Armageddon General Discussion Board

Mostly because I'm on that gay shit, but it's also documented in the Quickstart.

Third pronoun of "they".

And also change the voices you hear from listen and shout to be something people set themselves in chargen and in description changes, 2-3 short adjectives max a-la sdescs.

If you use "they" as a singular pronoun I swear to krath I will constantly refer to you as multiple people.

Do Amos want to go hunting with me?

Androgyny adds mystery and lets people be a little gayer without even having to do it on purpose. Come on, man.

Androgynous doesn't relate to sexuality at all, merely appearance.  Using it for a hermaphrodite isn't appropriate anymore either, where an argument can be had for using "them", but again that doesn't have anything to do with sexual identity, only gender identity.

It is annoying when folks don't mention hermaphroditism in their character apps, only starting to RP it once in the game.

I'm on board with a they pronoun.  I'd love to see more androgyny in game.

Using a plural pronoun to talk about a singular person is just - not a suitable workaround. I don't think there even should be a workaround. David Bowie was androgynous - he was a he. Many women are androgynous, but each is a she. If you are truly of no gender at all, then you are an it, not a he, nor a she. If you are possessed of both genders, then I agree we need to come up with some pronoun that fits. But "they" doesn't fit.

It's jarring every time I see it, even out of the game. I'm all for gender equality, and gender neutrality, gender identity, gender non-identity. But the pronouns need to fit. Come up with one and I'll embrace it. Til then, at least in the game, I'll use either he, she, or it, however my character perceives the person.

In real life, I use the person's name, and avoid a pronoun at all because "they" just sounds silly and wrong. Ze and hir suit me just fine to substitute "he/she" and "him/her" but so far I haven't ever actually heard any gender-neutral/ambiguous person use these pronouns, however common it might presumably be. Maybe it just never caught on in the USA?

Even as a genderqueer person who gladly respects they/them pronouns when others ask me to use them, please let's just not go down this path in the game because there is no going back. I'm afraid it will lead to more drama than it is worth.

And they have nothing to do with androgyny.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 04, 2018, 08:42:43 PM
And they have nothing to do with androgyny.

Well, they could if a PC's gender is difficult to determine at a glance because of androgyny. And people do sometimes use 'they' pronouns in their mdesc to represent that the gender is hard to discern. (And that's perfectly fine with me. The singular "they" pronoun has been around and accepted for ages.)

But I don't want the game to officially work gender neutral pronouns into chargen because I don't want Arm to get wrapped up in gender identity politics. I'm nervous about even having this discussion right now.

Brokkr, I believe the crux of the situation isn't whether someone is actually androgynous. It's how people "should" refer to someone whose gender is not known to them, in the game. And, whether or not players "should" play characters whose genders are intentionally obscured - not by wearing a cloak and hood, but rather, by their own character description and emoting.

When you meet Bel, the green-eyed human
and Bel's mdesc doesn't refer to him/her/his/hers.

and Bel's player wants people to not be able to tell if Bel is a he or a she.

What is acceptable? It happens frequently enough that people actually have opinions on the matter, though I don't think it's really all "that" common.

Should Bel's player be allowed to play a "gender-unknown" character, AND should players who interact with Bel be expected to comply?

I feel that since we have to pick either male or female in chargen, that we should accept that our characters exhibit *something* about them that reveals them as such, and RP accordingly.

Other people disagree, and some people agree.

I feel like gender-identity politics has no place inside Armageddon. Perhaps as external conversation on the GDB, but as soon as it becomes a facet of the game, then many unsolvable issues will arise that are truly much more trouble than they are worth. "He, She, They, It" should be the absolute extent of in-game 'gender'. Anything beyond that not only would destroy my immersion but make me lose all interest in trying to play something where one needs to be extremely cautious with their word-use for fear of OOC repercussion. I feel as soon as one's androgynous status becomes a matter of a third gender, it should be explicitly detailed and included in the character's application.

I think it'd be great to see someone explore a third gender role, which is something that has existed in many RL cultures throughout history, in their PC-created tribe. I don't want to force it into existing cultures or create OOC expectations to behave a certain way. Having seen how eggshell-walky gender politics can get, I don't want that brought into my fantasy game, especially when people are still arguing so vehemently about how best to be courteous about such things IRL.

As someone who is nonbinary agender/femme and sometimes goes by they/them, I'm going to point ya'll over here for the history of singular they as a totally normal English language thing.

Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they)

I'm also going to mention that people unconsciously use 'they' to refer to a person whose gender they can't read or that is indeterminate all the time, and this only becomes an issue when someone either benignly doesn't know what they're talking about, or is consciously or unconsciously transphobic.

For me, it isn't an identity politics issue.  It's wanting to be able to play characters who are like me (like pretty much 99% of the rest of you are able to do without it being an issue).

I sincerely think "they" rolls off the tongue better than "it" for genderless, intersex, or androgynous characters. I also think it /should/ be chooseable at chargen, rather than requiring a special request. HOWEVER.

I also think I get enough shit for my gender identity in the real life, and I come to Arma to avoid gender politics, so it should stick to that - a chargen option and a way of referring to someone in game, but not a single step more.

It's also why I haven't made any trans chars over any of my playtimes - I just don't want to deal with that shit in game, thanks, I come here to /escape/ that.

In short, they/it/whatever should be a third option on chargen, but if a single step further is taken (beginning to make trans chars or intersex chars or chars that judge other chars excessively for their gender) that should be stamped down hard.

I believe a they/it option for androgynous chars is a good thing. I also think it's fine if that's not wholly accepted /in world/ (e.g. "Not really sure if they're a guy or a girl, I guess. Weird look to 'em.").

I also accept on an OOC level that it walks a dangerous wire, though. What if people start living out their transphobic fantasies by being excessively harsh on 'they' chars, in ways that are subtle and insidious, and that stirs up a whole shitpot?

Even if genderless chars stay request only though, 'they' is MILES more appealing, palatable, and good than 'it'. MILES better and easier to read and just... good.

Anything other than 'they' is just bullshit nonsense though. No xe/xir, no helicopters, whatever the fuck. So yeah. Options:

1) Swap the genderless special-app option to 'they' instead of 'it'.
2) Make 'they' choosable on chargen anyway.

I would love for this to be a topic utterly free of identity politics, but too many shitheads exist in the world, and if this is done and made right in Zalanthas, it should be done with a heavy firm boot, and absolutely no room for shifting.

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 04, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
I sincerely think "they" rolls off the tongue better than "it" for genderless, intersex, or androgynous characters. I also think it /should/ be chooseable at chargen, rather than requiring a special request. HOWEVER.

I also think I get enough shit for my gender identity in the real life, and I come to Arma to avoid gender politics, so it should stick to that - a chargen option and a way of referring to someone in game, but not a single step more.

It's also why I haven't made any trans chars over any of my playtimes - I just don't want to deal with that shit in game, thanks, I come here to /escape/ that.

In short, they/it/whatever should be a third option on chargen, but if a single step further is taken (beginning to make trans chars or intersex chars or chars that judge other chars excessively for their gender) that should be stamped down hard.

I believe a they/it option for androgynous chars is a good thing. I also think it's fine if that's not wholly accepted /in world/ (e.g. "Not really sure if they're a guy or a girl, I guess. Weird look to 'em.").

I also accept on an OOC level that it walks a dangerous wire, though. What if people start living out their transphobic fantasies by being excessively harsh on 'they' chars, in ways that are subtle and insidious, and that stirs up a whole shitpot?

Even if genderless chars stay request only though, 'they' is MILES more appealing, palatable, and good than 'it'. MILES better and easier to read and just... good.

Anything other than 'they' is just bullshit nonsense though. No xe/xir, no helicopters, whatever the fuck. So yeah. Options:

1) Swap the genderless special-app option to 'they' instead of 'it'.
2) Make 'they' choosable on chargen anyway.

I would love for this to be a topic utterly free of identity politics, but too many shitheads exist in the world, and if this is done and made right in Zalanthas, it should be done with a heavy firm boot, and absolutely no room for shifting.

Yeah, that's what I mean. I don't object to 'they,' or non-binary people, nor do I think such things are necessarily entrenched in identity politics. But unfortunately, I think if we're perceived as dipping a toe into that pool, we'd drown FAST. And I'm worried it's going to hurt non-gender-conforming players like myself more than it will help.

We aren't going to allow choosing pronouns in chargen.  This should be an edge case.

If you want to play a gender opposite to your character's actual sex, and use that pronoun, we are fine with you taking the other sex in chargen as long as it's noted in your bio.

If you want to play neutral sex (which has defined pronouns its/it/it/itself/its) put in a role request.  We would need to determine they character should be referred to that way, and manually change their sex to neuter.

They/them are the "proper" pronouns to use when referring to non-binary people, or people whose gender you are uncertain of, etc. It/its are not correct, right now. Language is always evolving, so who can say what the future holds, but at this point in history (and for quite some time now) they/them is the better choice, from a language perspective, than it and its derivatives.

I use 'it' when referring to robots and space bugs, tbh. 

they/them is fine and should be included.

Quote from: LauraMars on August 04, 2018, 11:03:08 PM
They/them are the "proper" pronouns to use when referring to non-binary people, or people whose gender you are uncertain of, etc. It/its are not correct, right now. Language is always evolving, so who can say what the future holds, but at this point in history (and for quite some time now) they/them is the better choice, from a language perspective, than it and its derivatives.

I use 'it' when referring to robots and space bugs, tbh.

And it doesn't matter.  First, because a Templar tells you what your gender orientation is, not the other way around (or what theirs is, or their erdlu's, heh).  Second, because our current support is for gender neutral, not in the sense of gender non-binary, but in the sense of houses, signet rings, muls, slaves and other stuff folks own (we didn't ever set out to have a set of gender neutral pronouns, we are simply piggybacking on what is already available for other purposes).

Quote from: Brokkr on August 05, 2018, 01:11:20 AM

Quote from: LauraMars on August 04, 2018, 11:03:08 PM
They/them are the "proper" pronouns to use when referring to non-binary people, or people whose gender you are uncertain of, etc. It/its are not correct, right now. Language is always evolving, so who can say what the future holds, but at this point in history (and for quite some time now) they/them is the better choice, from a language perspective, than it and its derivatives.

I use 'it' when referring to robots and space bugs, tbh.

And it doesn't matter.  First, because a Templar tells you what your gender orientation is, not the other way around (or what theirs is, or their erdlu's, heh).  Second, because our current support is for gender neutral, not in the sense of gender non-binary, but in the sense of houses, signet rings, muls, slaves and other stuff folks own (we didn't ever set out to have a set of gender neutral pronouns, we are simply piggybacking on what is already available for other purposes).

I've never seen a single instance of a templar forcing a separate gender identity onto someone, and honestly that would be a horrific happenstance on an OOC level.

Separately, with Zalanthas being a world where men and women are equal and there is no outright masculine or feminine presentation, I don't see how one that doesn't fit either is wrong. If anything, neutral presentation is the most Zalanthan thing possible.

To clarify: Templars dehumanising folk by calling them 'it' is fine IMHO. I have had characters go through that and while it made me feel slightly OOC icky, it fit the setting and was fine due to the character it happened to. But 'it' should not be the default. Nor the only possible option. Templars applying she to he and he to she is also way out of line on an OOC level IMHO.

Right, we get that the code doesn't support it now, and "it" is the only work around.  However, what I'm saying (and what I think Laura is saying) is that a gender-neutral option would be a nice feature, though.  It's why I've idea'd it in the game and why I'm posting in favor of it here. 

Some people are born looking androgynous.  For others, well, it's a lot easier to alter your secondary sex characteristics than you might think, especially if you've never looked into it because you're perfectly comfortable gendering yourself consistent with your secondary sex characteristics.  Meanwhile, it would be a nice feature because nonbinary people exist, and have existed for a long time, and even play this game.  It would be a more welcoming, more inclusive feature.  As opposed to the "it" workaround, because you don't refer to a nonbinary or androgynous person as "it" unless you're trying to be deliberately dehumanizing.

Quote from: valeria on August 05, 2018, 01:41:00 AM
Right, we get that the code doesn't support it now, and "it" is the only work around.  However, what I'm saying (and what I think Laura is saying) is that a gender-neutral option would be a nice feature, though.  It's why I've idea'd it in the game and why I'm posting in favor of it here. 

Some people are born looking androgynous.  For others, well, it's a lot easier to alter your secondary sex characteristics than you might think, especially if you've never looked into it because you're perfectly comfortable gendering yourself consistent with your secondary sex characteristics.  Meanwhile, it would be a nice feature because nonbinary people exist, and have existed for a long time, and even play this game.  It would be a more welcoming, more inclusive feature.  As opposed to the "it" workaround, because you don't refer to a nonbinary or androgynous person as "it" unless you're trying to be deliberately dehumanizing.

Yep. They/them is generally what other games use for nonbinary gender situations. Including other muds. I've argued for it (and gotten it) at my own job. It just isn't in the code for this game, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.

When you be living in Minneapolis and then you get on the interwebz and see people saying gender neutral pronouns aren't relevant.

This is why the gaming community as a whole is stagnating, man.  Like all of it, console, PC, whatever now that it's become so main stream.  Gamers were so ahead of their time for same sex acceptance, even this game was really strong about feminism and strong female characters and leaders.  Now we're onto new horizon socially and we're fizzling out on getting ahead of the curve and that saddens me.

If gamers aren't going to blaze a path for social acceptance of the LGBTQ community anymore once we hit the topic of androgyny kinda saddens me, yo.  Kinda saddens me.  A discussion on gender pronouns is totally relevant to a game where you have to pick your gender.

C'mon.  What happened to that nerd philosophy to boldy go where no one has gone before (which I will remind you was changed to no one from no man.)  In the spirit of nerdiness this is not a topic that should be shied away from ladys, gents and others.  I am super femme outwardly, but super gender non-binary inwardly as a pansexual woman and seeing people get squeamish about this topic is a little bizarre to me and also smacks of some kind of inward revulsion towards folks like myself.

Inclusion isn't picking sides.  Inclusion is inclusion.

Not catering to your particular language grievances isn't exclusion, either.  I think the reason people counter-react to the suggestion is that the suggestion is phrased in terms of "do this, or you totally suck."  That doesn't really convince people to give a shit about your case, and convincing someone to give a shit is what you need to do, because somebody's going to have to do a whooole lot of work to get that done.

Femme agender player, have wanted this for years.

Every mush I've ever played has had a gender neutral option for this, and I've never seen it be an issue, in or out of character, on any of them.


Additionally, they/them. It is a thing. Even if you maintain that they/them is terrible because grammar, why would you suggest a pronoun that explicitly refers to objects instead of people to replace a pronoun that at least addresses people rather than things. I don't get that at all.

'They' would be a nice option for characters where strangers can't quite tell the gender while that character is dressed, even if that character is simply male or female. I've seen players try to pull this off in game, but the pronouns in emotes sort of ruin it.

The code needs to know your character's sex (your pronouns when nekkid and unconscious); it's up to you to depict your character's gender.

I'm completely in favor of characters being able to hide or disguise their sex (even though Fidelio makes almost no sense in Zalanthas), whether in accordance or discordance with their gender identities if they have them. But, on my prioritized list of stuff I'd like coders to work on, it's below coded restraints, blindfolds, riding with subdued persons, and necksnap.

I will grudgingly admit that "they" would be less jarring than "it" for PCs. I've only seen "it" used once, though.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 04:24:59 AMI think the reason people counter-react to the suggestion is that the suggestion is phrased in terms of "do this, or you totally suck." .

??? it is??

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 05:12:02 AM

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 04:24:59 AMI think the reason people counter-react to the suggestion is that the suggestion is phrased in terms of "do this, or you totally suck." .

??? it is??

I was responding to Bebop, not you.  I didn't care one way or the other, until it got a tad nasty.

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM

This is why the gaming community as a whole is stagnating, man.

"Do this, or you totally suck."

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM
Now we're onto new horizon socially and we're fizzling out on getting ahead of the curve and that saddens me.

"Do this, or you totally suck."

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM
...seeing people get squeamish about this topic is a little bizarre to me and also smacks of some kind of inward revulsion towards folks like myself.

"If you don't agree with me, you totally suck."

I submit that it is possible not to be bigoted -and- not to care one way or the other about gender pronouns.  Personally, I'm not any more revolted by LGBTQ people than I am by humanity in general.  I also still don't care about the pronoun thing.  I offered my opinion as a tactical suggestion:  you aren't going to win friends from the sidelines by casting aspersions on the fence-sitters.

Tons of flavor features have been effortfully coded into the game. Things such as they/them coded for raised cloak hoods. Effort needed to code is and never was a reason to shoot down an idea. The idea itself can be discussed on its merits or flaws here and staff will as always prioritize what they code by importance, relevance, and difficulty.

Pros to including gender neutral pronouns:

1. It fits the setting and theme.
2. It will induce a new way of first impression reacting to someone's character.
3. It facilitates more variety in reading and greater distinctions in reading emotes.
4. It will help a concept to feel realistic to the main (large) description.

Non-cons:
1. The plural issue; please, just think of the last time you saw multiple characters emoting at once... oh wait, it has never happened. Also, we lack the ability to join multiple PC targets with our ~ ! % ^ + = # emote syntax. Therefore in armageddon they and them will not be ambiguous for plural vs singular for readability sake.

Cons:

1. It will take some getting used to, but how much really. How many of us will make gender nonbinary PCs all the time? Most likely we will mix it up and hes and shes will dominate.
2. The coding task of applying they when clothed and he or she when naked. However, this task has already been done with hooded cloaks. Therefore it need only be done with the now existant naked/clothed binary state... in other words we are already there. Finally, the gender neutral option can be added as a separate step to char making and will need to be carefully worded so that people only select it when they intend to.


...I welcome others to build or expand off this list.

To me the biggest con is that while this would be a cool feature to make someone's sex ambiguous, it might very well end up with people talking and worrying about respecting pronouns IG in a very modern sort of way. Worse, there could be a backlash against it in the name of "anti-PC" that would further hurt gender non-conforming players, and I fear there would be a lot of player complaints passed around overall.

I predict that it'd just be a big mess. I think there would be arguments on the GDB about whether or not there should be rules about how non-binary characters should be treated and whether it should be against the rules not to use people's preferred pronouns IG and all that. And those debates get nasty. I don't think it'd make me feel more welcome, in the end.

Maybe when the whole non-binary issue cools down a bit, we will be ready for a feature like this to be added without it being seen as political. I honestly look forward to that day, because I'd love to play a gender-ambiguous character. But it's just too contentious right now IMO.

I hope people realize that I'm not saying this because I am bigoted or reactionary, but because I play this game to escape things like the unnecessary drama that I keep being thrown into because of my gender non-conformity, and I don't want it to follow me here. I mean I really, really don't want it to follow me here.

There are already rules about how non-binary characters should be treated. The same way you treat everyone else. The only difference in treatment of the sexes in Zalanthas is who wants to fuck who.

Sure, but I have a feeling that if I rolled up a char in Arm and had them start insisting on the use of highly specific neopronouns and took IC and OOC offense at being called a man or a woman, it would start a whoooole new conversation. Even the most progressive people have trouble navigating non-binary gender issues. It can be a real minefield, especially for people who haven't been exposed to the issue much. Which is most people.

While this proposed addition is just a 'they/them' feature and has little inherently to do with that, I fear it'd lead to the handling of situations like that being hotly debated, which I don't want brought here of all places. I'm sorry, but I just don't think we're ready for that can of worms. Hell, I don't trust even the people who are OOCly sensitive about such things to treat it in a non-jarring way IG that isn't a constant reminder that there's a lot of RL discrimination about this. I imagine there'd be a lot of "don't worry, that's so awesome and I totally respect that!" hand-wringing and such.

Let's take a step back and analyze this for a moment.

The emote pronouns are for OOC purposes. They tell you what is the gender of this person you are interacting with OOCly, so you know how to react to it ICly. It doesn't mean that just because this muscular, broad-shouldered human - with every single aspect defined as masculine and no other aspect defined as feminine and can only be defined as a female is if she takes off her pants and show you her lack of dingdong - your PC has to know immediately that she is a woman. You have every bit of flexibility for your PC to address this codedly-female-yet-male-looking human as a 'he'. Or it. Or they.

tell elf (jerking a thumb toward ~elven.woman) That sharp boy there tells me you can get me this fancy sword for a couple of smalls off. I'll take it.

tell elf (doing a double take as he takes another good look at ~elven.woman) That ain't a fella? Well, damn. How's I supposed to know? All you sharps look the same to me!

So this, to me, feels more like a RP thing that doesn't need any coded support, because it's entirely up to your PC which gender to address a person.

Quote from: sleepyhead on August 05, 2018, 07:17:41 AM
Sure, but I have a feeling that if I rolled up a char in Arm and had them start insisting on the use of highly specific neopronouns and took IC and OOC offense at being called a man or a woman, it would start a whoooole new conversation.

Then don't do that.

Quote from: sleepyhead on August 05, 2018, 07:17:41 AMWhile this proposed addition is just a 'they/them' feature and has little inherently to do with that, I fear it'd lead to the handling of situations like that being hotly debated, which I don't want brought here of all places. I'm sorry, but I just don't think we're ready for that can of worms.

I don't think being afraid of a little debate on the GDB is really enough justification for me, personally, to be convinced that this idea in particular would not add more to the game than it'd take away if it were added.

I'm not going to, and whether or not I specifically am going to do that isn't really my point.

Fuck external neopronouns, fuck gender politics, fuck every other which thing about every string attached to this. My entire stance about why I support this (and the main firm solid reason) is:

"They" sounds better than "it". Everyone uses singular they whether they (see?) realise it or not. They (mhm) may not realise it at first, or state that they () don't, or that it's stupid, but I guarantee, it's still used by them. ()

"Yeah, they were in the bar a few minutes ago."

"Yeah, it was in the bar a few minutes ago."

Singular 'it' is dehumanising, and that's /fine/ in usage by those who are actively attempting to dehumanise someone (like a Templar), but it shouldn't be the staff-supported encoded default for genderless or androgynous sentient beings. It is stupid.

"It" still makes sense for /creatures/. Things that lack sentience. Rocks, maybe. But "they" should be applicable otherwise.

It's really just that simple. Nothing else attached to it (attachments and strings cut off by force if needs be).

And the thing is, even if you reaaaally REALLY couldn't code in 'they', you could just replace 'it' coding with 'they' and it would be FINE. They flows fine for non-sentient beings, even if it sounds a little bit personifying. But "it" is always wrong for sentient walking talking creatures. Not even just grammatically speaking, it just sounds horrible.

"Aww, what a cute dog, what's it's name?" - This is fine.
"Aww, what a cute kid you have, what's it's name?" - This reads as strange, does it not? And therein lies the issue.
"Aww, what a cute dog, what's their name?" - This is also fine. A bit anthropomorphising, philosophically speaking, but still fine English.
"Aww, what a cute kid you have, what's their name?" - This is fine.

"The human person is here.
It is wielding..."

VS:

"The human person is here.
They are wielding..."

So even if 'they' can't be separately coded in, it should still be considered as an outright replacement for 'it'.

I'm a trans woman and I don't give a single flying fuck for gender politics in my vibeo james. I purely want 'they' to be a supplement or outright replacement to 'it' because 'it' sounds like you're speaking about a squeaky pool toy, rather than an actual breathing being, and it's stupid.

"It" also disconnects from personage - if I see "it", I think 'npc creature', and I lose all care for actually treating the thing right. Whereas "they" SOUNDS LIKE A SENTIENT BEING, not a rock.

I can even update the emoting chart to reflect.

                   
Char.|Target Sees|Others See
----------------------------
  ~  |you        |<sdesc>
  %  |your       |<sdesc>'s
  !  |you        |him/her/them
  ^  |your       |his/her/their
  #  |you        |he/she/they
  &  |yourself   |himself/herself/themself
  =  |yours      |<sdesc>'s
  +  |yours      |his/hers/theirs
----------------------------
  @  | <your sdesc>

Yeah, maybe I'm just paranoid. But I run in left leaning online circles and the topic of gender identity always ends up with people either screaming accusations at each other or freaking out being overly cautious. I get nervous when I catch the slightest whiff of it here. I'm afraid once we start down the path of addressing that issue, there is no going back and it is going to divide the playerbase in a really toxic way. I know this change wasn't intended to address this, but it's already been connected to it by several posters (yes, especially me, but I think with or without me, it's going to be seen that way.) And I just get nervous about it.

I've never seen a PC who was an 'it' though. I imagine if someone spec apped an 'it' it'd be because their char was some sort of crazy mutant, right? Usually androgynous chars just put "they" all over their mdesc or emphasize that it's hard to tell what sex they are.

Quote from: sleepyhead on August 05, 2018, 07:55:41 AM
Yeah, maybe I'm just paranoid. But I run in left leaning online circles and the topic of gender identity always ends up with people either screaming accusations at each other or freaking out being overly cautious. I get nervous when I catch the slightest whiff of it here. I'm afraid once we start down the path of addressing that issue, there is no going back and it is going to divide the playerbase in a really toxic way. I know this change wasn't intended to address this, but it's already been connected to it by several posters (yes, especially me, but I think with or without me, it's going to be seen that way.) And I just get nervous about it.

I've never seen a PC who was an 'it' though. I imagine if someone spec apped an 'it' it'd be because their char was some sort of crazy mutant, right? Usually androgynous chars just put "they" all over their mdesc or emphasize that it's hard to tell what sex they are.

I have seen approximately 2 genderless chars who were designated and coded as 'it'. One of whom had told me that they had to special-app for it to even be an option, and the other whom had told me that they would have preferred 'they', but it was not an option.

I have seen countless genderless and androgynous characters who still had a coded gender, probably because 'they' or 'it' wasn't even an option for them outside of special apping (and thus losing one of your 3-times-a-year special).

I have had probably three genderless or androgynous characters, none of which went through the process of special apping because I don't want to have to special app just to not be seen as overtly male or female. All of them had 'they' used all over their desc and [genderless race term] in their sdescs, but none of which were able to be codedly referred to as they. Even fully cloaked and even MORE indiscernible, they all either had he or she in their code, and even with formless fullbody cloaks, an emote would show he or she. And therein lies the issue.

I don't want to have to lose a special app just to not show my character as overtly male or female in coded emotes, and if I /do/, I don't want to have to be 'it'. 'It' doesn't even make sense.

EDIT, FORGOT TO CLARIFY MY POINT:

But even if you go to all the rigamarole of putting 'they' all over your sdesc, people will still inevitably just call you she or he in conversation, because that's what the code shows. Even fully masked, even fully they'd, even fully cloaked, that's what the code shows. And it's annoying to make a fully androgynous character you're passionate about, only to end up disinterested by their own personal growth because you're tired of being like... "Should I "OOC: Actually you can't tell they're a girl"? ...Egh, no, that's annoying them... I guess I just won't RP with them."


EDIT 2 ELECTRIC BOOGALOO:

Let's be honest. If you see someone in a fullbody cloak with a mask and blah de blah blah, and you "l masked" and see "She is carrying...", you're now eternally locked to perceiving that strange masked figure as a girl, even if you didn't see a single curve and all their features were heavily shrouded. Even if they were literally hiding and you "l shadow"ed. The code guides player perceptions.

A third option, thus, is to apply 'they' as a masking descriptor for folk who are both wearing a cloak/duster/robe AND a mask/hood/veil. (Around Body item and On Face item that masks SDesc). Thus allowing less metagaming, and still allowing the code to guide.

I should probably stop posting in this thread and I probably will after this (if I can help myself).

Since this isn't an IC issue, I guess it's okay to talk about even though it happened within the last year (though we're nearing the mark). I had a rather feminine-looking male PC (we'll call him Steve) that was continually referred to as "they" in emotes and says by another PC (we'll call him Hank). I'm not sure why, exactly, but I think Hank actually did the "they" thing to everyone, or at least more than just Steve. I don't think it was intended to make any kind of statement, nor do I think it was connected to Steve's physical appearance in any way. It seemed to just be a habit that Hank's player had. My sdesc and mdesc referred to my PC as male, and I always used male pronouns in my own emotes.

When interacting with a 3rd char (we'll call her Jennifer), it was OOCly brought up to me. Jennifer, who was very thoughtful, told me OOCly that she (I'm saying 'she' because that was the gender of the character; I have no idea about the player's gender, but I'll call them female and Hank's player male for clarity's sake) noticed that Hank used 'they/them' pronouns for Steve, and asked me politely if those were Steve's preferred pronouns, because Jennifer respected that and wanted to be considerate. I told her that Steve was male and used 'he/him' pronouns, and that I wasn't sure why Hank did that but it wasn't because of anything I insisted upon. Jennifer told me that that's cool, as long as that's what I wanted.

It was really a very wholesome and kind interaction, and I have nothing but positive feelings towards the player for what she was trying to do. I think it's great that this player is so considerate of non-binary people and that she wanted to respect my wishes about the character. That said, it also felt a little strange because it was taken OOC as an intended OOC courtesy towards me, the player. That is what I am afraid of--that coded gender ambiguity is going to be seen as a delicate OOC issue to carefully take up with the player rather than an IC one to take up with the character, whether that's the intention of the change or not. I like playing androgynous characters and I do it all the time, and a 'they' option would be pretty sweet, but I don't want people to feel like they have to worry about screwing up or offending me on an OOC level. And I'm afraid that'd happen, because it has already happened to me even without this feature.

With equally due respect, sleepyhead, your singular anecdote with one singular person does not present an extremely convincing argument.

Okay, well I admitted that I'm probably just nervous/paranoid about it because I run in circles where this is such a contentious and often toxic issue, but that's just how I feel about it.

"If you don't do this, you totally suck," is in a different place on the spectrum from "If you did this, it would be more welcoming."  I fall more on the welcoming end, and I do think we should strive to be as welcoming to as many people who want to play as possible, because we're a pretty niche and geek gaming market.

I'm on the yes please let's be more welcoming spectrum.  I can tell you why I stuck with Armageddon after trying about twenty muds, and that was because my female characters were expected to not be treated any differently than my male characters.  This is the literal reason.  Because this mud was a welcoming place for something I was being discriminated against for IRL and in another mud. 

The percentage of gender-nonconforming and trans people I hang out with regularly who are geeks is 100%.  We pretty much all read a lot, enjoy video games, and love the Ren Fest.  There is a huge crossover between being gender-nonconforming or trans and geek culture.  I've advertised this mud to my polyamorous friends as being fully supportive of polyamory.  I can't say the same to my trans friends.  I do wish I could, since one of my trans polyamorous friends is a former MUDer.  I want more people to play with.

Yes, clearly this feature would require coding.  We've had some pretty cool features come out lately, though, and our coders are pretty awesome.

But as far as I can tell, the "naked" code has nothing to do with it.  It just lets people know if you're naked.  If your sdesc is "the brown-eyed human," you'd be "the naked brown-eyed human."  I suppose if a templar wanted to strip you down to naked in public, or you wanted to strip yourself down naked, others would be tell whether you had a penis, a vagina, or were somehow intersex.  (The proper term is "intersex" now, not hermaphrodite.)  I suspect people would be just as fine emoting this as they are about emoting breast or penis size when they take off their clothes... which people are already pretty fine about emoting, whether you care about that information or not.

I'm also pretty sure anyone depicted as androgynous would be be able to respond to the question, "So are you a man or a woman?"  And they would probably be able to answer that in whatever way is appropriate, including by possibly throwing an IC (!!!) fit at you because they're sick of being asked that.  We have a lot more complicated RP than that going on here.  It's not like the "limited use of OOC plzthx" rule would be going anywhere.

Here's my personal anecdote.  I've seen a couple characters exclusively described with gender neutral language in their mdesc, but they showed up as "he" (or once it was "her") when targeted with emotes.  Most people were good about ignoring that, or instead actively misgendered them from time to time.  Plenty of people asked them whether they were a man or a woman, and they responded accordingly.  Zero scenes ground to a halt.  I do wish that those players had been able to have an appropriate choice to flesh out their characters, though.

(Edit because I haven't had coffee and apparently can't spell or place commas.)

...I think the good fight is best fought in real life where it actually matters.

You know entertainment is part of "real life", right?

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 11:58:23 AM
You know entertainment is part of "real life", right?

...if you actually read this as some sort of zing or counterpoint, you're grasping at some really thin straws.

Here I go.

It has been an obvious fact for some time to me that the playerbases of many RPIs are significantly elevated related to average when it comes to densities of people adhering to alternative gender identities. I suspect it is because that here, on Armageddon, we can occupy the identity of whatever we choose effortlessly. For someone who has been forced to battle in real life to find personal comfort and societal acceptance of their identity, the ability to craft up a character and interact with many other people as that character must be an supremely satisfying experience. To those people, I say welcome and gladly accept their time and effort, and I am happy that you have found an outlet that provides creative control. We're all here to tell stories.

However.

I am against this proposal.

The reason I am against this proposal is because its motivation is not driven by in universe factors. It is motivated by the OOC desire for OOC acceptance. There is no major Zalanthan movement for the acceptance of alternative gender identities. I don't think a Zalanthan would even really understand the concept. Remember that on Zalanthas, the genders are entirely equal in every societal way. The concept of gender as spectrum wouldn't make sense to them because even the traditional genders aren't bimodal to them. They occupy a single point. How can you be fluid between two identical states? The idea of gender fluidity and alternative gender identities is too modern. It doesn't seem in place with an archaic, alien society on Zalanthas. Accounting for this stuff ICly would likely do quite a bit of damage to the ability for people to immerse themselves when it comes across as a jarringly out-of-place modern agenda slapped down like a spaceship in the middle of an alien planet.

And that's precisely what I feel like it is. It is an OOC agenda that people are arguing that should be represented ICly because it is an OOC agenda that they agree with. Well, I agree with it too. I think many people OOCly agree that it costs us nothing to accept people's pronouns and can be a source of great comfort and validation for people. OOCly, I will use whatever pronoun you want me to use. But just because I agree and defend this agenda OOCly does not in any way make it appropriate for it to shatteringly appear ICly as well.

I frequently joke on the discord that I'm going to start playing a conservation biologist ICly (based on my RL career). The crux of this joke is that I'm allowing an OOC philosophy to leak IC into a world where it would make little sense, and come across as jarring for people's immersion. What I am seeing here is people barefacedly arguing that we should be allowed to bring our OOC ideals to where they have IC bearing. I don't agree. I don't think immersion is something we should sacrifice on this altar.

After thinking on where the game generated pronouns (vs player input) occur, it seems they would be based on secondary sexual characteristics, not gender identity at all.  As this is what would be used by a neutral 3rd party in terms of describing someone with no knowledge of the gender identity of that someone.  In that case, male or female, even for highly androgynous, would seem appropriate.  I am not sure "they" would be appropriate for someone without secondary sexual characteristics, as everything I can find essentially relates this back to gender identity.

I'm not even focused on identity. I just think "they" sounds way better than "it" for a neutral term, plus makes sense relating to actual sentient beings and not a rock.

Quote from: Namino on August 05, 2018, 12:13:32 PM
It is motivated by the OOC desire for OOC acceptance.

No it isn't.

I don't know about the rest of your post. My entire idea was just to be allowed to appear androgynous (and to change the way the male/female voice thing works). Everyone else are the ones who got all wordy about the gender spectrum.

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 12:26:03 PM

Quote from: Namino on August 05, 2018, 12:13:32 PM
It is motivated by the OOC desire for OOC acceptance.

No it isn't.

I don't know about the rest of your post. My entire idea was just to be allowed to appear androgynous. Everyone else are the ones who got all wordy about the gender spectrum.

Honestly, same. I don't give a fuck about gender this and gender that. That's why I've been talking about staunchly putting one's foot down to prevent further engendering of the game - but being able to present androgynously (ESPECIALLY COVERED IN CLOAKS AND MASKS AND ETC ETC) should be allowed, and code should not auto-out you as "She is wielding..." or "He is wielding..."

[Duplicated in a botched edit attempt.]

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 05, 2018, 12:27:32 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 12:26:03 PM

Quote from: Namino on August 05, 2018, 12:13:32 PM
It is motivated by the OOC desire for OOC acceptance.

No it isn't.

I don't know about the rest of your post. My entire idea was just to be allowed to appear androgynous. Everyone else are the ones who got all wordy about the gender spectrum.

Honestly, same. I don't give a fuck about gender this and gender that.

I mean, I personally do, but that's here nor there with my idea to be allowed to appear androgynous and to allow people to set their own voice message.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 05, 2018, 12:15:08 PM
After thinking on where the game generated pronouns (vs player input) occur, it seems they would be based on secondary sexual characteristics, not gender identity at all.  As this is what would be used by a neutral 3rd party in terms of describing someone with no knowledge of the gender identity of that someone.  In that case, male or female, even for highly androgynous, would seem appropriate.  I am not sure "they" would be appropriate for someone without secondary sexual characteristics, as everything I can find essentially relates this back to gender identity.

I think we're on the same page re: it being about secondary sex characteristics, and whether someone would be able to tell.  Where we disagree is here:

"They" is very commonly used for people of unknown or indeterminate gender.  It is not strictly or even solely a gender identity thing (though it can be).

Examples (from the wikipedia singular they grammar article I linked earlier):
The singular antecedent can also be a noun such as person, patient, or student:

    with a noun (e.g. person, student, patient) used generically (e.g. in the sense of any member of that class or a specific member unknown to the speaker or writer)
        "... if the child possesses the nationality or citizenship of another country, they may lose this when they get a British passport." From a British passport application form; quoted by Swan.
        "cognitive dissonance: "a concept in psychology [that] describes the condition in which a person's attitudes conflict with their behaviour".—Macmillan Dictionary of Business and management (1988), as cited by Garner.
        "A starting point would be to give more support to the company secretary. They are, or should be, privy to the confidential deliberations and secrets of the board and the company.— Ronald Severn. "Protecting the Secretary Bird". Financial Times, 6 January 1992; quoted by Garner.

    with representatives of a class previously referred to in the singular
        "I had to decide: Is this person being irrational or is he right? Of course, they were often right."—Robert Burchfield in U.S. News & World Report 11 August 1986, as cited in Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage

    Even when referring to a class of persons of known sex, they is sometimes used.
        "The sizing technology works via an iPhone app. To use it, a woman must take two pictures of themselves while wearing a tight fitted top in front of a mirror." Shane Hickey, "The innovators: the app promising the perfect-fitting bra", The Guardian 10 January 2015, as cited by Mark Liberman on "Language Log"
        "I swear more when I'm talking to a boy, because I'm not afraid of shocking them". From an interview.
        "No mother should be forced to testify against their child".

    They may also be used with antecedents of mixed genders:
        "Let me know if your father or your mother changes their mind." Example given by Huddleston et al.
        "Either the husband or the wife has perjured themself." Here themself might be acceptable to some, themselves seems less acceptable, and himself is unacceptable. Example given by Huddleston et al.
    Even for a definite known person of known sex, they may be used in order to ignore or conceal the sex.
        "I had a friend in Paris, and they had to go to hospital for a month." (definite person, not identified)

    The word themself is also sometimes used when the antecedent is known or believed to be a single person:
        "Someone has apparently locked themself in the office."[acceptability questionable]

***

According to A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985):

    "The pronoun they is commonly used as a 3rd person singular pronoun that is neutral between masculine and feminine ... At one time restricted to informal usage. it is now increasingly accepted in formal usage, especially in [American English].

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language discusses the prescriptivist argument that they is a plural pronoun and that the use of they with a singular "antecedent" therefore violates the rule of agreement between antecedent and pronoun, but takes the view that they, though primarily plural, can also be singular in a secondary extended sense, comparable to the purportedly extended sense of he to include female gender.

Use of singular they is stated to be "particularly common", even "stylistically neutral" with antecedents such as everyone, someone, and no one, but more restricted when referring to common nouns as antecedents, as in

    "The patient should be told at the outset how much they will be required to pay."
    "A friend of mine has asked me to go over and help them ..."

***

And examples going on and on.

That's all well and good Valeria, but the code doesn't allow for it. When you target your own weapon, people see "his" or "her" weapon. If I were to try and examine your pretty new pair of pants, and mistype and spell pnats by mistake, I will see "HE (or SHE) doesn't have anything like that." Not "they" doesn't have anything like that.

Your character's voice, from afar, will be that of a male or female, not a they. Your character, when wearing a veil but not a hood, will be either a male in a veil or a female in a veil. Not an androgynous person in a veil, or an unknown in a veil, or a human in a veil. If your character is speaking to someone else and it's dark out, your character will be identified as either a male or a female, by voice.

There -are- creatures in the game that are gender-neutral; lacking gender, not merely appearing to lack gender. They are its. If your PC only appears to lack gender, that means s/he has a gender. That gender will be either male or female, and the code identifies him as such.

Quote from: Lizzie on August 05, 2018, 12:48:14 PM
That's all well and good Valeria, but the code doesn't allow for it. When you target your own weapon, people see "his" or "her" weapon. If I were to try and examine your pretty new pair of pants, and mistype and spell pnats by mistake, I will see "HE (or SHE) doesn't have anything like that." Not "they" doesn't have anything like that.

Your character's voice, from afar, will be that of a male or female, not a they. Your character, when wearing a veil but not a hood, will be either a male in a veil or a female in a veil. Not an androgynous person in a veil, or an unknown in a veil, or a human in a veil. If your character is speaking to someone else and it's dark out, your character will be identified as either a male or a female, by voice.

There -are- creatures in the game that are gender-neutral; lacking gender, not merely appearing to lack gender. They are its. If your PC only appears to lack gender, that means s/he has a gender. That gender will be either male or female, and the code identifies him as such.

I believe the suggestion is that all of those code aspects that use binary pronouns would be modified to include a non-specific "they."

But your post does illustrate how complicated that undertaking could be.

Re: Lizzie,
See previous post (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,53979.msg1017077.html#msg1017077) in which I point out how I know it would require some coding, but it would be a nice feature.  Unless I'm misreading your argument (and you're arguing that people either have masculine or feminine voices), which I would counter with "then why do I sometimes get mistaken for my brother when I answer the phone at my parents' house."

Re: Brokkr,
This other grammar article by Merriam Webster will be my final post in this thread: Merriam Webster on singular they. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/singular-nonbinary-they)

tlrd; Singular "they" has been used in English grammar since the 1300s for people of unknown or indeterminate gender, and has been used to describe nonbinary people since at least 1950.

[Edit to remove snark.]

Quote from: Lizzie on August 05, 2018, 12:48:14 PM

Your character's voice, from afar, will be that of a male or female, not a they.

(https://i.imgur.com/pm3D1G4.png?1)

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 05:35:53 AM

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 05:12:02 AM

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 04:24:59 AMI think the reason people counter-react to the suggestion is that the suggestion is phrased in terms of "do this, or you totally suck." .

??? it is??

I was responding to Bebop, not you.  I didn't care one way or the other, until it got a tad nasty.

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM

This is why the gaming community as a whole is stagnating, man.

"Do this, or you totally suck."

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM
Now we're onto new horizon socially and we're fizzling out on getting ahead of the curve and that saddens me.

"Do this, or you totally suck."

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM
...seeing people get squeamish about this topic is a little bizarre to me and also smacks of some kind of inward revulsion towards folks like myself.

"If you don't agree with me, you totally suck."

I submit that it is possible not to be bigoted -and- not to care one way or the other about gender pronouns.  Personally, I'm not any more revolted by LGBTQ people than I am by humanity in general.  I also still don't care about the pronoun thing.  I offered my opinion as a tactical suggestion:  you aren't going to win friends from the sidelines by casting aspersions on the fence-sitters.

Hey.  Stop it.  Don't do that.  You're underestimating my ability to just say you totally suck if that's what I wanted.  My words are relevant and you overgeneralizing them into the words of a troll is neither nice nor helpful.  My comment wasn't directed at you, I don't even remember your initial post.  I was simply saying this isn't a topic to just be dismissed, it's a conversation worth having.  Okay?  Okay.  Also, I don't like the term gender identity politics - while I know it can get out of hand, I myself have been corrected IRL when I didn't ask someone the pronouns they prefer ... talking about social norms isn't political and referring to it as such is another way to dismiss people out of hand that are trying to shake up our society and how it perceives gender.  I still maintain this is something the gaming community used to happily be ahead of the curve on.

Quote from: Namino on August 05, 2018, 12:13:32 PM
Here I go.

It has been an obvious fact for some time to me that the playerbases of many RPIs are significantly elevated related to average when it comes to densities of people adhering to alternative gender identities. I suspect it is because that here, on Armageddon, we can occupy the identity of whatever we choose effortlessly. For someone who has been forced to battle in real life to find personal comfort and societal acceptance of their identity, the ability to craft up a character and interact with many other people as that character must be an supremely satisfying experience. To those people, I say welcome and gladly accept their time and effort, and I am happy that you have found an outlet that provides creative control. We're all here to tell stories.

However.

I am against this proposal.

The reason I am against this proposal is because its motivation is not driven by in universe factors. It is motivated by the OOC desire for OOC acceptance. There is no major Zalanthan movement for the acceptance of alternative gender identities. I don't think a Zalanthan would even really understand the concept. Remember that on Zalanthas, the genders are entirely equal in every societal way. The concept of gender as spectrum wouldn't make sense to them because even the traditional genders aren't bimodal to them. They occupy a single point. How can you be fluid between two identical states? The idea of gender fluidity and alternative gender identities is too modern. It doesn't seem in place with an archaic, alien society on Zalanthas. Accounting for this stuff ICly would likely do quite a bit of damage to the ability for people to immerse themselves when it comes across as a jarringly out-of-place modern agenda slapped down like a spaceship in the middle of an alien planet.

And that's precisely what I feel like it is. It is an OOC agenda that people are arguing that should be represented ICly because it is an OOC agenda that they agree with. Well, I agree with it too. I think many people OOCly agree that it costs us nothing to accept people's pronouns and can be a source of great comfort and validation for people. OOCly, I will use whatever pronoun you want me to use. But just because I agree and defend this agenda OOCly does not in any way make it appropriate for it to shatteringly appear ICly as well.

I frequently joke on the discord that I'm going to start playing a conservation biologist ICly (based on my RL career). The crux of this joke is that I'm allowing an OOC philosophy to leak IC into a world where it would make little sense, and come across as jarring for people's immersion. What I am seeing here is people barefacedly arguing that we should be allowed to bring our OOC ideals to where they have IC bearing. I don't agree. I don't think immersion is something we should sacrifice on this altar.

I just think this bolded part.

Can you guys split your weird feelings about gender identity into Roleplaying Discussion? I just want to be a man so feminine that people can't tell whether I'm a man or a woman, here.

The suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with anything in-character.

It's entirely about how we symbolically represent what is in-character via the English language.  That is, the sort of people who we would refer to as "non-binary" IRL also exist IC, but the code offers no way to refer to those people in a manner that is IC-consistent and grammatically consistent.

I still don't care one way or the other, but I can't stand bad arguments.

Coded Reasons - IC Reasons/Story

• A character is androgynous looking
  In a society that views men and women as complete equals some may not feel the need to bother as either
  Out of character someone wants to play someone who isn't gender specific
  There's no need to differentiate between the genders in a game where everyone is codedly and socially equal in regards to gender
  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 making it effectively impossible to play a truly androgynous person
  It kind of smacks of OOC nonacceptance, like when a trans person says they're a woman but still gets called a man or a non-binary person saying I'm non-binary and someone going no what what are you REALLY

Technically, the makers of this game could have said - men will be physically stronger it's not realistic for women to be just as strong as men etc.  But did they do that?  No.  They created a space that has retained players like myself and the other woman here that are able to come and play and be treated as equals without facing the same social bullshit we might face IRL.  We are thusly able to politic and climb the social ladder without worrying that playing a female character might garner IC or OOC obstacles.  A person desiring to play someone without a gender should be given that same opportunity regardless of whether it is motivated by IG or OOC preferences.

As a community, gamers have often (including this game) been proudly ahead of social norms.  I love this game because of it's feminism and the staff, to my knowledge, especially with Sanvean on it had that mindset consistently at the forefront of the staffs intent and goals for Zalanthan society.  As far as I'm aware they have continued to make strides towards male and female equality within the game.  Male and female are genders - the intent for gender equality should not end there.  As people without genders are becoming more relevant and commonplace in OOC society it is worth considering getting ahead of that in game - especially if Zalanthas really does represent a society that cares little for your gender as long as you show wit and cunning.  If in our fucked up, still highly sexist world society we are already validating those that refuse to consign themselves to a gender, don't you think that would be old hat in Zalanthas?

Just because it's an OOC argument doesn't make it irrelevant and there are definitely IC reasons to be found.  We make this game, we make this world and one could argue the feminism IG was OOC motivated but that doesn't make it any less relevant or any less a staple of this game that has helped retain certain players for so long.  So creating a "they" option is an absolutely relevant consideration. 

I'm not saying I'll be devastated if it doesn't happen but it's really a matter of what are our principals as players and staff of this game.  So I think how it's handled or summarily dismissed as trivial says a lot about us as a community.

I will say that if I came to this game and was told I had to face IG sexism I'd probably not be still playing this game ten years later.  If someone non-binary comes here and they want to play every single character that way they should have that option.  I've never played a male character.  I can't get into that head space.  Including people with out a gender can do nothing but add dimension to the game.  If someone wants to play a non-binary character and they codedly are consigned a gender I can almost guarantee you that they are going to run into people IG that go by their coded gender or talk about them in regards to their coded gender despite what they're depicting IC.  I've done it myself by accident.  Assessing someone and not realizing their main desc said something otherwise.  Which means that IG it's currently impossible to play a truly coded non-gender conforming character.

Some of my idols are people that were androgynous as hell and constantly kept people guessing.  That guess work should be coded IG.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter I think.

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 01:20:18 PM
Can you guys split your weird feelings about gender identity into Roleplaying Discussion? I just want to be a man so feminine that people can't tell whether I'm a man or a woman, here.

I don't have weird feelings. In fact, I would agree that if a person is covered head to toe, you may not be able to determine their sex and if it is possible to code that in, it probably should be that way.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 01:21:23 PM
The suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with anything in-character.

It's entirely about how we symbolically represent what is in-character via the English language.  That is, the sort of people who we would refer to as "non-binary" IRL also exist IC, but the code offers no way to refer to those people in a manner that is IC-consistent and grammatically consistent.

I still don't care one way or the other, but I can't stand bad arguments.

I don't believe that Namino's argument is a bad one. I think it makes total sense as to why a Zalanthan wouldn't have a desire to become a member of the opposite sex. Why would they? Women are as capable as men and vice versa. Whether we want to admit it or not, IC or IG, men and women have physical differences that makes us male or female. So do animals. Trying to blur the definition just because we have desires to be something else, doesn't make us something else.

By the way, I'm currently playing a male that has many female characteristics. Not saying its not okay. I'm very cool with it. IC or otherwise.

You can refer to people as "they" via think, say, shout, psi, etc.  That's the meat and potatoes of treating non-binary characters as such.  Having the code reflect "they" in other coded aspects would be nice, but it says absolutely nothing about what the Staff believe, or what players believe.

If anything, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people are on the side of "that would be a nice change," with varying degrees of enthusiasm.  However, the idea has to compete with lots of "that would be nices," and limited coder resources.

If someone with the know-how decided to take the project on, it wouldn't bother me.  If nobody wants to, my assumption is that they have other things that they'd rather be doing, not that they're giving LGBTQ players the finger.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 01:47:46 PM
You can refer to people as "they" via think, say, shout, psi, etc.  That's the meat and potatoes of treating non-binary characters as such.  Having the code reflect "they" in other coded aspects would be nice, but it says absolutely nothing about what the Staff believe, or what players believe.

If anything, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people are on the side of "that would be a nice change," with varying degrees of enthusiasm.  However, the idea has to compete with lots of "that would be nices," and limited coder resources.

If someone with the know-how decided to take the project on, it wouldn't bother me.  If nobody wants to, my assumption is that they have other things that they'd rather be doing, not that they're giving LGBTQ players the finger.

Yea. This.

Quote from: JohnMichaelHenry on August 05, 2018, 01:41:07 PM

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 01:20:18 PM
Can you guys split your weird feelings about gender identity into Roleplaying Discussion? I just want to be a man so feminine that people can't tell whether I'm a man or a woman, here.

I don't have weird feelings. In fact, I would agree that if a person is covered head to toe, you may not be able to determine their sex and if it is possible to code that in, it probably should be that way.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 05, 2018, 01:21:23 PM
The suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with anything in-character.

It's entirely about how we symbolically represent what is in-character via the English language.  That is, the sort of people who we would refer to as "non-binary" IRL also exist IC, but the code offers no way to refer to those people in a manner that is IC-consistent and grammatically consistent.

I still don't care one way or the other, but I can't stand bad arguments.

I don't believe that Namino's argument is a bad one. I think it makes total sense as to why a Zalanthan wouldn't have a desire to become a member of the opposite sex. Why would they? Women are as capable as men and vice versa. Whether we want to admit it or not, IC or IG, men and women have physical differences that makes us male or female. So do animals. Trying to blur the definition just because we have desires to be something else, doesn't make us something else.

By the way, I'm currently playing a male that has many female characteristics. Not saying its not okay. I'm very cool with it. IC or otherwise.

Still a bad argument, by way of making assumptions about the reasons why someone may or may not be LGBTQ.  You can be non-binary in a world where gender roles are starkly different, and you can be non-binary in a world where gender roles are equal.  That context doesn't necessarily make a difference.  People don't "choose" to be non-binary because they "want" something.  People "are" non-binary because "that's the way they are."

Now, it's true that characters wouldn't make a big stink about someone being non-binary IC, whereas people IRL often do.  That doesn't mean that non-binary characters don't exist IC.  In fact, I'm pretty sure it's well-established that they do, and they're treated equally (or at least, their gender status is not relevant to how they should be treated).

Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by this then. Are you saying a person is not born male (penis) or female (vagina)? If there is some physical mutation I totally get what you mean, but otherwise I don't. I thought the argument for this -was- if a person decided to be a male but look and act female. Is that not what Metekillot was saying?

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 01:20:18 PM
Can you guys split your weird feelings about gender identity into Roleplaying Discussion? I just want to be a man so feminine that people can't tell whether I'm a man or a woman, here.

Edited to add: I really am not trying to be offensive here to anyone. And I'm not stupid or anything, I swear. I teach physics. Maybe I'm just old :) I am doing my best to understand.

Quote from: JohnMichaelHenry on August 05, 2018, 02:13:14 PM
Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by this then. Are you saying a person is not born male (penis) or female (vagina)? If there is some physical mutation I totally get what you mean, but otherwise I don't. I thought the argument for this -was- if a person decided to be a male but look and act female. Is that not what Metekillot was saying?

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 05, 2018, 01:20:18 PM
Can you guys split your weird feelings about gender identity into Roleplaying Discussion? I just want to be a man so feminine that people can't tell whether I'm a man or a woman, here.

Edited to add: I really am not trying to be offensive here to anyone. And I'm not stupid or anything, I swear. I teach physics. Maybe I'm just old :) I am doing my best to understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

Edited: In light of WithSprinkles suggestion, I'm deleting this post entirely in favor of concentrating on the subject at hand.

I'm going to skirt most of this debate and focus on other bits, so pardon if I am skipping over things.

People have mentioned voices heard from afar in regards to this and it IS an interesting part to take almost ASIDE from everything while looking at the whole of this. I'd like to hear tonal quality in character voices. If an older male and younger male are speaking, I would like age ranges noted as the extremes come into play, perhaps? When a crowd are talking, or even two people in the next room, wouldn't it be nice to have a clue who is saying what? Or to note a booming half-giant's voice?

This could, presumably, be noted in tone quality when a person applies for a character that is gender neutral to have an 'indeterminate' voice or some other synonym applied. Or they may wish to have a male or female one. These vocal tones should NOT be randomly opt in unless there were a skill to disguise your tone, in my opinion. The idea is already being kicked around a little in this thread and may not be pursued by staff, but it seems nice. It MAY even work toward giving us ALL feature concealment options or move toward that.

Completely on topic, I'm going to be one of the last people to tell anyone not to express how they feel on either side of a debate. This matters to folks that play the game. We may not be able to offer what is being asked for now or in the future, but how about we brainstorm about the above suggestion and other things that might work? If one path seems blocked, seek an alternate and compromise.

we don't do a lot of communication by shouting and there isn't that much communication in dark rooms and in those instances a voice could probably be applied to the given sex of a character -- leave it at that.

Why? Voice non-conformity does happen, but it is rare, even in the experienced transgender community. Trans people that do pull off a fully masculine voice (if born female sex) have either had surgery, years of specific training, or both, all of which wouldn't really be possible in zalanthas.

However, if we want to be biologically exact, maybe male and female dwarves just can't be differentiated by gender via voice alone. But..that's a specific subniche and sub-situation to code. I'd call voice differentiation low priority. I'd like there to be a coded sex and a coded gender expression. When you see someone talking in front of you, you don't really regard them by their voice -- you do by their appearance. We've all met men with high voices and women with low voices, but if the visual expression is male or female, we will refer to them as that. It kind of overrides the voice. Moreover, voice quality can easily be added to the say/talk/tell commands and gives us more style options anyway...people constantly change their voice quality on the fly. You can't really change your facial structure, presence of facial hair, musculature, build/body type on the fly...it's pretty fixed.

What we are discussing is the visual appearance of a character fitting the pronoun used, really. Androgny for voices is a separate topic with separate parameters...I just think it deserves its own separate discussion and will be mired with its own problems.

responses:

Synth correctly says we can manually type they/them/their, but guess what? the person on the receiving end of those hand-typed pronouns won't see you/your, and it will be jarring to immersion. That is a problem.

Sleepyhead's long case on page 2 of this thread actually only does one thing, firmly: it absolutely demonstrates the advantage of having they/them/their be coded, as has been outlined. The reason? It would totally negate the reason for an OOC question in the first place. The character is gender ambiguous -- it's in the code. How your character reacts is one thing, but given there was no code supporting the ambiguity, the scene had to be interrupted by an OOC question that was out of place.


Again:

Let's just code something that has existed for at LEAST a decade if not longer in the culture. I can recall seeing extremely androgynous males and females since I first started playing. I see it...all the time. It may as well get the coded support that the playerbase clearly craves. By coding the support it will PREVENT awkward debates, not induce them.

All I'm adding is I love the idea of setting your own voice sdsec in chargen.

A shrill, warbling soprano voice shouts from the north, "Splendid!"

The bulky hairy man has arrived from the north, acting Faleish.

Quote from: only_plays_tribals on August 05, 2018, 05:50:27 PM
All I'm adding is I love the idea of setting your own voice sdsec in chargen.

A shrill, warbling soprano voice shouts from the north, "Splendid!"

The bulky hairy man has arrived from the north, acting Faleish.

I like this idea. As long as it could be changed later.

Edited to add: lol, just realized this is the same thing Metekillot asked for in the OP.

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 01:34:14 PM
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?

Personally, I would love for gender politics to stay out of Arm. If there are ever OOC rules governing how you respond IC to someone's IG chosen pronouns that differ from their coded pronouns, that will likely be the day that I end my 20 year relationship with the game.

The game is supposed to be gritty and archaic. Respecting chosen gender pronouns is anything but.
Armageddon is supposed to be the opposite of a safe space. It's supposed to be dangerous, miserable, and unforgiving.
In such a place, when people's lives hang in the balance daily, social issues like racism and gender pronouns would never become important enough for anyone to care about.

I play arm for a lot of reasons, but high among them is an escape from the daily barrage of RL politics. Here, we can play in a more simple world, where survival and trust are more important than who you bump uglies with, or what does or doesn't lie between your legs.

Quote from: Heade on August 06, 2018, 02:39:25 PM

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 01:34:14 PM
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?

Personally, I would love for gender politics to stay out of Arm. If there are ever OOC rules governing how you respond IC to someone's IG chosen pronouns that differ from their coded pronouns, that will likely be the day that I end my 20 year relationship with the game.

The game is supposed to be gritty and archaic. Respecting chosen gender pronouns is anything but.
Armageddon is supposed to be the opposite of a safe space. It's supposed to be dangerous, miserable, and unforgiving.
In such a place, when people's lives hang in the balance daily, social issues like racism and gender pronouns would never become important enough for anyone to care about.

I play arm for a lot of reasons, but high among them is an escape from the daily barrage of RL politics. Here, we can play in a more simple world, where survival and trust are more important than who you bump uglies with, or what does or doesn't lie between your legs.

I have to admit, this scares me a little as well... Let's just say staff codes another option 'androgynous' along with male and female and they get their pronoun and all that... and in game I have a character that treats that person differently because they are neither male nor female. Will I be allowed to call them a disgusting freak? Or will there start to be OOC and IC rules about how they should be treated as equals? I'd have to go along with Heade if something like that happened. Please don't let it.

What Heade and JohnMichaelHenry said.  Agree.  There are like couple dozen genders.  New pronouns and such for each one?   And rules to use them?

I know I said I was done with this thread, but uh... literally nobody was proposing anything about coding in more genders. Despite some serious, serious digression about what pronoun you would use to describe someone who is androgynous, the OP was about letting people choose to be androgynous at char gen. That is, not obviously masculine or feminine.

Have you guys never seen a person with no hips, a flat chest, and no facial hair? Maybe even an indeterminate range voice? No?

Well, I have. What's more, I've even seen some on Zalanthas. The thing is, codedly, they aren't allowed to be androgynous. They're either him or her when you target them in the code. That's literally the one point of the thread.

Presumably, you'd treat them as their race requires. Like everyone else of either sex. The person playing an androgynous character might have to field the question "so are you a man or are you a woman" quite a bit, but I think a person who didn't want to endure that RP would probably not pick androgynous in char gen.

tldr; Your slippery slope argument is based on some other slope. Anyone with any familiarity with genders would be very perplexed by that idea of hard coding in a bunch of genders because the whole issue with gender is that it is separate from your physical parts. [Edit: don't even worry about this part.]

How about you just don't play an androgynous character - there are plenty of ideas that I can't create in-game for a reason or another. If you really must play an androgynous character to enjoy Armageddon then maybe it's just not the mud for you.

Pick male or female and come up with something else to flavor up your character's story, it's pretty simple.

But I understand that it's an idea like any other, so I'll let Staff decides if it's worth coding or not. In my opinion, seeing "they" to describe a person is jarring and confusing as hell, as a non-native English speaker.

I know I said I wouldn't comment again, but I just want to pop in to say that Shakespeare used the singular "they." Even without this change, I use it all the time in-game for people whose gender I don't happen to know.

I don't think the "it's incorrect/jarring" argument is a good one. Singular "they" has been a part of English for a long time. I understand that if you're ESL you may not be super familiar with it, but it's just one of those things that's not going anywhere.

My main concern here would be for the extreme reasons behind wanting this sort of change. I'm definitely not here to start any sort of argument or make anybody feel like I'm pointing fingers, so please don't jump on a box and start yelling at me for saying something  you think I intend to be mean. That isn't true.

My worry is that for at least some people the reason for exploring this kind of thing in Arm would be to self-insert themselves into the game world because they can't be who they want to be IRL because of culture/religion/whatever causes these sorts of problems (to note, I think resistance to acceptance of these sorts of things is bs, I'm totally on board with IRL support of this stuff). I know that people self-insert all the time to varying degrees and that the argument initially was that everyone else can play to their preferences without problems, but self-insertion isn't generally what the game is about. I feel like more than a few who would want to utilize this change would be the ones who want to self-insert to experiment with how it feels to them or to live out who they want to be OOCly via IC.

Arm is here for us to participate in the fantasy world experience of Zalanthas, its not here for us to live out idealized versions of ourselves, and I worry that would be something that happens more often with this kind of change than it already does with the current way things are setup.

Gonna be blunt here, protect your toes, everyone.

I'm sorry, Valeria, but I don't believe you. This isn't about closing some code oversight where coded pronouns don't match indeterminate sex traits ICly. This is not, in my judgement, an attempt to close a gap in immersion. This is not, in my judgement, motivated by in character, in universe concerns. By your own admission in your initial post, this is about being a more welcoming, inclusive community. Backpedaling after this and claiming that this is not about gender politics OOCly, and that it's solely in character and focused on Zalanthan's inability to discern sex when observing indeterminate sex characteristics rings very hollow to me.

Quote from: valeria on August 05, 2018, 01:41:00 AM
It would be a more welcoming, more inclusive feature.

Welcoming and inclusive to whom, exactly? The obvious answer is, of course, more welcoming and inclusive to individuals who OOCly do not identify under traditional gender schemes, and that the inability for them to recreate a gender identity that matches their OOC identity is unwelcoming of us. However, as other posters have pointed out, this only becomes an issue if your principle goal when designing a new character is to construct one that matches your OOC struggles: in brief, to self insert. I do not condone coded alterations to the game to facilitate self insertion, even if we thinly veil them under the guise of code not representing character perception.

But, in the interest of being thorough, I will respond to the in character argument none-the-less. For the record, I don't buy it. I believe it is a veil. But I will address the veil regardless.

What other characters can or cannot perceive about your character is not up to you, truly. We have very well established ground rules regarding this. We do not allow people to say they are ugly, or beautiful, or charismatic in their descriptions. We have roleplay guidelines that discourage forced emotes that inform people what they feel or think or believe about other character's personality, behavior, or traits. If you wish to define your character as a genetic woman who is androgynous (ie, flat chested, masculine chin, broad shoulders, et al), then feel free to do this. And leave it up to me to determine if my character can or cannot determine your true sex. There is variation in people's ability to discern androgynous character's sex, and so there is variation in character's ability to do so, as well. Stripping away people's ownership of their character's ability to do so by forcing indeterminate pronouns is in the same vein as telling me that I have to find your character ugly or beautiful. Don't tell me what my character can and cannot perceive. That's not up to you.

Edit: It's important to me to reiterate that these views are related to Armageddon MUD, and characters within them, not the players. Again, I am fully supportive of pronouns OOCly. If any player were to approach me with indeterminate pronouns, I would honor and respect that identity OOCly, have done so, and will continue to do so. My issue here is that indeterminate pronouns are out of place ICly and strike me solidly as an attempt to self insert, rather than represent some in character facet of perception.

Edit #2: Also important that I acknowledge that special apped true hermaphrodites would of course occupy an indeterminate sex category (that is, possess both male and female primary sexual characteristics) and are exempt from this. But there's a reason that they're under the ownership of special applications and require setting up, as Brokkr has stated. Having indeterminate secondary sexual characteristics means you have to leave it up to the characters you interact with to determine how they react/perceive that, much like other secondary characteristics determining beauty.

If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.
If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.
If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

<3

Quote from: Namino on August 06, 2018, 07:21:36 PM
Gonna be blunt here, protect your toes, everyone.

I'm sorry, Valeria, but I don't believe you. This isn't about closing some code oversight where coded pronouns don't match indeterminate sex traits ICly. This is not, in my judgement, an attempt to close a gap in immersion. This is not, in my judgement, motivated by in character, in universe concerns. By your own admission in your initial post, this is about being a more welcoming, inclusive community. Backpedaling after this and claiming that this is not about gender politics OOCly, and that it's solely in character and focused on Zalanthan's inability to discern sex when observing indeterminate sex characteristics rings very hollow to me.

Quote from: valeria on August 05, 2018, 01:41:00 AM
It would be a more welcoming, more inclusive feature.

Welcoming and inclusive to whom, exactly? The obvious answer is, of course, more welcoming and inclusive to individuals who OOCly do not identify under traditional gender schemes, and that the inability for them to recreate a gender identity that matches their OOC identity is unwelcoming of us. However, as other posters have pointed out, this only becomes an issue if your principle goal when designing a new character is to construct one that matches your OOC struggles: in brief, to self insert. I do not condone coded alterations to the game to facilitate self insertion, even if we thinly veil them under the guise of code not representing character perception.

But, in the interest of being thorough, I will respond to the in character argument none-the-less. For the record, I don't buy it. I believe it is a veil. But I will address the veil regardless.

What other characters can or cannot perceive about your character is not up to you, truly. We have very well established ground rules regarding this. We do not allow people to say they are ugly, or beautiful, or charismatic in their descriptions. We have roleplay guidelines that discourage forced emotes that inform people what they feel or think or believe about other character's personality, behavior, or traits. If you wish to define your character as a genetic woman who is androgynous (ie, flat chested, masculine chin, broad shoulders, et al), then feel free to do this. And leave it up to me to determine if my character can or cannot determine your true sex. There is variation in people's ability to discern androgynous character's sex, and so there is variation in character's ability to do so, as well. Stripping away people's ownership of their character's ability to do so by forcing indeterminate pronouns is in the same vein as telling me that I have to find your character ugly or beautiful. Don't tell me what my character can and cannot perceive. That's not up to you.

Edit: It's important to me to reiterate that these views are related to Armageddon MUD, and characters within them, not the players. Again, I am fully supportive of pronouns OOCly. If any player were to approach me with indeterminate pronouns, I would honor and respect that identity OOCly, have done so, and will continue to do so. My issue here is that indeterminate pronouns are out of place ICly and strike me solidly as an attempt to self insert, rather than represent some in character facet of perception.

Edit #2: Also important that I acknowledge that special apped true hermaphrodites would of course occupy an indeterminate sex category (that is, possess both male and female primary sexual characteristics) and are exempt from this. But there's a reason that they're under the ownership of special applications and require setting up, as Brokkr has stated. Having indeterminate secondary sexual characteristics means you have to leave it up to the characters you interact with to determine how they react/perceive that, much like other secondary characteristics determining beauty.

Isn't this a post supporting us removing hardcoded references to biological sex though? The hardcoded echoes are codedly telling you something you would rather be discerned through you having your PC interpret things like description, vocal emotes, etc.

I mean that seems like a pretty good argument for the whole thing - we remove all hardcoded references to biological sex, or assumptions on someone's presentation. That way nobody is forced to assume anything, nor is anyone forced to be anything. People can go on being "the x man" or "the y woman" and dealing with them would be the same. Of course we're then faced with niggling cases like how voices are heard in adjacent rooms, via whisper, etc.

It's an interesting thought experiment though - because the only values that your character's coded sex determine are the pronouns used in emotes and a few coded impositions.

As Brokkr said, however, we currently have means to support this, after a fashion.

Edit:

Also, please bear in mind that Zalanthas is a world where we've completely excluded prejudices that exist in the real-world in order to accommodate people who experience these prejudices in their real-world lives. Homophobia, racism and sexism are absent in their real-world forms in Zalanthas because we want people of all walks of life to enjoy the game and not have to deal with situations they might have to deal with IRL in-game. In their place we've placed fantastical and entirely imaginary prejudices that are pursued with the same vehemence, cruelty and callousness and it's that atmosphere that many in this thread are pointing to when they speak of Arm's 'grit' or how Arm isn't a 'safe space'. So yes, in a way we don't recoil from allowing scenarios that explore the worst of humanity - hatred against other species, other nationalities or hatred of something inherent to a character that they can't ICly control - like magick, or mutation - but we actively weed out, correct and exclude attempts to introduce real-world hate into the game - so, in this way - yes, we are a safe space. But we've been one for a very long time, likely before the modern "safe space" concept really formed.

Quote from: Rathustra on August 06, 2018, 08:04:45 PM

Quote from: Namino on August 06, 2018, 07:21:36 PM
Gonna be blunt here, protect your toes, everyone.

I'm sorry, Valeria, but I don't believe you. This isn't about closing some code oversight where coded pronouns don't match indeterminate sex traits ICly. This is not, in my judgement, an attempt to close a gap in immersion. This is not, in my judgement, motivated by in character, in universe concerns. By your own admission in your initial post, this is about being a more welcoming, inclusive community. Backpedaling after this and claiming that this is not about gender politics OOCly, and that it's solely in character and focused on Zalanthan's inability to discern sex when observing indeterminate sex characteristics rings very hollow to me.

Quote from: valeria on August 05, 2018, 01:41:00 AM
It would be a more welcoming, more inclusive feature.

Welcoming and inclusive to whom, exactly? The obvious answer is, of course, more welcoming and inclusive to individuals who OOCly do not identify under traditional gender schemes, and that the inability for them to recreate a gender identity that matches their OOC identity is unwelcoming of us. However, as other posters have pointed out, this only becomes an issue if your principle goal when designing a new character is to construct one that matches your OOC struggles: in brief, to self insert. I do not condone coded alterations to the game to facilitate self insertion, even if we thinly veil them under the guise of code not representing character perception.

But, in the interest of being thorough, I will respond to the in character argument none-the-less. For the record, I don't buy it. I believe it is a veil. But I will address the veil regardless.

What other characters can or cannot perceive about your character is not up to you, truly. We have very well established ground rules regarding this. We do not allow people to say they are ugly, or beautiful, or charismatic in their descriptions. We have roleplay guidelines that discourage forced emotes that inform people what they feel or think or believe about other character's personality, behavior, or traits. If you wish to define your character as a genetic woman who is androgynous (ie, flat chested, masculine chin, broad shoulders, et al), then feel free to do this. And leave it up to me to determine if my character can or cannot determine your true sex. There is variation in people's ability to discern androgynous character's sex, and so there is variation in character's ability to do so, as well. Stripping away people's ownership of their character's ability to do so by forcing indeterminate pronouns is in the same vein as telling me that I have to find your character ugly or beautiful. Don't tell me what my character can and cannot perceive. That's not up to you.

Edit: It's important to me to reiterate that these views are related to Armageddon MUD, and characters within them, not the players. Again, I am fully supportive of pronouns OOCly. If any player were to approach me with indeterminate pronouns, I would honor and respect that identity OOCly, have done so, and will continue to do so. My issue here is that indeterminate pronouns are out of place ICly and strike me solidly as an attempt to self insert, rather than represent some in character facet of perception.

Edit #2: Also important that I acknowledge that special apped true hermaphrodites would of course occupy an indeterminate sex category (that is, possess both male and female primary sexual characteristics) and are exempt from this. But there's a reason that they're under the ownership of special applications and require setting up, as Brokkr has stated. Having indeterminate secondary sexual characteristics means you have to leave it up to the characters you interact with to determine how they react/perceive that, much like other secondary characteristics determining beauty.

Isn't this a post supporting us removing hardcoded references to biological sex though? The hardcoded echoes are codedly telling you something you would rather be discerned through you having your PC interpret things like description, vocal emotes, etc.

I'd be fine with that, to be honest. I've played RPIs before where there wasn't anything other than the current ~ for targeting people by their whole sdescs and the rest of the emote you chose all the pronouns in third person yourself, and therefore were assigning gender based on description cues.

This does not, however, address the ample evidence, particularly in early posts in this thread, that this entire proposal was floated on the desire for players to more accurately self insert and play reflections of themselves, which I inherently oppose.

That being said, Brokkr has succinctly wrapped this all up, in my opinion.

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.)

I'm honestly confused as to why this went into a game of Clue trying to figure out the reasons behind one or two posters wanting they to replace it and then applying it to all people who were in support of this no matter what.

Yes. Some people may want a thousand genders to self insert with. That's true of any game anywhere. Personally, I believe that Arma is not and never will be the place for that.

The addition of 'they' as /coded pronouns/ to cover all other bases isn't asking the playerbase to treat them special, or even to avoid the whole "eh so what, you got a dick or...?" stuff. It would be /odd/, of course, if on an OOC level you overtly or sinisterly took to treating androgynous characters with more scorn than those who somehow mystically remained utterly gendered even when fully cloaked, hooded, facewrapped and so on. But that's another matter entirely.

My wish for possible androgyny lies not in fields of representation flowers every colour of the rainbow, but in the hard goddamn code.

1) You should be able to set a shouting voice at chargen, though with staff approval - as part of the CHARACTER APPLICATION process.
2) If you're concealed to the point of becoming 'figure' in your sdesc, your gender should not be discernible. At this time, it should display 'they' instead of 'she' or 'he'. If you're so concealed I can't even tell if you're human or dwarven or black or white at a glance, I DEFINITELY can't tell if you've got a vagina or not.
3) (and the one most people here are fighting about and confused about) For humanoid individuals who are not displayed prominently as one gender or the other, they should be allowed to display as 'they'. People can gender them however the fuck they want in game as long as there's no (out of character) overt distaste towards people who don't have huge tits or something, but purely the third point I'm making is that by covering every nonfeminine or nonmasculine presentation, you're covering pretty much 60% of Zalanthas anyway, because few folk /ARE/ so masculine and feminine that you can tell what they fuck with at just a glance.

Zalanthas is a world where men and women have no discernible difference of ability and few of build beyond slight curves and breasts, so why does it even make sense for our genders to be so ingrained with our appearance that we can tell 'oh yeah, that's a girl mul' at a first glance even if we have never even seen a single Mul before in our life? How can we tell the individual genders of every single gith we come across, even if our character is 13 years old and never saw a gith before? Either the lore regarding Zalanthan gender equality is wrong, or the code is and a small adjustment would be suited.

I'm not asking for a rainbow of gender presentation. I don't come to Zalanthas to be validated as a trans woman. I come to Zalanthas to rip people open with bone swords. But the lore doesn't match the code in this scenario where everyone is innately a cross-races physician and vet both, with x-ray vision.

At the very least - the VERY least - allowing for concealment of race/sdesc/everything but size to actually also conceal your gender would work to mitigate this disparity. If I can't tell they're anything but 'short', I shouldn't be able to notice their tits before anything else.

At a kindness, setting a shouting voice at chargen would be nice. If I can't tell it's a gith yelling in githspeak, if I can't tell it's a tregil screaming in agony, if I can't tell it's a halfgiants booming roar of a voice, or Tektolnes himself yelling his army forth, how and why can I tell that the yeller has a dick, even outside of my own race or species?

And in a perfect world, a 'they' chargen would solve everything else. But that's the perfect world scenario. It would be fucking nice, yes, but if the other two are in place it's not necessary. Just nice.

For me personally, it's not about representation. It's about making the lore of Zalanthas, and the set guidelines of player presentation, line up with the 'I can see your dick at 900 yards' code.

And trying to dig into the meaning behind what people are possibly saying to be like "hah-hah, you said the word 'representation', clearly that means you want the trans to come here and wag their flag all over us!" is honestly kind of pathetic.

And to anyone who is openly wanting a million genders, well, you do you, but that's not my jam.

As a small note, I would like to posit that the fact we as humans are having a crisis of gender is because we have inequalities. Im not saying it is the case but it might be.

That said, in a world where there is perfect equality, no racism, no sexism or sexuality problems, would a Zalanthan actually care what their gender is and would it even come up as a thing? I personally dont think the considerstion like that would be thought of, people would just accept that they have a penis and act all froofy, they accept that they have a vagina and act all gung-ho, they have a penis and act gung-ho.

I really do not think gender identity would matter to a Zalanthan, and that this whole discussion is because a few people want to force that 'issue' into Zalanthas because they feel that it belongs, when it fact it does not.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.
If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

So, to clarify. Let's say I wanted to play a really butch woman. Could I pick 'male' at chargen, then put in a main description that's ambiguous or even states something like 'at a closer look, this person looks more like a woman'?

I doubt I would ever use this for a character, but it would be a nice workaround that doesn't require any coded changes or a special app.

Quote from: Hauwke on August 07, 2018, 01:55:42 AM
As a small note, I would like to posit that the fact we as humans are having a crisis of gender is because we have inequalities. Im not saying it is the case but it might be.

That said, in a world where there is perfect equality, no racism, no sexism or sexuality problems, would a Zalanthan actually care what their gender is and would it even come up as a thing? I personally dont think the considerstion like that would be thought of, people would just accept that they have a penis and act all froofy, they accept that they have a vagina and act all gung-ho, they have a penis and act gung-ho.

I really do not think gender identity would matter to a Zalanthan, and that this whole discussion is because a few people want to force that 'issue' into Zalanthas because they feel that it belongs, when it fact it does not.

The proposed features were not about gender identity they were about what gender your character appears to be and how that is not always crystal clear. Metekillot even asked to discuss gender identity elsewhere.

Gender identity has only been brought up in this thread as a tangent, it appears mostly because people are afraid that anything gender related will turn into politics about 36 genders. It really doesn't have to (edit: but it will, if you make it a self-fulfilling prophecy). Please, at least try to separate this. People who either actively conceal their gender or just happen to look ambiguous without even trying have been around much longer than any modern ideas about gender identity. They're all over literature and history, too.

Quote from: Nao on August 07, 2018, 03:29:15 AM

The proposed features were not about gender identity they were about what gender your character appears to be and how that is not always crystal clear.

I am willing to believe certain posters genuinely want this because its more immersive not to be able to tell instantly what people are. Posters like Nao and MatisseorOtherwise have consistently argued this point from the beginning. I actually strongly agree with this point, as much as I think we shouldn't be able to look at a cloaked individual and see their full description. It makes perfect sense that a blurry figure ten leagues off shouldn't be a 'male in a facewrap' but just 'a humanoid looking smudge on the horizon'.

However, many, many other posters in this thread 'showed their hand' early on about this being about OOC gender politics, and when hit with resistance, happened upon the 'imperfect perception argument' as a convenient stand-in for their true motives of desiring easier self insertion. I'm not buying it, and the more I'm being wrestled by eye-wool-wielding posters, the more irritated I'm becoming. Give us some credit. We're not idiots. We can discern what are actual motives and what are convenient excuses.

Quote from: MeTekillot on August 04, 2018, 01:13:02 PM
Mostly because I'm on that gay shit,

Quote from: valeria on August 04, 2018, 09:57:32 PM
It's wanting to be able to play characters who are like me

Quote from: valeria on August 05, 2018, 01:41:00 AM
It would be a more welcoming, more inclusive feature. 

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 03:45:47 AM

If gamers aren't going to blaze a path for social acceptance of the LGBTQ community anymore

I am super femme outwardly, but super gender non-binary inwardly as a pansexual woman

Inclusion isn't picking sides.  Inclusion is inclusion.

Quote from: valeria on August 05, 2018, 09:51:16 AM
I've advertised this mud to my polyamorous friends as being fully supportive of polyamory.  I can't say the same to my trans friends.

This is merely a selection of the ample evidence many (not all) on the pro-side are doing this because they want to self insert or facilitate the self insertion of others, and are using the perception argument as a crutch when challenged on this. For people genuinely wanting a more accurate representation of the imperfect perception abilities, I am with you 100%. But I don't like being taken for a fool and when people try to veil their true motives like this, I'm immediately antagonistic to the attempt.

Personally, leaving aside my aggrieved status at being taken for a fool, in my opinion, the best possible solution would be to remove all characters in emoting except for ~, =, and % (sdescs) and let people just type out their pronouns. For example:

>Em smiles at ~androgynous, nodding in support of their proposal.

What results, having played on MUDs like this before, is actually the most accurate representation of imperfect perception in which Amos emotes:

> Em smiles at ~androgynous, nodding in support of his proposal.

And Talia emotes:

> Em smiles at ~androgynous, nodding in support of her proposal.

And very rarely someone emotes:

> Em smiles at ~androgynous, nodding support of their proposal.

Basically showing that Amos and Talia have imperfect and varied perceptions of who ~androgynous is. I imagine this would not satisfy many posters in this thread who want to be hard-codedly restricted to 'they'. But the fact is, if this was about imperfect perception then you'd want people to be able to make mistakes in their perception, and not be restricted to a 'they', perfectly balanced (as all things should be).

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.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 07, 2018, 05:11:26 AM
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?

That's not my argument. I'm arguing that we shouldn't be encouraging self insertion. And what annoys me is not, in fact, that people want indeterminate pronouns. It's that they're arguing disingeniously for it. I believe having to field disingenuous arguments is a perfectly reasonable source of irritation.

Rrriiiiiiight.  ::)

I guess I should get out of academia then, as a bigot like me isn't going to make it in such a liberal environment.  ::)

You ain't the only one in here with a doctorate, homie.

And you're right:  disingenuous arguments ARE irritating.

You still haven't answered the question:  what do you have to lose?  How will it demonstrably make the game any -worse- if we allow some marginalized players the comfort of feeling normal in-game?

This appeal to self-insertion argument is a red herring.  We all self-insert.  The question isn't whether we do so, but whether it detracts from the theme or not.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 07, 2018, 05:23:19 AM
what do you have to lose?  How will it demonstrably make the game any -worse- if we allow some marginalized players the comfort of feeling normal in-game?

That's valid. Honestly the argument I'm making is purely one of semantics (flavored with umbrage at all these side-arguments) and it's very true that perhaps that pales in comparison to the feeling of normalcy that this might bring to some players. If the argument we're making instead is what is the 'greater good', then considering that, it doesn't cost us much to do it and just let people be happy.

In truth I don't have a dog in the fight, and the fact remains that as a gender binary individual, I do have the option to picking pronouns that represent me, and that probably isn't technically fair.

But that's why I'm backing Rathustra's experiment of just... removing all pronouns and leaving us with nothing but the descriptions of characters to make determinations and letting things proceed organically from there.

Rathustra's idea is fine too but why is self-insertion bad? And could your reply be less than 6 sentences if possible?

My issue is one of semantics and sentence structure and ease of understanding. I empathize with Malken and other non-English-speaking people who try to play this game. They're caught in the middle of having to decode incorrect, but accepted, English vernacular that doesn't translate into their own language.

When someone identifies themselves as a "they" it's awkward at best, confusing as hell at worse, and can even create IC drama where none was intended.

I've seen it, I've been witness to it, I've participated in it, unwittingly.

Example:
You walk into a bar and immediately see this:
>The tressy tress human says, in sirihish, while stroking their arm, "Another ale Vennant."

You look at the bar.
No one else is sitting there. There are no pets there, the human doesn't have a pet lizard on his shoulder.

Looks to me like the tressed person is stroking someone else's arm, not his own. Whose arm? No idea. THe plot thickens and might even result in a visit from a templar.

That's innocuous, barely noteworthy.

It can get ridiculously convoluted though, all because someone chooses to self-identify as "they" or "them" or "their."

That honestly seems like something to work through on your part, cus this isn't the first time singular they has ever been used, and it's certainly not incorrect. "It" for sentient beings is more incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

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

Quote from: puella on August 07, 2018, 07:06:58 AM
It's just how English works, Lizzie.  Other languages do things differently.

Honestly, this. I don't see English users going onto French or German games and being like "why is every single item gendered. :( it doesn't work like this in english and I'm confused and every single thing has to adapt to me."

Non-English people may be confused by a neutral pronoun, sure, but human beings can learn and adapt and be like "that's just how english is".

Because that's just how English is. And anyone studying French or German and struggling with their wholly gendered language, that's just how French or German is.

No. No thank you.

Male and female are fine for Arm.

Okay, we all have genitalia and chromosomal radar, codedly. Yippee, realism achieved.

(Not).

This whole thread was really just a pet peeve of a player at the code saying he/she when their character was clearly a they. They/them gendered people exist in the real world -- okay, maybe not as commonly in a lot of the United States, where stronger gender expression norms make people effortfully try to fit into one gender or another more. Here, in the United States, but not in Zalanthas, we even politicize the issue and force a gender assignment. That isn't true in all cultures.

We have Zalanthas, which is a world where it is documented that gender doesn't affect one's lot in life. That suggests and implies that there isn't aggressive gender norming and sorting. That suggests that there would be people in Zalanthas who don't clearly fit a he/she gender and that nobody would care about it.

So, the code request was simple; add code that makes it so that gender isn't automatically sensed, code-wise. Instead, some characters are they/them when a pronoun is used because their appearance, or voice, or whatever, aren't clearly male/female so that you would instantly be able to assign one.

Anyway, I don't have a new argument, I am trying to succinctly wrap up what I thought was a totally reasonable request and one I fully support, because it fits the setting and I really don't get why there would be even a shred of vehement counter-argument (nobody here in these long winded posts has given me any argument I buy), so I give the idea a +1.

Quote from: Lizzie on August 07, 2018, 06:51:38 AM

You walk into a bar and immediately see this:
>The tressy tress human says, in sirihish, while stroking her arm, "Another ale Vennant."

You look at the bar.
someone else is sitting there, and *gasp* they are also female.

Looks to me like the tressed person is stroking someone else's arm, not her own. Whose arm? No idea.
...

Once again, Lizzie, you have absolutely no argument here. In a slightly different, but equally common scenario that I bolded the changes for above, there is again, ambiguity. In fact, there is always ambiguity with pronouns. When someone uses the her pronoun, it just isn't clear whose arm is being stroked -- is it her arm? some other female's arm? Ambiguity is the English language's fault, and it has nothing to do with gender assignments.

In fact, the counterpoint is that adding the their pronoun actually creates MORE specificity. If person A is androgynous and person B is female, and the pronoun their is used...well, now we know who that pronoun is referring to, don't we?

The only way pronoun ambiguity is solved is that it is coded. It allows the viewer on the receiving end of the pronoun to see those amazing words of immersion which matter: You. Your.

I never said no.  I said that trying to insert all the RL political shit into the game is stupid.  I said the same thing with the necker thing.

The game saying it, him, her, they, them, whatever, really doesn't mean a single damn thing.  Neither does someone not being able to tell your sex in game.  What purpose does that -actually- serve, because all I can gather from the posts is the ability for the player to enjoy the 'ZING, I'M NOT WHAT YOU THOUGHT I WAS!', which is really just not a very compelling argument for, either.

Neither case adds or detracts from the game, and the strong push to make this into feelings, acceptance, or anything else is showing a huge lack of barrier between this game and real life, the character and the self, and the ability to actually play a game with people being chopped up with bone swords that is it's own thing.

Edited to add:  To reiterate, I didn't say don't do it.  But I do not enjoy when RL stances, politically, suddenly creep into the game as justification for things, which is what this faded into, and why I entered with 'Fight the good fight elsewhere.'  I don't care if we change pronouns.  I care what people view as valid justification for entrance or changes within the game.

Since I originally came here from a game where I didn't feel welcome to play strong female characters because of gender discrimination under the excuse that it fit with the "period," feeling welcome at a place is certainly important to me.

Following this:

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.
If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

Which appears to be the Official Last Word on the topic, I'm pretty much convinced that this is true:

Quote from: Malken on August 06, 2018, 06:47:01 PM
If you really must [want to] play an androgynous character to enjoy Armageddon then maybe it's just not the mud for you.

Lemme be clear.
The 'zing, I'm not what you thought I was!' plotline is fucking terrible in everything. Anyone who wants their gender to be a Pandora's Box, I would actually ask that they rescind their support for this.
My support for this is in covering bases currently not covered, and making the lore match the code.
Also, I don't know if you noticed, but most folk aren't making this into feelings. There's some compelling arguments in here, but there's a couple lines of "I mean, it'd be nice personally in regards to representation too" attached to the end of those arguments, and that seems to have immediately set off a siren wherein people are now getting out their Gender Studies Knives and butchering everything to see exactly where the fee-fees lay.
This is what I warned this topic would probably devolve into, and why if it was to be viewed in seriousness (which I believe it should be), anyone stepping outside of a line would need to be bootstomped.
This isn't about making everyone's fee-fees all gentle and sweet. This isn't about giving everyone a surprise veloricaptor in their pants. I actively discourage 'panic reveal' storylines and think they're the worst part of any media and actually actively contribute to hate towards non-binary folk IRL.

I also hate that I have to explain that in response to the panicreveal topic even being brought up, because now I feel like things have gotten way off the rails which I tried to prevent and steer back three times now.

Guard your incomprehensibly noneuclidean loins, because I'm about to say something that'll knock your wotsits off.

*Representation is nice, yes. That's a given. But Zalanthas is always going to be a fucking harsh fucking place, and it always SHOULD be, whether this goes through or not.*

I honestly don't give a rat's hairy left nut if someone is gleeful over the prospect of they'ing. Good, in that respect, game on. Be respectful, but sure, enjoy it.

What I DO care about is enthusiasts AND detractors both trying to turn this into a game of whodunnit and instigate gender politics. It feels like the detractors are trying to light the proverbial boom-stick up as a way of cutting off or defusing the enthusiasts arguments (you said 'representation'! That means I get to disregard what you said! ADMIIIIINS!), while the enthusiasts think they can burn through if they light their tits on fire next and go full blazing rainbow flag.

Let me be clear. I /am/ full blazing rainbow flag in real life. Dual wielding machine guns that fire biodegradable rainbow sparkle pellets. This is not the time for that. Nor has it ever been. Nor is the topic even about that.

Detractors and enthusiasts both, can we just get the fuck back on topic?

And cut it out with the jackoff-in-a-box surprise reveal nonsense. That trope is dead and dusted.

My larger point a couple slaps back still stands. The lore needs to match the code. Either Zalanthas is a world where gender doesn't matter, or it does. Either Zalanthas is world where men and women are pretty similar and almost the same in most respects, or they're so exaggeratedly different that you can always tell even when they're cloaked so firmly as to prevent you even discerning their race, skin colour, or if they have a third arm or not.

A 'they' option on chargen would be nice, but the easiest and best fix for this is just to give 'they' to cloaked folk. If you think they doesn't fit because plural, or you don't like how 'they' sounds, Google 'singular they' and get over yourself.

Choosing your shouting voice is a secondary way to counter this. And a very nice one to boot. As part of chargen so as to keep from folk making it ridiculous. Thus being looked over to keep from trailing off too far.

A 'they' chargen would be VERY NICE, yes, but the other two fixes are likely both far easier to install and also far easier to /control/.

So. What will you do when a person in ultimate power over your character decides to call you a "she" when you are a "he" or a "they"? We've seen plenty of people in character refer to other races as "it" and such.

What if some Templar decideds to gender you as an argosy? Or Lord Fale suddenly starts identifying as a non-binary roc?

... What is this discussion? Wouldn't hermaphrodites be considered mutants and scum? Are we excluding them from that prejudice? Would someone with child-bearing abilities be ignored as a female and excluded from such if they were part of a family where such could be adventagous?

I mean. The setting itself is not modern. Not really respectable of anyones 'wishes'. We could retcon it all and have a senate meeting where we give people human rights and power over identity - but generally people do as they are told. And if Uncle Lord Master Borsail tells his young daughter to get married to Lord Stinky Kasix and spit out some children, I guess she will or she will die - right?

Problematic to bring real life politics to an archaic fantasy setting.

5 pages of discussion in this thread, and I still don't see a request for it in the Developer Request that deals with syntax.

Or maybe I am missing it.  It is the morning and mornings suck.

It seemed to me more like a larger code change than a syntax thing, but... done!

I'm not sure what a Developer Request is, but I believe the proposal would be something like the following three steps:

1. In chargen, add 'other' as a third option when choosing your gender: male, female, other

2. If gender is 'other', rather than using 'it' (and friends), use 'their' (and friends), as outlined here:

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 05, 2018, 07:51:27 AM
Char.|Target Sees|Others See
----------------------------
  ~  |you        |<sdesc>
  %  |your       |<sdesc>'s
  !  |you        |him/her/them
  ^  |your       |his/her/their
  #  |you        |he/she/they
  &  |yourself   |himself/herself/themself
  =  |yours      |<sdesc>'s
  +  |yours      |his/hers/theirs
----------------------------
  @  | <your sdesc>

3. If gender 'other', voice adjective for 'shout' will be 'androgynous' rather than 'male' or 'female'.

That's pretty much what I put over in that thread. Or just "a voice" across the board. Or customized voice sounds.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
So. What will you do when a person in ultimate power over your character decides to call you a "she" when you are a "he" or a "they"? We've seen plenty of people in character refer to other races as "it" and such.

If you're using genders as an insult, or as a means of directly antagonising a player or their character, then you're not playing according to Zalanthan lore. "It" is fine - dehumanising isn't falsely gendering, but it is a bit strange, especially if you're not a Templar and you're doing it in response to someone being somewhat vague.

If there is an actual in character in context variant of this (like a Templar saying "I can't tell if the blasted freak is a man or a woman..."), then that's /fine/. That's /FINE/. Nobody has said that wasn't fine except for panicked detractors trying to backpedal.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
What if some Templar decideds to gender you as an argosy? Or Lord Fale suddenly starts identifying as a non-binary roc?

Then the Templar would be viewed as weird, but Templars can do whatever they want. If it continued and became aggressive, or the character's indescript nature was a reason on the Templar's part to murderfy them, then that'd be a bit odd and I'd suggest it being looked into.

Lord Fale, in this hypothetical, would be way out of line and need to be bootstamped.

I am not asking for representation. Representation is nice, but I'm not asking for it. The most I'd want they-aligned characters to even identify with is "meh, I've never really cared for what people see me as I guess". If anyone - ANYONE, even a Templar - started using it as a flag and shouting "Respect my identity!", I'd kindly tell them to fuck off.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
... What is this discussion? Wouldn't hermaphrodites be considered mutants and scum? Are we excluding them from that prejudice?

If they were to openly go about jiggling their norahs, sure, call them mutants and scum. That fits with the world. If you're calling someone mutated scum based purely on a 'they' flag and nothing else, though, that is OOC and you should take a long hard look at yourself.

Nondescript presentation =! hermaphrodite. AFAIK, nobody even mentioned hermaphrodites before you. This is, again, another false flag you're raising as a detractor.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AMWould someone with child-bearing abilities be ignored as a female and excluded from such if they were part of a family where such could be adventagous?

There's nothing advantageous about being a man versus being a woman in Zalanthas, according to the lore. There may be families that are in need of a male child purely because they wish to have them marry the new female child that just turned up in Kadius someday, or vice versa, but that is a specific scenario regarding noble's foppishness and desire for business dealing potential, and is not reflective on Zalanthas on the whole.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
I mean. The setting itself is not modern. Not really respectable of anyones 'wishes'. We could retcon it all and have a senate meeting where we give people human rights and power over identity - but generally people do as they are told.

Archaic in Zalanthan standards is not archaic in Earthen standards. People have the power over their identity already - it's just that nobody fucking cares, nor should they, because it's a desert world where we're all working towards our next sip of water. Nobody is asking for pride parades. Nobody. But on the same vein, nobody should be kicking people down and misgendering them except if they're Templars doing it a couple times as a dehumanisation method - otherwise that just doesn't fit or make sense with any of this. Ingrained societal sexism isn't Zalanthan.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AMAnd if Uncle Lord Master Borsail tells his young daughter to get married to Lord Stinky Kasix and spit out some children, I guess she will or she will die - right?

Probably "be thoroughly scorned for not following the Family's wishes" rather than "die". But even so, this is nobles, nobles are eccentric, and again, not reflective of Zalanthas on the whole.

Quote from: Tekky on August 07, 2018, 11:26:21 AM
Problematic to bring real life politics to an archaic fantasy setting.

And yet you make a whole post trying desperately to tie this to politics through wild insinuating hypotheticals. Curious.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.
If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

I was reeeaaalllly hoping this ended this thread. *curses* What is wrong with what Brokkr said here? I mean, it seems like this should satisfy everyone. I can't imagine that there are so many folks wanting to play this out that they can't just do the role app thing or one of the other options. I'm not a coder, but it does seem like it would take a lot of work to do what is being asked, and all for very little reward, when the above options are already available.

Quote from: puella on August 07, 2018, 11:39:56 AM
I'm not sure what a Developer Request is, but I believe the proposal would be something like the following three steps:

1. In chargen, add 'other' as a third option when choosing your gender: male, female, other

2. If gender is 'other', rather than using 'it' (and friends), use 'their' (and friends), as outlined here:

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 05, 2018, 07:51:27 AM
Char.|Target Sees|Others See
----------------------------
  ~  |you        |<sdesc>
  %  |your       |<sdesc>'s
  !  |you        |him/her/them
  ^  |your       |his/her/their
  #  |you        |he/she/they
  &  |yourself   |himself/herself/themself
  =  |yours      |<sdesc>'s
  +  |yours      |his/hers/theirs
----------------------------
  @  | <your sdesc>

3. If gender 'other', voice adjective for 'shout' will be 'androgynous' rather than 'male' or 'female'.

A 'developer request' is basically a suggestion you can give via the requests tool, IIRC. It should be on the dropdown menu somewhere.

Or maybe Brokkr means the Developer Request thread? I can do both.

I didn't bother as of yet because I figured the topic was still being discussed and folk needed convincing or something. But I can send one over sometime soon once I have breakfast and stuff. I'd encourage other folk to, too, but to be careful in their wording.

Quote from: JohnMichaelHenry on August 07, 2018, 11:53:56 AM

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.
If you are androgynous to the point you would be obviously mistaken as the other sex, choose the other sex in chargen.
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

I was reeeaaalllly hoping this ended this thread. *curses* What is wrong with what Brokkr said here? I mean, it seems like this should satisfy everyone. I can't imagine that there are so many folks wanting to play this out that they can't just do the role app thing or one of the other options. I'm not a coder, but it does seem like it would take a lot of work to do what is being asked, and all for very little reward, when the above options are already available.

It may be satisfying as a response for /you/, but not for other folk. Quite simple, really.

Edited so I can just withdraw from this argument.

See above (the developer's request).

There are many, many posts in this thread about why those options aren't sufficient for someone who wants to play a character that appears androgynous. But I'll explain it as succinctly as possible:

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sort of androgynous, but folks can discern your sex, choose your sex in chargen.

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

This is fine for the people it applies to.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are so androgynous that it is the thing folks will most remember about you, use androgynous in your sdesc.

Okay, but you will still echo in emotes as she/he, so code doesn't support you actually being androgynous. Even though that's your main feature. You still appear as male or female in emotes, even though you shouldn't. <- This is the problem.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
If you are sexless (which may or may not be androgynous), do a role application and we can make you neuter sex.

This is fine for the people it applies to. It still doesn't address people who appear neither male nor female.  It only addresses people who have no sex, and the end result (being an "it") is dehumanizing. For reasons previously discussed in the thread. (Tangent: Varys is neutered but no one calls him "it" or if they do it's deliberately insulting.)

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
There are options for androgyny.  There is one specific form of androgyny not supported.  There are no plans at this time to support it.

There are options, but they are work arounds. If you want to play a character who appears neither male nor female, there is no coded support for you and no plans for there to be. <- 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.

This'll be my last post in this thread, but I went out of my way this morning to ask my genderqueer gym partner/D&D companion what they thought about it between our sets.

Sparing the details of that discussion, ultimately I'm walking back my statements some. If someone choosing a 'they' pronoun solely because that is their identity OOCly is self insertion, then on the same token a male/female player choosing male/female character respectively would be the same degree of self insertion. As Synthesis says, some degree of self insertion is inevitable and if we're going to allow male/female players the ability to only play characters that reflect their gender (ie, a minor metric of self insertion), then we should make that available for people not ascribing to those genders.

I still think removing everything but ~ % and = and scrubbing pronouns from things like combat rolls and targeting inventory items so that we only have physical descriptors and no one is locked into a pronoun at all would be the most realistic, complete way to do this, but I'm coming around to the idea of a hard-coded they pronoun.

I'd be fine with that if the huge blocks of sdesc text wouldn't utterly bloat emote lengths.

I have no real problem with self-insertion. I just don't want to create OOC bitterness and hurt feelings from a game.

Ok, let's discuss a scenario. Let's assume all these wishes are granted and people can play androgenously with a "they". Say such an option becomes the popular Go-to option for CIS gendered characters because they feel it's appropriate when they're armored up, masked, and covered in a cloak for their pronouns to be ambiguous, not because they're necessarily playing an androgenous character.

Ok, fine. Everyone in game is a "they".

Now, through descriptions and RP, someone plays a male that looks, acts, and refers to himself/herself as a she. In all ways, this person presents themselves as a female. This person cultivates a relationship with another, male character(character B) who is never told anything other than she's a female. This relationship develops and character A ends up going into the apartment of character B for intimate relations, where, to character B's surprise, She has a penis.

Character B feels betrayed, not in a homophobe way, but simply lied to by someone who he allowed to get close to him. Who he allowed in his inner sanctuary. His safe place was violated. Character B, in a fit of rage at the betrayal kills the She with a penis.

I have ONE question for everyone involved in this conversation: Does the above justify a player complaint against the player of Character B? I could only get behind changes like these if the consensus of the community was 100% "NO!", which it will never be. There are too many people who are on such a RL crusade for RL acceptance that they can't put that crusade aside long enough to play in a game where not liking you, or not liking something you did on a gender-bending character doesn't automatically equal homophobic behavior that should be smited by the gods themselves.

I'm all for inclusion and equal representation. But I don't want RL political crusades to carry over into my escape world, where slavery, murder, theft, racism, taxation without representation, dictatorship, and all sorts of things I don't agree with IRL are standard.

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.

This isn't even about trans people.

Quote from: Heade on August 07, 2018, 01:10:49 PM
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:

Quote from: Brokkr on August 06, 2018, 07:44:17 PM
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.]

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 07, 2018, 01:27:35 PM
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.

Quote from: Heade on August 06, 2018, 02:39:25 PM

Quote from: Bebop on August 05, 2018, 01:34:14 PM
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.

Quote from: valeria on August 07, 2018, 01:33:19 PM
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.

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

Quote from: Heade on August 07, 2018, 01:38:40 PM

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 07, 2018, 01:27:35 PM
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.

Quote from: valeria on August 07, 2018, 12:07:28 PM
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.

Quote from: MatisseOrOtherwise on August 07, 2018, 01:46:42 PM
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.

Quote from: Brokkr on August 07, 2018, 01:53:11 PM

Quote from: valeria on August 07, 2018, 12:07:28 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: puella on August 07, 2018, 07:06:58 AM
It's just how English works, Lizzie.  Other languages do things differently.

Quote from: Lizzie  on August 07, 2018, 04:44:46 PM
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.

Quote from: Lizzie

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.

Quote from: LizzieIn 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"

Quote from: LizzieI 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.

Quote from: Zoltan on August 06, 2018, 11:43:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Synthesis on August 07, 2018, 05:11:26 AM
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.

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.

I like your post, Flurry.

Quote from: flurry on August 07, 2018, 09:02:17 PM
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?

Quote from: Lizzie on August 07, 2018, 11:21:37 PM
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.'

Quote from: flurry on August 07, 2018, 11:30:26 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on August 07, 2018, 11:21:37 PM
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!

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.

More customization options is always good in a text medium.

Quote from: Zoltan on August 06, 2018, 11:43:21 PM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Delirium on August 08, 2018, 05:57:59 PM
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.

Quote from: Delirium on August 08, 2018, 05:57:59 PM
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.

Quote from: LauraMars on August 08, 2018, 07:31:03 PM

Quote from: Delirium on August 08, 2018, 05:57:59 PM
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.

I believe this initial comment by Delirium based on Brokkr's statement about how genderless / ungendered / neuter / neither he or she characters are always to be 'it' by the code currently, not someone's IG action, though I may be mistaken?

I'm trying to carefully word things here. Sorry if this comes across as odd.

I've referred to mutants as "its" in the past. Calling something/someone an "it" in game, is not "dehumanizing" any more than calling a half-elf a breed or half-ear is dehumanizing, or calling a rinthi a rinthi instead of a person is dehumanizing.

Stop shoving your real-world sensitivities into a fantasy game.

Quote from: Lizzie on August 08, 2018, 07:44:11 PM
I've referred to mutants as "its" in the past. Calling something/someone an "it" in game, is not "dehumanizing" any more than calling a half-elf a breed or half-ear is dehumanizing, or calling a rinthi a rinthi instead of a person is dehumanizing.

Stop shoving your real-world sensitivities into a fantasy game.

+1

Roleplaying:
Human character is as broad as human ability. Virtually any sort of disposition can be found amongst humans, and humans are allowed the greatest latitude in inventing their personalities. For all intents and purposes, a human is able to become whatever he or she wishes to become, without restriction.

Okay, because clearly I wasn't understood correctly, one more time:

Deliberately calling someone "it" is dehumanizing. It is okay to do that IC if you are playing a character who wants to do that.

It is not okay to have the game force us to call anyone who is degendered "it" from an OOC, coded standpoint.

It is the very essence of taking a real-world prejudice into the game.

Be racist and dehumanizing toward magickers, elves, etc.

Do not be racist and dehumanizing to someone based on their gender, just as you shouldn't be sexist toward a woman (ha, ha).

If you can't see the difference then I don't think I'm going to get through to you on a GDB thread.

Having an IC reason to dehumanise someone is fine. It is, however, still dehumanising - to say it isn't is delusional, as dehumanising is your intent in character. Hence you using it on mutants - to dehumanise them. But that's FINE.

To have it be the OOC coded default - and not only the default, but the ONLY option - is OOCly dehumanising, for one. Additionally reasonless, and easily fixed.

"What sex would you like your character to be? Man or whore?"

"What do you mean it's sexist? When I'm in Luirs, I call people whores all the time. Especially the whores."

Delirium, there are males, there are females, and there are "something other than male or female." That's all there is in Armageddon. There is no third gender. There are two genders, and there is no gender at all. So either my character perceives yours as a male, or a female, or she will perceive your character as "something other than male or female." In the case of "something other than male or female," my preferred pronoun is it. Not they. You are free to refer to your character as they, but I am also free to refer to your character as it. For any reason, especially if my character perceives your character to be neither decisively male, or decisively female.

The word "it" is an absolutely perfectly useful and appropriate word to describe "I have no idea what gender this person is, and this person has chosen to be deliberately obscure about it."

Anyone can say it in character. That's fine. I want the code to /not/. What happens in a fantasy world is fine, but the code and subsequently displayed output is always an OOC construct.

Quote from: Lizzie on August 08, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Delirium, there are males, there are females, and there are "something other than male or female." That's all there is in Armageddon. There is no third gender. There are two genders, and there is no gender at all. So either my character perceives yours as a male, or a female, or she will perceive your character as "something other than male or female." In the case of "something other than male or female," my preferred pronoun is it. Not they. You are free to refer to your character as they, but I am also free to refer to your character as it. For any reason, especially if my character perceives your character to be neither decisively male, or decisively female.

The word "it" is an absolutely perfectly useful and appropriate word to describe "I have no idea what gender this person is, and this person has chosen to be deliberately obscure about it."

QuoteDo you know if Lizzie likes blue or purple?
I don't know.  What don't you go ask it?

Did Lizzie get that report in?
Yeah, it did.

Lizzie is dressed in black today.
Yeah it looks real good on it.

C'mon.  It's obviously dehumanizing and rude and not something relevant.  We're not going to coded refer to people as him, her and it's.  Stahp.

No gender = mutants!

Quote from: Bebop on August 08, 2018, 09:34:28 PM

Quote from: Lizzie on August 08, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Delirium, there are males, there are females, and there are "something other than male or female." That's all there is in Armageddon. There is no third gender. There are two genders, and there is no gender at all. So either my character perceives yours as a male, or a female, or she will perceive your character as "something other than male or female." In the case of "something other than male or female," my preferred pronoun is it. Not they. You are free to refer to your character as they, but I am also free to refer to your character as it. For any reason, especially if my character perceives your character to be neither decisively male, or decisively female.

The word "it" is an absolutely perfectly useful and appropriate word to describe "I have no idea what gender this person is, and this person has chosen to be deliberately obscure about it."

QuoteDo you know if Lizzie likes blue or purple?
I don't know.  What don't you go ask it?

Did Lizzie get that report in?
Yeah, it did.

Lizzie is dressed in black today.
Yeah it looks real good on it.

C'mon.  It's obviously dehumanizing and rude and not something relevant.  We're not going to coded refer to people as him, her and it's.  Stahp.

1. Lizzie isn't my character. I don't give a shit what you use to refer to my character. That's my point. You can call it an it. There's nothing for me to get personally offended by. It's a character in a game, where the setting doesn't even take place on the planet Earth.
2. The game already DOES code it as him, her, or it.

Quote from: Malken on August 08, 2018, 09:57:05 PM
No gender = mutants!

Come now. This is just intentionally ignorant.

Quote from: Lizzie on August 08, 2018, 08:06:40 PM
Delirium, there are males, there are females, and there are "something other than male or female." That's all there is in Armageddon. There is no third gender....

Lizzie DESTROYS tumblr feminazi in debate using FACTS and LOGIC

(https://i.imgflip.com/jis6m.jpg)

Gonna be a whole lot more grabbing around here if this goes into play.

I'm not really for this change. I think it's real world PC bleed. Even now with transgendered and everything in between, the sound of ones voice is very much determined by gender.  My tolerant side would say set your voice to soprano/alto/tenor/bass and the gender can be masculine, neutral or feminine. You choose it at char gen and it's like that forever. Or make a third gender.

Inclusion. Murder, Corruption, Betrayal, Sensitivity, Inclusion. Heh.

Allow people to set their vocal descriptors but be able to hear the inflection in when eavesdropping in another room so that you know it was the Jal who said xyz because you recognized the voice. 2 out of 10 for me on the whole deal.

My racist human characters ALL call other races its, by the way.

For the last time for those who can't read, this is a change in code. You can still call people whatever the loving crap you want in game. This is a change  in how the hard code goes about displaying things. It is purely an OOC construct for an OOC issue. Nobody is seeking to hold pride rallies in Zalanthan streets. Nobody.

7 pages worth of back and forth, with no further progress on the topic seems enough to me, especially when the last two are getting straight into attack territory rather then debate.

ETA: Obviously the thread was seen, with various staff postings, so it will be discussed staff side.