Transsexuals on Zalanthas

[musashi]

I think what he meant was that while here on earth ... men have something like 40% more upper body strength and 60% more lower body strength than women do  ... that doesn't exist in Zalanthas.

Ergo, the gender roles imposed by biology (men do more dangerous things like war and hunting because they're stronger/more disposable, women gather food and rear children because they're the breeders) did not develop.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, the fact that women still bear kids while men don't would logically still make women more valuable in terms of survival of a tribe/species etc but ... we all comfortably let that slide for playbility's sake because we don't want earth gender norms in our game.

My point was that these gender roles are still a part of us as players though, so they tend to creep in naturally if we don't actively counter balance against them. So ... I don't judge the players freaking out over bcw81's male PC in a dress too harshly. It's an easy mistake to make.

[Beethoven]

I think what he meant was that while here on earth ... men have something like 40% more upper body strength and 60% more lower body strength than women do  ... that doesn't exist in Zalanthas.

Ergo, the gender roles imposed by biology (men do more dangerous things like war and hunting because they're stronger/more disposable, women gather food and rear children because they're the breeders) did not develop.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, the fact that women still bear kids while men don't would logically still make women more valuable in terms of survival of a tribe/species etc but ... we all comfortably let that slide for playbility's sake because we don't want earth gender norms in our game.

My point was that these gender roles are still a part of us as players though, so they tend to creep in naturally if we don't actively counter balance against them. So ... I don't judge the players freaking out over bcw81's male PC in a dress too harshly. It's an easy mistake to make.

Yes, I also believe that is what he meant. Which is why when people think he and other staff members who have made similar statements meant there is zero sexual dimorphism at all...i.e. women are just as likely to have beards as men, women and men have the same voice pitch range, women and men are equally likely to have Adam's apples, there is no distinguishing women and men based on facial features, and that Zalanthan women and men are basically identical other than their genitalia and maybe breasts, I think that is going too far. Not to put words in anyone's mouth or anything, or speculate TOO much about what people meant. I think that if Rathustra came back and said that is exactly what he meant, I'd still be pretty freakin' skeptical about the IC implications of that.

[bardlyone]

I think what he meant was that while here on earth ... men have something like 40% more upper body strength and 60% more lower body strength than women do  ... that doesn't exist in Zalanthas.

Ergo, the gender roles imposed by biology (men do more dangerous things like war and hunting because they're stronger/more disposable, women gather food and rear children because they're the breeders) did not develop.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, the fact that women still bear kids while men don't would logically still make women more valuable in terms of survival of a tribe/species etc but ... we all comfortably let that slide for playbility's sake because we don't want earth gender norms in our game.

My point was that these gender roles are still a part of us as players though, so they tend to creep in naturally if we don't actively counter balance against them. So ... I don't judge the players freaking out over bcw81's male PC in a dress too harshly. It's an easy mistake to make.

What I'm saying is, your sex is male or female, biologically, or something in between. That's your physiology, your body. Your mentality/mind/social role, is gender roles. Those are social, not biological. And they change from culture to culture. Pink and blue aren't boys colors and girls colors. It's all just legos, and some people like legos, and some people don't. That's social roles. That is not biological sex. The social roles are gender roles.

[musashi]

One could even argue that since Zalanthan men and women seem to still have sexual diamorphism at the level of secondary sexual traits (ie ... boobs and junk) ... then looking askance and snickering at a man with no boobs and broad shoulders wearing a dress sewn to fit someone with boobs and small shoulders would be totally justified.

I think the basic conundrum is this:

You need gender roles in order to have trans-gendered people. The concept isn't even coherent without.

If genders are not biological and a result of the way you are born ... then why did Caitlyn Jenner feel like a woman in spite of society raising her as a man for her entire life? Why couldn't society program her gender into that of a man if gender is just a construct of society?

Why couldn't society program David Reimer into thinking he was a girl? They even gave him sexual reassignment surgery from 6 months of age and never told him he was ever born a boy to begin with and he still identified as a boy and rejected the female identity society tried to condition him into.

I don't think those people were faking it. Or that they arbitrarily decided to change their mind about their gender identity at some point in their life. I think that like sexual orientation, they were born that way. We all are.

The "third, fourth, fifth" gendered societies referenced in that PBS report aren't really extra genders. They're societies that are obviously more accepting of trans-gendered. All of their "extra" genders are basically carving out a space for people who are born one way but feel they should be another. And good on them for it. I hope we become similar in the future. But their extra genders are all still just variations on the two we have as a species, but sometimes get the wiring crossed for in development.

An actual third gender would be something like ... he produces the sperm, she produces the egg, and zhe incubates both inside zher body to carry the baby to term.



So in a world like Zalanthas, where we don't really want to define gender roles of any kind ... it makes it really difficult to define what a transgendered person would even be.  

[musashi]

bardlyone ...

What I am saying is that the little variations like what's a boy's color vs a girl's color ... are cosmetic window dressing put on top of the gender role skeletal structure that our biological sex defines.

And we already know that these preferences have roots in development, not social conditioning.

[bardlyone]

bardlyone ...

What I am saying is that the little variations like what's a boy's color vs a girl's color ... are cosmetic window dressing put on top of the gender role skeletal structure that our biological sex defines.

And we already know that these preferences have roots in development, not social conditioning.

Beg to differ.

Definition of Terms
Sex
refers to a person's biological status and is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex
(i.e., atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female).
There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal
reproductive organs, and external genitalia.
Gender
refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a
person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as
gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations
constitute gender non-conformity.

[Source: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf ]

[musashi]

Bardlyone ...

From your same source:

Gender identity refers to "one's sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender" (American
Psychological Association, 2006). When one's gender identity and biological sex are not
congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf.
Gainor, 2000).

Those are semantics. You can define words any way you like, it does nothing to change the scientific observation that (from my source before):

• Children who are in the pre-socialization stage of their cognitive development exhibit sex-specific preferences.
• Little girls who suffer from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, an endocrinological disorder that masculinizes morphological features and behavioral patterns, exhibit toy preferences that are more masculine than their female counterparts who do not suffer from the disorder. In other words, there is a link between hormones and toy/play preferences.
• Studies using our primate cousins (e.g., rhesus and vervet monkeys) have found the exact same sex-specific preferences in infants within those species.
• The digit ratio is a sexually dimorphic marker of exposure to androgens in utero. Males who exhibit more masculine digit ratios are more likely to engage in male-specific behaviors and preferences.
• Thus, work stemming from developmental psychology, comparative psychology, and endocrinology, using both non-clinical and clinical populations, and a wide assortment of dependent measures (e.g., eye gaze, digit ratio), points to an unassailable conclusion: the sex-specificity of toy preferences is shaped by sex-specific biological forces.

Changing the conventional definition of "gender" to mean something else, and instead using "gender identity" to now mean what gender used to mean ... doesn't alter observation.

Just take the word "gender" and change it to "gender identity" for everything I've said so far, and I think all of my points still stand.

[musashi]

To use the terms you would like to use:

What I am saying is that the little variations like what's a boy's color vs a girl's color ... are cosmetic window dressing otherwise known as "gender-normative societial preferences" ... put on top of the skeletal structure known as "gender identity", which is derived biologically from "sex".

And all the extra genders referenced in the PBS documentary about cultures around the world are just examples of societies being tolerant of people whose "gender expression" was "gender non-conformative" to their culture, hence they created a new "gender" to give them a "gender-normative" role in which to express themselves.

An actual new "gender identity/sex" would be if he made the sperm, she made the egg, and zhe incubated the egg in zher body to carry the baby to term.

I'm still making exactly the same points. It's just harder for normal people to understand what's being said from all the field-specific jargon.

[musashi]

Sorry last post I promise. I just thought to be helpful I'll restate my main point using terms you're more comfortable with to avoid the semantic confusion.

I think the basic conundrum is this:

You need "gender" in order for trans-gender to have meaning. The concept is practically redundant without.

Zalanthas, for all intents and purposes ... only has one "gender". So there is no way for someone to have "gender expression" that is "gender normative" or "gender non-conformative". All "gender expression" is covered under the one size fits all "gender" that the setting of Armageddon appears to roll with.

Hence, aside from a male wishing they could bear a child, or a female wishing she could impregnate another female ... it's difficult to envision what a transgendered Zalanthan would even be. Aside from that single peculiar quirk ... there is nothing for a trans-gendered Zalanthan to look at and think "I wish society associated those attitudes, feelings, and behaviors with me ..." ... ... because Zalanthan society already would.

[Case]

I mostly agree with Musashi except for his poor understanding of third gender. There are definitely more than 2 gender roles in two ways:
1. Each culture perceives maleness and femaleness differently
2. Some cultures express additional genders.

While I do agree that third gender roles to fit non gender normative behaviours into a societal framework is an example of gender binary, some cultures do express this in different ways. Some east european cultures have historically struggled to have enough men for the tribe or village, meaning some women will have to adopt a male role. Often this is chaste, and they are not considered men or women. This is an example of how the binary for that culture is not being enforced - were there enough men, this gender role of sworn virgin would not exist. That's not the only example but I'm in the bath so brevity is important.

It is true that for humans and our close animal relatives, some gender is commonly biologically baked in. Men and women have different brains and brain chemistry. It is then amplified or suppressed by social construction, and I would argue this is far more significant.

Transsexualism is understood culturally again. The west considers it medical these days. We previously considered it mental illness, immorality, directly related to hermaphrodites (and all the religious trappings of that) or a demonic or ancestral curse. Other modern cultures consider it third sex, its own identity, a demonic curse or literally homosexuality.

So, with that in mind, I don't consider it to be of conflict enough on Zalanthas to be an identity. Being gay isn't either. As homosexuality is expressed as preference in Zalanthan culture, I believe it exists solely as a preference for the look or body parts of the other biological sex, without stigma or noteworthiness. In the same way as wanting to be shorter, blonde or more attractive might be.

[Case]

I will note that I believe gender binary/roles exist in Zalanthas only in the sense that 'a woman' births children and 'a man' helps fertilise 'a woman'. Thassit. In Zalanthas, somebody could be one, both or neither.

[musashi]

Case, I think your example of a 3rd "gender" is ... again using the terms you and bardlyone seem more comfortable with ... an example of someone with a female "sex" having "gender expression" that aligns more with that society's masculine "gender" ... but instead of calling her a heathen they created a new "gender" in order to make her "gender expression" "gender normative".

Yes it's a new "gender" ... so long as if by "gender" you mean this:

Definition of Terms
Gender
refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a
person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as
gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations
constitute gender non-conformity.

[Source: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexuality-definitions.pdf ]

Instead of what most people take the word to mean, which is this:

gen·der
ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"
synonyms:   sex

It's a semantic difference more than anything else. It's not that I don't understand these third genders as a concept. It's that the word gender has a totally different meaning in the American Psychological Association than it does in common conversation, much like the word "theory" in science vs. conventional language.

I was using the latter before, you and bardlyone are using the former.

[Case]

You shouldn't then, because it's basic scientific terminology from before you were born, relevant to what you're arguing about. Normally you do use correct terminology, so trying to make it all about semantics is pretty pathetic coming from you.

When I use 'gender role', I mean 'cultural role' to be quite honest, but it's more approachable term for anybody reading what I wrote. You could read what I wrote in the context of layman use of 'gender' however, and I'd still be making a point, because all cultures view biological male and female differently -too-.

[musashi]

You shouldn't then, because it's basic scientific terminology from before you were born, relevant to what you're arguing about. Normally you do use correct terminology, so trying to make it all about semantics is pretty pathetic coming from you.

... The American Psychological Association didn't revise it's terms until 2011, as per the source bardlyone provided. Prior to that gender appears to have been used interchangeably with sex just like it still is in common parlance. I'm a little older than 4.

And please try to keep the personal insults to a minimum. I think it would be slightly more charitable for you give me the benefit of the doubt that I was in fact using the terminology in fashion when I was still in college being formatively exposed to the topic.

If terms have been twerked/added since then ... that's fine. Potato Patado, I'll just rephrase my argument accordingly, nothing about it has qualitatively changed.

[musashi]

When I use 'gender role', I mean 'cultural role' to be quite honest, but it's more approachable term for anybody reading what I wrote. You could read what I wrote in the context of layman use of 'gender' however, and I'd still be making a point, because all cultures view biological male and female differently -too-.

And while all cultures have superficial differences in which they paint masculine and feminine, all cultures share a basic set of very similar expectations from which the superficial differences diverge. And those expectations are rooted in the diamorphism of our sexes.

In fact, it's not just all humans, it's all primate species.



That aside, I think we both agree that Zalanthas does not share such a basic set of similar expectations. And moreover ... does not even have any significant superficial differences. Yes?

That's the crux of why I think the state of being trans-gendered would be largely meaningless in Zalanthas to begin with.

[Jingo]

Gender roles are rooted in biology brought on by our sexual diamorphism ... so I can't even blame people for letting such a strong part of our own hard wiring creep into the game.

Everything you think you know about gender is a fiction that you were taught from childhood. And the reaction you have is a not a biological one, but instead cognitive dissonance based on what you think is the appropriate performance for a gender.

It's ... really not. At all. But going into a discussion about certain strains of progressive political ideology vs. scientific studies on gender roles in animals as relating to their biological sexual traits is perhaps beyond the purview of this thread.

No. When you get squicked from a man wearing a dress, it's not coming from your balls. Sorry.

[musashi]

No. When you get squicked from a man wearing a dress, it's not coming from your balls. Sorry.

I ... don't even know what this is supposed to be mean or what kind of point it's supposed to convey. Sorry.

I'm guessing that you mean something like: Trans-phobia is not derived from your own biological sex?

To which I would say, no, it isn't. But that's not what I said, or in any way related to what I thought you were saying.

I thought we were talking about "gender" or "gender identity" if you want to use the new term for it, and whether or not it is a cultural construct or a biologically determined dispotition. That's totally unrelated to anyone's bigotry or lack thereof.

[Barzalene]

The lack of defined gender roles might make playing a transsexual anti-climactic, but, I think it fits the docs. In my arm men can wear all the dresses they want. The dresses should be geographically and socioeconomically appropriate and a flattering color. Maybe it's wrong of me, but I think if you're playing it differently you're wrong.

[Beethoven]

The docs do suggest that there are certain types of clothing that are more commonly worn by one sex over another. But I don't think that people are supposed to care too much if you cross those boundaries, and there is even an organization that makes one of those articles of clothing their uniform regardless of sex, so I don't think it's ever really noteworthy. If those docs are wrong, they can be changed and I will not bat an eyelash.

[Marauder Moe]

Waaaaaat?  Zalanthas has never been Ancillary Justice Fantasy MUD.

~ The selection of male or female at character creation determines your character's presentation. It codedly results in assigning your character's pronouns and what other players will assume your character's sex is at a glance. It is not tied to anything physiological or psychological about your character - you are free to play your character as you wish. This is in line with our policy of zero sexual dimorphism in our currently playable races.

Context suggests that "sexual dimorphism" means "coded sexual dimorphism".

[Malken]

No matter what the docs say, if you're a male wearing a cutesy pink dress with matching stockings and high heels, prepare to file a lot of players' complaint because many will mock/question your character for it and you're just constantly going to have to try and explain to them that it's perfectly normal to do so.

[Beethoven]

I don't really care too much about the fashion thing, just as long as no one FREAKS OUT when a guy wears a dress. Some people freaked out when my guy wore a skirt, some treated it as slightly odd but okay, other people treated it like normal, and yet others acknowledged he was wearing female-cut clothing but didn't seem to give a shit. I treated the first option as strange--the other three, I accepted. There are really two options, the way I see it.

- Dresses are more commonly worn by females, but no one cares when a male wears one, because nobody gives a shit about gender on Zalanthas.
- Dresses are worn equally by males and females, because all fashion is gender-neutral.

I think the first one makes more sense based on the docs, the descriptions of clothing, and NPCs I have seen, and is more interesting, but I will accept the second.

I know this thread is about transgenderism and all, but I'm still really caught up on this point, so sorry, please bear with me. What really gives me pause is that some people are proposing that there really aren't men and women at all, just people with binary reproductive organs. In that case I do not see the point of anyone having "man" or "woman" in their sdesc. I understand the no sexism rule, and I LOVE that women are 100% as strong and have no limitations on Zalanthas. I now literally cannot stomach RPIs that do it any other way. But I think the way some people are proposing it is...really boring and more alienating to women than empowering. I say this as a woman, even though I play a lot of male characters. If I want to play a strong warrior woman, I want to play a strong warrior woman and not think that she's basically a genderless alien that is no more likely to have what we Earthlings think of as "female" voice or "female" facial features than the male VNPC across the street.

Now, I am certainly not saying she has to be "pretty" or "feminine," but I would like to think that unless I envision or describe her differently, she's recognizable as female at a glance, and not just because bewbs. I can't identify all that well with a female that's only female because of a vagina and mammaries, and I'm not talking about stereotypes like "more nurturing" or "more emotional" or "stays in the kitchen." (Not saying I can't identify with a masculine-looking female, either, because I've played two and loved them, but they fell at that end of the spectrum deliberately, and that was part of their character design, hopefully not just a meaningless characteristic in a world where the sexes look exactly the same!) I'm just saying, while I love the no-sexism rule, if she's just as likely to look like Willie Robertson with a vag and breasts (sorry) as she is Boudica, I don't feel all that excited about that as a woman.

And I don't think it's all that thrilling for people who want to play transgendered roles, either, and find themselves wondering what secondary sex characteristics even exist. I can tell that the staff want this game to be welcoming to people of all walks of life, and I appreciate all they have done to reach out to women, minorities, and sexual minorities, but I think it has gone too far with the sexual homogeneity thing. It's unnecessary and counterproductive and everyone is disagreeing about where we stand. Some people think that women are equally likely to have beards as men, others disagree, clarification would be nice.

[Revenant]

No matter what the docs say, if you're a male wearing a cutesy pink dress with matching stockings and high heels, prepare to file a lot of players' complaint because many will mock/question your character for it and you're just constantly going to have to try and explain to them that it's perfectly normal to do so.

THIS. I have experienced SIGNIFICANT IG consequences for doing just this. Having a male character do things one would, in American society, identify as female, or the other way around, has resulted in some serious negative consequences. It shouldn't be that way, before I started playing the game, another player on Hellmoo asked me if I could actually hack it, because of the rule that gender roles were not acknowledged, told me it was pretty serious, and that I could get banned for it, I proceeded to read the rules on it, and said, yeah, I can dig it.

But some can't. When they realize their mistake, they'll cook up new IC arguments to cover it, but it still doesn't change anything. Good luck submitting a player complaint about it, though, because it's not even in the helpfiles, you have to dig into the quickstart guide to find it, so if you see someone making this mistake, you can't just ooc them to look at a helpfile, and the behavior continues. Sexual preferences is another thing there's a lot of misconceptions on IG. My characters don't always have the same preferences I do, monogamy, polyamory, bisexuality, none of these things should matter, yet, time and again, I keep seeing them become a serious IG issue. Players naturally slip into their RL mentality, apply these rules, then drive plots and consequences, from them. After I read the core documents carefully, I thought this shouldn't happen, but it does. It's not in line with what I thought I was signing up for.

[Malken]

No matter what the docs say, if you're a male wearing a cutesy pink dress with matching stockings and high heels, prepare to file a lot of players' complaint because many will mock/question your character for it and you're just constantly going to have to try and explain to them that it's perfectly normal to do so.

THIS. I have experienced SIGNIFICANT IG consequences for doing just this. Having a male character do things one would, in American society, identify as female, or the other way around, has resulted in some serious negative consequences. It shouldn't be that way, before I started playing the game, another player on Hellmoo asked me if I could actually hack it, because of the rule that gender roles were not acknowledged, told me it was pretty serious, and that I could get banned for it, I proceeded to read the rules on it, and said, yeah, I can dig it.

But some can't. When they realize their mistake, they'll cook up new IC arguments to cover it, but it still doesn't change anything. Good luck submitting a player complaint about it, though, because it's not even in the helpfiles, you have to dig into the quickstart guide to find it, so if you see someone making this mistake, you can't just ooc them to look at a helpfile, and the behavior continues. Sexual preferences is another thing there's a lot of misconceptions on IG. My characters don't always have the same preferences I do, monogamy, polyamory, bisexuality, none of these things should matter, yet, time and again, I keep seeing them become a serious IG issue. Players naturally slip into their RL mentality, apply these rules, then drive plots and consequences, from them. After I read the core documents carefully, I thought this shouldn't happen, but it does. It's not in line with what I thought I was signing up for.

I sorta got into a situation like that a while back, when a male PC was hitting on my PC and I told him something like "You don't have the bits that I enjoy in a sexual partner" and the guy sounded pissed both ICly and OOCly.

Am I wrong for not wanting to be in an homosexual relationship (which I think is perfectly fine for those who are into it) just because it's supposed to be a normal thing in the world we play in? While I'm sure my PC would/might feel totally fine with it, I don't think I would enjoy/be comfortable with it myself.

Sometime I feel like we're going way too far to make a point about the lack of sex differences in game (again, I think it's a great rule so that's not my point). Should every PCs be bisexual and not blink an eye when they spot a male guy wearing a pink dress with matching stockings or a female PC walking around with nothing but a loincloth sitting in the Gaj? Maybe, but again, this is something that you're just going to get major headaches over and over again if you go for it - So if you go for it, do realize that you're going against majorly ingrained cultural thoughts and norms that many players won't be able to totally shove aside.

[Barzalene]

I agree with you entirely, Malken. No one should push it past no.

I've had a similar issue playing a combat pc looking for a job and instead got an IC/ooc lecture from a group in the gaj that I was playing wrong because my pc didn't want to be a whore.

Edited to add, I agree no one should tell you your pc should want to, or have to have sex with anyone else if they don't.

I don't agree that playing your pc's tastes whatever they are should elicit any particular reaction, unless it's well, your beetle. Or your kid. Or a breed. Wear your pink dress. Wear the hell out of it. And if anyone gives you shit, lop off their head with your bone sword.