Androgyny

[valeria]

stuff

Your surprise penis reveal scenario has nothing to do with the idea presented in this thread. The question in this thread is whether characters who appear neither male nor female should be able to appear gender neutral.

Your hypothetical penis reveal can already happen by someone who chooses this already existing work around option:

If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.

So I really don't know what to tell you, other than that the fact that your support for one idea hinges on an inapplicable scenario is very confusing.

[Edit because I quoted the wrong part.]

[Heade]

Shock reveals are fucking pathetic.

If Character A betrays Character B's trust wholeheartedly, then sure, go ahead and try and PK. Whatever. Character A has no recourse here unless Character B was actively doing it from a position of homophobia or transphobia.

But let's not turn this into a discussion about shock reveals and trans panic. And by the by, "trans panic" is just as possible under the current code, by Brokkr's admission. And I've never seen it happen.

And I doubt any actual non-binary or trans folk would play out a trans panic plotline anyway. Because it's fucking stupid. And not on topic.

"Surprise" reveals were already mentioned by someone else in this thread.

If you are playing an androgynous person your coded gender is a dead give away making it impossible to truly surprise people as to what your gender is

Can you give me a couple examples of how you would expect such a "surprise" to be played out IC, and what you'd expect the outcomes to be?

Of course, they never responded to this question. Hence the scenario I put together. I get that you see this as justification for a PK, but from such a player's perspective, how do they know if the reaction was homophobia or a simple reaction to betrayal? They don't. So anyone worried about homophobia will likely submit a player complaint in such a circumstance, creating more work for staff and increasing the time it takes for our custom crafts to get built, for our important NPCs to get animated, for our character reports to get reviewed, and all the other things we need staff for. I just don't think the upside is worth the downside.

So I really don't know what to tell you, other than that the fact that your support for one idea hinges on an inapplicable scenario is very confusing.

Oh, it's certainly applicable. To think that coded support for something won't lead to an increase in people playing that something is highly unlikely.

[Draugr]

Folks, a gentle reminder to avoid turning discussions into personal attacks.  Thank you muchly. -D

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

Shock reveals are fucking pathetic.

If Character A betrays Character B's trust wholeheartedly, then sure, go ahead and try and PK. Whatever. Character A has no recourse here unless Character B was actively doing it from a position of homophobia or transphobia.

But let's not turn this into a discussion about shock reveals and trans panic. And by the by, "trans panic" is just as possible under the current code, by Brokkr's admission. And I've never seen it happen.

And I doubt any actual non-binary or trans folk would play out a trans panic plotline anyway. Because it's fucking stupid. And not on topic.

"Surprise" reveals were already mentioned by someone else in this thread.

I personally already addressed 'surprise' reveals earlier in this thread - as stated then, if someone sees that as a reason for this, I actually encourage them to rescind their support.

This isn't about shock reveals. This is about patching up a gap and bringing the lore closer to the code.

And how in the living crap does this give people "more support" for shock reveal plotlines? Anyone and everyone can do it nowadays, all the time, whenever they want.

The thing is, the people who somehow think that's compelling storytelling aren't going to wait for permission.

And it's not on topic for the actual point of any of this. Again.

[Brokkr]

If you want to play an androgynous character, you effectively can't do it here. Or can't effectively do it here. Take your pick.

Yes, you can.  Androgynous does not mean that you can't determine the sex.  It spans a spectrum, of which part of that spectrum is that you can't determine the sex.  For that one piece of the spectrum, we don't currently have a good solution.

Suggestions have been made in the appropriate place.  If the tone of this conversation continues in the direction it has started going in, I will lock the thread.

[Heade]

I personally already addressed 'surprise' reveals earlier in this thread - as stated then, if someone sees that as a reason for this, I actually encourage them to rescind their support.

I totally understand that, and I completely understand and agree with your position, but you aren't the referee of this thread. You aren't the main character that everyone else is having a discussion with. Other people have viewpoints and have stated them. And those viewpoints must be considered even if you encouraged them to rescind their support. Since "surprise reveals" were among those viewpoints, it's a point that must be considered when discussing something like this.

As I said, I have no problem supporting this code-wise. But before I do, I would want a 100% direct statement from the administration that player complaints against characters that react negatively to surprise reveals won't be entertained, and that submitting such a complaint is grounds for administrative action. I don't want staff bogged down in completely avoidable BS.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

If you want to play an androgynous character, you effectively can't do it here. Or can't effectively do it here. Take your pick.

Yes, you can.  Androgynous does not mean that you can't determine the sex.  It spans a spectrum, of which part of that spectrum is that you can't determine the sex.  For that one piece of the spectrum, we don't currently have a good solution.

Suggestions have been made in the appropriate place.  If the tone of this conversation continues in the direction it has started going in, I will lock the thread.

I encourage the locking of the thread, personally. Detractors are taking it off the rails, and enthusiasts (including myself) are becoming angry and agitated. This isn't conducive to an environment where discussion can actually happen anymore, instead it's turning into a debate on gender politics, and me reinstating every 5 seconds that that has no place here.

It's cyclical at this point. What's been said has been said and lain flat.

Thank you for your time and patience, Brokkr.

Post-post edit: This isn't me stating this on behalf of the whole thread, by the by. I'm not acting as a 'main character'. I'm purely stating that in my personal viewpoint, this topic is off the rail and into toxic territory now.

[valeria]

I stand by my statement.  Androgyny is "the quality or state of being neither specifically feminine or masculine." - Merriam Webster. If the code is assigning you feminine or masculine pronouns, when you actively appear as neither, then you are codedly incapable of being truly androgynous.

ETA: We agree that there is a spectrum and that one area of that spectrum is not represented. It is exactly that area of the spectrum I was referring to.

[Lizzie]

I still have no problem with people wanting to express their character's gender-obscurity. My problem is STILL with the use self-identification as "they" and "them" and "their" and "theirs." For the same reason I objected to it before.

There already IS a specific meaning to those words. Those words refer to someone "other than me." If I am talking about the previously un-noticed hooded figure, and the templar asks which way did the hooded figure go, I can say "he went thataway." or "she went thataway." or "they went thataway." Or yes, "it went thataway." That should be up to me to decide which one my character will use, first of all. It's MY character's perception. Self-identification as a "they" is confusing to the readers, in a text game.

Second, if the hooded figure was with a hidden hooded figure, and I saw both of them, and said "they went thataway," you're suggesting that the templar should assume I am speaking ONLY about the singular hooded figure when in fact, I am speaking of "them," in the plural.

In a text game, it helps to be specific. Otherwise you could spend hours of real-time just trying to figure which "they" you're talking about.

I continue to suggest: if you want to come up with some word that can be used singularly, that cannot be confused with a plural, to describe "some person whose gender you aren't sure of," then do so. I'll jump on the bandwagon to embrace it right along with you.

[puella]

It's just how English works, Lizzie.  Other languages do things differently.

[Medena]

There already IS a specific meaning to those words. Those words refer to someone "other than me." If I am talking about the previously un-noticed hooded figure, and the templar asks which way did the hooded figure go, I can say "he went thataway." or "she went thataway." or "they went thataway." Or yes, "it went thataway." That should be up to me to decide which one my character will use, first of all. It's MY character's perception. Self-identification as a "they" is confusing to the readers, in a text game.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that PC's would have to say "they".  I believe it would still be up to you.  If your PC perceives them to be a she, your PC would use "she".  "They" is simply the pronoun that is shown to the room in emotes done by the androgynous PC.

Second, if the hooded figure was with a hidden hooded figure, and I saw both of them, and said "they went thataway," you're suggesting that the templar should assume I am speaking ONLY about the singular hooded figure when in fact, I am speaking of "them," in the plural.

Who suggested that?  I'm sure Templars are used to hearing pretty muddled versions of things and so, if they've picked up on the fact that there was a hidden figure as well as the other, the Templar might well ask for clarification.  If they aren't aware of the hidden figure, well, yeah, they are going to think it is one person.

In a text game, it helps to be specific. Otherwise you could spend hours of real-time just trying to figure which "they" you're talking about.

There are lots of ways of being specific without relying just on pronouns.  In your examples, you could have said:  "they both went thataway"  or "the one that was hiding went thataway but I never seen where t'other one went"

I continue to suggest: if you want to come up with some word that can be used singularly, that cannot be confused with a plural, to describe "some person whose gender you aren't sure of," then do so. I'll jump on the bandwagon to embrace it right along with you.

If this change were to go in, I doubt there would be a horde of people app'ing androgynous characters.  I don't see mass confusion ensuing.

[Inky]

At first I thought this thread was merely a collection of ultra-bad takes on gender neutral pronouns, but I've really learned a lot of useful information. I now know that gender identities are like Voldemort (shhhhhh!), or maybe Pringles (because once you pop, you can't stop). Now I know that the singular th*y is a dangerous thing to introduce into the magick desert world where conventional gender roles simply don't exist, because

And somehow "it" is acceptable over "th*y" despite its dehumanizing connotations because

I was also shocked to learn that sometimes people insert a reflection or an aspect of th*mselves into th**r characters while playing this game. I guess things have really changed from back in my day, where we would put ourselves in the shoes of a character and portray th*m. We would insert ourselves into a role and play the game. A sort of role-play, if you will. I always thought self-insertion was necessary, since it was my knowledge of the English language that allowed me to play at all! But that must be why I never reached maxx karma.

Was it too much self-insertion to play as cis men in Armageddon even though I'm a cis man IRL? Or maybe, just MAYBE, there are some other underlying assumptions and attitudes at play here when it comes to playing nonbinary characters specifically.

(As a side note, back when I actually played and didn't just lurk the GDB and Arm vicariously through Valeria, having all the gendered pronouns switched over to a neutral "they" seemed like a no-brainer to me, for a few reasons already touched on by various people in this thread.)

Best take of the thread.

[Inky]

Who cares if it's really about gender politics?

What do you have to lose if suddenly PCs can grammatically be referred to as "they?"  You lost some culture-war battle fought over some territory that only like a couple hundred people in the entire world care about? Who cares?

I mean...I really don't give a rat's ass, but the idea that this pisses people off to the point that they write multi-paragraph screeds in opposition is...really pretty amusing.

It almost makes me want to support it just to spite the people who don't have any good reason for opposing it.

Second place.

[flurry]

I'm surprised by the suggestion that the singular they is confusing, since people use it all the time. Seriously.

Or does this seem more appropriate?

"It's my roomate's birthday today." "Oh, how old is it?"

"I can't Way you right now. A templar is making an announcement." "Well, let me know what it says."

"Have you met the new Salarri agent?" "I don't know. What's its name?"

Also, the pronoun you can be both singular and plural. I think we've managed okay with that one. I'm too much of a Northerner to attempt "y'all" and "all y'all" convincingly.

[Malken]

I like your post, Flurry.

[Lizzie]

I'm surprised by the suggestion that the singular they is confusing, since people use it all the time. Seriously.

Or does this seem more appropriate?

"It's my roomate's birthday today." "Oh, how old is it?"

"I can't Way you right now. A templar is making an announcement." "Well, let me know what it says."

"Have you met the new Salarri agent?" "I don't know. What's its name?"

Also, the pronoun you can be both singular and plural. I think we've managed okay with that one. I'm too much of a Northerner to attempt "y'all" and "all y'all" convincingly.

The concern is with SELF-IDENTIFICATION.

>With a smirk from the green-eyed elf, the blue-haired human turns around and stares at the purple-skinned half-breed. Their cloak ripples from a dust devil under their feet.


Which one of these three people have a dust devil blowing up under their cloak?

[flurry]

The concern is with SELF-IDENTIFICATION.

>With a smirk from the green-eyed elf, the blue-haired human turns around and stares at the purple-skinned half-breed. Their cloak ripples from a dust devil under their feet.


Which one of these three people have a dust devil blowing up under their cloak?

Emphasis added. As I was saying, people use the singular they all the time.

Okay, seriously though, the same exact potential confusion in your example can happen with 'his' or 'her.'

[Delirium]

The concern is with SELF-IDENTIFICATION.

>With a smirk from the green-eyed elf, the blue-haired human turns around and stares at the purple-skinned half-breed. Their cloak ripples from a dust devil under their feet.


Which one of these three people have a dust devil blowing up under their cloak?

Emphasis added. As I was saying, people use the singular they all the time.

Okay, seriously though, the same exact potential confusion in your example can happen with 'his' or 'her.'

What flurry said. Word the emote better so that doesn't happen.


After smirking at the green-eyed elf, the blue-haired human turns, their cloak rippling from a dust devil underfoot.

The blue-eyed human stares at the purple-skinned half-breed.


Much of the time, confusion results from trying to pack too many actions or details into one emote. Don't be afraid to break it up!

[LauraMars]

I go away to have adventures for a few days and come back and what happened in here?

Oh well, I am crying with laughter at Zoltan's post.

[mansa]

More customization options is always good in a text medium.

[Bebop]

At first I thought this thread was merely a collection of ultra-bad takes on gender neutral pronouns, but I've really learned a lot of useful information. I now know that gender identities are like Voldemort (shhhhhh!), or maybe Pringles (because once you pop, you can't stop). Now I know that the singular th*y is a dangerous thing to introduce into the magick desert world where conventional gender roles simply don't exist, because

And somehow "it" is acceptable over "th*y" despite its dehumanizing connotations because

I was also shocked to learn that sometimes people insert a reflection or an aspect of th*mselves into th**r characters while playing this game. I guess things have really changed from back in my day, where we would put ourselves in the shoes of a character and portray th*m. We would insert ourselves into a role and play the game. A sort of role-play, if you will. I always thought self-insertion was necessary, since it was my knowledge of the English language that allowed me to play at all! But that must be why I never reached maxx karma.

Was it too much self-insertion to play as cis men in Armageddon even though I'm a cis man IRL? Or maybe, just MAYBE, there are some other underlying assumptions and attitudes at play here when it comes to playing nonbinary characters specifically.

(As a side note, back when I actually played and didn't just lurk the GDB and Arm vicariously through Valeria, having all the gendered pronouns switched over to a neutral "they" seemed like a no-brainer to me, for a few reasons already touched on by various people in this thread.)

Start playing again, ya ass.
On topic um, don't refer to no gendered people as its.

[Delirium]

Considering I've had multiple characters who refer to people they're intentionally dehumanizing (magickers, etc) as "it" the suggestion that I should refer to all androgynous people as "it" is rather disturbing.

That's all I'm gonna say on this.

[MatisseOrOtherwise]

Yes, please no coded its and enforced its for pc sentient humanoids. It's one thing if a person in power is dehumanising. It's another if the code and admin word enforces it on an OOC level.

[Bebop]

Considering I've had multiple characters who refer to people they're intentionally dehumanizing (magickers, etc) as "it" the suggestion that I should refer to all androgynous people as "it" is rather disturbing.

That's all I'm gonna say on this.

This sums it up.

[LauraMars]

Considering I've had multiple characters who refer to people they're intentionally dehumanizing (magickers, etc) as "it" the suggestion that I should refer to all androgynous people as "it" is rather disturbing.

That's all I'm gonna say on this.

+1, please only do this if your character is terrible and you are making them do and say gross things to enhance their terribleness. I will give the benefit of the doubt that this suggestion was not seriously thought out before it was made.