hire men rather than women from fear of losing valuable time and effort.

And I say, that anyone should be able to discriminate on ANY basis he wishes, when it comes to work. And they will then pay the price for not hiring some very skilled workers, that happened to have some trait, that they didn't like for whatever reason.

Also, there shouldn't be any laws for paternity leaves. If the employer is OK with letting anyone go, so they could take care of the children business, they can do so if they wish. That will actually encourage people to get their lives going, before having children.

[bobby 55]

The really fun issue is this one: A small business has 3 employees. The employer prefers hiring males, or women over 40 or below 20, because he can't afford a person being off on maternity leave; the business would need close if any one employee couldn't come in for 3 months and he'd have to keep the position open for her.

Is this person wrong to screen in this fashion to protect his business?

Ooh, a tricky one. I think my knee jerk reaction was...discrimination. However he's being discriminating in his choice of employees for reasons of keeping his business viable and a few people employed, not just because of their age or gender.

Good luck getting that past the Fair Work Ombudsman , or Arbitration though.

[AEmer]

I find it really weird that you find being judged for your actions is the same as an unknown individual being judged based on prejudices about a group they're a member of. I'm not prejudiced against you, I'm judging you, not pre, but post, based on what you've already posted in this thread. Are you actually a commune sharing one forums account, and some OTHER guy was posting earlier under your name? That'd explain it, I guess. That's still pretty weird of you all, though.

Ok. How exactly were you not prejudging my oppinion on transsexuals?

[AEmer]

@ Bobby, Vector & Gamer

Yup, that's actually a patently illegal practice I just described, but it happens all over the place; it's incredibly hard to control for, and the profit incentive is very much there.

In particular, if you're a 27 years old woman and you're recently married but you have no children yet? You better believe it'll be hard as all hell to get hired in a critical position in a small company. I think the image of the workaholic business woman who hates children and stays single is an image that's arisen because it evens the playing field; they have to put on a very convincing act to be considered as seriously as men.

The example is slightly dishonest in its premise; generally, having maternity leave for women won't make companies close very often, but it can easily reduce profits enough that most of the reinvestment gets eaten up. If you're a small business owner putting in 100 hours a week, trying to build a safetynet for yourself and your young children, giving up everything now to have riches later? This practice honestly seems totally fair.

But I'd contend that it's still sexist.

[VectorM]

I find it really weird that you find being judged for your actions is the same as an unknown individual being judged based on prejudices about a group they're a member of. I'm not prejudiced against you, I'm judging you, not pre, but post, based on what you've already posted in this thread. Are you actually a commune sharing one forums account, and some OTHER guy was posting earlier under your name? That'd explain it, I guess. That's still pretty weird of you all, though.

Ok. How exactly were you not prejudging my oppinion on transsexuals?

Not to mention that the reason he prejudged you, was based on his inability to actually comprehend what you were saying.

How about you actually state your problems with what we said, JSL, instead of hiding behind that stupid "But I can't be unpolite" excuse?

[Jetsetlemming]

I find it really weird that you find being judged for your actions is the same as an unknown individual being judged based on prejudices about a group they're a member of. I'm not prejudiced against you, I'm judging you, not pre, but post, based on what you've already posted in this thread. Are you actually a commune sharing one forums account, and some OTHER guy was posting earlier under your name? That'd explain it, I guess. That's still pretty weird of you all, though.

Ok. How exactly were you not prejudging my oppinion on transsexuals?

I wasn't prejudging your opinion, I was judging you. You're being very squirrelly trying to score points by acting so slighted and put upon. Perhaps if you didn't want to be judged you should've posted better earlier in the thread.