# Will you make transsexual Elves canon in your games ?



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

Hello,

I've seen the Jeremy Crawford interview where he talks about Elves as portrayed in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes - specifically, some of them can now change sex after a long rest, so they're transsexual in practice.

What do you think of it ?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 3, 2018)

It's fine.


----------



## gyor (Jun 3, 2018)

They aren't transgendered or transgendered, they are more magigendered, because their is no real would human eqivilant to people who can change their biological sex daily whenever they feel like it.

 But you can have more like real life transgendered characters of any race, that is pure RP, not mechanics unlike blessed of Corellon Larethian.

 Honestly if I was to play a character with this elf ability to change genders instead of playing it as a gender bending elf, I'd have one gender as the actually character, and the other as his anima, a second personality created from the firsts repressed desires and fantasies and fears, that only appears infrequently when the main personality desides to call her forth. That would go especially cool with Shadar Kai.

 Or maybe an Eladarin who has a different personality for each combination of season and gender.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

gyor said:


> They aren't transgendered or transgendered, they are more magigendered, because their is no real would human eqivilant to people who can change their biological sex daily whenever they feel like it.




That's one way of considering it, I suppose.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> That's one way of considering it, I suppose.



It pretty much is the only way. The terms are completely different.
The elves in this instance possesss magical sequential hermaphroditism, biologically switching from male to female. How that affects gender in elves is unknown. (As gender is a social construct.)
Meanwhile, transgender individuals have a gender identity that does not match their biological sex. They can be called “transsexual” if they medically transition to the sex that matches their gender.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

gyor said:


> Honestly if I was to play a character with this elf ability to change genders instead of playing it as a gender bending elf, I'd have one gender as the actually character, and the other as his anima, a second personality created from the firsts repressed desires and fantasies and fears, that only appears infrequently when the main personality desides to call her forth. That would go especially cool with Shadar Kai.
> 
> Or maybe an Eladarin who has a different personality for each combination of season and gender.




Cool ideas.


----------



## Pauln6 (Jun 3, 2018)

Many animals can switch gender without magic so not sure why this is a shock.  Wasn't Corellon originally described as androgynous as well?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 3, 2018)

It is just aknowledging what they have ever been.


----------



## gyor (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Cool ideas.




 I just had an even cooler one.

 A Divine Soul Blessed of (insert deity of your choice).

 See the character has their birth gender right, for example say male, whose ancestor was Zandilar so a shard of her divinity ended up in his soul, so he's the Blessed of Zandilar instead of Corellon. So when he changes sexes that is the Shard of Zandilar expressing herself, its him becoming being possessed by a tiny piece of his God, essentially becoming a minor Avatar of Zandilar. Kind of like being ridden by a Loa in Voudon, but more fantastical.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Many animals can switch gender without magic so not sure why this is a shock.  Wasn't Corellon originally described as androgynous as well?




I don't know of any mammal than can change sex at will, and Elves seem like a mammalian species to me.

It is true that Corellon is depicted as androgynous, and that it can be used to justify this ret-con.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is just aknowledging what they have ever been.




Yeah, in other words, it's a ret-con.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

gyor said:


> See the character has their birth gender right, for example say male, whose ancestor was Zandilar so a shard of her divinity ended up in his soul, so he's the Blessed of Zandilar instead of Corellon. So when he changes sexes that is the Shard of Zandilar expressing herself, its him becoming being possessed by a tiny piece of his God, essentially becoming a minor Avatar of Zandilar. Kind of like being ridden by a Loa in Voudon, but more fantastical.




I'm not sure I've grokked all of your idea there, but it seems cool nonetheless .


----------



## Pauln6 (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I don't know of any mammal than can change sex at will, and Elves seem like a mammalian species to me.
> 
> It is true that Corellon is depicted as androgynous, and that it can be used to justify this ret-con.




Elves are fey, or at least they should be considered such even if they label them as 'humanoid' in this edition.   Whether they are fey mammals,  I could not say.


----------



## Bitbrain (Jun 3, 2018)

I have a cousin who was born female, but identifies himself as male.
If a hypothetical player in my homebrew setting wanted his or her PC (regardless of PC race) to be able to change their sex from male to female every long rest, I have no problems whatsoever with that.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

Bitbrain said:


> I have a cousin who was born female, but identifies himself as male.
> If a hypothetical player in my homebrew setting wanted his or her PC (regardless of PC race) to be able to change their sex from male to female every long rest, I have no problems whatsoever with that.




I understand, but I'm curious: how would you justify it in your game world ?


----------



## Jester David (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I don't know of any mammal than can change sex at will, and Elves seem like a mammalian species to me.
> 
> It is true that Corellon is depicted as androgynous, and that it can be used to justify this ret-con.




Ret-cons add a change to a previously depicted scene or event. It changes the past. This doesn't change anything previously written and just adds to it. It's not retroactive continuity, it's just regular continuity. 

Doesn't affect me. In no place in my campaign setting had I written that elves could _not_ change sexes. 
If someone wants to take that option, I have no strong feelings against it. It could be fun and lead to some interesting scenes and moments. 

But I'm sure someone out there is super, super happy with this option and idea. So I'm happy for them.


----------



## Bitbrain (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I understand, but I'm curious: how would you justify it in your game world ?




It's a homebrew world influenced by the Dark Sun D&D setting, one of the many promotional lines for which was ". . . A World Ravaged by Sorcery!"
There's stray wild magic all over the place.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Ret-cons add a change to a previously depicted scene or event. It changes the past. This doesn't change anything previously written and just adds to it. It's not retroactive continuity, it's just regular continuity.
> 
> Doesn't affect me. In no place in my campaign setting had I written that elves could _not_ change sexes.
> If someone wants to take that option, I have no strong feelings against it. It could be fun and lead to some interesting scenes and moments.
> ...




Pretty much this.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Ret-cons add a change to a previously depicted scene or event. It changes the past. This doesn't change anything previously written and just adds to it. It's not retroactive continuity, it's just regular continuity.



We will have to agree to disagree on this one.



> But I'm sure someone out there is super, super happy with this option and idea. So I'm happy for them.



A noble sentiment .


----------



## guachi (Jun 3, 2018)

This isn't a poll, but my answer would be "no".


----------



## Ancalagon (Jun 3, 2018)

I would be willing to change this in a future campaign, but I wouldn't want to change an ongoing one midway.  This has consequences.



Jester David said:


> It pretty much is the only way. The terms are completely different.
> The elves in this instance possesss magical sequential hermaphroditism, biologically switching from male to female. How that affects gender in elves is unknown. (As gender is a social construct.)
> Meanwhile, transgender individuals have a gender identity that does not match their biological sex. They can be called “transsexual” if they medically transition to the sex that matches their gender.




Exactly - cis and trans gendered may have no meaning at all in elven society.  It will require some serious thinking to figure out how this affects their society and culture.  We also don't know the details - are elven children born one gender, or agendered?  Is the ability to switch always there, or only appears at puberty?  

Heck, are there secondary sexual characteristics at all?  Or cultural/behavioral ones?  Can humans even tell a "currently male" from a "currently female" elf without close examination?

This really pushes forward the ideas of gender and orientation fluidity... but it's fundamentally different from the human experience of many.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> We will have to agree to disagree on this one.



Think of it like this, if they introduced a mechanic, such as a feat, that gave elves a unique ability that they previously did not possess, and flavoured it as being tied to a rare noble family or lineage blessed by a god, would that be a retcon? 

*Blood of the Ancients*
_Prerequisite: Elf_
You are immortal and have inside you blood of kings. You have no rival, and no one can be your equal. 
When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you automatically stabilise. On your turn, you can choose to roll a death saving throw, but do not die no matter how many failures you roll. You can be killed if you suffer a critical hit from a melee weapon that deals slashing damage while you are at 0 hit points. 

Is that a "retcon"? I'd say no, it's additive and not revisionary. It takes what we know of elves and adds additional lore on top of what was previously known. It doesn't take what was established and change it in any way, altering any characters or events. 

Now... if a character previously killed were said to be alive with this feature, _that_ would be a retcon. A retcon via the feat, but not the feat itself.


----------



## MarkB (Jun 3, 2018)

The only reason I'd consider disallowing it is as niche protection for Changelings. They had the ability to change sex at will as far back as 3.5e Eberron.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 3, 2018)

No.

The whole change-gender-on-the-fly thing is something I added to Orcs in my games a long time ago, to differentiate them a bit from all the other humanoid types.  Happy with this.  Elves don't need it.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

If a person ‘switches’ from one gender to an other, it means, the culture has strong gender division. Males and females strongly differ from each other.

Otherwise, there would be no gender to switch to, and no point in having an ability that could.

If the sex of elves were difficult to tell apart, who cares if one could switch? It wouldnt matter.

The Blessing of Gender only makes sense if there are male elves who are very masculine, and female elves who are very feminine.

Of course, some individuals are in the middle of the gender spectrum. (Just like there are humans in between the gender spectrum.) But most elves will be towards the extremes of each gender, so elf society has a strong sense of each gender.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

Similar to orientation.

If an individual male sexually prefers a male, it means, males generally have characteristics that distinguish them from females.

The stronger the preference, the greater the gender difference.

Homosexuality (as opposed to bisexuality) presumes strong gender differences.


----------



## gyor (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I'm not sure I've grokked all of your idea there, but it seems cool nonetheless .




 Okay a Divine Soul has a shard of divinity in it from a God or Godlike being that powers their Divine Sorcerer magic.

 In this case the divine shard retains a measure of the personality of the Goddess.

 With the male elfs permission the Shard of Divinity expresses itself, shaping his body into hers.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

Anthropologically, the Blessing of Gender assumes, the males are masculine, the females are feminine, and the androgynes are distinctive and sacred.


----------



## Caliban (Jun 3, 2018)

Sure, why not.   If it makes the player happy and has no negative impact on the game world, I don't see a reason not too.   It's not like elves haven't been seen as fairly androgynous for most of their D&D history.


----------



## jgsugden (Jun 3, 2018)

Dangerous waters are sometimes worth the swim.

The scientific term for the closest real world parallel to these exceedingly rare Blessed of Corellon is sequential hermaphroditism.  There is no real world human equivalent, so there is no spot on term for it in real life, and applying real world terminology to it as a 'rough fit' may anger some people - so tact is recommended where this is included in a game.  You may have players that see this as a story option merely, players that exlore it as part of a more personal exploration, or players that are using it to belittle others.  You'll need to consider how it is being used and how to help all players be comfortable with the use of the mechanic.

As others have noted, gender changing is not new to D&D.  The Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity has been around since the 1970s.  Changelings have had the ability, off and on, in various sources. However, it was often handled in the past in a manner that would displease many applying modern sensibilities.  As such, I'm not so sure I'd focus on the history of the ability as any type of template for this ability.

In my games, I likely won't focus on it as I don't put a lot of significance on gender in general, but if a player asked to have it for their character or I saw a relevant place for it in a storyline I would include it.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 3, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Ret-cons add a change to a previously depicted scene or event. It changes the past. This doesn't change anything previously written and just adds to it. It's not retroactive continuity, it's just regular continuity.
> 
> Doesn't affect me. In no place in my campaign setting had I written that elves could _not_ change sexes.
> If someone wants to take that option, I have no strong feelings against it. It could be fun and lead to some interesting scenes and moments.
> ...




This ^


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> If a person ‘switches’ from one gender to an other, it means, the culture has strong gender division. Males and females strongly differ from each other.
> 
> Otherwise, there would be no gender to switch to, and no point in having an ability that could.
> 
> ...




A very interesting take on the topic.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 3, 2018)

gyor said:


> Okay a Divine Soul has a shard of divinity in it from a God or Godlike being that powers their Divine Sorcerer magic.
> 
> In this case the divine shard retains a measure of the personality of the Goddess.
> 
> With the male elfs permission the Shard of Divinity expresses itself, shaping his body into hers.




Now I grok it.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 3, 2018)

I really like the idea, at least for npcs, but I actually have two (very) small reservations with it for pcs.  

The first is that the ability to change sex is actually a small bit of a buff. For example, you might be able to use it to aid in some kind of con, scam, disguise, or impersonation. 

The second is that this _sort of_ devalues a custom cantrip in my campaign, _genderbend_, which lets you change your sex. 

That said, if a pc wanted to play with this option, I would probably allow it, with a chance of "roll dice to check your sex each morning" type shenanigans. (I'd talk this over with the player first, but I like the idea better if it isn't strictly under the player's control- that alleviates all my, admittedly minor, concerns about it.)


----------



## the Jester (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> If a person ‘switches’ from one gender to an other, it means, the culture has strong gender division. Males and females strongly differ from each other.
> 
> Otherwise, there would be no gender to switch to, and no point in having an ability that could.
> 
> If the sex of elves were difficult to tell apart, who cares if one could switch? It wouldnt matter.




It might matter for biological reasons, e.g. who is carrying the child to term? 

Which brings up a host of other, interesting, questions- if an elf that can change gender gets pregnant while female, what happens to the fetus or unborn child if the elf later changes her body back to male before giving birth? 

Also, how do elven pronouns work vis-a-vis gender?


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

the Jester said:


> I really like the idea, at least for npcs, but I actually have two (very) small reservations with it for pcs.
> 
> The first is that the ability to change sex is actually a small bit of a buff. For example, you might be able to use it to aid in some kind of con, scam, disguise, or impersonation.
> 
> ...




If focusing on the mechanic utility in regard to certain narrative adjudications, the gender-swap ability seems at most as useful than a skill proficiency (or the normally redundant elf sword proficiency or bow proficiency). Exchanging a proficiency for the gender-swap seems fine.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 3, 2018)

I don't plan to write it into my campaign and do not think anyone in the campaign would ask for it.  The same can probably be said for  a campaign I play in.

If someone wants it it's fine.  They could say their character is exceptionally close to corellon or whatever.  It just doesn't scream cool to me but then neither do gnomes or bards and I would not ban them.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> If focusing on the mechanic utility in regard to certain narrative adjudications, the gender-swap ability seems at most as useful than a skill proficiency (or the normally redundant elf sword proficiency or bow proficiency). Exchanging a proficiency for the gender-swap seems fine.




I actually think a proficiency is probably more valuable than the ability to change gender 1/day. But now that you have suggested it, I like the idea of allowing an elf pc with the gender change ability to start off with gender randomly determined each day and the option to learn to control it via downtime. 

But I love downtime. I love the passage of time in the campaign. And I am pretty liberal with training for proficiencies during downtime- I allow skill, language, tool, weapon, and armor proficiency training. And sometimes specific special abilities or techniques under the right circumstances (e.g. a monk can learn the Falling Star Strike special ability from the old monk hermit).


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

Hmmm.



the Jester said:


> It might matter for biological reasons, e.g. who is carrying the child to term? Which brings up a host of other, interesting, questions- if an elf that can change gender gets pregnant while female, what happens to the fetus or unborn child if the elf later changes her body back to male before giving birth?




A pregnant elf who switches to male:

The uterus vanishes, and the placenta attaches to and draws nutrients from the intestinal tract. The father requires a caesarean section if not switching to female at the time of delivery.





the Jester said:


> Also, how do elven pronouns work vis-a-vis gender?




There is probably three pronouns: masculine, feminine, and androgynous. 

He, she, and ... ‘thy’ (?). 

The ‘thy’ might work since the androgynous gender is explicitly a sacred category. An individual switches between any of these three depending on current gender.

‘Thy’ also works as a stand in as a gender-nonspecific singular of ‘they’ (?).


----------



## the Jester (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> There is probably three pronouns: masculine, feminine, and androgynous.
> 
> He, she, and ... ‘thy’ (?).
> 
> ...




Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but this has gotten me thinking on this on what is probably far too ridiculous of a level of detail. 

So first of all, to define terms, "sex" is what the body is right now, "gender" is the psycholodgical identity of the elf. I can see sex falling into at least four categories- male, female, and at least two categories or hermaphroditic/dualsexed, with the possibility of an asexual body type as well in some cases (though I don't think there is any canon support for that). But I think there's a strong likelihood of more levels of differentiation in elven bodies, and therefore in pronouns. There's also a chance that different pronouns exist for elves who shift sexes and those who don't. 

Elven gender might not even really exist as a construct. I have always seen both elven gender and sexual preference as, typically, highly fluid; so if there is such a concept in elven society, it's probably very well-developed and detailed, accounting for lots of variants.  So for instance, the pronoun you use for an elf might vary for an elf who changes gender when it changes sex, vs. one whose gender remains male regardless of its sex. 

This is turning into a deep ramble... but yeah, I could see dozens, maybe hundreds, of different pronouns in Elvish. Of course, I also have the view that non-elves typically never learn more than advanced babytalk in Elvish due to its complexity; the long-lived elves have plenty of time to elaborate their language in ways that require deep experience to untangle. So a human who spoke Elvish would probably only use the most basic three or eight or something pronouns.


----------



## flametitan (Jun 3, 2018)

I like it a lot, and just added it to my game world as the norm for non drow elves, rather than a special blessing. I'm still on the fence about whether mixblood elves should obtain it. (As in my world the D&D standard elf is born from generations of their elven family intermingling with the other races, while the "pureblood" elves rule upper caste. It totally makes sense to me for purebloods to have it, but I'm unsure about mixbloods.)


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 3, 2018)

the Jester said:


> I actually think a proficiency is probably more valuable than the ability to change gender 1/day. But now that you have suggested it, I like the idea of allowing an elf pc with the gender change ability to start off with gender randomly determined each day and the option to learn to control it via downtime.
> 
> But I love downtime. I love the passage of time in the campaign. And I am pretty liberal with training for proficiencies during downtime- I allow skill, language, tool, weapon, and armor proficiency training. And sometimes specific special abilities or techniques under the right circumstances (e.g. a monk can learn the Falling Star Strike special ability from the old monk hermit).




I think it would suit a a background trait. And you could even create a Blesssed of Corellon background, probably based on acolyte, available to elves.

And if you used drow, it could be the feature of a Cursed by Correllon background.


----------



## The Big BZ (Jun 3, 2018)

Yes.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

the Jester said:


> Not to get too deep into the weeds here, but this has gotten me thinking on this on what is probably far too ridiculous of a level of detail.
> 
> So first of all, to define terms, "sex" is what the body is right now, "gender" is the psycholodgical identity of the elf. I can see sex falling into at least four categories- male, female, and at least two categories or hermaphroditic/dualsexed, with the possibility of an asexual body type as well in some cases (though I don't think there is any canon support for that). But I think there's a strong likelihood of more levels of differentiation in elven bodies, and therefore in pronouns. There's also a chance that different pronouns exist for elves who shift sexes and those who don't.
> 
> ...




Especially, because the gender is sacred, it is likely to have specific terms.



In reallife, I avoid referring to God as ‘he’ or ‘she’, because the concept is too abstract for these genders to make sense, yet God is too personal for ‘it’ to make sense. So, I end up using ‘God’ as a pronoun: ‘God did this Godself’, and so on. Heh, fortunately, the word only has one syllable. Note, specific aspects of the divine might be masculine or feminine. But the divine encompasses and transcends either.

The point is, when a distinction becomes culturally important, a word for the distinction increases in need.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 3, 2018)

I have two 13 year-old girls in my current 5e game, that are not my own children.  I'm not addressing sexuality pretty much at all, so this is not a point I would bring up.  If one of the girls *asks* about this, I'll have a quick talk with their parents before anything else.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

Generally, it is good to answer a kids question honestly, but at the level of the question. There is rarely need to volunteer information. A precocious mind might ask more questions. It is ok to answer respectfully and honestly.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> I think it would suit a a background trait. And you could even create a Blesssed of Corellon background, probably based on acolyte, available to elves.
> 
> And if you used drow, it could be the feature of a Cursed by Correllon background.




Background is the perfect design space for this! Gender-swapping can be in the ‘special resource’ part of the background.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Gender-swapping can be in the ‘special resource’ part of the background.




Yeah, that's what I was getting at.


----------



## Remathilis (Jun 3, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> No.
> 
> The whole change-gender-on-the-fly thing is something I added to Orcs in my games a long time ago, to differentiate them a bit from all the other humanoid types.  Happy with this.  Elves don't need it.




THAT'S and interesting take; I'd accept that. 

As for my game, I'd allow it. Its a specific God's blessing, so few elves would ever experience it (most NPC elves are born one gender and stick with it) but if a PC wanted to do it, I wouldn't care in the least. PCs are special snowflakes anyway. 

Honestly, in a world where most monster genealogies begin with "a wizard did it", a race known for wizardry being able to change genders seems the most pedestrian thing they could do.


----------



## Dualazi (Jun 3, 2018)

Nope. I tend to keep serious elements of gender/sexuality out of my games because it's not the time or place that's appropriate for those discussions, and this option also runs the risk of involving political discourse, which is likewise discouraged at my table. The risks vastly outweigh the returns and I would consider it a big red flag if a prospective player was dead set on the option.


----------



## Ganymede81 (Jun 3, 2018)

In a culture where its members can change sex at will, I'd imagine that a notion like sexual orientation wouldn't even exist. Elves would just fall in love with one another (assuming that notion even exists for elves as it does for humans) and, if they wanted a child, they'd morph to the appropriate sexes for that goal.


I don't really get the "its political" critique, though. Sci-fi and Fantasy is politics to its core. When the party is mulling whether to trust the renegade orc or put it down like the rest of its kind, when the party is choosing whether the rightful but depraved king is to be supported over the well-meaning but illegitimate rebel, or when the party is doing literally anything similar to any episode of Star Trek, Game of Thrones, or any other similar property, they are dealing in political matters.

I'd be more disinclined to allow it because of some ridiculous sessions I saw go down involving the sex changing portal in the Tomb of Horrors, but that was years ago.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

Ganymede81 said:


> In a culture where its members can change sex at will, I'd imagine that a notion like sexual orientation wouldn't even exist. Elves would just fall in love with one another (assuming that notion even exists for elves as it does for humans) and, if they wanted a child, they'd morph to the appropriate sexes for that goal.




I assume sexual orientation does exist, requiring one to become the sex that a certain individual prefers if wanting to date that person.

Worth noting, orientation and gender are separate variables. A feminine female might only find other feminine females attractive. And so on, with the rest of the permutations.


----------



## akr71 (Jun 3, 2018)

M'eh.  If one of my players wants to play an elf that way, they are free to do so.  Its not a big deal either way... I mean we have male characters and we have female characters, but gender, sexuality and reproduction is not something that comes up for discussion at our table.  Not because its taboo, but because we're too busy adventuring.

Don't get me wrong - I fully support inclusion, but we're a group of straight, married, 40-something parents.


----------



## dave2008 (Jun 3, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've seen the Jeremy Crawford interview where he talks about Elves as portrayed in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes - specifically, some of them can now change sex after a long rest, so they're transsexual in practice.
> 
> What do you think of it ?




Corellon has always been trans so I kinda assumed all elves had this trait somewhat.

From 1e Deities and Demigods:


----------



## dave2008 (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Worth noting, orientation and gender are separate variables. A feminine female might only find other feminine females attractive. And so on, with the rest of the permutations.




So many people miss that point.


----------



## Ganymede81 (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I assume sexual orientation does exist, requiring one to become the sex that a certain individual prefers if wanting to date that person.
> 
> Worth noting, orientation and gender are separate variables. A feminine female might only find other feminine females attractive. And so on, with the rest of the permutations.




It sounds like you are talking about humans. I was talking about elves, specifically elven cultures with Corellon's blessing.


----------



## Draegn (Jun 3, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I would go along with mythology and have the elf stuck in female form until the child was born. As Loki could not resume his form when changed into a mare while carrying Sleipnir.


----------



## flametitan (Jun 3, 2018)

Obviously the solution is that elves lay eggs


----------



## AmerginLiath (Jun 3, 2018)

Since I play in Dragonlance, I don’t see where this will come into play for that world (except perhaps in some odd individual case) without Corellon, but I do like some of the ideas that folks have spitballed here.

In terms of elvish language, I think that it would work similar to Finnish or Hungarian: there’s no gendered pronouns, but there are gendered affixes (for both male and female) that can be added to some base nouns (in this case, referring to the elf in current mode — although I could see some only using the base word without any gendered suffix as a sort of personal affectation).


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

flametitan said:


> Obviously the solution is that elves lay eggs




Actually, in my campaigns, fey elves reproduce magically, via rituals. The elf might give birth ‘naturally’ with a mother conceiving and birthing, insofar as this ‘birth’ refers to a spirit in a spirit realm. Or the parents might do a ritual that sculpts a statue and makes the statue come to life. Or might build a kind of magical nest to incubate the child born out of the blood of many parents, or so on.

Now that I think about it. Even according to the 5e Forgotten Realms setting cosmology, *all* elves were born magically from the blood of Corellon without sexual reproduction.

So elves that are in the Feywild, are spirits that come into existence in the ways that spirits do. This birth can resonate the physical world, especially to the degree that the elves are fertility spirits. But they are also spirits that personify magic itself.

It seems elves choose become males and females, because male is a way of being beautiful, and female is a way of being beautiful.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 3, 2018)

Ancalagon said:


> We also don't know the details - are elven children born one gender, or agendered?  Is the ability to switch always there, or only appears at puberty?
> 
> Heck, are there secondary sexual characteristics at all?  Or cultural/behavioral ones?  Can humans even tell a "currently male" from a "currently female" elf without close examination?
> 
> This really pushes forward the ideas of gender and orientation fluidity... but it's fundamentally different from the human experience of many.



I haven't read _Mordenkainen_ yet to absorb all the details, but my rough-sketch idea:

- Elven children are born androgynous: neither sex.  And they don't have interest, either.  That comes at puberty.
- At puberty, an elven child becomes a hermaphrodite: both anatomies develop.  This is a biological trigger.  Which is dominant, may be a cultural influence.  Or a personal influence ('I like mom more than dad so I became female also.')
- Sort of like Vulcan culture, certain rituals can trigger the change back and forth.  An individual decides to change because -reason-, or the community decides that more individuals of a particular sex are needed, and when the ritual is complete both the individual and the community accept that individual as being the sex the ritual is intended to create.  Meantime, the anatomy changes to suit.  
- Not sure how to handle "a draft" situation, but unwilling participants likely will result in the ritual backfiring physically and culturally, so everybody involved has motive to avoid this situation ahead of time.
- This does have the benefit that you will not see Elves who are unhappy with their essential nature because of their mind and body disagreeing as to what sex they are / should be.
- After a certain age, the Elf's body naturally becomes androgynous (or hermaphroditic) again; physically the reproductive tract is shutting down for permanent.  This can be induced or delayed by other rituals.
- This doesn't get into how Elves reproduce - eggs, young in a pouch, pregnant, other.  So I guess the D&D fanbase will just have to get themselves out and learn about potential IRL models, earning themselves a +1 INT from their Downtime: Study (Sage, biology).


----------



## gyor (Jun 3, 2018)

Btw the thread title reminds me of the rocky horror picture show.

 Maybe the Seldarine can do the Time Warp again.


----------



## CapnZapp (Jun 3, 2018)

I think you need a new term.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

According to Mordenkainens Tome,

Elves are gendered − masculine versus feminine.

‘Occasionally’ an individual elf is androgynous, and is considered sacred. The phrase ‘blessed of Corellon’ refers to these androgynes (who cannot change sex). They are sotospeak a third gender, defined by the sacred symbolism. ‘Many’ of the priests are these androgynous individuals.

Only ‘rare’ individuals from among these ‘occasional’ androgynes can change sex. (The DM decides if so.)

In other words, sex-changing is super-rare among elves.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 3, 2018)

I think we are watching the same process by which pan-British culture transformed biblical male angels into popculture female angels.

Now it is happening to elves.

Heh, for some reason, this culture is unable to entertain the idea that masculine men can be ‘beautiful’. The impaired thinking is kinda hilarious.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 3, 2018)

No I play genders as fairly binary in my games, yeah olde medieval world etc. Magic and things like shapeshifters can do it normal flesh and blood races nopes. 

Last I looked Elves are not shapeshifters.

 I often base my cultures on RL ones as well or real life norms. Most of my world lacks a modern (read tolerant) mindset. Being gay can get you the death penalty, so can being the wrong religion, or the wrong political viewpoint, insulting the king, having sex with the wrong person can also get you killed as my world has the equivalent of the inquisition. All these things that can get you killed and tortured happened IRL. 

 My Elves are not very nice generally (individually they tend to be mouch like most races), but they are imperialistic I kind of based them on the east india company, they are imperialist slavers, and much like the Raj they are heavily outnumbeed by their subjects. 

 However they are socially liberal if a bit racist towards non elves. They don't care if you're gay and a few of them are pansexual (lots of half elves and they are involved with the creation of the Yuan-Ti via breeding).

 The elves are opposed by the Knights of Vanya who are not very liberal at all. They vary from (at best) LN types who are honourable through to the inquisition who enforce the Vanyas faith. They are modelled on the Inquisition and the Teutonic Knights. 

 So yeah Warcraft II and Warhammer + real life  is more of an influence. There pockets of somewhat liberal places but mostly its based on ye olde medieval Europe and the middle east/Egypt. Slavery exists, torture s legal along with the death penalty, there is an inquisition, and in Tyatis is basically imperial Rome and paternalistic, the Elves are more maternal but their Empress was killed by a Paladin on the field of battle so they are weakened. 

 PCs tend to gravitate towards the free city states for some mysterious reason If you want to make the world a better place fight for it and go found a domain.

 Basically death, taxes and slavery.


----------



## cbwjm (Jun 3, 2018)

Only in games where Corellon exists because it doesn't really affect anything. In settings where Corellon isn't the elven good then this would not be an option. It wouldn't be an option in my last homebrew world since there was no concept of an elven deity to begin with, there current god is one of their own who achieved immortality 10,000 years ago.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 4, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> No I play genders as fairly binary in my games, yeah olde medieval world etc.



Me too, even so far as to have three great universal dualities define the actual* deities: Good-Evil, Law-Chaos, and Male-Female; with Law-Chaos being the least significant of those.  That said, at the mere-mortal level I've a race - Orcs - that change gender on the fly just as a natural part of their lives.

* - as opposed to all the hundreds of other "deities" that are in fact just aspects of the 21 core deities.



> Magic and things like shapeshifters can do it normal flesh and blood races nopes.



Magic, curses/blessings, some items, etc. can all cause (or reverse!) a gender switch.

If I ever put any deeper thought into it I'd probably have a few more monster types be switchers.

Lanefan


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 4, 2018)

This concept doesn't require Corellon, it just requires you give a reason for it. It could be some other elven god. It could just be a magical ability some elves happen to develop.

And let's not pretend the idea of non-binary gender is anything new. Many cultures have had "third genders" or "unmatched souls and bodies" for centuries upon centuries.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jun 4, 2018)

This will never come up in our D&D group.  It would be difficult for me to think of a less important lore element to our group.


----------



## ccs (Jun 4, 2018)

Nope.  No long rest, sex changing, elves in my games.  Nor will this be mentioned until a player brings it up.
You want to play a shape shifter?  See if I'll let you play a changeling or a doppelganger.  

Now I _might_ incorporate the change if an elf PC is revived from the dead.
Probably with some sort of increased likelihood based upon how long they've been dead.
If the % comes up & the player wants to change then no problem, they come back different.  If they want to remain as they were, then a save of some sort.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jun 4, 2018)

I have no problem with it, except that I run a homebrew setting and the mechanical aspect of it doesn't fit with my elves.  My elves reach adulthood (apparent age of 20) in 40 years, and then they appear to age 15 years for every 250 that they're alive.  When they hit an apparent age of 80, they undergo a 50 year sleep where they return to an apparent age of 20.  If a player wanted her elf to change sex as part of that 50 year slumber, that'd be more fitting with the the elves of my setting, and I'd say yes to it.  Changing with each long rest however doesn't seem to fit with them so well.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jun 4, 2018)

I doubt it. I kind of froze the lore in the 1990's. I would like it if players refrained from assuming that any printed lore was the law.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2018)

Wiseblood said:


> I doubt it. I kind of froze the lore in the 1990's. I would like it if players refrained from assuming that any printed lore was the law.




90s is where my fluff is frozen at. That's if I use my Nasty Elves or go with Elves of Evermeet. 

 Also used the Drow won the wars so the Drow are the good elves who fled.


----------



## Staccat0 (Jun 4, 2018)

Works for me. This opens the door for some pretty wild political intrigue.


----------



## Nadan (Jun 4, 2018)

So…can elves do autogamy(self-fertilization)?


----------



## Olive (Jun 4, 2018)

I like it - it reminds me of the Culture from Iain M Bank's books.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2018)

I think I would like it more if its a new race that can do it, not retconning Elves. Pansexual can be a thing and D&D has had genderless racial options for a while now (Warforged any others?). 

 Retconning should only be done in extreme circumstances IMHO. Adding new stuff if it catches on add it to core (Warlocks, Sorcerers, Tiefling/Drow options etc).


----------



## Ganders (Jun 4, 2018)

There are no pregnant elves.  They lay eggs beside a stream and another elf fertilizes them there.  If you doubt this, show me where in any of the D&D books it says elves *don't* do this.  See?  Toldja.

And by the way, D&D humans do this too, and have all along, whether you realized it or not.  No one ever said they were exactly like real-world humans.


----------



## Horwath (Jun 4, 2018)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4wqoeg


----------



## Coroc (Jun 4, 2018)

Since my prefered lore for standard settings is mostly approx. 2nd ed, I would eventually have to retcon this a bit if it were to come up. And that is when one of my players would want to play one of these blessed elves. Since i do not see that very likely i do see no needs for it in my game. 

 [MENTION=37815]Ganders[/MENTION] whoa (besides a good laugh )  you might not be that wrong, given the connection between drow and spiders you could do something similar with standard elves and say...  butterflies, so that egglaying might not be so off. Let us construct something like a drider, would that be a belf or an utterfly?

Since we are at that Topic how do unicorns procreate ?  (Duck and cover )  )


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 4, 2018)

Coroc said:


> Since my prefered lore for standard settings is mostly approx. 2nd ed, I would eventually have to retcon this a bit if it were to come up. And that is when one of my players would want to play one of these blessed elves. Since i do not see that very likely i do see no needs for it in my game.
> 
> [MENTION=37815]Ganders[/MENTION] whoa (besides a good laugh )  you might not be that wrong, given the connection between drow and spiders you could do something similar with standard elves and say...  butterflies, so that egglaying might not be so off. Let us construct something like a drider, would that be a belf or an utterfly?
> 
> Since we are at that Topic how do unicorns procreate ?  (Duck and cover )  )




Unicorns get horny.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 4, 2018)

Did anyone say "Life... find a way" yet?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 4, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Did anyone say "Life... find a way" yet?




That quote is missing the trademark Goldblum "uh"!


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2018)

Jester David said:


> *Blood of the Ancients*
> _Prerequisite: Elf_
> You are immortal and have inside you blood of kings. You have no rival, and no one can be your equal.
> When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you automatically stabilise. On your turn, you can choose to roll a death saving throw, but do not die no matter how many failures you roll. You can be killed if you suffer a critical hit from a melee weapon that deals slashing damage while you are at 0 hit points.




I think you should change the title of your feat to "Princes of the Universe". Also, in the feat text, I think it could be improved with adding a "yeah!" inbetween the first and second sentences.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I understand, but I'm curious: how would you justify it in your game world ?




Justify? There is no need, you either make it a part of your world or you don't. It fits in well with established elven lore in D&D, and it makes elves more different than humans . . . which is a good thing. Too often various D&D races are just humans with pointy ears, short and cheerful humans, short and grumpy humans, short mischievous humans, humans with devilish features, humans with fur, claws, and pointy teeth . . . 

I find it amusing how this idea bothers some of the folks in this thread, and the contortions some are going through to say "no".


----------



## Jester David (Jun 4, 2018)

Dire Bare said:


> I think you should change the title of your feat to "Princes of the Universe". Also, in the feat text, I think it could be improved with adding a "yeah!" inbetween the first and second sentences.




Didn’t want it to be too obvious...


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 4, 2018)

Jester David said:


> Didn’t want it to be too obvious...




Yeah, you're probably right. Don't lose your head!


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 4, 2018)

gyor said:


> They aren't transgendered or transgendered, they are more magigendered, because their is no real would human eqivilant to people who can change their biological sex daily whenever they feel like it.
> 
> But you can have more like real life transgendered characters of any race, that is pure RP, not mechanics unlike blessed of Corellon Larethian.
> 
> ...




I am immediately reminded of the movie 'Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde'.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 4, 2018)

In my campaign, being creatures of timeless unchanging eternity is a big part of the high elves' schtick, so a special feature that lets them change their bodies doesn't make a lot of thematic sense. Wood elves, who left the Fey Realms because they decided they rather like time and change, might be interested, but no more or less so than any other mortal. So if I were to implement this, it wouldn't be an elf thing, it'd just be a thing. The most immediately obvious responsible party would be the gender-fluid trickster god, but as a blessing, it might be more likely to come from someone who isn't a complete scoundrel.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 4, 2018)

I find it difficult to consider an ability possessed by a fraction of a fraction of the race to be much of a retcon, frankly.

Especially a race already known for having about a million subtypes.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 4, 2018)

Dire Bare said:


> Justify? There is no need, you either make it a part of your world or you don't. It fits in well with established elven lore in D&D, and it makes elves more different than humans . . . which is a good thing. Too often various D&D races are just humans with pointy ears, short and cheerful humans, short and grumpy humans, short mischievous humans, humans with devilish features, humans with fur, claws, and pointy teeth . . .
> 
> I find it amusing how this idea bothers some of the folks in this thread, and the contortions some are going through to say "no".




Honestly, this stuff bothers me. It is distracting, calls attention to itself, and changes the overall feel of the campaign from "Let's have some fun escapism" to "let's reenact some kinky immature stuff". I will not adopt this on any game I run, won't invite it, and won't allow it without good reason. -Making a player feel accepted and welcome is a good reason; giving someone carte blanche to start making everyone uncomfortable is not-.

Unless the blessing of Corellon brings something positive to the table that we can't do without, I won't even consider it. To me it belongs with the BoEF and the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, that is, in any table but mine.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 4, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Honestly, this stuff bothers me. It is distracting, calls attention to itself, and changes the overall feel of the campaign from "Let's have some fun escapism" to "let's reenact some kinky immature stuff".




You want to tell the transgender person who I sometimes have at my table that something that gives her representation is, "kinky immature stuff"?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 4, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Honestly, this stuff bothers me. It is distracting, calls attention to itself, and changes the overall feel of the campaign from "Let's have some fun escapism" to "let's reenact some kinky immature stuff".




There is nothing innately kinky, or even erotic, in a character who can change gender/sex unless you choose to make it so. And I expected better from you.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 4, 2018)

Umbran said:


> You want to tell the transgender person who I sometimes have at my table that something that gives her representation is, "kinky immature stuff"?



She's better represented by the standard PHB paragraph on gender, to be honest. This is more like a fantastic exaggeration of gender fluidity than transgenderness.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> She's better represented by the standard PHB paragraph on gender, to be honest. This is more like a fantastic exaggeration of gender fluidity than transgenderness.




Yes, it's fantastic. This is a fantasy game. What's wrong with some inclusion of some fantasy that would be right up a transgendered persons alley? I'm not trans myself, but I would imagine that the ability to simply change to the gender that best represents my soul would be pretty freaking fantastic!

Again, I am amused by the contortions some of us are going through to avoid actually saying outright this pushes our comfort zone with gay and transgendered folks.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> She's better represented by the standard PHB paragraph on gender, to be honest. This is more like a fantastic exaggeration of gender fluidity than transgenderness.




Ah..  I see.  Thank you for telling my transgender friend what is better for her.  

You would know this... how, exactly?  You'd know better than she does because...?


----------



## schnee (Jun 5, 2018)

To me, it's canon, always has been.

"Corellon is alternately male or female, both or neither."

It's fine. It's not an attack on you.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> She's better represented by the standard PHB paragraph on gender, to be honest. This is more like a fantastic exaggeration of gender fluidity than transgenderness.




I've seen quite a few of my online trans friends celebrating the Blessing of Corellon and looking forward to making use of it, but thanks anyway.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Ah..  I see.  Thank you for telling my transgender friend what is better for her.
> 
> You would know this... how, exactly?  You'd know better than she does because...?



That's not what I said. I said the PHB provides better _representation_. It does this because it flat-out says that actual transgender human beings are welcome as characters. The Blessing of Corellon can bring lots of positive things to a game, but for _representation_, there's no beating the genuine article.

Look. It's pretty clear from the hackles that have been raised that I worded my point poorly. I'm sorry for that. But maybe consider the effect that your own snap judgment might have on the discourse? My first impulse was to defend myself with sarcasm of my own, and I don't think that would have gone anywhere good.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> You want to tell the transgender person who I sometimes have at my table



I would suggest your guest finish reading MoonSong's paragraph that you quote; the section in -this notation- is important too.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 5, 2018)

One thing I've noticed is there seems to be frequent misuse of "gender" in this thread. As quoted from a frequent speaker at my hometown's largish Trans and Crossdressing convention who's name escapes me now, "Gender is between your ears and sex is between your legs". 
Elves with this (semi)retcon can change their SEX over a long rest. Their gender, as mentioned quite correctly (thumbs up!) earlier way up there so I'm not going to bother looking to quote it on my phone, is a social construct that helps determine their place in the Elven society.
One of the great things about D&D is how the gender roles typically seen in our own societies directly associated with the sex of the societal members gets tossed out the window on the regular. This just makes it that much easier to Bam! Kick it up a notch.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Honestly, this stuff bothers me. It is distracting, calls attention to itself, and changes the overall feel of the campaign from "Let's have some fun escapism" to "let's reenact some kinky immature stuff". I will not adopt this on any game I run, won't invite it, and won't allow it without good reason. -Making a player feel accepted and welcome is a good reason; giving someone carte blanche to start making everyone uncomfortable is not-.
> 
> Unless the blessing of Corellon brings something positive to the table that we can't do without, I won't even consider it. To me it belongs with the BoEF and the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity, that is, in any table but mine.




This is an odd statement, because the Blessing is already in the game.

It's called "Alter Self".  You could probably even press the limits of Disguise Self to do a switch.  Sure, it won't last all day, but if people are going to be silly about it, that's already in the game.

And it's not new.  Players can do this in multiple previous editions.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2018)

Eltab said:


> I would suggest your guest finish reading MoonSong's paragraph that you quote; the section in -this notation- is important too.




No, it isn't.

So long as MoonSong thinks they know what's better for others, the rest is lip service.  People should not have to *prove* it is better for them.  They should get to inform MoonSong that it is better for them, and MoonSong should accept that, without them having to meet some standard of proof.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 5, 2018)

I think Moonsong has a point as I used to play with what I call "Baby Seal Clubbers". You know the ones, they will create a semi-scandalous character and start pushing buttons every once in a while in the name of "Hey, I'm just roleplaying my character here". Once they find the right buttons, the gloves come off, they club the game narrative like a baby seal, ruining the game for at least half the table, and generally being a complete tool. All while acting scandalized that their character is now suddenly a problem in the game when it was obvious what I made earlier that everyone said they could live with, of course.

My answer to that is, "Stop playing with douchebags that break the social contract", as mentioned in the great Seth Skorkowsky videos on this subject.

That being said, he knows his table and we don't. He might be around folks that can't resist the odd off-color pelt gathering. He was pretty careful not to word his post saying that the rest of us are idiots for not agreeing with him so I have to give him props for that despite our enthusiasm for a storytelling tool he has zero personal interest in using.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 5, 2018)

And sorry for using all male descriptors if you aren't, Moonsong.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> I think Moonsong has a point as I used to play with what I call "Baby Seal Clubbers". You know the ones, they will create a semi-scandalous character and start pushing buttons every once in a while in the name of "Hey, I'm just roleplaying my character here". Once they find the right buttons, the gloves come off, they club the game narrative like a baby seal, ruining the game for at least half the table, and generally being a complete tool. All while acting scandalized that their character is now suddenly a problem in the game when it was obvious what I made earlier that everyone said they could live with, of course.
> 
> My answer to that is, "Stop playing with douchebags that break the social contract", as mentioned in the great Seth Skorkowsky videos on this subject.
> 
> That being said, he knows his table and we don't. He might be around folks that can't resist the odd off-color pelt gathering. He was pretty careful not to word his post saying that the rest of us are idiots for not agreeing with him so I have to give him props for that despite our enthusiasm for a storytelling tool he has zero personal interest in using.




Aside from the fact that I think the Blessing is a bit of an odd element to codify in the lore, there's all sorts of serious and humorous places it could be taken.  A significantly sex-stratified elven society could see it as a terrible thing (as the Devs claim Drow do), and a previously downtrodden member of the "wrong sex" (no implications here anyone, just whichever sex is oppressed in the hypothetical society) being able to "move up" thanks to the Blessing.  Or a member of the "right sex" might find some enlightenment in walking a mile in the downtrodden's shoes.  Perhaps _both_ the upper and lower sex's see those with the Blessing as "sex traitors" their allegiance always in question (in much the same way bisexuals are often mistreated by the LGBT community).  Perhaps people with the Blessing are a incredibly small but generally "untouchable" underclass, being viewed as neither male, female or other but "nothing" because they are not "committed" to a given sex.

Conversely, there are also humorous elements to be explored here.  Those classic jokes of when a guy pretends to be a girl and after the charade now they have to keep up the illusion, and learns something in the process, falls in love as the other sex, finds sex to be a complete waste of time and becomes gender/sex neutral.  

For the most part, all of this is reliant on the collective agreement of the table and a honest good-natured approach.  As soon as it turns into mocking one sex or another then that is a problem, and maybe with certain people it's easier to just not allow players to play with fire.  Though I'd argue if there's a risk of people playing with fire, it's because someone is an arsonist.

Yeah, fire is dangerous, but it has no motivation.  Arsonists do.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> You want to tell the transgender person who I sometimes have at my table that something that gives her representation is, "kinky immature stuff"?




No, if a transgender player at my table asks, I'm going to allow it. Period. No judgment, no second guessing. If this makes you feel more welcome at my table, so be it. I have nothing against the Blessing of Corellon, what I have problem with is the kind of disruption that it enables. 

Just by plain numbers, nine out of ten times it won't be a transgender person at my table that asks for this, and with my luck it will be someone looking forward to get a kick out of it, act his kinky juvenile fantasies and be overall creepy in and out of character in a disruptive way. I know the type, have seen the type in action, I don't want to draw them to my table by advertising the blessing of Corellon. 

I would allow the blessing of Corellon to a player I know I can trust with it, and only if I was interested on exploring social issues through the game -and normally I prefer to do it through outright fiction, when I play or DM my main objective is always to have fun and make a good experience for the whole table-. 

Overall, sexuality is a serious issue. I don't deal with serious issues when I play/DM, I'm not singling out this one thing, I exclude a lot of real world stuff to keep the game simple, even "simplistic". I'd rather do that than enabling people who just want to make a mockery of serious stuff.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

Then don't play with people who want to make a mockery of serious stuff.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 5, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> There is nothing innately kinky, or even erotic, in a character who can change gender/sex unless you choose to make it so. And I expected better from you.




I've had players -and even some DM's- whose very first reaction to me introducing a female NPC is to ask "is she hot?". -In the DM's case it was my PC for that campaign, to say that things didn't work out for that one would be an understatement-. I've also had to witness some severely obscene conversation while awaiting for MTG tournaments to start. There is a lot of testosterone in the hobby, and a lot of immaturity and eagerness to bring fetishes out. So, in short, the less ammo I can give them the better.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> No, if a transgender player at my table asks, I'm going to allow it. Period. No judgment, no second guessing. If this makes you feel more welcome at my table, so be it. I have nothing against the Blessing of Corellon, what I have problem with is the kind of disruption that it enables.



Again, this is an odd sentiment.

So, first, a Trans person would have to come out to you.
And then request to have this ability.

Isn't that a little...egocentric?  

The disruption is "enabled" is already enabled by existing spells within the game.  What people can do with "Dominate Person" is _far_ worse than the Blessing.  

Why not simply address problem behaviour as exactly that?  Problem behaviour.  When Jimmy starts using the Blessing to be a POS, call him on it.  I'm sure BOTH of us, especially given the discussion in the harassment thread, understand that calling out problem behaviour is a better approach to solving the problem then cutting out one fairly minor optional element of the game that can be perfectly replicated with existing mechanics.



> Just by plain numbers, nine out of ten times it won't be a transgender person at my table that asks for this, and with my luck it will be someone looking forward to get a kick out of it, act his kinky juvenile fantasies and be overall creepy in and out of character in a disruptive way. I know the type, have seen the type in action, I don't want to draw them to my table by advertising the blessing of Corellon.



Honest question: have there been any examples (say in this thread or one of its predecessors) indicating that the Blessing is drawing particular attention from _that sort_ of person? 



> I would allow the blessing of Corellon to a player I know I can trust with it, and only if I was interested on exploring social issues through the game -and normally I prefer to do it through outright fiction, when I play or DM my main objective is always to have fun and make a good experience for the whole table-.



This takes me back to Hussar's posts...why is sex and gender a "special social issue"?  And AGAIN you realize that the effects of the Blessing can be replicated with several spells already in the game.  AND there are spells that can accomplish _worse _that are already in the system?

This is sort of like, referencing back to the harassment thread, saying that alcohol is a problem, but only removing Pabst Blue Ribbon because you think it's too associated with white trash.



> Overall, sexuality is a serious issue. I don't deal with serious issues when I play/DM, I'm not singling out this one thing, I exclude a lot of real world stuff to keep the game simple, even "simplistic". I'd rather do that than enabling people who just want to make a mockery of serious stuff.



You're a little late to the party for that last part.  They're already enabled.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I've had players -and even some DM's- whose very first reaction to me introducing a female NPC is to ask "is she hot?". -In the DM's case it was my PC for that campaign, to say that things didn't work out for that one would be an understatement-. I've also had to witness some severely obscene conversation while awaiting for MTG tournaments to start. There is a lot of testosterone in the hobby, and a lot of immaturity and eagerness to bring fetishes out. So, in short, the less ammo I can give them the better.




Then don't play with those people.

I'm serious. This is a behavioral problem, not a topical one. By "not giving ammo" to these people, you're also taking away play options from people for whom this sort of thing is important. Kick the jerks to the curb, rather than punishing everyone else.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 5, 2018)

(Assuming a group of reasonably respectful players ...)

What are some narrative or mechanical uses for the sexes-swapping?

A character that switches sexes, is kinda like ... a character who sometimes grows a beard and sometimes prefers to be clean-shaven.

Why would anyone care? ... Why would an elf care?

A criminal might use the alter-ego as a disguise, or a superhero.

For drow elf, it is subversive to matriarchy. But that makes the point, sexes-swapping only matters in cultures that are strongly gender-divided. Do elves separate males from females? This Blessing would make it seem so.

Where is the story?


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> (Assuming a group of reasonably respectful players ...)
> 
> What are some narrative or mechanical uses for the sexes-swapping?
> 
> ...




Sure, in a game where sex doesn't matter, then the Blessing neither adds, nor subtracts from the game.  If women can do everything men can, and men can do everything women can, then being able to be a man or a woman at the drop of a hat is merely a matter of preference.  Maybe it's a fluid preference on the part of the player, or the society at large.

Here's some "Sunseeker Story Suggestions"TM off the top of my head:
A player wants to play a gender-fluid character, some days they feel more feminine, some days they feel more masculine, some days they're both, some days they're neither, and they want their character to be able to express that mechanically.
A male character with this ability, but never uses it, develops a desire to bear children for *story reasons*.
A female character finds themselves in a position where they need to infiltrate an organization that is male-lead, or all-male.
A criminal who switches back and forth to do their crimes is a great one.
The "superhero" is another good one.  Perhaps the whole party has this ability and some of the go M->F, some go F->M some go inbetween in order to keep their identities a secret while they fight the Evil Emperor.
I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'm tired.

Beyond that, the only person who really needs to worry about the WHY of this ability is the _player_.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Beyond that, the only person who really needs to worry about the WHY of this ability is the _player_.




This, absolutely.

We're playing a game, not writing a novel. While it'd be great if the ability played into the story (and a really skilled DM will find a way to make it do so), ultimately what matters is the player portraying the character they want to portray. It doesn't _have_ to have an impact to anyone but them.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 5, 2018)

Umbran said:


> So long as MoonSong thinks they know what's better for others, the rest is lip service.  People should not have to *prove* it is better for them.  They should get to inform MoonSong that it is better for them, and MoonSong should accept that, without them having to meet some standard of proof.



Nobody should accept anything without justification.

Everybody should accept what trans people say for themselves, not because they don't have to have justification, but rather because they have _tons and tons of it_.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> This, absolutely.
> 
> *We're playing a game, not writing a novel*. While it'd be great if the ability played into the story (and a really skilled DM will find a way to make it do so), ultimately what matters is the player portraying the character they want to portray. It doesn't _have_ to have an impact to anyone but them.




Well, to be fair a lot of people feel that D&D is a story-making game.  

But I think there's some unfairness with the demand that XYZ element have significant meaning _at the start_ of a game.  I like to make characters that are something of a mix of "This is what they know of themselves." and leave elements up to discovery throughout gameplay.  Perhaps the Blessing starts as one of those secondary elements, it's something the character has, but doesn't have any real use for.  But through play, they develop their understanding of this ability and use it to do something awesome for the story.  Maybe it won't.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 5, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Elves are fey, or at least they should be considered such even if they label them as 'humanoid' in this edition.   Whether they are fey mammals,  I could not say.




The mammaries on the female elves are a dead give away.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I've had players -and even some DM's- whose very first reaction to me introducing a female NPC is to ask "is she hot?". -In the DM's case it was my PC for that campaign, to say that things didn't work out for that one would be an understatement-. I've also had to witness some severely obscene conversation while awaiting for MTG tournaments to start. There is a lot of testosterone in the hobby, and a lot of immaturity and eagerness to bring fetishes out. So, in short, the less ammo I can give them the better.




 Its not a D&D thing its a male thing if not a human friend. Females can be just as bad as well with their friends. 

 The younger guys have seen things in porn the older guys with wives know better. I have heard older married females say similar though so its more of a human thing. The young guys are a bit dumber and louder about it, the older ladies are a bit more descriptive. The younger ones often talk a big game or they might have the numbers/notches on the belt but they often don't know crap. 

 Generally they grow out of it with.

1. Wife/long term partner.
2. Around the age of 30.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Well, to be fair a lot of people feel that D&D is a story-making game.




Oh, sure. Absolutely.

But it's a story being made a group of people, with an audience of that same group of people. Any given detail only has to be important to one of them, or even only impact one of them at all, to at least potentially have a place in the game. That was the point I was making.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

I’ve been watching this thread with some amusement at some of the pretty lame excuses for not allowing this tiny element in the game. To be fair the title is deliberately provocative... after all we don’t have debates about whether gnolls are carnivores, or if angels can communicate telepathically. For some strange reason this seems to be a controversial subject. Hopefully we will eventually get to the stage where the topic doesn’t even raise eyebrows.

Most hilarious reason to exclude it goes to “this topic is serious and we don’t deal with serious things in our games.” What so no death, murder, kidnapping, no captured slaves, or villages pillaged by dragons? No mysterious diseases, or divine curses... those things aren’t serious... but what hangs or doesn’t hang between one player/npc’s legs is?

Next most hilarious reason: “My players are too immature, they’ll just mess around with this.” Well at least you’re self aware. However if that’s what they enjoy I don’t really see it as a problem. Shakespeare’s greatest comedies involved men that people thought were women and vice versa.

Any groups with a trans player in them will already be so cool with this that it will be a total non-event. There’s no point even getting your knickers in a twist.

Any DM who refuses a player who genuinely asks to have the ability, needs to have a good hard look at themselves and question why they’re refusing. I’m not going to tell anyone what they must or must not think in their own home. However, while this is not the same issue, people were talking the same the same way about gay people 10 years ago, black people 50 years ago and women 80 years ago... It doesn’t fit my version of the world... people can’t take it seriously... it will disrupt group cohesion. Etc etc.

It’s cannon now so get over it, or ignore it as you chose.


----------



## LuisCarlos17f (Jun 5, 2018)

- Do you allow transhumanism in your sci-fi game?

- Yes, my PC suffers a trauma because his father was a lesbian who made a girlfriend and later changed to a male body. 

-    8-0

----

I can allow gender bender in my stories for comical purposes, like the movie "some like it hot" or the manganime "Ranma 1/2". Also I allow an amazon land where everybody are born like girls, but in the teenage some girls become boys, their true genre. However, when a elf family is going to be created, the elven children need a father and a mother. I could allow "transexual" elves, but only they could be fertile with a genre, and the other would be sterile because I don't want troubles like "her biological mother is my biological father after a genre change".  

And in my setting all good races and monogamous, between other reasons, to avoid fights for the heritage between children of different mothers.


----------



## pming (Jun 5, 2018)

Hiya!



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've seen the Jeremy Crawford interview where he talks about Elves as portrayed in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes - specifically, some of them can now change sex after a long rest, so they're transsexual in practice.
> 
> What do you think of it ?




LOL! Like always, I _don't care_...so if some player wants to play that kind of elf, no skin off my teeth. Will it be "canon" in my game? No. At least not as a 'normal' option. If someone has a cool idea for a cool character where this sort of thing is important for some reason, sure, we can work with that... but by default "No, elves do not change sex like some frogs. Exceptions and mutations do occur...as mentioned in your book there, MToF*, and as defined in my campaign notes, here (hands The Campaign booklet to player)".

IMNSHO, what someone thinks of themselves, or (in the case of these unusual elves) what sex they want to have between their legs is FAR less important (pretty much irrelevant...kinda like real life I guess) than your ability to avoid having your brain eaten by a mind flayer, your spleen devoured by a giant spider, or your liver nibbled on by a swarm of rats. 

It's an interesting idea...why elves though? I mean, wouldn't it have been easier/better to just use some sort of, say "half-doppleganger" race? Where changing sex, blood type, body shape, etc makes more sense? Hmmm...."half-elf, half-doppleganger". Now THAT sounds interesting! "An interesting note about elves...they can breed with humans, and dopplegangers. Such offspring are called [whatever MToF calls them], and are even more prejudiced against than half-elves in elven society". Something like that would be interesting. *shrug* It's a thought anyway.

_*I do not own MToF, so I'm guessing here. This is what it sounds like from what I've heard. Correct?_
^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

pming said:


> Will it be "canon" in my game? No. At least not as a 'normal' option. If someone has a cool idea for a cool character where this sort of thing is important for some reason, sure, we can work with that... but by default "No, elves do not change sex like some frogs. Exceptions and mutations do occur...as mentioned in your book there, MToF, and as defined in my campaign notes, here (hands The Campaign booklet to player)".




I don’t think there was ever a suggestion that it would apply to all elves. Only the Blessed of Corellon.

Your post seems to read it’s ok but rare, which is exactly what MToF suggests. However the tone of your post is pretty dismissive. Nobody suggested it was like a frog or a mutation - instead a blessing of the elves’ androgynous god.

Maybe associating the topic with doppelgängers isn’t the most welcoming way of doing it. They are murderous alien creatures who eat people’s brains and steal their identities. It’s possible that those playing this background have had enough of prejudice?


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 5, 2018)

Don't know why this is so controversial. I once designed a humanoid species for a space-faring RIFTS campaign that could and would switch their sex. 

They were born androgynous and did their first shift during puberty. The switch would take something between 1-3 weeks (this was sci-fi, so I explained it with a hormonal change that does take some time). Reasons for switching? Emotional state, a desire to try out something new, having found a perfect match...

Regarding partnership and families, they were able to procreate in both forms, but only few would do so with the same partner in two different forms (those who did were considered 'true matches'). This didn't matter as the species was long-lived and a couple would usually do the child-rearing together. 

I don't see why a child born into a species that *is* like this would be traumatized if "mom" became "dad" someday. Switching is part of their nature, sex and gender are not set in stone and the kid would most certainly ask if "now-dad" had seen some sort of flamboyant fashion that triggered his desire to be male for some time.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 5, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> Don't know why this is so controversial.



This is controversial because sexual identity is important to people, even in make-believe medium, and that transsexuality is an oddity - i.e it differs from the norm - which troubles people.

Though the best term for it is maybe not "controversial." Maybe unusual and perplexing would be a better term.


----------



## pming (Jun 5, 2018)

Hiya.



TheSword said:


> I don’t think there was ever a suggestion that it would apply to all elves. Only the Blessed of Corellon.




Ahh. Ok. As I said, I don't have the MToF, so was only going by what I thought from various posts here. Thanks for the clarification!



			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> Your post seems to read it’s ok but rare, which is exactly what MToF suggests. However the tone of your post is pretty dismissive. Nobody suggested it was like a frog or a mutation - instead a blessing of the elves’ androgynous god.




Uh...it was dismissive. That was my point. _I don't care_ if someone wants to play a "Blessed of Corellon". It's a non-issue. Irrelevant because the entire idea of sex/sexuality/gender/whatever they call it in the book is pretty much a very VERY minor point when you look at the context of a fantasy world. Add in the whole "adventurers" thing...and my points about getting killed in horrible ways...and, well, yeah. I see it as more or less as "important" as "My character has green eyes". In my campaign it would be a very rare thing and I might stick with the whole "doppleganger" thing; I can easily see the elves that are 'blessed' trying to put a 'spin' on their actual heritage in order to try and be more accepted. Actually, that makes a lot more sense now that I think of it. Thanks for the idea! 



			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> Maybe associating the topic with doppelgängers isn’t the most welcoming way of doing it. They are murderous alien creatures who eat people’s brains and steal their identities. It’s possible that those playing this background have had enough of prejudice?




What are you talking about?   Most monsters are "bad"...the same could be said for just about any large group who feel that they are the "chosen race of the world". I'm sure Orcs see Elves as "murderous alien creatures who eat orcs brains" (ok, maybe not the whole eating orc brains...but then again...). In fact, I'm sure just about every evil, neutral, and some good "races/countries" feel that they are "right" and others are "wrong". The whole "Blessed of Corellon" being a sort of 'spin' to let those who are of that...sub-race? (is that what they are?) not get killed, beaten, berated, or otherwise forced to become pariahs in their own community makes a lot more sense than "Well, _we're special_...so everyone loves us and thinks we're awesome!". I've never seen elves as being "accepting of differences outside what is a good and proper Elf"; that's where they get the haughtiness and arrogance...believing that they and their society/way is "obviously better" than everyone else. I never grocked the whole "elves are kind, gentle souls who laugh, dance and play music in the moonlight" (not for D&D at any rate).

As for "...that those playing this background have had enough of prejudice?". Roleplayers? Gamers? Tell me you're not trying to equate a fantasy role-playing game's imaginary elves with "real world stuff". Wait. You are, aren't you? ..._sigh_... I'm not biting. Nope. Nu-uhh.

No matter how you slice it, I like any major changes (if you can call it that) to a original D&D race/whatever to 'fit' into MY campaign world. If I can't fit something in...I either rework it until it does, or I just say no. Initially I was of the "don't care, but if someone wanted to..." stance. Still am, I think. But now I'm thinking of the whole half-elf-half-doppleganger thing and I really like it's potential for RP, story, motivation for NPC's, and that sort of thing.

Of course, YMMV. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> Don't know why this is so controversial. I once designed a humanoid species for a space-faring RIFTS campaign that could and would switch their sex.
> 
> They were born androgynous and did their first shift during puberty. The switch would take something between 1-3 weeks (this was sci-fi, so I explained it with a hormonal change that does take some time). Reasons for switching? Emotional state, a desire to try out something new, having found a perfect match...
> 
> ...




 You made a new race did not retcon an old one. Sometimes its not what you do but how you do it. Inventing a new race that can do that maybe in a new campaign setting well that's interesting. Retconning an old one well its a bit ham fisted.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 5, 2018)

For myself, I don't usually like new changes to races, or even new races in many cases.  I don't care for this change.  I don't like Mithral Elves from 3e.  I still don't like Avariel Elves.  Lythari are right out.  Wild Elves?  Nope!  No Rockseers for me.

Basically, just give me Sylvan/Wood, High Elves, Grey Elves and Dark Elves.  The rest can go pound sand.  

I also don't care for Aasimar, Tieflings, Dragonborn and Warforged as races.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You made a new race did not retcon an old one. Sometimes its not what you do but how you do it. Inventing a new race that can do that maybe in a new campaign setting well that's interesting. Retconning an old one well its a bit ham fisted.




It’s hardly a retcon. It’s a small ability addition to the race which doesn’t remove any abilities, only applies in a small number of cases, and is already covered in the lore of earlier additions. Let’s not exaggerate the impact on the race of elves as a whole. It makes almost no difference to most players and probably makes a big positive difference to those that it does matter to.

 @_*pming*_ There is a world of difference between recognizing a currently marginalized segment of society within the elf race (a mainstream popular heroic race) and relegating them to a monster-race off shoot of a brain eating fundamentally dishonest creature. If you don’t see a relevance to that I’m not going to try and change your world view. I’ll just say it matters to the people it matters to, and is irrelevant to those it doesn’t matter to.

The whole exercise has Zero negative impact and yet there are still some people who come up with convoluted ways to write it off. It’s the internet I guess.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 5, 2018)

TheSword said:


> It’s hardly a retcon. It’s a small ability addition to the race which doesn’t remove any abilities, only applies in a small number of cases, and is already covered in the lore of earlier additions. Let’s not exaggerate the impact on the race of elves as a whole. It makes almost no difference to most players and probably makes a big positive difference to those that it does matter to.
> 
> @_*pming*_ There is a world of difference between recognizing a currently marginalized segment of society within the elf race (a mainstream popular heroic race) and relegating them to a monster-race off shoot of a brain eating fundamentally dishonest creature. If you don’t see a relevance to that I’m not going to try and change your world view. I’ll just say it matters to the people it matters to, and is irrelevant to those it doesn’t matter to.
> 
> The whole exercise has Zero negative impact and yet there are still some people who come up with convoluted ways to write it off. It’s the internet I guess.




It does have an impact, though.  Whether someone is for or against transgender, and I am for it in the real world, the game isn't the real world.  I go to the game for 3-4 hours once a week to get away from real world issues and just enjoy an adventure in a fantasy world.  Bringing real world issues like transgender, racism, religion, crazy politicians, etc. into the game destroys that escape.  That's not to say that it would make the game bad, but it wouldn't be the restful escape from reality that I use D&D for.  Others drink and do drugs to escape.  I don't.  I use gaming.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Honest question: have there been any examples (say in this thread or one of its predecessors) indicating that the Blessing is drawing particular attention from _that sort_ of person?



Honest answer: Not yet; the _Blessing_ is new material.

However I am anticipating - not with pleasure - a string of horror stories built around a player who figures out the _Blessing_ can be treated like the _Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity_* and uses it to humiliate another player (and themself in the bargain, although I doubt they'll notice that part until after it's too late).

* The original Girdle was cursed and had / has 'Gotcha!' written all over it

MoonSong knows his/her own table.  If the other player(s) will turn the _Blessing_ into a _Curse_, then better to leave it aside for now.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 5, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Though the best term for it is maybe not "controversial." Maybe unusual and perplexing would be a better term.



(Emphasis mine.)

You win the Insightful Quote of the Day award.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It does have an impact, though.  Whether someone is for or against transgender, and I am for it in the real world, the game isn't the real world.  I go to the game for 3-4 hours once a week to get away from real world issues and just enjoy an adventure in a fantasy world.  Bringing real world issues like transgender, racism, religion, crazy politicians, etc. into the game destroys that escape.  That's not to say that it would make the game bad, but it wouldn't be the restful escape from reality that I use D&D for.  Others drink and do drugs to escape.  I don't.  I use gaming.




It seems like you’re being pretty selective about what ‘real world’ issues you bring into the game and which disturb your restful escape. I mean what about gay characters? Do they disturb your rest? Shall we brush out the gay characters from 5e products like Curse of Strahd? What about black characters, if it disturbs you we can whitewash them out? At the end of the day women only got the vote in the last century, we can go full tolkein and take women out of games as well.

Either 

A: Both DM and players are cool with the occasional trans elf. There’s no issue.

B: Neither DM or players are interested with the concept. There’s no issue

C: A player would like to explore the idea, but the DM won’t let them. That DM needs to take a good hard look at themselves and ask some real questions about their motives.

So no, I absolutely reject your argument that it has an impact.


----------



## Cyrinishad (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I have nothing against the Blessing of Corellon, what I have problem with is the kind of disruption that it enables.




Weird... This actually sounds more like the problem I have with "Fireball"... LoL.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 5, 2018)

TheSword said:


> It seems like you’re being pretty selective about what ‘real world’ issues you bring into the game and which disturb your restful escape. I mean what about gay characters? Do they disturb your rest? Shall we brush out the gay characters from 5e products like Curse of Strahd? What about black characters, if it disturbs you we can whitewash them out? At the end of the day women only got the vote in the last century, we can go full tolkein and take women out of games as well.
> 
> Either
> 
> ...




Of course one is selective, everybody's upbringing and values are different. There's stuff that makes me uncomfortable. -Like sicaliptic jokes, making a mockery of women, or foreigners treating things I hold sacred like playthings without caring about the significance -. Why is it a moral imperative that I have to include it in my games if it makes me uncomfortable? Why is it morally reprehensible that I decide to disregard an optional rule on an optional book that I have no interest in and that I cannot afford even if I was?  More so since I've already said that I plan to say yes anyway if a player really needed it since my problem isn't with the rule itself but the misuse of it-as there are way more perverts than transgender people in my environment-? (Oh wait, apparently that is also a bad thing? )


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> Of course one is selective, everybody's upbringing and values are different. There's stuff that makes me uncomfortable. -Like sicaliptic jokes, making a mockery of women, or foreigners treating things I hold sacred like playthings without caring about the significance -. Why is it a moral imperative that I have to include it in my games if it makes me uncomfortable? Why is it morally reprehensible that I decide to disregard an optional rule on an optional book that I have no interest in and that I cannot afford even if I was?  More so since I've already said that I plan to say yes anyway if a player really needed it since my problem isn't with the rule itself but the misuse of it-as there are way more perverts than transgender people in my environment-? (Oh wait, apparently that is also a bad thing? )




Sure, but if you fall into point C expect that to be called out in the same way you’d be called out for being racist, mysoginistic or homophobic. Let’s not have any thinkly veiled excuses claiming that it’s anythkng other than what it is. 

If it’s point B, who cares. Do what you want.

You claim to fall into point A, so I really don’t understand what you’re causing a fuss about.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Others drink and do drugs to escape.  I don't.  I use gaming.




I advocate for all 3.

Not necessarily simultaneously, but that has been fun too.


----------



## mrpopstar (Jun 5, 2018)

With regard to the term _transexual_, an androgynous appearance and fluid gender expression serve just as well without us having to discuss genitalia at the gaming table.

That being said, I'm an advocate for inclusion. If it makes others feel more included than they did previously, I say bring it on. This diversifies and enriches our hobby!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I go to the game for 3-4 hours once a week to get away from real world issues and just enjoy an adventure in a fantasy world.  Bringing real world issues like transgender, racism, religion, crazy politicians, etc. into the game destroys that escape.  That's not to say that it would make the game bad, but it wouldn't be the restful escape from reality that I use D&D for.  Others drink and do drugs to escape.  I don't.  I use gaming.




Trans folks use gaming as an escape too. Making our gender an issue in the game ruins that escape for many of us just as much as it does for you. There are probably some of us who want to use the game to examine real-world gender issues in a safe environment, but most of us deal with quite enough of that crap in real life, and just want to play a character who is like us and have it not be a big deal. To escape to a world where we can just be trans and have it not be an issue. So if “bringing real world issues into the game” is your reason for not allowing the blessing of Corellon in your games, your fears are probably misplaced. More often than not, trans people who might want to use it don’t want to bring real-world issues into the game either. They want to be themselves and have it not be an issue.

Also, has no one who doesn’t want to allow the blessing of Corellon ever played Eberron?


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 5, 2018)

Huh.  Interesting discussion.  I'm actually surprised this hasn't turned into a dumpster fire, so that's good!  Overall there's been a lot to think about.

At any rate, I have no plans to add it to my game because Corellon Larethian doesn't exist in my homebrew.  If I had a player who felt strongly about having an ability like this, I'd have to think about it.  I have no problem with exploring sexual identity (although it plays a shockingly trivial role in most of our games), but a limited "Alter Self" 1/day can be a pretty nice effect.  I'd find a way to make it work in what I felt was a mechanically balanced way.


----------



## pming (Jun 5, 2018)

Hiya.



			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> @pming There is a world of difference between recognizing a *currently marginalized segment of society* within the elf race (a mainstream popular heroic race) and relegating them to a monster-race off shoot of a brain eating fundamentally dishonest creature. If you don’t see a relevance to that I’m not going to try and change your world view. *I’ll just say it matters to the people it matters to, and is irrelevant to those it doesn’t matter to.*




In regards to what I bolded above...

The first bold: this is one thing I just don't see. I'm sure it happens, but where I live (waaaaay up in northern Canada)...not so much. I have a bi-sexual friend, worked with two gay guys and (due to the long hair I have and short stature) I've been hit on by all manner of men...some gay, some drunk (some maybe both! LOL!). Of all the people I know, I can think of two that "just don't like gay people". They can't explain why, they both say that gay guys (they are both men) just kinda make them all "icky feeling". Uncomfortable. They don't care if someone's gay, they just don't like being around them because they feel wierd. ...shrug... Anyway, in my experience the whole "marginalization" thing just, well, isn't a thing any more than someones religion, politics or favourite hockey team is (ok, the latter can get folks into some pretty heated debates...but that's ok, it helps keep us warm in winter...  ).

As for the second bold: I couldn't agree more. The only "problem" I see is when one side/person makes a big deal out of it so much, pushes their view/stance so hard, that others feel like they are being attacked or denigrated because they have different views. THAT, imnsho, is the bigger issue; intolerant people...on all sides. Intolerance is the enemy of acceptance, after all. I deal with it all by washing my hands of it and going hard-core _I don't care._ If someone plays a transexual elf in my game, I can deal with it...but they better not expect to be treated "special/blessed/with honour" or otherwise be given special consideration and special exemptions. Not going to happen. 

But this is all "real life" stuff trickling into the D&D game by designers who...well...I'm not sure why, exactly I guess it's a trend or something. Like [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said, he/we use it as a: _"...restful escape from reality that I use D&D for"._ This is a fantasy RPG. If a group wants to explore " ...a kind of a psycho-drama, you might say, where people deal with problems in their lives by acting them out", to quote one intrepid reporter named Bud Hayden down at Peekquad Caverns ( @0:45, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VgqZB8u3h4  ), then go for it. What I vehemently oppose is official products trying to "force" me to use D&D to address real life issues. No thank you, Evil! 

It's a slippery slope WotC is treading...the majority of D&D players, I would guess, want to play D&D; they want to make a character that isn't them, take that PC into deadly areas they would never go, kill monsters that don't exist, and recover vast treasure they will never have. "...and have deep, meaningful conversations about real-world issues that affects their real lives" is probably waaaaaaaaaaay down on the list. 

I just want to DM an orc that defends against those pesky adventurers that keep kicking down his door to try and take his damn pie! 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jun 5, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Also, has no one who doesn’t want to allow the blessing of Corellon ever played Eberron?



I run Eberron, and wasn't planning to make a big thing about including it as written. For a start Corellion and the origin of the elves don't fit that well with Eberron, so it would be unlikely to go by that name.
I've already had characters with no gender, characters that switched gender regularly, a character of one gender spiritually linked and trying to emulate a person of a different gender, and an actual transgender character in the game. Generally, if someone asked to play a character with the mechanical benefits of the Blessing, I'd ask why, and work from their answer to something that works.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 5, 2018)

Cap'n Kobold said:


> I run Eberron, and wasn't planning to make a big thing about including it as written. For a start Corellion and the origin of the elves don't fit that well with Eberron, so it would be unlikely to go by that name.



No, I mean Changelings. They can already change sex characteristics, so it seems weird to me that a lot of people are taking issue with it when it’s elves.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

pming said:


> But this is all "real life" stuff trickling into the D&D game by designers who...well...I'm not sure why, exactly I guess it's a trend or something. Like @_*Maxperson*_ said, he/we use it as a: _"...restful escape from reality that I use D&D for"._ This is a fantasy RPG. If a group wants to explore " ...a kind of a psycho-drama, you might say, where people deal with problems in their lives by acting them out", to quote one intrepid reporter named Bud Hayden down at Peekquad Caverns ( @0:45, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VgqZB8u3h4  ), then go for it. What I vehemently oppose is official products trying to "force" me to use D&D to address real life issues. No thank you, Evil!
> 
> It's a slippery slope WotC is treading...the majority of D&D players, I would guess, want to play D&D; they want to make a character that isn't them, take that PC into deadly areas they would never go, kill monsters that don't exist, and recover vast treasure they will never have. "...and have deep, meaningful conversations about real-world issues that affects their real lives" is probably waaaaaaaaaaay down on the list.




Who said anything about deep and meaningful conversations? Isn’t enough that they just exist?

When you say designers including gay characters and trans elements in D&D products is a ‘slippery slope’... what do you mean? A slippery slope to where?

If a large number of people are gay, why is it unreasonable that one or possibly two NPCs in a 250 page adventure be gay? We’re not talking about gay story lines, just a character that happens to be gay.

Why does adding a character who happens to be gay into a story mean you’re bringing ‘real life’ into your game but a hetrosexual character is just fine? What issue is that forcing you to address? That Gay people exist?

Why does playing a gay/trans character mean you’re acting out a ‘psycho-drama’ or dealing with ‘problems in your life’ 5e seems to be firmly in the camp of having these things firmly in the background rather than being major plot issues.

There are lots of questions that arise out of your last post. It isn’t for me to answer them but the fact that these questions even exists suggest that many posters in these threads consider being gay or trans as being something other than normal. I like that D&D is part of trying to address issue in a small way.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

I run a homebrew world and no, I will not be adopting this gender shifting paradigm for elves, simply because my world does not have a Correllan Larethian as an elf god and my elf deity is not overly concerned about chaos and freedom and all that.

However, my elf goddess is connected to fertility, especially the sexual fertility of the fey races, and, as such, my elves have a very open view about sexuality, and most elves in my world are openly and unapologetically bi-sexual and some even open to bestiality. I am running an elf campaign and when a group of pixies polymorphed the PCs into goats and asked them to "revel" with a band of satyrs for laughs in exchange for a reward from the pixies, the elven PCs had no problem agreeing. The one non-elf in the party refused and did not take part in the revelry.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> . . . a group of pixies polymorphed the PCs into goats and asked them to "revel" with a band of satyrs . . .




I, uh . . . that wasn't me! I have an . . . er . . . alibi . . . without pictures you can't prove I was there!


----------



## Jester David (Jun 5, 2018)

For my campaign setting, I'm view this a little like winged elves.
Which are a thing. 
Winged elves, or Avariel, have been in D&D since at least _Dragon 51_ in 1981, and also mentioned in _The Complete Book of Elves_. They were included in the Realms with 2e and are in the same Unearthed Arcana that had Shadar kai and sea elves. 
I've never really done anything with Avariel. They're not part of my world's lore or part of my setting despite being an element of the game that is *almost* as old as I am. But if a player asked to play such a race, I'd probably allow it and simply add them into my world, expanding the lore of my setting and adding that little bit of extra depth. 

I'm not adding sexshifter elves just yet to my setting. I'm musing on that lore and if I'd want the elves to view them as strange and blessed beings or just mild curiosities. (_"You can alternate between being a man or a woman? How interesting. I haven't heard of that before. OH!! That elf has red hair! Do you see?"_) But if a player asks I'll probably say "sure, why the eff not?" After all, it's probably the _*least*_ broken thing a player will ask special permission to do.


----------



## Seramus (Jun 5, 2018)

We’re all going to be transsexual in the future, so we might as well get a head start on normalizing it. Provided we respect the feelings of the players at our table, of course.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Who said anything about deep and meaningful conversations? Isn’t enough that they just exist?
> 
> When you say designers including gay characters and trans elements in D&D products is a ‘slippery slope’... what do you mean? A slippery slope to where?
> 
> ...




 I think some people don't really want RL culture wars in D&D. I live in one of the more liberal countries in the world (New Zealand), have gays in our circle of friends, worked with a lesbian recently and a bi sexual man as of yesterday. No big deal. I don't care about things like gay marriage for example and don't really care about what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom. Doesn't mean I want to watch gay porn for example though.

 I play D&D because its a fun game adding RL culture wars into it doesn't interest me. Its kind of Disney princes and princesses in a medieval fair type world although as I have gotten older I prefer it to be darker and grittier. Parts of my campaign world are not very fair to anyone, its not a modern liberal ideal but more of a ye olde bad things happen type event.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 5, 2018)

pming said:


> The first bold: this is one thing I just don't see. I'm sure it happens, but where I live (waaaaay up in northern Canada)...not so much. I have a bi-sexual friend, worked with two gay guys and (due to the long hair I have and short stature) I've been hit on by all manner of men...some gay, some drunk (some maybe both! LOL!). Of all the people I know, I can think of two that "just don't like gay people". They can't explain why, they both say that gay guys (they are both men) just kinda make them all "icky feeling". Uncomfortable. They don't care if someone's gay, they just don't like being around them because they feel wierd. ...shrug... Anyway, in my experience the whole "marginalization" thing just, well, isn't a thing any more than someones religion, politics or favourite hockey team is (ok, the latter can get folks into some pretty heated debates...but that's ok, it helps keep us warm in winter...  ).



I'm willing to bet that's two more people you know who feel "icky" around gay people than people you know who feel "icky" around, say, lefties. So I'm gonna say there's still an issue there.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm willing to bet that's two more people you know who feel "icky" around gay people than people you know who feel "icky" around, say, lefties. So I'm gonna say there's still an issue there.




I don't like beans. I cannot control the fact that I don't like them. I was not traumatized by a bad bean experience as a child. And I imagine if I were starving and had nothing to eat but beans I would eat them.

I just find them unappealing to eat. I don't think people who enjoy eating refried beans or baked beans are evil or bad or somehow deficient, but I don't want to eat beans. Additionally, I don't really like the smell of beans and watching someone plow into a plate of beans and eat them right next to me is not something I find pleasurable to look at or smell. I would NEVER presume to stop someone from eating beans in my presence...that's entirely on me. But, on the other hand, if I find bean eating unpleasurable to watch, it is my right to remove myself from the room where the bean eating is taking place. I don't think that would be an untoward response on my part.


----------



## ccs (Jun 5, 2018)

TheSword said:


> It seems like you’re being pretty selective about what ‘real world’ issues you bring into the game and which disturb your restful escape. I mean what about gay characters? Do they disturb your rest? Shall we brush out the gay characters from 5e products like Curse of Strahd? What about black characters, if it disturbs you we can whitewash them out? At the end of the day women only got the vote in the last century, we can go full tolkein and take women out of games as well.




The perk of being the DM is that you can use/add/delete/change anything & everything. 
So yes, if any of this doesn't suite you for whatever reason?  Make whatever alterations you need.








TheSword said:


> Either
> 
> A: Both DM and players are cool with the occasional trans elf. There’s no issue.
> 
> ...




You forgot one.
D: The DM wants to explore something, but the players aren't interested.




TheSword said:


> C: A player would like to explore the idea, but the DM won’t let them. That DM needs to take a good hard look at themselves and ask some real questions about their motives.




As for this?  I'm perfectly fine with my motives & don't need to question them.  If I'm not allowing something it's because of 1 of 2 reasons:
A) What you're choosing is inappropriate for the setting/adventure/theme/group etc.
B) Is something I'm not interested in DMing for.  So take it to some one elses game.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

1) That a person who is not part of a marginalized group doesn't see how often that marginalized group is insulted/oppressed does not, in any way, lessen the actual problem. Don't _ever_ fall into the trap of thinking that because you don't see something that doesn't affect you, that means it's not a common thing.

2) These may be "real life issues that you don't want to deal with" to _you_, but it's just _life_ to others. By excluding it, you exclude them. By only grudgingly allowing it, you only grudgingly allow them. And they notice. I _guarantee_ they notice.

If you ever have so much as a married couple, even on a Disney level, you're already dealing with sexuality. Choosing to restrict it to heterosexuality is a deliberate choice, and it sends a message.

If you even have people of different sexes and genders, even on a Disney level, you're already dealing with gender identity. Choosing to restrict it to cis is a deliberate choice, and it sends a message.

If you're comfortable sending that message? Well, that's your right, whatever I or others think about it. But you _are_ sending it. There is no "We just don't include that stuff" unless your entire world is made up of a genderless race that has no romantic relationships and reproduces by budding.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 5, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I think some people don't really want RL culture wars in D&D.




To demonstrate I live in the midwest, let me suggest this pearl of wisdom:

*"Don't start none won't be none."*

Also, I suspect the irony of you not wanting "IRL culture wars" in your game but being perfectly okay with oppressive societies and abusing minorities is lost on you.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> 1) That a person who is not part of a marginalized group doesn't see how often that marginalized group is insulted/oppressed does not, in any way, lessen the actual problem. Don't _ever_ fall into the trap of thinking that because you don't see something that doesn't affect you, that means it's not a common thing.
> 
> 2) These may be "real life issues that you don't want to deal with" to _you_, but it's just _life_ to others. By excluding it, you exclude them. By only grudgingly allowing it, you only grudgingly allow them. And they notice. I _guarantee_ they notice.
> 
> ...




 Asking a DM to RP being gay or whatever is not a reasonable request though. The gay gamers I have played with did not make it an issue they just wanted to chuck dice and beat up Orcs or what have you.

 Personal hygiene is more important to me than most other traits gamers have. I don't really care what you get up to in your own time, stink out my house and that is an issue (yes this has happened).


----------



## Ganders (Jun 5, 2018)

Yes, of course I will make transgender elves canon.

Some of the players in my games are left handed.

I'd feel like an evil nazi symmetry-supremicist if I didn't allow them to play a character with two right hands (and two left feet).

But only if they're willing to play a religious elf.


I also have some players with multiple personality disorder.  I let them play three characters each, while the rest of the players only get one character.  Because I'm a good person.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 5, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> To demonstrate I live in the midwest, let me suggest this pearl of wisdom:
> 
> *"Don't start none won't be none."*
> 
> Also, I suspect the irony of you not wanting "IRL culture wars" in your game but being perfectly okay with oppressive societies and abusing minorities is lost on you.




 I guess New Zealand is a bit more liberal than the mid west. My group was 50% female in 1996 and I had a gay player 1999/2000. I kind of look at both sides though. Is it reasonable for gays to get married? Sure why not. Is it reasonable for them to get married in say a Catholic Church maybe not as you are forcing your beliefs onto them (example only I am not Catholic or a fan of organized religions in general). There is an element of physics (every action has an opposite reaction)here the harder you push there will be a counter push, if things happen a bit more organically it creates less problems IMHO. Its entirely possible to score an own goal. It just dpeends on if those things blow up into violence or not (read a history book). 

 Generally you should not force your beliefs onto someone else (except things like no murder, child abuse etc). There are some things I don't want to see or expect to act out but I try to challenge myself sometimes, I liked season one of Sense8 for example season 2 not as much. 

 Maybe I'm odd, agnostic IRL but like clerics in D&D.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 5, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Asking a DM to RP being gay or whatever is not a reasonable request though.




Leaving aside whether I agree with that or not, because that's a whole different conversational tangent, I'm not asking the DM to do anything but allow the player to play what he/she wants to. That can always lead to "fade to black," but I assume that most DMs who don't like to include sexual content do that with _any_ PC/NPC romance.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> I just find them unappealing to eat. I don't think people who enjoy eating refried beans or baked beans are evil or bad or somehow deficient, but I don't want to eat beans. Additionally, I don't really like the smell of beans and watching someone plow into a plate of beans and eat them right next to me is not something I find pleasurable to look at or smell. I would NEVER presume to stop someone from eating beans in my presence...that's entirely on me. But, on the other hand, if I find bean eating unpleasurable to watch, it is my right to remove myself from the room where the bean eating is taking place. I don't think that would be an untoward response on my part.



I don't want to be in the room when other people of _any_ palette are *ahem* "eating". And they, overwhelmingly, would prefer I give them their privacy as well. This is a pretty universal social norm. Almost everybody follows it. So when we're talking about two specific people who say they don't like "bean eating", we're probably talking about something a bit more than that.


----------



## cbwjm (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I don't want to be in the room when other people of _any_ palette are *ahem* "eating". And they, overwhelmingly, would prefer I give them their privacy as well. This is a pretty universal social norm. Almost everybody follows it. So when we're talking about two specific people who say they don't like "bean eating", we're probably talking about something a bit more than that.



I think this analogy has been taken to far. I have no clue what this is about.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I don't want to be in the room when other people of _any_ palette are *ahem* "eating". And they, overwhelmingly, would prefer I give them their privacy as well. This is a pretty universal social norm. Almost everybody follows it. So when we're talking about two specific people who say they don't like "bean eating", we're probably talking about something a bit more than that.




Bean eating was not equating with sex. It was more with PDAs. For example, smooching. If two men want to smooch on a park bench, that's their right. I would never ask them to stop nor want anyone else to ask them to stop. But I would avert my eyes.; it's not pleasant for me to look at. 

On the other hand, if a good-looking hetero couple or a good-looking lesbian couple were smooching on a park bench, I'd probably observe for a moment (not creepily stare, mind you) and enjoy the sight.

It's purely an aesthetic on my part and, as I said, it's my problem, not the couple's problem. But I shouldn't be condemned for that aesthetic, any more than I should be condemned for preferring red heads and brunettes over blondes, or long hair over short, or other physical characteristics that  make up my aesthetic sensibilities.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Jun 5, 2018)

Trans elves are canon in my game, much like trans humans, dwarves and half-orcs. Now, for any kind of retcon regarding previous well-established D&D lore, I'll just ignore it, as I've been doing for the past 20 years. I like AD&D lore. I find 90% of WotC's efforts to change it lackluster. Together, The Complete Book of Elves, Elves of Athas, and Elves of Evermeet have all the information I need to think about the ways of the elves in the published settings that I prefer. If/when I'm working in a homebrew campaign I'll give the sexshifting elves a second look, though.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 5, 2018)

Why are we talking about gay smooching now? That’s a completely different spectrum from gender. There is no gay smooching required to include transgender elves. There’s also no transgender elves required to include sex changing elves.


----------



## Hriston (Jun 5, 2018)

@_*Lychee of the Exch.*_, many now prefer the term _transgendered_, in case you didn't know.

Of course there are transgendered elves in the worlds my games are set in, just as there are transgendered dwarves, transgendered hobbits, and transgendered humans. 

I have absolutely zero interest in imagining a world where transgendered people don't exist.


----------



## Hannerdyn (Jun 5, 2018)

It doesn't bother me at all. I like the idea. However, I would rule that it is a longer transition (maybe a few months) to make it more dramatic.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> I don't like beans. I cannot control the fact that I don't like them. I was not traumatized by a bad bean experience as a child. And I imagine if I were starving and had nothing to eat but beans I would eat them.
> 
> I just find them unappealing to eat. I don't think people who enjoy eating refried beans or baked beans are evil or bad or somehow deficient, but I don't want to eat beans. Additionally, I don't really like the smell of beans and watching someone plow into a plate of beans and eat them right next to me is not something I find pleasurable to look at or smell. I would NEVER presume to stop someone from eating beans in my presence...that's entirely on me. But, on the other hand, if I find bean eating unpleasurable to watch, it is my right to remove myself from the room where the bean eating is taking place. I don't think that would be an untoward response on my part.




Nobody is expecting you to go near beans or watch people eating them. Don’t flatter yourself.

However by making this analogy to the situation at hand, you’re saying you don’t like the people, you don’t want to be around the people (irrelevant to if they are eating at the time, which of course they aren’t). You don’t like the idea of those people existing and don’t want to come across them. That is what makes your reaction unpleasant and why people rightly call out people that try and justify that kind of prejudice. It doesn’t matter whether the bean eaters are trans, gay, black, Christian, female, disabled etc etc etc.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> Bean eating was not equating with sex. It was more with PDAs. For example, smooching. If two men want to smooch on a park bench, that's their right. I would never ask them to stop nor want anyone else to ask them to stop. But I would avert my eyes.; it's not pleasant for me to look at.
> 
> On the other hand, if a good-looking hetero couple or a good-looking lesbian couple were smooching on a park bench, I'd probably observe for a moment (not creepily stare, mind you) and enjoy the sight.
> 
> It's purely an aesthetic on my part and, as I said, it's my problem, not the couple's problem. But I shouldn't be condemned for that aesthetic, any more than I should be condemned for preferring red heads and brunettes over blondes, or long hair over short, or other physical characteristics that  make up my aesthetic sensibilities.




Yeah this sounds much creepier than you probably intended it to.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Nobody is expecting you to go near beans or watch people eating them. Don’t flatter yourself.
> 
> However by making this analogy to the situation at hand, you’re saying you don’t like the people, you don’t want to be around the people (irrelevant to if they are eating at the time, which of course they aren’t). You don’t like the idea of those people existing and don’t want to come across them. That is what makes your reaction unpleasant and why people rightly call out people that try and justify that kind of prejudice. It doesn’t matter whether the bean eaters are trans, gay, black, Christian, female, disabled etc etc etc.




Not trying to flatter myself, but thanks for starting on a note of hostility.

I am NOT saying I don't like the people. For hell's sake, my WIFE likes beans, as do my kids. Are you actually saying I therefore do not like my wife and children because (and this is actually true, BTW) I don't like watching them eating beans or smelling beans? Are you suggesting that because my wife and kids eat beans every so often that I don't want them around when they are not eating beans?

What a ridiculous statement to make on your part!

That's like saying I like progressive rock but I don't like jazz. So therefore I don't like anyone who likes jazz.

It's literally inane.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> Not trying to flatter myself, but thanks for starting on a note of hostility.
> 
> I am NOT saying I don't like the people. For hell's sake, my WIFE likes beans, as do my kids. Are you actually saying I therefore do not like my wife and children because (and this is actually true, BTW) I don't like watching them eating beans or smelling beans? Are you suggesting that because my wife and kids eat beans every so often that I don't want them around when they are not eating beans?
> 
> ...




The metaphor is pretty inane. Particularly in the context of a thread about whether a particular type of trans character as introduced by MToF should exist. Whether you want to witness something is irrelevant. If that isn’t what you are referring to, then I question what the point of bringing it up in this thread was.


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 5, 2018)

Okay... let me throw in one little thought:

The ability to switch between male and female elf form doesn't make these elves transexual or transgender. I'd rather call it an extreme form of genderfluidity. 

Being trans means a person whose gender doesn't match with the sex they were born with. But these people are actually both, mentally and physically, depending on their choice. They are not mismatched by nature, they are omni-matched.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 5, 2018)

TheSword said:


> The metaphor is pretty inane. Particularly in the context of a thread about whether a particular type of trans character as introduced by MToF should exist. Whether you want to witness something is irrelevant. If that isn’t what you are referring to, then I question what the point of bringing it up in this thread was.




It was in response to Cosmic Kid's post. I did not just drop it out of the blue. Maybe reread his post.


----------



## Pauln6 (Jun 5, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The mammaries on the female elves are a dead give away.




Like dragonborn,  I suppose.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 5, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Why are we talking about gay smooching now? That’s a completely different spectrum from gender. There is no gay smooching required to include transgender elves. There’s also no transgender elves required to include sex changing elves.




Amen!  Plus, beans give me gas.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 5, 2018)

devincutler said:


> It was in response to Cosmic Kid's post. I did not just drop it out of the blue. Maybe reread his post.




Maybe you should re-read it. Cosmic Kids post criticized people who just didn’t like being around Gay People. They made them feel ‘icky’. Not watching them get it on... just being around them. You then followed that with your bean eating analogy which appears to be justifying that behaviour.


----------



## pming (Jun 5, 2018)

HIya.



TheSword said:


> Who said anything about deep and meaningful conversations? Isn’t enough that they just exist?
> 
> When you say designers including gay characters and trans elements in D&D products is a ‘slippery slope’... what do you mean? A slippery slope to where?
> 
> ...




Wow. Uh, we went from "This is a new playable PC race that can change their sex" to "Why is it unreasonable that one or two NPC's are gay in a huge adventure?" in the space of how many posts? O_O

I don't want to get into it any more because I know when I talk to...well...I'm not going to give my opinion on it after this post. Suffice it to say...I don't care if an NPC or ten are gay. I could care less insofar as actual 'caring'. ( I'd "care" in that it is likely an abnormal representation, but I can change that if needed; I won't loose any sleep over it). I also don't care if my "non-caring'ness" upsets people. If someone gets upset when I say "He/She's gay? Ok. Whatever. Doesn't matter. Nobody cares. What CLASS are they? That's important. Sexuality? Not", it's _not my problem_. It's about as important in life as someone saying that they are big Calgary Flames (Canadian hockey team) fan. The only people that care about someone being a Calgary fan are other hockey fans...especially an Edmonton Oilers fan.  The VAST majority of people who watch hockey are just regular ol' folks watching hockey. "Fanatical Fanboi's" is an "extreme" version of a 'regular' hockey fan. The VAST majority of gay/bi people I've known or met were NOT "extreme"; they were just regular folks who preferred the same sex (or both). 

The only extreme reaction I've seen any of them was one gay guy I worked with; he absolutely hated gay guys who "flaunted it all over the place" (you know, the 'flamers'...not the hockey team, btw  ). I think he said that those who are most vocal and in-your-face about their sexuality were the most intolerant and most prone to jumping to the "homophobic" slur the moment they didn't like someone and that these guys gave "gay" a bad name/rep. That if he...a GAY MAN...made a gay joke or said something slightly off-colour, they would scream, yell and call him every name in the book, then finish it off with assault by throwing a drink in his face. THOSE are the intolerant people. Not the religious guy who says "I don't support or agree with being homosexual".

See? We're not even talking about a freaking fantasy RPG any more!  Why? ...SLIPPERY SLOPE!... 




TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm willing to bet that's two more people you know who feel "icky" around gay people than people you know who feel "icky" around, say, lefties. So I'm gonna say there's still an issue there.




First, I'm not sure what you mean by lefties. Handedness? Politics? Men who hang their...uh...you know..."member" down the left pant leg?

Second, no matter what definition you are using for "lefties", why do you think there would be an "issue"? Are people not allowed to have opinions or preferences different from yours? I don't get it. 


At any rate...I'm out. This conversation/debate has SLIPPED on down the SLOPE from being about a fantasy game of imagination into...something I can't say or I'll get banned, probably. I don't know. The rules are pretty dang vague on this if you ask me. So I'm out. 

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 6, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> Okay... let me throw in one little thought:
> 
> The ability to switch between male and female elf form doesn't make these elves transexual or transgender. I'd rather call it an extreme form of genderfluidity.
> 
> Being trans means a person whose gender doesn't match with the sex they were born with. But these people are actually both, mentally and physically, depending on their choice. They are not mismatched by nature, they are omni-matched.




I'll see your "being able to change sex doesn't make them transgender" and raise you "nor does it stop them from being transgender."

The idea that being transgender means your gender "doesn't match" the sex you were "born with" is a very cisnormative way of framing it. Sex and gender are different spectra (just as sexuality is different from either), so no gender inherently "matches" or "doesn't match" any given set of sex characteristics. The associations between them are culturally constructed, so a better way of framing it would be to say that being transgender is about identifying with a gender that is different from the one you were assigned at birth.

In real life human culture, we are typically assigned genders based on sex characteristics, but in a culture where some members are born with the ability to change sex characteristics simply by meditating for a few hours, perhaps there would be different criteria. They may have more and/or different culturally-defined genders than humans have, or they may not have a concept of gender at all. And in any of those cases, an elf with or without Corellon's blessing may or may not identify with the gender they were assigned by their parents or the lack thereof.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 6, 2018)

pming said:


> HIya.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I appreciate that you want to bow out of the conversation. Why do people so often follow that statement with something provocative?

I think you slid down your slope all by yourself by criticizing decisions designers made by introducing so called ‘real world’ elements. I’m not sure what your friends comments on gay behavior have to any of the discussions up to this point. I suspect you just don’t get it.

Being gay or trans isn’t like being a fan. If you don’t understand that it is not surprising that there’s a disconnect in the conversation.

The rest of us are firmly talking about this subject in the context of PC’s, NPC’s and options in d&d.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 6, 2018)

Been thinking about this one today. I have a few thoughts:
1) Kinda digging how it adds a layer of "otherness" to the Elves in general. We need to separate Elves into something else, not just pointy-earred human beef and/or cheesecakes with cool racial abilities.
2) Makes me think about how this could happen physically. The "working parts" aren't overly large, but the major structural changes like the skeletal changes between men and women for stabilization when pregnant, etc would probably mean their baseline skeleton would start as more "middle of the road". 
3) Mammaries and other secondary sexual characteristics probably wouldn't develop until pregnancy or would remain far smaller than typically shown in the trending "elf babe" pictures.
4) Just being hermaphroditic is certainly an option.
5) They could still choose their "gender" and emphasise their preferred sex through social customs and dress. 
6) That said, not being "locked down" at birth means they they wouldn't be as likely to have a culture of sexual exploitation as participants can swap to the other sex at will. Pretty cool stuff that would dramatically assist in maintaining harmony in their societies.
7) The outright rejection of this "blessing" by the Drow reinforces the Fear and Power(tm) paradigm and the want, no the NEED, for sexual exploitation so their society can function. That it is flipped from the male sexed exploiting the female sexed to the female sexed exploiting the male sexed doesn't make it any less horrible. Could have some cool storytelling elements here if your group can handle it maturely.
All in all, once you dig a bit deeper than, "Umm...where did that penis come from?" and potentially "Eww?" it can lead to some pretty interesting roleplaying potential. It also does a pretty good job of calling our collective real-life B.S. to the carpet if you feel like putting some social justice into your games.


----------



## devincutler (Jun 6, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Maybe you should re-read it. Cosmic Kids post criticized people who just didn’t like being around Gay People. They made them feel ‘icky’. Not watching them get it on... just being around them. You then followed that with your bean eating analogy which appears to be justifying that behaviour.




And how would these people who are uncomfortable around gay people know they are gay without it involving a PDA? I understand you can know about colleagues and family and the like, but just being in a public place you'd have no idea. So I assumed these Cosmic Kid's hypothetical people would be reacting to PDAs.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 6, 2018)

devincutler said:


> And how would these people who are uncomfortable around gay people know they are gay without it involving a PDA? I understand you can know about colleagues and family and the like, but just being in a public place you'd have no idea. So I assumed these Cosmic Kid's hypothetical people would be reacting to PDAs.




I’ve never made a public display of affection in my life, and yet shock, somehow people know I’m gay... perhaps it is through the miracle of conversation.
Strangers and public places were never discussed in that post. Just two guys who found being around gay people ‘icky’.
I can count on one hand the number of gay PDAs I’ve seen in my life. I couldn’t even begin to count the number of heterosexual PDAs on a monthly basis


----------



## Eltab (Jun 6, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> There is no "We just don't include that stuff" unless your entire world is made up of a genderless race that has no romantic relationships and reproduces by budding.



You are missing another option: the campaign is centered on "beat up the Bad Guys and steal their stuff".  There isn't any 'character building' or RP going on; no time is spent on sex or gender or romantic relationships.  
Bring on the next Dragon in its Dungeon!


----------



## ccs (Jun 6, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> Okay... let me throw in one little thought:
> 
> The ability to switch between male and female elf form doesn't make these elves transexual or transgender. I'd rather call it an extreme form of genderfluidity.
> 
> Being trans means a person whose gender doesn't match with the sex they were born with. But these people are actually both, mentally and physically, depending on their choice. They are not mismatched by nature, they are omni-matched.




And.... their still not a thing in my game.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I guess New Zealand is a bit more liberal than the mid west. My group was 50% female in 1996 and I had a gay player 1999/2000. I kind of look at both sides though. Is it reasonable for gays to get married? Sure why not. Is it reasonable for them to get married in say a Catholic Church maybe not as you are forcing your beliefs onto them (example only I am not Catholic or a fan of organized religions in general). There is an element of physics (every action has an opposite reaction)here the harder you push there will be a counter push, if things happen a bit more organically it creates less problems IMHO. Its entirely possible to score an own goal. It just dpeends on if those things blow up into violence or not (read a history book).
> 
> Generally you should not force your beliefs onto someone else (except things like no murder, child abuse etc). There are some things I don't want to see or expect to act out but I try to challenge myself sometimes, I liked season one of Sense8 for example season 2 not as much.
> 
> Maybe I'm odd, agnostic IRL but like clerics in D&D.




I think my point was that for all of this _talk_ about what people are going to include or not include in D&D, as a player and as a DM, I still prefer the tried and true: *Because I said so.*

Noone is injecting a culture war into D&D by including, or really not including anything else when their argument is "This is the way it is."  That was my point in using the "Don't start none..." line.  

If someone includes the Blessing simply because they think it should exist in their game, regardless of if it is _every_ elf, a few elves, half the elves, or whatever there is nothing political about its inclusion.  The DM has simply decided that sex-switching elves are something that exist in their world.  No more than if they decided that they don't or that anything else does or doesn't exist.  This falls into the "Don't start none."

Conversely, if elements are being included, or excluded on the basis of IRL cultural issues, then that is by definition "Starting something".  The DM is injecting their politics into the game not by the nature of the elements they are including or excluding, but by the nature of _why_ they are including or excluding those elements.

It's one of the reasons I took such a strong objection to [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] here.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 6, 2018)

Hannerdyn said:


> However, I would rule that it is a longer transition (maybe a few months) to make it more dramatic.



I can see an Elven con man who uses the _Blessing_ as a last-ditch 'gotta escape from an alerted angry mark' plan.  The next time around an Elven con woman picks a mark...


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 6, 2018)

Eltab said:


> I can see an Elven con man who uses the _Blessing_ as a last-ditch 'gotta escape from an alerted angry mark' plan.  The next time around an Elven con woman picks a mark...




Though I think the Blessing only allows you to switch sex, it doesn't allow you to appear as someone new each time.  So your "alter ego" appearance would still have to be used sparingly for people not to catch on.  You'd presumably still retain your general appearance, just somewhat more feminine/masculine/androgynous.  

Or I suppose wear a pair of glasses and then even the most talented investigative minds couldn't tell.  /sarcasm

Though this makes me think that it would be interesting for a more sexually dimorphic elf to experience a more dramatic physical change than an already androgynous one.  I think that'd be interesting to handle as a player, but I have little interest in telling any other player what their character looks like when it's not something directly meted out by the DM (such as curses, magic potions, or wounds).


----------



## Eltab (Jun 6, 2018)

Double post.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Though I think the Blessing only allows you to switch sex, it doesn't allow you to appear as someone new each time.  So your "alter ego" appearance would still have to be used sparingly for people not to catch on.  You'd presumably still retain your general appearance, just somewhat more feminine/masculine/androgynous.



True, and I did say it could be a _last-ditch_ plan.
A good con-being making an escape would have a Disguise Kit, can we presume?  And a change of clothes.  Makeup (as appropriate), hair coloring (something natural), visibly different chest and hips … and the anatomy to back it up, should a full search be tried.
 "Why, no, Mr. CityGuard, I _don't_ know anything about His Lordship's tapestry, missing or found."


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Though I think the Blessing only allows you to switch sex, it doesn't allow you to appear as someone new each time.  So your "alter ego" appearance would still have to be used sparingly for people not to catch on.  You'd presumably still retain your general appearance, just somewhat more feminine/masculine/androgynous.
> 
> Or I suppose wear a pair of glasses and then even the most talented investigative minds couldn't tell.  /sarcasm
> 
> Though this makes me think that it would be interesting for a more sexually dimorphic elf to experience a more dramatic physical change than an already androgynous one.  I think that'd be interesting to handle as a player, but I have little interest in telling any other player what their character looks like when it's not something directly meted out by the DM (such as curses, magic potions, or wounds).




I imagine the Blessing means, one day you look like Leonardo Di Vinci, and the next day you look like Mona Lisa.

Most people would assume these are two different people.

(Apparently, the Mona Lisa is a scientific experimented, where Leonardo wanted to know what he would look like if he was born female rather than male.)


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 6, 2018)

I have a college friend who is transsexual (female to male). In college, I had no idea she was transsexual. Later, in a different city, I coincidentally ran into him at a pub. I saw this guy ordering a mug of ale at the bar. He had a beard. There was something familiar about him. Familiar enough, I actually walked up to him, and said, ‘Dont take this the wrong way, but you remind me of a male version of a female friend of mine.’ It turns out, he was her! He took of his eyeglasses, and the eyes were the same.

Even making the connection, I didnt fully make the connection, he was she.

They were presumably two separate people.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 6, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> I imagine the Blessing means, one day you look like Leonardo Di Vinci, and the next day you look like Mona Lisa.
> 
> Most people would assume these are two different people.
> 
> (Apparently, the Mona Lisa is a scientific experimented, where Leonardo wanted to know what he would look like if he was born female rather than male.)




Ah the Mona Lisa, the most ridiculously speculated-about piece of art ever.

Alternatively, I think the simplest solution would be for the player to "pick their appearance" the first time they use the Blessing (in game) for each of the respective sexual options (male, female, neither, both).  Which would add an element of "you're flexible, but not a changeling".  Although some racial feat options to open it up down the road might be interesting.  

Still wish 5E had a full-on shape-changing class.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Ah the Mona Lisa, the most ridiculously speculated-about piece of art ever.
> 
> Alternatively, I think the simplest solution would be for the player to "pick their appearance" the first time they use the Blessing (in game) for each of the respective sexual options (male, female, neither, both).  Which would add an element of "you're flexible, but not a changeling".  Although some racial feat options to open it up down the road might be interesting.
> 
> Still wish 5E had a full-on shape-changing class.




I agree, the Blessing entails, specific alternate forms. One version of self as male, and one version of self as female, ... and one version of self as both.

These two or so forms can be very different from each other but each is a fixed form.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

TheSword said:


> It seems like you’re being pretty selective about what ‘real world’ issues you bring into the game and which disturb your restful escape. I mean what about gay characters? Do they disturb your rest? Shall we brush out the gay characters from 5e products like Curse of Strahd? What about black characters, if it disturbs you we can whitewash them out? At the end of the day women only got the vote in the last century, we can go full tolkein and take women out of games as well.




You are confusing bringing in real world issues, and people simply being dark or gay in the game.  They are different things.  If a race has dark skin in D&D, that race does not correspond to any real world race and real world issues of racism should not be brought into the game.  The same with someone who just decides to play a gay PC or NPC.  That decision has nothing to do with being pro or anti gay.  It's just a decision on something to play.

If someone wanted to play a transgender PC in my game, I'd work with them to make it happen.  There are girdles of masculinity/femininity, curses, magical accidents, capricious fey, divine blessings(though I'd probably go with Sune), and much more.  That allows transgender without the blatant real world issues regarding transgender coming into the game like they are with what WotC is doing. And it's not limited to elf.  What's more, what WotC is doing doesn't actually fix anything.  Those that would disallow transgender in their game won't play with these rules, and those that would allow it don't need the rules as they would do what I would do and figure out a way.  



> So no, I absolutely reject your argument that it has an impact.



Reject it all you like.  You can't be correct in your rejection.  The impact is based on perception, which is subjective. Just because it doesn't impact YOU, doesn't mean that it doesn't have an impact on those of us who want real world issues to stay out of the game.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I think my point was that for all of this _talk_ about what people are going to include or not include in D&D, as a player and as a DM, I still prefer the tried and true: *Because I said so.*
> 
> Noone is injecting a culture war into D&D by including, or really not including anything else when their argument is "This is the way it is."  That was my point in using the "Don't start none..." line.
> 
> ...




I think pming had it right. I'm also bowing out of this thread. No matter what I say, you -and others- are already convinced I'm some kind of genocidal biggoted monster of sorts. If I offended someone, I'm sorry. If you -undetermined you- got the wrong impression of me, I'm sorry too. I was just trying to explain why I'm not in love with the Blessing of Corellon and why I don't plan to use it. It seems I'm not as good with English as I thought. (Or that I underestimated the cultural barriers).

Happy gaming all.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 6, 2018)

Eltab said:


> You are missing another option: the campaign is centered on "beat up the Bad Guys and steal their stuff".  There isn't any 'character building' or RP going on; no time is spent on sex or gender or romantic relationships.




I didn't miss that at all.

I rather doubt that, even in the most combat/tactical-focused, RP-less campaigns, there is zero sign of romantic relationships. You never have married NPCs? Never a king and queen of the realm? Never a family living in a farmhouse whose fields are being destroyed by ankhegs?

And even if you somehow don't have any of that, you have _gender_.

People overlook what they consider baseline, but it's still present.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 6, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I'm also bowing out of this thread. No matter what I say, you -and others- are already convinced I'm some kind of genocidal biggoted monster of sorts.




Even if you choose not to respond, I just want to be clear.

I don't think anybody was calling you a bigot or a monster. I know I wasn't. We were saying that we think you're making a mistake and possibly sending a message you didn't mean to send.

If I thought you were a bigot or a monster, I wouldn't have bothered conversing with you. It's precisely because I _don't_ think so that I said what I said.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> You are confusing bringing in real world issues, and people simply being dark or gay in the game.  They are different things.  If a race has dark skin in D&D, that race does not correspond to any real world race and real world issues of racism should not be brought into the game.  The same with someone who just decides to play a gay PC or NPC.  That decision has nothing to do with being pro or anti gay.  It's just a decision on something to play.
> 
> If someone wanted to play a transgender PC in my game, I'd work with them to make it happen.  There are girdles of masculinity/femininity, curses, magical accidents, capricious fey, divine blessings(though I'd probably go with Sune), and much more.  That allows transgender without the blatant real world issues regarding transgender coming into the game like they are with what WotC is doing. And it's not limited to elf.  What's more, what WotC is doing doesn't actually fix anything.  Those that would disallow transgender in their game won't play with these rules, and those that would allow it don't need the rules as they would do what I would do and figure out a way.
> 
> ...




I’m sorry but you’ve created the artificial term ‘real world issues’ to actually put a polite label on an ugly sentiment. What precise ‘issue’ as you describe it does the Blessed of Corellon bring into the game? How is allowing Sune (a forgotten Realms god) making characters trans any different to what WOC has done in MToF?

Let’s be very clear. You are the one that claims simply existing in game cause ‘real world issues’. I have confused nothing. At no point have I said that a gay character requires bringing issues like homophobia into the game. WOC has expressly stated they aren’t interested in politicizing gay characters... their NPCs sexuality is incidental.

What are these issues? How are they being forced on anyone?

DMs don’t need to figure out a way (using curses... I can’t actually believe you described being trans as a curse In the context of this discussion) because WOC have provided one in d&d lore.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I think pming had it right. I'm also bowing out of this thread. No matter what I say, you -and others- are already convinced I'm some kind of genocidal biggoted monster of sorts. If I offended someone, I'm sorry. If you -undetermined you- got the wrong impression of me, I'm sorry too. I was just trying to explain why I'm not in love with the Blessing of Corellon and why I don't plan to use it. It seems I'm not as good with English as I thought. (Or that I underestimated the cultural barriers).
> 
> Happy gaming all.




Bowing out is probably the smart thing to do.  You shouldn't apologize for someone else's biases being incorrectly applied to you, though.  That's on them, not you.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> I don't think anybody was calling you a bigot or a monster. I know I wasn't. We were saying that we think you're making a mistake and possibly sending a message you didn't mean to send.




She wasn't though.  You are biased in the other direction and are letting your biases cause you to see things that aren't there in what we are saying.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

TheSword said:


> I’m sorry but you’ve created the artificial term ‘real world issues’ to actually put a polite label on an ugly sentiment. What precise ‘issue’ as you describe it does the Blessed of Corellon bring into the game? How is allowing Sune (a forgotten Realms god) making characters trans any different to what WOC has done in MToF?




There is a push in the entertainment world to push PC ideas by introducing them through their entertainment.  We saw it in Black Panther.  We saw it in Infinity War when Thanos started preaching about using up resources.  Hollywood is the biggest partaker in this sort of thing, but authors do it, and games have started doing it.  It's pretty clear that WotC is introducing this because of transgender in the real world.

Oh, and what exactly is this "ugly sentiment" you are incorrectly attributing to me?



> DMs don’t need to figure out a way (using curses... I can’t actually believe you described being trans as a curse In the context of this discussion) because WOC have provided one in d&d lore.





It's simply one of the various methods to achieve transgender.  Keep your biases away from me.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 6, 2018)

MoonSong said:


> I think pming had it right. I'm also bowing out of this thread. No matter what I say, you -and others- are already convinced I'm some kind of genocidal biggoted monster of sorts. If I offended someone, I'm sorry. If you -undetermined you- got the wrong impression of me, I'm sorry too. I was just trying to explain why I'm not in love with the Blessing of Corellon and why I don't plan to use it. It seems I'm not as good with English as I thought. (Or that I underestimated the cultural barriers).
> 
> Happy gaming all.




Yes, I get that you said you're not going to reply, but the pity party?  Seriously?

You're better than that.  I know this because I've conversed with you before.  I'm not saying "you can do better" I'm saying you _are_ better.

If I thought you were an idiot or a bigot, I'd have put you on ignore and that would have been the end of it.

I'm not asking you to like the Blessing, I didn't at first, now I'm just neutral on it.  I was hoping to challenge your argument by presenting you with evidence that the things you wish to prevent are already included in D&D in multiple ways.  Choosing not to include the Blessing is entirely your call.  But I feel you, and your tables, and all of us, would all be better if you relied on a stronger argument.  "I don't want to give ammo to bad people..." is flawed because the ammo already exists in larger quantities and worse qualities in other aspects of the game.  Saying the Blessing just doesn't fit with your homebrew world is a fine argument.  Saying the Blessing doesn't mesh with how you like to visualize elven society is fine as well.  Even going as far as saying that you disagree that Correllion would actually have such a blessing in the first place is also fine.

I regard you as a smart person, that's why I was so surprised to see such a poor argument come from you.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There is a push in the entertainment world to push PC ideas by introducing them through their entertainment.  We saw it in Black Panther.  We saw it in Infinity War when Thanos started preaching about using up resources.  Hollywood is the biggest partaker in this sort of thing, but authors do it, and games have started doing it.  It's pretty clear that WotC is introducing this because of transgender in the real world.
> 
> Oh, and what exactly is this "ugly sentiment" you are incorrectly attributing to me?
> 
> ...




Blank Panther! ‘Politically Correct’ ideas? What, that black people are equal and have a place in the Marvel universe? How is that politically correct, rather than just darned correct. How can that possibly be a controversial issue in 2018? What is shaming is that it took 20 years for a studio to do it!

Yes WOC have introduced a trans/fluid option in their game (played by millions of people) and gay NPCs in the game they write because trans and gay people exist in the real world. You still still haven’t explained what specific tricky problem that is bringing into the game?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Blank Panther! ‘Politically Correct’ ideas? What, that black people are equal and have a place in the Marvel universe?




No.  That part was fine.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> No.  That part was fine.




Phew, you had me worried for a moment then, with your talk of political correctness. If your responses were less veiled and cryptic I wouldn’t be questioning whether there was an ugly sentiment behind your words. As you are insinuating that part of the film is not fine.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There is a push in the entertainment world to push PC ideas by introducing them through their entertainment.  We saw it in Black Panther.  We saw it in Infinity War when Thanos started preaching about using up resources.  Hollywood is the biggest partaker in this sort of thing, but authors do it, and games have started doing it.  It's pretty clear that WotC is introducing this because of transgender in the real world.
> 
> Oh, and what exactly is this "ugly sentiment" you are incorrectly attributing to me?
> 
> ...




 I'm fine with them pushing transgender things in the game I just don't like how they have done it via a retcon. Why not just make a new races of shapeshifters or something nd introduce them in an adventure.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> She wasn't though.  You are biased in the other direction and are letting your biases cause you to see things that aren't there in what we are saying.




Oh, are we at the "No, you!" part of the argument already?

Okay. No, you!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> There is a push in the entertainment world to push PC ideas by introducing them through their entertainment.





Please don't write off a drive to inclusiveness as "Political correctness" on EN World.  If you'd like, please peruse The Rules, which includes the following:

_"*Keep it inclusive:* EN World is an inclusive community, and we encourage and welcome all people here. To that end, we strive to make it a welcoming place where nobody feels alienated because of who they are. You MAY NOT use the terms "agenda", "ideology", "politics", or "propaganda" in relation to the inclusion of people slightly different to you in gaming products or other media..."_

As far as this place is concerned, including your fellow human beings in media like they were people with equal abilities and stake in the world, and at least trying to be less racist or sexist is not "political" correctness.  It is *actual* correctness.  It is a thing we do not because it is bad public relations not to, but because it is the right thing to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I'm fine with them pushing transgender things in the game I just don't like how they have done it via a retcon. Why not just make a new races of shapeshifters or something nd introduce them in an adventure.




It’s not so much a retcon as the making explicit of something impliedly possible since AD&D, where Corellan is described in gender fluid terms.  It isn’t outside the realm of possibility or probability that some small subset of elves might as closely resemble their deity in this regard as they do in others.

Even in the 3.5 Wiki, they note that while he has “fixated” on a male elven form, he has not lost the ability to become female at will.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It’s not so much a retcon as the making explicit of something impliedly possible since AD&D, where Corellan is described in gender fluid terms.  It isn’t outside the realm of possibility or probability that some small subset of elves might as closely resemble their deity in this regard as they do in others.
> 
> Even in the 3.5 Wiki, they note that while he has “fixated” on a male elven form, he has not lost the ability to become female at will.




God's can do thing like that. Mortals not so much (shape hangers being an exception). 

Did not like the 3E art either.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> God's can do thing like that. Mortals not so much (shape hangers being an exception).
> 
> Did not like the 3E art either.




While it's true that all gods _can_ it has been historically show that few gods *do*.  

Anyway, I'm not really sure what the objection is.  Elves have almost universally been historically portrayed as physically effeminate to the point that in some depictions it is difficult to tell a male elf from a female elf.  If the typical distinction between the sexes both culturally and physically is small to non-existent, then an elf having the magical ability to switch back and forth is a fairly minor element.

There's even some humor in calling it a "Blessing".  Without physical differentiation or cultural distinction, the only real difference between "male" and "female" becomes which one has an innie and which one has an outie for reproductive purposes.  Being able to change your sex doesn't hold much value in a species that has little physical dimorphism and a culture that doesn't attach social standing to if you've got an input our an output.  Socially speaking, such elves may even eschew gendered terms, especially if it can be initially unclear which one to apply.  They might simply call each other "comrade" or "friend" or "elf".  

Sure, the Blessing can have _specific_ value to an individual, but that's something the player and the DM can work out, it's not really rules territory.

And that's all to say: I don't think the Blessing _adds_ much to such a depiction of elves.  But on the same token, it doesn't take anything _away_ either.  It really just serves to show the elves are a little more "alien" and a little more "magical" than everyone else.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 6, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It isn’t outside the realm of possibility or probability that some small subset of elves might as closely resemble their deity in this regard as they do in others.



I believe the PHB suggests the possibility in almost exactly those terms.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Elves have almost *universally* been *historically* portrayed as physically effeminate to the point that in some depictions it is difficult to tell a male elf from a female elf.




Wait. In Norse texts, the alfar are masculine.

The medieval England reinvented the elves as feminine, under the influence of pan-European literature about Greek nymphs and French faie.

Even in Scotland folkbelief the elves remain humansize and masculine.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 6, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Wait. In Norse texts, the alfar are masculine.
> 
> The medieval British reinvented the elves as feminine, under the influence of pan-European literature about Greek nymphs.




I meant, "within the context of D&D".  

Depictions of elves in _real mythology_ (heh, that's a funny phrase) are far more diverse than D&D presents it.


----------



## i_dont_meta (Jun 6, 2018)

Sorry I haven't read all 200+ posts, so I can't be sure my sentiments haven't already been echoed, but isn't one of the reasons why Elves adventure and such is due to their desire to increase the "value" (so to speak) of their Trance?? By going  out and seeing the world they stregthen their souls for the next incarnations. So as an extrapolation, couldn't we say that by changing your sex overnight you're also just increasing the depth and breadth of your Trance?...I'm completely behind this Elven model: it's not Tolkien OR Norse!


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I'll see your "being able to change sex doesn't make them transgender" and raise you "nor does it stop them from being transgender."



Sure, but the ability is less likely to come up in play if they're trans, though, isn't it? They're likely to settle on the form they're comfortable with and stick with it, just like the cis elves with the blessing.



Charlaquin said:


> The idea that being transgender means your gender "doesn't match" the sex you were "born with" is a very cisnormative way of framing it. Sex and gender are different spectra (just as sexuality is different from either), so no gender inherently "matches" or "doesn't match" any given set of sex characteristics. The associations between them are culturally constructed, so a better way of framing it would be to say that being transgender is about identifying with a gender that is different from the one you were assigned at birth.



Heh. Ask a sociologist what gender is, and they'll say it's cultural. Ask a neurologist what gender is, and they'll say it's neurological. Ask a psychologist what gender is, and they'll say it's psychological. Ask an endocrinologist what gender is, and they'll say it's hormonal. Ask a linguist... okay, they'll think you're talking about something else entirely. My point is, this kind of reductive analysis has never seemed satisfying. The human brain is a big giant crazy ball of interconnectedness. _Nothing_ is independent.



Charlaquin said:


> In real life human culture, we are typically assigned genders based on sex characteristics, but in a culture where some members are born with the ability to change sex characteristics simply by meditating for a few hours, perhaps there would be different criteria. They may have more and/or different culturally-defined genders than humans have, or they may not have a concept of gender at all. And in any of those cases, an elf with or without Corellon's blessing may or may not identify with the gender they were assigned by their parents or the lack thereof.



This raises all sorts of questions about what gender actually _is_. I cracked about the linguist earlier, but grammatical gender (and grammar is where the term "gender" originally comes from) really does take forms that have nothing to do with masculinity/femininity. A language might, for example, divide its nouns between living things, artifacts, and natural objects. But if a human(oid) society did something similar with its members -- say, rich vs poor, or rural vs urban -- it would be a stretch to me to call that a "gender system". The first term to spring to mind would be "class system" or "caste system". Are those really the same thing as gender? Interesting to think about.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 6, 2018)

I think a lot of these difficult questions could be prevented if you just eliminate elves from your game entirely.


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I'll see your "being able to change sex doesn't make them transgender" and raise you "nor does it stop them from being transgender."
> 
> The idea that being transgender means your gender "doesn't match" the sex you were "born with" is a very cisnormative way of framing it. Sex and gender are different spectra (just as sexuality is different from either), so no gender inherently "matches" or "doesn't match" any given set of sex characteristics. The associations between them are culturally constructed, so a better way of framing it would be to say that being transgender is about identifying with a gender that is different from the one you were assigned at birth.
> 
> In real life human culture, we are typically assigned genders based on sex characteristics, but in a culture where some members are born with the ability to change sex characteristics simply by meditating for a few hours, perhaps there would be different criteria. They may have more and/or different culturally-defined genders than humans have, or they may not have a concept of gender at all. And in any of those cases, an elf with or without Corellon's blessing may or may not identify with the gender they were assigned by their parents or the lack thereof.




I know that. But I wanted to avoid a big wall of text and tried to focus on the fact that transsexual isn't the right word and using transgender for all of them isn't right as well. 

Good point about the possibility of being trans even if they are blessed by Corellon, especially if their parents are not. I'd thought it was a herediary thing, but that isn't the case.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 6, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Sure, but the ability is less likely to come up in play if they're trans, though, isn't it? They're likely to settle on the form they're comfortable with and stick with it, just like the cis elves with the blessing.



Assuming they’re binary, sure, but there’s a lot more to the gender spectrum than cis man, cis woman, trans man, and trans woman. A genderfluid person is still trans. A bigender person is trans, even when they are in a gender state that coincides with their assigned gender.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Heh. Ask a sociologist what gender is, and they'll say it's cultural. Ask a neurologist what gender is, and they'll say it's neurological. Ask a psychologist what gender is, and they'll say it's psychological. Ask an endocrinologist what gender is, and they'll say it's hormonal. Ask a linguist... okay, they'll think you're talking about something else entirely. My point is, this kind of reductive analysis has never seemed satisfying. The human brain is a big giant crazy ball of interconnectedness. _Nothing_ is independent.



But ask a trans person what gender is and they’ll say it’s a part of their identity. There  is no doubt that neurology, psychology, hormones, culture, and a whole lot of other factors go into forming a person’s identity. But ultimately, when a person’s identity as it relates to gender does not match the one they were assigned at birth, that person is transgender.



TheCosmicKid said:


> This raises all sorts of questions about what gender actually _is_. I cracked about the linguist earlier, but grammatical gender (and grammar is where the term "gender" originally comes from) really does take forms that have nothing to do with masculinity/femininity. A language might, for example, divide its nouns between living things, artifacts, and natural objects. But if a human(oid) society did something similar with its members -- say, rich vs poor, or rural vs urban -- it would be a stretch to me to call that a "gender system". The first term to spring to mind would be "class system" or "caste system". Are those really the same thing as gender? Interesting to think about.



It is definitely interesting to think about. To draw a parallel to another fictional universe for a moment, one of the things I loved in Destiny’s lore (I know, I know...) was the way the Krill (a species that eventually became the enemies known as the Hive) treated gender. Their species had a 10-year life cycle, and were capable of multiple different metamorphoses after 5 years, with the specific metamorphosis depending on certain external factors like if they ate Mother Jelly (and Mothers could actually live longer than 10 years). All Krill larvae are referred to with “she/her” pronouns, as were Mothers, but Knights and Kings were referred to by “he/him.” The Lore went into the backstory of one of the series major villains, who started out as a Krill larva , and is referred to as “she” in the Lore until the point in her backstory where she takes on the King morph, from which point on he is referred to as “he.” Now, I would absolutely consider that a gender system, and it does contain an element of social class (though admittedly not economic class, and it also contains a bilological element.) I would say that _if_ Aurash (this character’s original name) had identified as the Krill’s equivalent of male, or Auryx (the villain’s adult name, chosen after taking on the King morph) had identified as their equivalent of female, I would consider them trans. Interestingly, later on Auryx acquires a McGuffin that gives him crazy space magic and he changes his name to Oryx, marking it as a transformation metaphorically equivalent to his earlier physical metamorphosis from larva to King. If he had at that point started using she/her pronouns, I would have considered him trans as well. Shame Bungie didn’t take advantage of the opportunity. Anyway, my point is, I would consider trans-ness a matter of having an identity that lies outside of what one’s society dictates their gender “should be,” by whatever definition that society has for gender.

At any rate, fascinating stuff. Thank you for an engaging and respectful discussion!


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 6, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> I know that. But I wanted to avoid a big wall of text and tried to focus on the fact that transsexual isn't the right word and using transgender for all of them isn't right as well.
> 
> Good point about the possibility of being trans even if they are blessed by Corellon, especially if their parents are not. I'd thought it was a herediary thing, but that isn't the case.



For sure. I meant more to add on to your post rather than to try to refute or one-up it. Maybe my use of poker terms was poorly thought out, sorry if I came off as combative.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> God's can do thing like that. Mortals not so much (shape hangers being an exception).
> 
> Did not like the 3E art either.




Except in this case, as I understand it, the gendershifting is literally a blessing from the god, not an innate ability.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Except in this case, as I understand it, the gendershifting is literally a blessing from the god, not an innate ability.




 Still don't like it and I don't really like the reincarnation fluff either. Corellion is a war god and I kinda like this a bit more.

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

vs this
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Corellon

 The 2nd one when I 1st saw it all those years ago did not even recognise it as CL, DD Elf god smacking down an Orc god in the Eye. its Corellon. 

 Its a style thing I prefer a classical marble statue and Leonardo/Michaelangelo over say Picasso.

 The last WotC fluff I used was the Fiendish Codex I and II from 3.5 and the flow on stuff from i in Savage Tide AP the Queen of Succubus whose name eludes me atm.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Its a style thing I prefer a classical marble statue and Leonardo/Michaelangelo over say Picasso.




It’s funny you should mention that, because historically, those white marble statues would actually have been covered in brightly colored paint.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Assuming they’re binary, sure, but there’s a lot more to the gender spectrum than cis man, cis woman, trans man, and trans woman. A genderfluid person is still trans. A bigender person is trans, even when they are in a gender state that coincides with their assigned gender.



I haven't seen "transgender" used to refer to nonbinary people before. Not saying you're wrong, of course, just explaining my own usage.



Charlaquin said:


> It is definitely interesting to think about. To draw a parallel to another fictional universe for a moment, one of the things I loved in Destiny’s lore (I know, I know...) was the way the Krill (a species that eventually became the enemies known as the Hive) treated gender. Their species had a 10-year life cycle, and were capable of multiple different metamorphoses after 5 years, with the specific metamorphosis depending on certain external factors like if they ate Mother Jelly (and Mothers could actually live longer than 10 years). All Krill larvae are referred to with “she/her” pronouns, as were Mothers, but Knights and Kings were referred to by “he/him.” The Lore went into the backstory of one of the series major villains, who started out as a Krill larva , and is referred to as “she” in the Lore until the point in her backstory where she takes on the King morph, from which point on he is referred to as “he.” Now, I would absolutely consider that a gender system, and it does contain an element of social class (though admittedly not economic class, and it also contains a bilological element.) I would say that _if_ Aurash (this character’s original name) had identified as the Krill’s equivalent of male, or Auryx (the villain’s adult name, chosen after taking on the King morph) had identified as their equivalent of female, I would consider them trans. Interestingly, later on Auryx acquires a McGuffin that gives him crazy space magic and he changes his name to Oryx, marking it as a transformation metaphorically equivalent to his earlier physical metamorphosis from larva to King. If he had at that point started using she/her pronouns, I would have considered him trans as well. Shame Bungie didn’t take advantage of the opportunity.



But the Krill presumably aren't speaking English. The pronoun usage is being projected onto them by Anglophone humans, both in-universe and by us in audience. How can we tell, without reference to perhaps-misleadingly-familiar words, in what terms the Krill themselves conceptualize what's going on?



Charlaquin said:


> Anyway, my point is, I would consider trans-ness a matter of having an identity that lies outside of what one’s society dictates their gender “should be,” by whatever definition that society has for gender.



This definition seems to have the curious consequence that in cultures with robust norms creating a place for trans people, trans-ness ceases to exist. If elven society says to those with the Blessing, "We're not going to tell you that you 'should be' a man or a woman, because under the circumstances that would be really dumb", are they still trans? Are they perhaps trans-to-us, because we're still viewing them through the lens of our own culture, while not being trans-to-them?



Charlaquin said:


> At any rate, fascinating stuff. Thank you for an engaging and respectful discussion!


----------



## Sadras (Jun 6, 2018)

So technically elves with this blessing can, with a properly controlled environment for the preservation of sperm, impregnate themselves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Still don't like it and I don't really like the reincarnation fluff either. Corellion is a war god...




That’s a pretty narrow reading of Corellon.  Besides warfare, he’s also Creator of the Elves, and the elven god of magic, music, arts, crafts, and poetry.

Besides, if you think female war gods can’t kick butt, Athena would like to discuss this with you over there in that narrow, poorly lit alley over there...


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> It’s funny you should mention that, because historically, those white marble statues would actually have been covered in brightly colored paint.




I don't mind bright colours I prefer the statues without though. I also like the Egyptian art, Greek pottery and the Persian carvings.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That’s a pretty narrow reading of Corellon.  Besides warfare, he’s also Creator of the Elves, and the elven god of magic, music, arts, crafts, and poetry.
> 
> Besides, if you think female war gods can’t kick butt, Athena would like to discuss this with you over there in that narrow, poorly lit alley over there...



I'm perfectly fine with female war gods. Hell I invented one for a player in 2E as she wanted an amazon/Xena type PC.

 Kitiara over Laura as well. I also use Vanya as my war deity she in an immortal from Mystara similar to Red Knight from FR.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 6, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demihuman_Deities
> 
> vs this
> http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Corellon



I'll give you this: the 3E Corellon art may have been going for "androgynous" but it ended up at "terminally ill". But maybe it's just bad art? There was a lot of that going around in those days. (Also some pretty good art, though. Glen Angus' work in that book was awesome.)


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 6, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'll give you this: the 3E Corellon art may have been going for "androgynous" but it ended up at "terminally ill". But maybe it's just bad art? There was a lot of that going around in those days.




 Yeah it's mostly just bad. It's like D&D art went on holiday from 2000 to 2014.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 6, 2018)

I'd like to make a humble attempt to bridge worlds a bit here, as I see valid views on both "sides" of this debate, and also some rather nasty and unnecessary flinging that might obfuscate underlying agreement and unity. So a few things...

If Blessing of Gender makes a transgender person happy and feel acknowledged, awesome. I don't see BoG as inherenty a "trans thing," but it certainly seems to have "trans appeal." Furthermore, if I was DMing a player--transgender or not--who wanted to play a transgender character, I'd have no problem with it, unless it in some way was thematically opposed to the campaign (although it is hard for me to imagine a scenario where that would be the case).

That said, I do have an issue with the idea of _any_ type of D&D canon being forced upon my own gaming table. Thankfully that isn't happening and _couldn't_ happen. But what _is_ happening a bit in this thread is some assuming that those who don't want this rule at their table are doing so out of some kind of bigotry or transphobia. There are reasons that a particular DM might not want to allow it that have _nothing_ to do with trans-phobia. It might be entirely thematic, aesthetic, and/or pragmatic. By way of example, I generally don't allow dragonborn or warforged or shardminds, et al, but it isn't because I am "dragonbornphobic" or an "anti-shardmindist"...I just don't like those races on an aesthetic level, and they generally haven't fit in with the flavor and themes of my campaign settings.

On the other hand, I do think there's a subtle distinction being made by some that is worth repeating: there's a problem with linking gender identity with "real world issues" or "culture wars" that we use D&D as an escape from. Do not trans people also have the same right to escape from real world issues into fantasy, while bringing their own identity with them?  I generally prefer to play hetero male characters, so have no issue with someone wanting to play a character that aligns with their own sexual preference and/or gender identification. 

I do understand wanting to keep the game table clear of culture wars, but I also imagine that there are many trans folk who also want to escape from controversies around their gender identity, which to them is just the naturalness of who they are. We just need to broaden our umbrella of what "us" means, so that "we" can all play together in the fields of imagination.

Are we not united in that desire for "healthy escapism," in the Tolkienian sense of the phrase? (see his "On Fairy Stories"). Don't we all love to play make-believe? And is it not equally valid for a trans person to be able to do so in a way that they feel comfortable with and enjoy?

So while I don't like some of the assumptions that are being flung towards those who don't want to incorporate this in their game for whatever reason, _at the very same time_ I don't like the idea of negating an avenue whereby someone of a marginalized group gets to play a character that aligns or appeals to their own identity, whatever that may be. Maybe we can throw the bathwater of both extremes out and retain the baby of our shared love of fantasy imagination and healthy escapism?


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 6, 2018)

We could also solve all of this by making this little bit of lore into canon: David Bowie and Tilda Swinton had a wild trist and made a baby, and its name was...wait for it...Corellon Larethian, who had mystical powers and left our universe into the D&Dverse, creating the elven species based upon his/her memory of mom and dad.

There: elven origin story.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 6, 2018)

It is interesting that the sex/gender changing is not an issue in a sci-fi game which embraces trans-humanism like Eclipse Phase where full or part body swapping is the norm. I guess because that is baked into the original premise of the game, whereas as in D&D this seems to be an add-on. 

The question arises what does this Blessing have to do with fighting the greater evil (insert evil monster)? My imagination can certainly create an adventure around this Blessing but other than that I'm not sure it is anything else but window dressing in my campaign, background material about a fantastical race/people that the PCs may visit or come to learn of where this Blessing accentuates their alien heritage - which is still quite cool.

My concern is, I don't think the powergamer at my table will roleplay this Blessing correctly (for me). If the idea behind the Blessing is used for espionage-like actions only, then I think they have failed the elven God of War.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 6, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I haven't seen "transgender" used to refer to nonbinary people before. Not saying you're wrong, of course, just explaining my own usage.



Yup. Cis and trans are simply Latin anotonyms, literally meaning “next to” and “across from” respectively, and since nonbinary people are not cisgender, they are transgender. Transgender is an umbrella term that includes all non-cis genders. For a little while it was in vogue to put an asterisk after trans to indicate one was using it as an umbrella term rather than as to mean a person is transgender and binary, but that didn’t last long. Generally speaking, trans is always an umbrella term, and some transgender folks are binary and others are not.



TheCosmicKid said:


> But the Krill presumably aren't speaking English. The pronoun usage is being projected onto them by Anglophone humans, both in-universe and by us in audience. How can we tell, without reference to perhaps-misleadingly-familiar words, in what terms the Krill themselves conceptualize what's going on?



Ehhh, aliens speak to each other in English when no humans are present to hear them in cutscenes in that game, so I don’t assume the writers put quite that much thought into the possibility of translation errors. But even if we assume that there is some degree of English having insufficient vocabulary to accurately communicate the nuances of the Krill caste system, I would still argue that the choice to “translate” their pronouns differently depending on the stage of life the subject is in is an indication that there is a concept at least roughly analogous to gender associated with caste and morphology at play in their society.



TheCosmicKid said:


> This definition seems to have the curious consequence that in cultures with robust norms creating a place for trans people, trans-ness ceases to exist. If elven society says to those with the Blessing, "We're not going to tell you that you 'should be' a man or a woman, because under the circumstances that would be really dumb", are they still trans? Are they perhaps trans-to-us, because we're still viewing them through the lens of our own culture, while not being trans-to-them?



This is one of the things I love about fantasy. It gives us the frame of reference to ask questions like “would trans-ness still exist in a culture where gender was traditionally chosen rather than assigned?” despite such cultures not existing in real life.

I would say that yes, if elves did not assign genders to their children, elves would not be trans within their own culture, but could be trans to people from cultures that did have more rigid gender norms. For example, let’s assume that in Eladrin culture, it is considered normal for personalities to shift dramatically with the seasons, and the blessing of Corellon is at least common knowledge if not common occurrence, and so they never developed a cultural concept of “men” and “women.” An Eladrin who finds themselves preferring what humans would consider male sex characteristics but exhibits personality traits humans would consider feminine probably wouldn’t develop a strong sense of identity connected to womanhood or manhood, because those just aren’t part of their world. However, if this character made a trip to the prime material plane and encountered humans, those humans might have preconceived notions about this Eladrin based on their physical appearance, manner of dress, and behavior. They might be surprised to learn that this Eladrin is “male,” because of their own cultural gender constructs and related biases. Upon learning how humans view gender and sex, this Eladrin might even incorporate this new perspective into their own sense of self. They might be inclined to refer to themselves as a “woman” around humans, because they find this (admittedly foreign) concept more closely aligned with their identity than that of a “man.” In a human-dominant society, they are for all intents and purposes trans, because their identity as it relates to that culture’s concept of gender does not match the gender that culture’s norms would ascribe to them based on the culture’s own criteria. It’s effectively like having a gender assigned at contact with another culture, instead of at birth.


----------



## GreenTengu (Jun 6, 2018)

I have been thinking about for a while a solution to the idea that elves can live for hundreds, if not thousands of years and yet they do not seem to accrue any more skills or abilities or knowledge or wisdom than someone who doesn't live even 1/10th that length of time.

Working with the fact that elves don't have to sleep in D&D either, something that should just give them all that much more time to actually learn and improve. And yet... they just don't.

And it can't be that they are just unbearably dense, thick or stupid-- after all, when a player is playing one they advance at the exact same speed as any other race-- and, moreover, as of 4th edition WotC retconned in the idea that elves grow up just as fast as humans.

Now, I suppose there is the possibility that they could just out and out forget how to do everything after a short amount of downtime, but I am not even sure that works.

With most other solutions off the table, the only one I could come up with to explain this property is that although the body may live on, perhaps the identity of the individual does not. Perhaps every several years elves go into some sort of "hibernation" and in that time, perhaps all facets of their identity and memory and experiences gets lost. Or, if not lost, perhaps it gets shared to some sort of nebulous communal memory that they can all access while asleep.

When that elf then wakes up, they can have a completely different personality, have no recollection of their past and may not even choose to carry the same name. For all purposes they become an entirely new "person" who can have experiences and develop basically from scratch.

Although I hadn't considered the idea that they bodies might greatly morph as well as their minds, I think the idea that they could even switch sexes could work along with this idea.


----------



## Cap'n Kobold (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> No, I mean Changelings. They can already change sex characteristics, so it seems weird to me that a lot of people are taking issue with it when it’s elves.



 Bear in mind that there are several different issues that people are taking with it. My major issue would be that it may be stepping on the toes of the Changeling's schtick. Hence why my first response to a player wanting to have the Blessing of Corellion would be to find out why, because there may be a better-fitting alternative to what they're after.



Hriston said:


> @_*Lychee of the Exch.*_, many now prefer the term _transgendered_, in case you didn't know.



 I believe that the choice of term was deliberate, specifically to distinguish elves that can switch biological sex overnight from transgendered as we would use the term. (Of a different gender than the one their phenotype has expressed.)



> Of course there are transgendered elves in the worlds my games are set in, just as there are transgendered dwarves, transgendered hobbits, and transgendered humans.
> 
> I have absolutely zero interest in imagining a world where transgendered people don't exist.



 Likewise. However I've yet to decide about the aforementioned biological sex-switching elves. 



Yaarel said:


> I imagine the Blessing means, one day you look like Leonardo Di Vinci, and the next day you look like Mona Lisa.
> 
> Most people would assume these are two different people.
> 
> (Apparently, the Mona Lisa is a scientific experimented, where Leonardo wanted to know what he would look like if he was born female rather than male.)



 D&D elves show less gender dimorphism than humans for example. I would generally run it as the elf would be recognisably similar in either form. At least 'family member' similarity, and depending upon the clothes, possibly as the same person.



TheHobgoblin said:


> I have been thinking about for a while a solution to the idea that elves can live for hundreds, if not thousands of years and yet they do not seem to accrue any more skills or abilities or knowledge or wisdom than someone who doesn't live even 1/10th that length of time.
> 
> Working with the fact that elves don't have to sleep in D&D either, something that should just give them all that much more time to actually learn and improve. And yet... they just don't.
> 
> And it can't be that they are just unbearably dense, thick or stupid-- after all, when a player is playing one they advance at the exact same speed as any other race-- and, moreover, as of 4th edition WotC retconned in the idea that elves grow up just as fast as humans.



 Keith Baker has an explanation, at least for the Eberron elves based on crystalline intelligence rather than flexible intelligence. Basically elves tend to get set in their ways at around the same time that humans do. It doesn't stop them learning, but they tend to stop innovating. Add to that the fact that elven culture is quite traditional and places a strong emphasis on keeping the ways of their ancestors alive.
A 500 year old elven craftsman has centuries of experience more than a human craftsman, and their mastery of their teacher's methods means that their work is practically identical. The human craftsman employs methods that they were taught, but also some that they came up with themselves. Their work is "good enough" on a practical level rather than the "almost perfect" product of the elf.

Likewise the verbal and somatic components of an elven wizard's fireball spell are exact duplicates of the originator's thousands of years before: the elf has spent decades getting them exact. The human wizard's components are probably recognisable as being from a specific source, but they will have experimented and djusted them based on what works best for them.



> Although I hadn't considered the idea that they bodies might greatly morph as well as their minds, I think the idea that they could even switch sexes could work along with this idea.



 That is an interesting extension of that concept, which seems to fit it very well.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Besides, if you think female war gods can’t kick butt, Athena would like to discuss this with you over there in that narrow, poorly lit alley over there...



That wouldn't be wise.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 6, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> I rather doubt that, even in the most combat/tactical-focused, RP-less campaigns, there is zero sign of romantic relationships.



I described an episodic dungeon crawl where all the NPCs are inhabitants of the dungeon du jour.  Everything else is hand-waved: "We go back to town to heal up and buy new equipment.  Where does the next adventure start?"  "Oh this new dungeon full of monsters."

My old _Tiamat_ group really liked pulling out the map and minis and making to-hit rolls; eyes glazed over when I described a scene or tried to drop NPC character hooks.  So I can see where the all-combat game is a possible style.  No romance needed.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> On the other hand, I do think there's a subtle distinction being made by some that is worth repeating: there's a problem with linking gender identity with "real world issues" or "culture wars" that we use D&D as an escape from. Do not trans people also have the same right to escape from real world issues into fantasy, while bringing their own identity with them?  I generally prefer to play hetero male characters, so have no issue with someone wanting to play a character that aligns with their own sexual preference and/or gender identification.




As I explained to [MENTION=6879661]TheSword[/MENTION], there's a difference between playing a transgender person in the world and the DM making that happen, and bringing in real world issues relating to gender.  I won't be having these elves in my game due to the real world issues and the escape from those issues that the game represents, but I will be allowing a transgender PC should a player ever want to make one.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 6, 2018)

TheHobgoblin said:


> I have been thinking about for a while a solution to the idea that elves can live for hundreds, if not thousands of years and yet they do not seem to accrue any more skills or abilities or knowledge or wisdom than someone who doesn't live even 1/10th that length of time.
> 
> Working with the fact that elves don't have to sleep in D&D either, something that should just give them all that much more time to actually learn and improve. And yet... they just don't.
> 
> ...




The best explanation I've heard is that they don't learn as quickly, because as a race they just aren't time pressured to do it.  A human will be practicing constantly to hone skills, whereas an elf might learn how to pick locks, and then go do other things or relax for 10 or 20 years before getting back to practicing it some more.  Elven PCs would be an exception to that since they are involved in a lot of practice in a very short period of time during adventures.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 6, 2018)

I hope the scriptwriters for the upcoming _Dr. Who_ season get a copy of this thread, so they can see some of the minefields they will have to navigate.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 6, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> While it's true that all gods _can_ it has been historically show that few gods *do*.




Could you elaborate on what you consider "historically shown"?  This is not a taunt, it is a question for understanding, because....

My experience has been that "gods" tend to show up in an astonishing amount of forms different from their own.  The same god appearing as a dwarf to dwarves and human to humans, or Bahamut appearing human, etc etc.

They all seemed to have the trait of "appear to the mortal as needed" that they consistently use.

Perhaps my thoughts come from gaming and fantasy books, after all Zeus never changed up, but on the other hand, Loki did.

Interested in your thoughts...


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> For sure. I meant more to add on to your post rather than to try to refute or one-up it. Maybe my use of poker terms was poorly thought out, sorry if I came off as combative.




no offense taken. I appreciate your longer clarification


----------



## Will C. (Jun 6, 2018)

No, probably not. I generally like to keep media and my games separate. Politics should be kept out of gaming.

This is not to say that someone else couldn't make their elves a certain way as according to their world, but for me, I like my elves without ties to newer sexual interpretations and hardly ever think about an elf being of the opposite sex by just sleeping. In fact, this post is the first time it's ever crossed my mind.


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 6, 2018)

but... why would a gender-switching species be "politics"?

Retconning the story of Sargeras and the corruption of the Eredar wasn't "political" either. It was a design/story choice.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 6, 2018)

To answer the question more directly, I won’t use the blessing of Correllon _as written_ in my table cannon, but I will adapt it to suit my home game’s world. Instead of the blessing being a rare thing that can happen to any elf, it’s specifically an Eladrin thing, and it’s a normal part of their mutable nature. Changing sex characteristics is as natural for them as changing seasons. And as with seasons, some stick with one set of characteristics their whole lives, others change as the seasons change, and some change often and on a whim.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 6, 2018)

SkidAce said:


> Perhaps my thoughts come from gaming and fantasy books, after all Zeus never changed up, but on the other hand, Loki did.




AFAIK, Zeus never used a non-male human form, but he displayed some protean trickery of his own.  He raped Leda in the form of a swan.  He fathered Perseus as a golden rain that seeped into the womb of Danaë.  Europa he had in the form of a bull.  Eurymeousa was seduced by Zeus in the form of an ant. Phthia was “visited” by Zeus as a dove.

He got guys, too.  Ganymede, he abducted in eagle form.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Yup. Cis and trans are simply Latin anotonyms, literally meaning “next to” and “across from” respectively, and since nonbinary people are not cisgender, they are transgender.



A tangential word of warning from an amateur philologist: this reasoning is treacherous. Our wonderful language is full of word pairs which, from their prefixes, would seem to be antonyms, but aren't: "access"/"abcess", "concern"/"discern", "compute"/"dispute", "incite"/"excite", "inspect"/"expect"... See if you can find some of your own! It's fun! ...if you're a very particular kind of geek.

EDIT: And even in the case of antonyms, well, an "ingress" may be an entrance, but an "egress" is not "anything that is not an entrance". Antonymy is not always exhaustivity.

More topically, it seems weird to apply this binary logic of "If not X, then Y" to, y'know, nonbinary people. Granted, logic is logic, and a binary is impossible to escape at some point -- "nonbinary" itself could not be more explicitly a binary term -- but still.



Charlaquin said:


> Ehhh, aliens speak to each other in English when no humans are present to hear them in cutscenes in that game, so I don’t assume the writers put quite that much thought into the possibility of translation errors. But even if we assume that there is some degree of English having insufficient vocabulary to accurately communicate the nuances of the Krill caste system, I would still argue that the choice to “translate” their pronouns differently depending on the stage of life the subject is in is an indication that there is a concept at least roughly analogous to gender associated with caste and morphology at play in their society.



It also sounds like they may be sequential hermaphrodites (I know nothing of the game other than what you have described). If so, the "concept at least roughly analogous to gender" may simply be biological sex, or tied to biological sex or reproductive function. Or the pronouns could be assigned by the human translators on that basis -- would hardly be the first time. They might not make the gender/caste distinction in their own grammar at all. (Which is not to say that they can't make the distinction very heavily in other areas. Turkish is a genderless language, but Turkey is hardly a genderless culture.)



Charlaquin said:


> This is one of the things I love about fantasy. It gives us the frame of reference to ask questions like “would trans-ness still exist in a culture where gender was traditionally chosen rather than assigned?” despite such cultures not existing in real life.



Well, the greater implication of the question is "Will trans-ness still exist in _our_ culture as trans rights continue to make strides?"



Charlaquin said:


> I would say that yes, if elves did not assign genders to their children, elves would not be trans within their own culture, but could be trans to people from cultures that did have more rigid gender norms. For example, let’s assume that in Eladrin culture, it is considered normal for personalities to shift dramatically with the seasons, and the blessing of Corellon is at least common knowledge if not common occurrence, and so they never developed a cultural concept of “men” and “women.” An Eladrin who finds themselves preferring what humans would consider male sex characteristics but exhibits personality traits humans would consider feminine probably wouldn’t develop a strong sense of identity connected to womanhood or manhood, because those just aren’t part of their world. However, if this character made a trip to the prime material plane and encountered humans, those humans might have preconceived notions about this Eladrin based on their physical appearance, manner of dress, and behavior. They might be surprised to learn that this Eladrin is “male,” because of their own cultural gender constructs and related biases. Upon learning how humans view gender and sex, this Eladrin might even incorporate this new perspective into their own sense of self. They might be inclined to refer to themselves as a “woman” around humans, because they find this (admittedly foreign) concept more closely aligned with their identity than that of a “man.” In a human-dominant society, they are for all intents and purposes trans, because their identity as it relates to that culture’s concept of gender does not match the gender that culture’s norms would ascribe to them based on the culture’s own criteria. It’s effectively like having a gender assigned at contact with another culture, instead of at birth.



Hmm. It seems to me like you're still implicitly attributing them a gender identity, despite the stipulation that they don't have one. The humans call them a "man", and if they don't line up with all the human norms for that label, so what? They don't line up with human norms in a lot of ways, and never expected to. But referring to themself as a "woman" in contradiction of the label assigned them implies they have a preference in the matter. Doing so to the likely confusion, consternation, and possibly even hostility of the humans implies they have a _strong_ preference. 

Say a human enters, oh, dwarven society, and finds out that they have defined social roles for _unak_ and _khivud_ dwarves. When she asks what these words mean, she is told "right-handed" and "left-handed". Now, this human is right-handed, but her behavior more resembles that of _khivud_ dwarves. It strikes me as more likely for the human to accept the translations and write off the social expectations associated with _unak_ as a dwarf matter than it is for her to challenge the definitions of words in a language that is not her own and the norms of a society that is not her own for the sake of a concept that is not a part of her own identity and is unlikely to become one. A dwarf, acculturated to feel that _unak_ and _khivud_ are important, might well be motivated to carve out a place for himself as "right-handed, but _khivud_ anyway, they're not actually the same thing". An outsider, though? Anything is possible, but I think dwarves expecting a human to care about whether they call her _unak_ or _khivud_ would be projecting their own attachment to those concepts onto somebody who honestly doesn't have it.

(Corollary question: Are _unak_ and _khivud_ genders?)


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 6, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> To answer the question more directly, I won’t use the blessing of Correllon _as written_ in my table cannon, but I will adapt it to suit my home game’s world. Instead of the blessing being a rare thing that can happen to any elf, it’s specifically an Eladrin thing, and it’s a normal part of their mutable nature. Changing sex characteristics is as natural for them as changing seasons. And as with seasons, some stick with one set of characteristics their whole lives, others change as the seasons change, and some change often and on a whim.



And, as I believe I said earlier, my eladrin (well, high elves) are tied to a Fair Realm* that possesses an "eternal now" nature, and in fact to specific Summer, Winter, Spring, and Autumn Courts. For them, the seasons _don't_ change. Change is something that happens to mortals. So a blessing of physical mutability is especially unsuited to them.

*Tolkien Fact of the Day: _Fair_ is Sindarin for... "mortal". Pronounced differently, though.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 6, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Basically, just give me Sylvan/Wood, High Elves, Grey Elves and Dark Elves.
> 
> I also don't care for Aasimar, Tieflings, Dragonborn and Warforged as races.




Wow, throw in a ban on the Monk class and that is my table.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 6, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> A tangential word of warning from an amateur philologist: this reasoning is treacherous. Our wonderful language is full of word pairs which, from their prefixes, would seem to be antonyms, but aren't: "access"/"abcess", "concern"/"discern", "compute"/"dispute", "incite"/"excite", "inspect"/"expect"... See if you can find some of your own! It's fun! ...if you're a very particular kind of geek.
> 
> EDIT: And even in the case of antonyms, well, an "ingress" may be an entrance, but an "egress" is not "anything that is not an entrance". Antonymy is not always exhaustivity.
> 
> More topically, it seems weird to apply this binary logic of "If not X, then Y" to, y'know, nonbinary people. Granted, logic is logic, and a binary is impossible to escape at some point -- "nonbinary" itself could not be more explicitly a binary term -- but still.




It may indeed be linguistically treacherous--which is a fascinating concept/turn of phrase in its own right--but in this instance, it happens to be accurate. The general consensus (though you'll certainly find individuals who argue otherwise) is that enbies--that is, nonbinary folks--do indeed fall under the larger umbrella of trans.

Which you may have already known, but I wanted to put it out there for those who didn't.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> As I explained to [MENTION=6879661]TheSword[/MENTION], there's a difference between playing a transgender person in the world and the DM making that happen, and bringing in real world issues relating to gender.  I won't be having these elves in my game due to the real world issues and the escape from those issues that the game represents, but I will be allowing a transgender PC should a player ever want to make one.




But that is the distinction I'm making: for transgender people, this isn't a "real world issue" that you follow in the media; it is who they are, and it is still not fully accepted and embraced by large swathes of contemporary culture and, in some areas, met with violence. BoG is, I would imagine, an appealing option for trans folk to feel more at home in the otherwise binary gendered default mode of D&D. And as I said way up thread, it is a rather clever way to both present an open hand to transgendered folk, but not do so in such a way that is threatening or overly political. 

That said, it isn't inherently bigoted to associate transgenderism with "real world issues," because for many (most?) people, it isn't part of their day to day life so only experienced through the media, and thus as a "real world issue." This is why I said what I said that you quoted: for those well-meaning folk who might not have this in mind. What for some is a "real world issue" or an abstraction out there in the world, is for others part of their living experience. 

My suggestion is that we naturalize/normalize it as much as we can, and one way to do that is through rules options like BoG. This is, like anything else, merely an option.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> A tangential word of warning from an amateur philologist: this reasoning is treacherous. Our wonderful language is full of word pairs which, from their prefixes, would seem to be antonyms, but aren't: "access"/"abcess", "concern"/"discern", "compute"/"dispute", "incite"/"excite", "inspect"/"expect"... See if you can find some of your own! It's fun! ...if you're a very particular kind of geek.
> 
> EDIT: And even in the case of antonyms, well, an "ingress" may be an entrance, but an "egress" is not "anything that is not an entrance". Antonymy is not always exhaustivity.
> 
> More topically, it seems weird to apply this binary logic of "If not X, then Y" to, y'know, nonbinary people. Granted, logic is logic, and a binary is impossible to escape at some point -- "nonbinary" itself could not be more explicitly a binary term -- but still.



Sure, but none of this changes the fact that trans is an umbrella term and anyone who is not cis falls under the trans umbrella. That's just the way those words are used in LGBTQIA spaces. I speak from experience in this matter.



TheCosmicKid said:


> It also sounds like they may be sequential hermaphrodites (I know nothing of the game other than what you have described). If so, the "concept at least roughly analogous to gender" may simply be biological sex, or tied to biological sex or reproductive function. Or the pronouns could be assigned by the human translators on that basis -- would hardly be the first time. They might not make the gender/caste distinction in their own grammar at all. (Which is not to say that they can't make the distinction very heavily in other areas. Turkish is a genderless language, but Turkey is hardly a genderless culture.)



Oh, that is almost certainly the case. But (and?), there are also strict societal roles tied to those sexes. Presumably, Mothers are translated as female-analogues because they give birth to Larvae. They are also culturally expected to act primarily in a child-rearing capacity by Krill society, and in Hive society*, they are referred to as Witches and are the only caste that performs magic. In other words, the Hive have a cultural association between the ability to bear children and magical capability. We see through magic that Oryx (a King morph) performs that magic must not be exclusive to Mothers/Witches, so we can only assume that this is a cultural norm, and it is certainly linked to sex. If a Knight or King found they had a talent for magic and desired to serve in the Hive armies in a sorcerous capacity, how would Hive culture respond to that? We don't really see it happen, outside of Oryx, who transgresses Hive cultural norms in a lot of ways. But given that we don't see any Knights doing Witch magic, it seems reasonable to assume that such things are not generally looked upon favorably by the rest of the Hive. I would absolutely describe a Knight that wanted to do magic like a Wizard as transgender.

*quick aside: the Krill become the Hive by entering a symbiotic relationship with another species called Worms, which feed on entropy. The Worm provides the Krill with an extended lifespan and metaphysical power, and in exchange, the Krill engages in constant darwinistic struggle to live at the expense of other life, thereby feeding the Worm. In this way, both symbionts can theoretically live forever, their mystical power increasing exponentially all the while, unless their growth ever exceeds their capacity to kill, at which point the Worm consumes the Krill from the inside out, and seeks a new host.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Well, the greater implication of the question is "Will trans-ness still exist in _our_ culture as trans rights continue to make strides?"



I certainly don’t expect it to reach that point in my lifetime. Most of our society is just not ready to discard our inbuilt assumptions about what things our bodies should determine about our identities. But, we could formulate a similar question on a different scale. If a family raises a child with the freedom to choose their own gender identity regardless of their sex characteristics, is that child still trans? The answer is yes, because the rest of society is still going to assign them a gender even if their parents do not. Like the eladrin who learns upon encountering humans that the way they dress and act is considered aberrant to humans because of their sex characteristics, that child is still going to face people telling them, "you're a boy and boys aren't supposed to wear dresses" and other such nonsense. If we could completely eliminate such constructs in society the world over? Then we can have the discussion of whether or not trans is still a useful term.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Hmm. It seems to me like you're still implicitly attributing them a gender identity, despite the stipulation that they don't have one.



No, they have an identity. Their culture has no concept of gender, but they still have an identity. Another culture that does have a concept of gender will assign certain aspects of identity to certain genders, and when a person's identity does not match what their society says it should be based on whatever criteria it uses to assign gender, there is going to be conflict.



TheCosmicKid said:


> The humans call them a "man", and if they don't line up with all the human norms for that label, so what? They don't line up with human norms in a lot of ways, and never expected to. But referring to themself as a "woman" in contradiction of the label assigned them implies they have a preference in the matter. Doing so to the likely confusion, consternation, and possibly even hostility of the humans implies they have a _strong_ preference.



They may well have a strong preference for the aspects of their identity that human culture dictates are "for women."



TheCosmicKid said:


> Say a human enters, oh, dwarven society, and finds out that they have defined social roles for _unak_ and _khivud_ dwarves. When she asks what these words mean, she is told "right-handed" and "left-handed". Now, this human is right-handed, but her behavior more resembles that of _khivud_ dwarves. It strikes me as more likely for the human to accept the translations and write off the social expectations associated with _unak_ as a dwarf matter than it is for her to challenge the definitions of words in a language that is not her own and the norms of a society that is not her own for the sake of a concept that is not a part of her own identity and is unlikely to become one.



Depends on whether or not those dwarves try to assert their own cultural norms on the human. If _unak_ aren't allowed to be warriors, and this right-handed human is a warrior, how do the dwarves resolve this dissonance? Do they write it off as "not our way" but leave the human to his own people's way? Or do they shame him for behaving in a manner unbefitting an _unak_, which he so clearly is? In the former case, sure, I'd assume the human would most likely live and let live just as the dwarves are doing. But if a dragon attacks and the dwarves don't want to let the human help because the other warriors refuse to stand beside an _unak_ on the field of battle... Might be a different story.



TheCosmicKid said:


> A dwarf, acculturated to feel that _unak_ and _khivud_ are important, might well be motivated to carve out a place for himself as "right-handed, but _khivud_ anyway, they're not actually the same thing". An outsider, though? Anything is possible, but I think dwarves expecting a human to care about whether they call her _unak_ or _khivud_ would be projecting their own attachment to those concepts onto somebody who honestly doesn't have it.



But it's about more than just what they call him. It's about the expectations that label comes with within their society.



TheCosmicKid said:


> (Corollary question: Are _unak_ and _khivud_ genders?)



I don't know. I'm inclined to say no, as its usefulness as a metaphor for gender in real life is pretty limited; it's a simile at best. But I suppose, if the fiction handled it in a way that made it useful to consider them genders, they could be.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> And, as I believe I said earlier, my eladrin (well, high elves) are tied to a Fair Realm* that possesses an "eternal now" nature, and in fact to specific Summer, Winter, Spring, and Autumn Courts. For them, the seasons _don't_ change. Change is something that happens to mortals. So a blessing of physical mutability is especially unsuited to them.
> 
> *Tolkien Fact of the Day: _Fair_ is Sindarin for... "mortal". Pronounced differently, though.




This is also the case in my version of the Faewild. I used the terminology "as naturally as _they_ change seasons" rather than "as naturally as the seasons change" because I was referring to the mechanic where an eladrin can change personality traits and the bonus feature to their Fey Step after a long rest. The book refers to this as "[the eladrin's] season", so I did the same.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 7, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> But that is the distinction I'm making: for transgender people, this isn't a "real world issue" that you follow in the media; it is who they are, and it is still not fully accepted and embraced by large swathes of contemporary culture and, in some areas, met with violence. BoG is, I would imagine, an appealing option for trans folk to feel more at home in the otherwise binary gendered default mode of D&D. And as I said way up thread, it is a rather clever way to both present an open hand to transgendered folk, but not do so in such a way that is threatening or overly political.
> 
> That said, it isn't inherently bigoted to associate transgenderism with "real world issues," because for many (most?) people, it isn't part of their day to day life so only experienced through the media, and thus as a "real world issue." This is why I said what I said that you quoted: for those well-meaning folk who might not have this in mind. What for some is a "real world issue" or an abstraction out there in the world, is for others part of their living experience.
> 
> My suggestion is that we naturalize/normalize it as much as we can, and one way to do that is through rules options like BoG. This is, like anything else, merely an option.




That's just it, though.  It really doesn't give trans folk any option that they didn't already have.  In any game where the DM won't allow a transsexual PC, the rules for these elves won't be allowed, so no option is granted.  I doubt they'd be playing with a person like that anyway.  For the rest of the games, they already have the option to be a transsexual PC, and they aren't limited to being elves or needing a blessing to explain it.  These rules don't give them anything new.

As for normalizing it, the rules don't do that, either, and for the same reasons above.  The normalization should happen in the real world in real venues, where it actually can happen, not in the game where it can't.  A bigot isn't going to spontaneously change his stripes just because there are now rules for some elves to change gender.


----------



## Mercurius (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's just it, though.  It really doesn't give trans folk any option that they didn't already have.  In any game where the DM won't allow a transsexual PC, the rules for these elves won't be allowed, so no option is granted.  I doubt they'd be playing with a person like that anyway.  For the rest of the games, they already have the option to be a transsexual PC, and they aren't limited to being elves or needing a blessing to explain it.  These rules don't give them anything new.
> 
> As for normalizing it, the rules don't do that, either, and for the same reasons above.  The normalization should happen in the real world in real venues, where it actually can happen, not in the game where it can't.  A bigot isn't going to spontaneously change his stripes just because there are now rules for some elves to change gender.




 I hear what you are saying and don't disagree - you make some really good points. That said, I do think there is something going on here that is worthwhile. I am not transgender and would not deem to speak for transgender people, but I imagine that the gesture is appreciated, and that BoG is a particularly appealing rules option for trans folk.

It is kind of like this: Maybe you have a group of friends that are getting together on Saturday night. You are 95% sure that you are invited, but there is a sliver of doubt. Isn't it nice to actually be formally invited? This isn't quite the same, but there is a similarity, I think.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's just it, though.  It really doesn't give trans folk any option that they didn't already have.  In any game where the DM won't allow a transsexual PC, the rules for these elves won't be allowed, so no option is granted.  I doubt they'd be playing with a person like that anyway.  For the rest of the games, they already have the option to be a transsexual PC, and they aren't limited to being elves or needing a blessing to explain it.  These rules don't give them anything new.
> 
> As for normalizing it, the rules don't do that, either, and for the same reasons above.  The normalization should happen in the real world in real venues, where it actually can happen, not in the game where it can't.  A bigot isn't going to spontaneously change his stripes just because there are now rules for some elves to change gender.




Normalization isn’t about getting bigots to change their mind. Most grown adults are fairly set in their ways and aren’t going to have their minds changed one way or the other, certainly not by something like an optional rule in an RPG book. Normalization is a long-term goal. The more popular media contains examples of trans people existing and not being treated as out of the ordinary, the more young people who grow up consuming that media will perceive trans people as ordinary. I don’t really care if some transphobe allows the Blessing of Corellon in his games or not. Nor, for that matter, if some trans ally does, or even if some trans person does. What I care about the kids who are just starting to get into RPGs for the first time, seeing this option presented as nonshallantly as the variant human rules. I care about the people who are going to grow up seeing nonbinary gender expression as a perfectly normal part of life.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's just it, though.  It really doesn't give trans folk any option that they didn't already have.  In any game where the DM won't allow a transsexual PC, the rules for these elves won't be allowed, so no option is granted.  I doubt they'd be playing with a person like that anyway.  For the rest of the games, they already have the option to be a transsexual PC, and they aren't limited to being elves or needing a blessing to explain it.  These rules don't give them anything new.
> 
> As for normalizing it, the rules don't do that, either, and for the same reasons above.  The normalization should happen in the real world in real venues, where it actually can happen, not in the game where it can't.  A bigot isn't going to spontaneously change his stripes just because there are now rules for some elves to change gender.



It wasn’t written for the bigots or those merely uncomfortable with the concept.  It was written for those in that subset of the community.

Seeing someone like yourself depicted (fairly) in the rules or paraphernalia of a game or hobby- or anywhere in culture- is a self-esteem raising event.  It is inspirational.  It draws you and those like you in closer.  That’s why MLK lobbied so hard for to keep playing Uhura.  

And often, that drive towards inclusion is a revenue driver.  It’s why companies like Mattel have slowly but surely expanded their range of non-Caucasian dolls.  It’s why smart marketers don’t just focus on white males 18-24.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

Mercurius said:


> I hear what you are saying and don't disagree - you make some really good points. That said, I do think there is something going on here that is worthwhile. I am not transgender and would not deem to speak for transgender people, but I imagine that the gesture is appreciated, and that BoG is a particularly appealing rules option for trans folk.



Speaking as a transgender person: it absolutely is.



Mercurius said:


> It is kind of like this: Maybe you have a group of friends that are getting together on Saturday night. You are 95% sure that you are invited, but there is a sliver of doubt. Isn't it nice to actually be formally invited? This isn't quite the same, but there is a similarity, I think.



It’s not a bad analogy. People like media better when it includes characters they can identify with. It’s one thing to “allow trans characters in your games,” it’s another for the game to feature trans characters. It makes the difference between feeling tolerated and feeling invited.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 7, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It wasn’t written for the bigots or those merely uncomfortable with the concept.  It was written for those in that subset of the community.
> 
> Seeing someone like yourself depicted (fairly) in the rules or paraphernalia of a game or hobby- or anywhere in culture- is a self-esteem raising event.  It is inspirational.  It draws you and those like you in closer.




I like to think that it is also part of bringing the game into the current century. I think it is a pretty good idea to update the game in its representation of gender as we understand it today.

Are trans-elves the way to do it though? I'm probably the wrong person to ask, because I hate elves with a fiery passion. But sure, if you're going to pick any D&D race, then I'd say elves are the best candidate. They were always pretty gender-fluid. Now make them less dull.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

Charlaquin said:
			
		

> Normalization is a long-term goal.



Quite. A societal and therefore political goal.


			
				Charlaquin said:
			
		

> The more popular media contains examples of trans people existing and not being treated as out of the ordinary, the more young people who grow up consuming that media will perceive trans people as ordinary.




There are 2 kinds of ordinary. There's "ordinary" as being a human being, deserving of love, respect and a chance at happiness. For me, all people born of an human being are thus ordinary, and are my fellow humans: gay, bi, transsexual, heterosexual, black, white or green, hermaphrodite, with Down syndrome, etc.

And there's a different king of ordinary: ordinary as being in the majority.

Transssexual individuals are a tiny minority of the global population, and so there's nothing ordinary about them, in that meaning of the word.

I'm aware that since the dawn of times there have been human beings who didn't fit within the mundane biological/sexual framework. And the society of their times had a place and roles for them - by the way, we all have a place and roles in our society and I don't see anything demeaning about that. For example, I'm a straight husband, with a wife and a kid, and that's a part (only a part) of my role within my society.

So I don't deny transsexual individuals a place in society. I want them to feel welcome, at my table and in other parts of the world. And I will play with transsexual individuals as I play with any other fellow human beings. I'm quite sure (without being able to prove it) that there's an  overwhelming majority of gamers, in the western part of the world, who would accept transsexuals at their table, like I do.

But I won't pretend to their faces that they're ordinary - ordinary as in mundane, ordinary as being in the majority. Frankly, I would feel like it's vaguely insulting to them. Being transsexual seems to me to be hard living, and I bet it's not solely because of the intolerance and the ills of the society around trans persons. Being or feeling different is always (often) hard by itself.

Let me clarify: if I had a trans at my table, I wouldn't treat him/her differently from the way I treat any other gamer. Specifically, I wouldn't present him/her with an option like Corellon's Blessing which has been carved to pander to his/her specificities by some well-meaning/deluded "progressives" in the rpg industry.



			
				Charlaquin said:
			
		

> I don’t really care if some transphobe allows the Blessing of Corellon in his games or not. Nor, for that matter, if some trans ally does, or even if some trans person does.



Good. To each table its own.


			
				Charlaquin said:
			
		

> What I care about the kids who are just starting to get into RPGs for the first time, seeing this option presented as nonshallantly [sic] as the variant human rules.



Yes, I too care. Soon I will introduce my 10 years old kid to 5th edition D&D, and there's zero chance in Hell that I will present transssexual-glorifying material to him in a nonchalant way. Nope.

To me, transsexuality is not "a way of life" or a choice. I don't subscribe to the post-modern "gender identity" baloney theory, and I don't believe in a future where - whether we are bi, hetero, trans, gay, green, white or black - we all choose our identity "a la carte" while chanting kumbaya together like in a happy-hippy weirdo leftie family (though I dig hippies .



			
				Charlaquin said:
			
		

> I care about the people who are going to grow up seeing nonbinary gender expression as a perfectly normal part of life.



Not at my table. And not in my rpg of choice, if I have any choice in the matter (and as a customer and gamer, I have).


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I like to think that it is also part of bringing the game into the current century. I think it is a pretty good idea to update the game in its representation of gender as we understand it today.



Not all of us gamers, and otherwise citizens, understand gender as you do today. There's a diminishing consensus (in the USA at least) about the way we understand gender - or, as I prefer to say - sexual identity and the various roles society ascribes to it.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 7, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Quite. A societal and therefore political goal.
> 
> 
> There are 2 kinds of ordinary. There's "ordinary" as being a human being, deserving of love, respect and a chance at happiness. For me, all people born of an human being are thus ordinary, and are my fellow humans: gay, bi, transsexual, heterosexual, black, white or green, hermaphrodite, with Down syndrome, etc.
> ...




You were doing so well in the first two paragraphs. Then like a driver revving their engine you hit the throttle and promptly backfired, blowing your exhaust all over the thread.

Unfortunately the words you choose to describe something matters. It conveys tone, intentions, and creates an environment of inclusion or segregation. The truth is the words ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ aren’t very good at describing human beings. Replace these words with ‘accepted’. If you accept people for what they are then the frequency becomes irrelevant.

Phrases like ‘No chance in hell’, ‘Transexual-glorifying’, ‘gender identity-baloney’, and the rest of your post aren’t worthy of an adult in 2018. I’ve not been posting on the threads very long but I pretty sure your opinions don’t chime with the majority of posters or the rules of the forum. I wish I could change your approach to raising your kids, I can’t. I just hope you know that history has shown that your 10 year old will be what they are, whether you agree with it or not.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

TheSword said:
			
		

> ...the words you choose to describe something matters.



Yes.


			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> It conveys tone, intentions, and creates an environment of inclusion or segregation.



My primary purpose with my words is not to create an environment of inclusion or segregation. It is to express myself and to convey my point of view.



			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> The truth is the words ‘normal’ and ‘ordinary’ aren’t very good at describing human beings.



Those words are part of our vocabulary and for us to use.
If I use the word "ordinary" in a sentence like: "They were ordinary middle-class conservative Americans, appalled at their current president, but having voted Republicans nonetheless, because they were deeply untrustful of the other candidate"  it paints a pretty good picture of what I mean, I think.



> Replace these words with ‘accepted’.



Why would I need to do that ? I thought I made it pretty clear that I accept any human being on principle.



> If you accept people for what they are then the frequency becomes irrelevant.



I don't think so. I can accept anyone and still acknowldge that they are in the minority or in the majority.



			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> Phrases like ‘No chance in hell’, ‘Transexual-glorifying’, ‘gender identity-baloney’, and the rest of your post aren’t worthy of an adult in 2018.



That's spicy language. I don't feel childlike because I use it. That's also provocative language, though not disrespectful of specific people (I even said I like hippies).



			
				TheSword said:
			
		

> I just hope you know that history has shown that your 10 year old will be what they are, whether you agree with it or not.



I'll love my kid, no matter what. That's what counts, and not me agreeing with him or not.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 7, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Sure, but none of this changes the fact that  trans is an umbrella term and anyone who is not cis falls under the  trans umbrella. That's just the way those words are used in LGBTQIA  spaces. I speak from experience in this matter.



I don't  doubt it. I'm not challenging you on the point, I'm just lingnerding out.



Charlaquin said:


> Worms, which feed on entropy.



I don't  really have any more comments about the Krill except that these words  make my science brain cringe. Somehow, even more than the mention of  actual-factual _magic_ in the game. XD



Charlaquin said:


> No, they have an identity. Their culture has  no concept of gender, but they still have an identity. Another culture  that does have a concept of gender will assign certain aspects of  identity to certain genders, and when a person's identity does not match  what their society says it should be based on whatever criteria it uses  to assign gender, there is going to be conflict.
> 
> They may well have a strong preference for the aspects of their identity that human culture dictates are "for women."



Sure, but what aspects exactly are we talking about here, and how does this conflict play out?

I'll  try to explain what I mean. Take sexual orientation. I know we're on  the same page that sexual orientation is absolutely, totally not the  same thing as gender identity. But it's also obviously an important  aspect of identity. And traditional society has assigned the "likes men"  aspect of identity to women. So, as you say, there is conflict between  society and people who like men and are _not_ women. Most of  these people, however, are cis men, and object rather strenuously to the  suggestion that they are women or womanlike. The conflict, then, plays  out by challenging their society's assignment of this sexual orientation  to that gender identity, not by adopting that gender identity. And if  our eladrin likes men, and runs into conflict with human society over  it, they can say, "I'm a gay man."

They can repeat this exercise for almost any culturally-gendered aspect of identity. Emotional disposition? There are _tons_  of quiet, sensitive men, regardless of how machismo values those  traits. If our eladrin is quiet and sensitive, they can say, "I'm a  quiet and sensitive man." Profession? The history of women's rights is all about busting up  the assignment of certain fields to men, and men also struggle to be  taken seriously in traditionally female fields. If our eladrin is a  nurse, they can say, "I'm a male nurse." Fashion choice? In the words of Eddie Izzard: "It's not a  woman's dress, it's _my_ dress, I bought it." If our eladrin  likes dresses -- okay, this one is a little weird, because it's  completely culture-based, and they'd be accustomed to eladrin clothing  which is presumably unisex in our scenario -- but if they took a shine  to human dresses, they could say, "See Eddie Izzard."

To get around to my point, the only aspect of identity I can see for which the fundamental problem is _not_  society being overly restrictive in assigning that aspect to only one  gender, but rather the aspect having a fundamental conflict with the  gender, is gender identity itself. There seems to be something in all of  us which says "I am a man" or "I am a woman" or something of a  nonbinary nature. And it must stand irrespective of any other aspects of our identity, or  what society has to say about those aspects. As we've seen, somebody  can be a cis man and still like men, be quiet and sensitive, work as a  nurse, and wear dresses. What's more, somebody else can be a trans woman  and still like women, be ambitious and competitive, work as a cop, and  absolutely _hate_ dresses. All that matters is that the first  person feels he is a man, and the second feels she is a woman. And I  don't believe for a moment that when I say any of this I'm telling you  anything you don't already know. But I hope I've framed it in such a way  that you can understand why I think that the eladrin describing themself as a "woman" under the circumstances strongly suggests the presence of an underlying _gender_ identity.



Charlaquin said:


> Depends on whether or not those dwarves try to assert their own cultural norms on the human. If _unak_  aren't allowed to be warriors, and this right-handed human is a  warrior, how do the dwarves resolve this dissonance? Do they write it  off as "not our way" but leave the human to his own people's way? Or do  they shame him for behaving in a manner unbefitting an _unak_,  which he so clearly is? In the former case, sure, I'd assume the human  would most likely live and let live just as the dwarves are doing. But  if a dragon attacks and the dwarves don't want to let the human help  because the other warriors refuse to stand beside an _unak_ on the field of battle... Might be a different story.



Hmm. Fair warning: I'm running out of gas after the above and am not going to come to any conclusions in this paragraph, just thinking aloud. (Well, not _aloud_...) Speaking of different stories, there is no shortage of stories about  the parallel case, where sexists won't let a woman fight because she's a  woman. When (movie) Wonder Woman wants to fight for the Allies, she  plows through their resistance and does it anyway, as a woman. When  (movie) Mulan wants to fight for China, she disguises herself as a man,  but shows no sign of truly identifying herself as one and returns to  womanhood once the disguise has run its course. But in both these  stories, the protagonist had an existing gender identity as a woman, and  that's not prone to changing for the sake of expediency. Which makes  them not such close parallels to our human with no strong handedness  identity, or our eladrin without a gender culture. Or, wait... Diana of  Themiscyra is from a one-gender society, so gender roles can't exactly  have been a part of her upbringing. Isn't she basically what we're  looking for after all? And despite being an outspoken warrior and  leader, she emphatically does not become a trans man upon encountering  English culture where they see those as manly qualities. But on the  other hand, the Amazons are _aware_ of men, and (more so in the  comics than the movie) define themselves oppositionally to "Man's  World", so maybe gender roles are still there in the background.  Nevertheless, they can hardly be an everyday thing. Hmm...


----------



## TheSword (Jun 7, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Not all of us gamers, and otherwise citizens, understand gender as you do today. There's a diminishing consensus (in the USA at least) about the way we understand gender - or, as I prefer to say - sexual identity and the various roles society ascribes to it.




A very quickly diminishing consensus, soon to be replaced with an increasing consensus, thank god.

I’ve just seen your post history, and I find it hilarious that you’ve only posted in threads about black stereotyping and transsexuals. Have you ever considered that as a married straight white male father, it may be worth branching off into other topics, you know, like the game of D&D?


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

TheSword said:


> A very quickly diminishing consensus, soon to be replaced with an increasing consensus, thank god.
> 
> I’ve just seen your post history, and I find it highly suggestive that you’ve only posted in threads about black stereotyping and transsexuals. Have you ever considered that as a married straight white male father, it may be worth branching off into other topics, you know, like the game of D&D?



Highly suggestive of what ?

I'm concerned about the social intentions - and the desire for change as conveyed in their products - of a sizable part of the RPG industry.

I write in this forum to make my position on the subject as clear as possible. I'm not in sync with the progressive goals of this sizable, and increasing, part of the RPG industry.

And judging by the number of posts in this thread, and the different viewpoints therein, I gather I'm not the only one interested in the subject, nor the only one in disagreement with this kind of self-described progressives in the industry.

I'm just making my voice being heard, that's all.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

So, TheSword : you've changed "highly suggestive" to "hilarious" in your preceding post. I'm glad to see your opinion on the matter is evolving .


----------



## TheSword (Jun 7, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Highly suggestive of what ?
> 
> I'm concerned about the social intentions - and the desire for change as conveyed in their products - of a sizable part of the RPG industry.
> 
> ...




I amended my post before your replied to be less accusative. However, since you asked...

... suggestive that you care more about preserving your own idea of how the world should look like than you do about the game we all play. The more you post the more the ugly sentiment is revealed.

You created this thread presumably to make your voice heard and the overwhelming response was that the inclusive character trait was positive. The justifications against the inclusion didn’t stand up to scrutiny such as the bogus ‘real world issues’ argument.

My advice is to stop worrying about the 0.004% of MToF that isn’t relevant to you, and focus on the bits that are.


----------



## Aguirre Melchiors (Jun 7, 2018)

NOPE


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

TheSword said:


> I amended my post before your replied to be less accusative. However, since you asked...
> 
> ... suggestive that you care more about preserving your own idea of how the world should look like than you do about the game we all play. The more you post the more the ugly sentiment is revealed.




I care about the society I live in. And I have opinions about the way it (the society) should go.

I 've also come to care deeply about D&D for the 35 years (give or take) since I've been playing it.

Insofar as D&D is a cultural medium, it is linked to the society I live in. And, as important, D&D has been a part of my personal life - as a gamer and a social creature - for a long time.

In this thread, I talk about society and D&D, as they relate to each other. For me, there's nothing "ugly" about this way of dealing with D&D and the world at large.

If this medium wasn't in any way relating to the culture at large that we share -and thus to society - the self-described progressive segment of the RPG industry wouldn't be so interested to change it to reflect their world view.
Mind you, I don't begrudge them their worldview (or at least, I'm trying not to): I just happen to disagree with it, in a somewhat strong and spicy way.



TheSword said:


> You created this thread presumably to make your voice heard and the overwhelming response was that it was positive.



That is debatable.



> The justifications against the inclusion didn’t stand up to scrutiny such as the bogus ‘real world issues’ argument.



That argument didn't convince you.



> My advice is to stop worrying about the 0.004% of MToF that isn’t relevant to you, and focus on the bits that are.




I could have done that a few years ago.

But some of those self-described progressive voices have become - to me - so prevalent, loud and even shrill in recent times, that I would feel remiss if I didn't vocally stand in opposition to them.

I didn't start the culture wars. And neither did you. You and I both do not want to be at war, and I don't think we are. I wish there wasn't a war.

But we both live in troubled times (as the Chinese* would have it).

*"May you live in interesting times" is a traditional Chinese curse.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 7, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Not all of us gamers, and otherwise citizens, understand gender as you do today. There's a diminishing consensus (in the USA at least) about the way we understand gender - or, as I prefer to say - sexual identity and the various roles society ascribes to it.




Ideas and understanding of gender change over time, as does society as a whole. It only stands to reason that various media, and their representation of gender, change with it. This is regardless of whether some gamers/citizens understand the changes in gender perception, or are willing to understand them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 7, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Ideas and understanding of gender change over time, as does society as a whole. It only stands to reason that various media, and their representation of gender, change with it. This is regardless of whether some gamers/citizens understand the changes in gender perception, or are willing to understand them.




That is perfectly understandable, but a few elites try to force the change and that encounters blowback and you get things like the 2016 election.If things happen organically most of the time I think you would have a better outcome. When you try and force change bad things usually happen (WW1, USA civil war, Bolsheviks etc).

 There are also other issues brought up that are reasonable to talk about without being branded abigot- public restrooms, trans males competing in female sports. There are some practicalproblems associated with various issues even if you agree with the guts of what people aresaying. I have DMed for members of the LBQT community no issue going back to the 90's but none ofthem expected me to RP NPCs for their tastes or even brought it up. Mostly I just treated them same as anyone else, talked some crap, ate junkfood and pinged some Orcs or what have you.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 7, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> Ideas and understanding of gender change over time, as does society as a whole.



Generally true.



			
				Imaculata said:
			
		

> It only stands to reason that various media, and their representation of gender, change with it.



Agreed.



> This is regardless of whether some gamers/citizens understand the changes in gender perception, or are willing to understand them.




Untrue. Any sufficiently affirmative citizen, as a part of society, shapes the consensus - or lack of ? - of that society. Society changing is the people in society changing.

To elaborate: I don't subscribe to the view (not saying it's your view, Imaculata) that society changes because of an exogenous element - perhaps called "progress" - that makes it change.

To be clear: if a sufficient number of persons reject "gender identity", in the rpg medium or in society at large, as a valid concept, then this concept will not be prevalent.

Perhaps it seems to you that this concept is already prevalent in the USA, but I would then advise you to distinguish between the entertainment industry and the mass media and the society as a whole.

Discussion and the assertion of one's own point of view (what I'm trying to do here) is a better way to attain (or to strive to) consensus between citizens than stealthy (or not so-stealthy) injections of one's political and social leaning into various artistic medium (e.g. RPGs), such injections being presented as "It's just the way it is.", or "It's just the way it will be - soon !" or "It's the one and only good way it should be."


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 7, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Normalization isn’t about getting bigots to change their mind. Most grown adults are fairly set in their ways and aren’t going to have their minds changed one way or the other, certainly not by something like an optional rule in an RPG book. Normalization is a long-term goal. The more popular media contains examples of trans people existing and not being treated as out of the ordinary, the more young people who grow up consuming that media will perceive trans people as ordinary. I don’t really care if some transphobe allows the Blessing of Corellon in his games or not. Nor, for that matter, if some trans ally does, or even if some trans person does. What I care about the kids who are just starting to get into RPGs for the first time, seeing this option presented as nonshallantly as the variant human rules. I care about the people who are going to grow up seeing nonbinary gender expression as a perfectly normal part of life.




That's a good point on who it's aimed at, but the game is still a poor place to do it.  It doesn't hit enough people to make it very effective.  There are other much better venues.  These venues are already going though normalization.  Schools for one.  When my 21 year old daughter was in high school, she would talk about how all of her friends were experimenting with being bisexual to see if they liked it.  Being accepting of people who aren't heterosexual was the in thing I guess.  She and her friends would talk about how cool persons A, B, C and D of genders W, X, Y and Z were.  Now that she's in college, she still talks about how cool it is that the students are so accepting of the various genders.  Every generation is becoming more and more tolerant and inclusive.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 7, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Quite. A societal and therefore political goal.



Everything is political, so I don’t see your point here.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> There are 2 kinds of ordinary. There's "ordinary" as being a human being, deserving of love, respect and a chance at happiness. For me, all people born of an human being are thus ordinary, and are my fellow humans: gay, bi, transsexual*, heterosexual, black, white or green, hermaphrodite*, with Down syndrome, etc.



*transgender. *intersex



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> And there's a different king of ordinary: ordinary as being in the majority.



That’s actually not one of the definitions of the word ordinary. I chose that word very intentionally, as it means “with no special or distinctive features; normal” or “not interesting or exceptional; commonplace.” Transgender folks are by no means a majority, but we are a natural and perfectly normal part of life. Getting the cisgender majority to accept that, though, is a process that’s going to take time. It’s working though. I’ve seen huge strides made in my lifetime.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Transssexual* individuals are a tiny minority of the global population, and so there's nothing ordinary about them, in that meaning of the word.



*Transgender
Not as tiny as you might think. Recent estimates put us at 0.5-0.6% of the population in America, and those estimates are almost certainly too low, as a significant portion of us are not openly trans, and a significant portion may not have realized it. As with non-hetero folks, the more it becomes accepted in mainstream culture, the more people start coming out and the more people who had never questioned their sexuality start realizing they might not be strictly hetero. Certainly we’re not a majority, but we are more commonplace than you think we are, and we are a normal part of life.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I'm aware that since the dawn of times there have been human beings who didn't fit within the mundane biological/sexual framework. And the society of their times had a place and roles for them - by the way, we all have a place and roles in our society and I don't see anything demeaning about that. For example, I'm a straight husband, with a wife and a kid, and that's a part (only a part) of my role within my society.
> 
> So I don't deny transsexual* individuals a place in society. I want them to feel welcome, at my table and in other parts of the world. And I will play with transsexual* individuals as I play with any other fellow human beings. I'm quite sure (without being able to prove it) that there's an  overwhelming majority of gamers, in the western part of the world, who would accept transsexuals* at their table, like I do.



*transgender *transgender *trans people



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> But I won't pretend to their faces that they're ordinary - ordinary as in mundane, ordinary as being in the majority. Frankly, I would feel like it's vaguely insulting to them.



As a transgender person: it is not insulting to be treated as ordinary as in mundane; we are. It would not insulting to be treated as the majority, though it would be very strange since we’re not, by a longshot. What is insulting is when people try to pretend they’re accepting and welcoming, but still try to treat us as aberrant.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Being transsexual seems to me to be hard living, and I bet it's not solely because of the intolerance and the ills of the society around trans persons. Being or feeling different is always (often) hard by itself.



Feeling different is not hard. It’s the easiest thing in the world; I’ve always been different and proud of it. What’s hard is being treated as if being different makes me wrong.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Let me clarify: if I had a trans* at my table, I wouldn't treat him/her differently from the way I treat any other gamer. Specifically, I wouldn't present him/her with an option like Corellon's Blessing which has been carved to pander to his/her specificities by some well-meaning/deluded "progressives" in the rpg industry.



*trans person
Hang on, how is that the way you treat any other gamer? Do you not present people who like the fantasy genre with an option which has been crafted to appeal to them? Do you not let Harry Potter fans play wizards? Do you not let men play male characters and women play female characters? Do you ban the human PC race?



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Yes, I too care. Soon I will introduce my 10 years old kid to 5th edition D&D, and there's zero chance in Hell that I will present transssexual-glorifying material to him in a nonchalant way. Nope.



Like I said, I don’t much care how you as an individual introduce your children to the game. Fortunately, you’re not the only person introducing young people to the hobby, and plenty are finding their way to it on their own.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> To me, transsexuality* is not "a way of life" or a choice.



*gender
Indeed, it’s not. It’s a part of one’s identity.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> I don't subscribe to the post-modern "gender identity" baloney theory, and I don't believe in a future where - whether we are bi, hetero, trans, gay, green, white or black - we all choose our identity "a la carte" while chanting kumbaya together like in a happy-hippy weirdo leftie family (though I dig hippies .



You believe whatever you want to believe. I’m going to continue helping the society I live in to move towards accepting and embracing people regardless of their identities.



Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Not at my table. And not in my rpg of choice, if I have any choice in the matter (and as a customer and gamer, I have).



Assuming D&D is your rpg of choice, I’d say it’s a little late for that. It’s alread in. You certainly have the option as a consumer and a gamer not to support D&D, and to find some other game that doesn’t treat trans folks as normal if that’s the rock you want to live under. But the industry as a whole is progressing, like it or not. Exalted 3rd Edition has a trans character on the cover. World and Chronicles of Darkness regularly include trans and nonbinary example characters and have been doing so for well over a decade. More and more indie RPGs are making steps like putting separate lines on their character sheet for sex and for gender, or including a line for preferred pronouns. Progress takes time, but little by little the places you’ll be able to go to keep pretending being trans isn’t perfectly normal will get smaller and smaller.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's a good point on who it's aimed at, but the game is still a poor place to do it.  It doesn't hit enough people to make it very effective.



I disagree. Media has a huge impact on the way people contextualize their world, and D&D is incredibly popular right now. Even if it wasn’t, the goal is to cast as wide a net as possible.



Maxperson said:


> There are other much better venues.  These venues are already going though normalization.  Schools for one.  When my 21 year old daughter was in high school, she would talk about how all of her friends were experimenting with being bisexual to see if they liked it.  Being accepting of people who aren't heterosexual was the in thing I guess.  She and her friends would talk about how cool persons A, B, C and D of genders W, X, Y and Z were.  Now that she's in college, she still talks about how cool it is that the students are so accepting of the various genders.  Every generation is becoming more and more tolerant and inclusive.



Yes, that’s absolutely a better venue. We’re already there though. I’d count your daughter’s experience in high school and college as wins for LGBTQIA acceptance, but that doesn’t mean we should rest on our laurels. Wide net.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> To be clear: if a sufficient number of persons reject "gender identity", in the rpg medium or in society at large, as a valid concept, then this concept will not be prevalent.
> 
> Perhaps it seems to you that this concept is already prevalent in the USA, but I would then advise you to distinguish between the entertainment industry and the mass media and the society as a whole.




I think you are missing some of the point here.  And Imaculata can correct me if I am off about what was meant...

The consensus is that the planet is round.  There are some who do not agree with that consensus.  However, those people also don't actually understand the basic laws of gravitation - for by those laws, a mass the size of the Earth *will* pull itself into a basically spherical shape.  Lay it out flat if you want - that form will not be stable.  It will collapse in on itself until it is round.  

Some things are not about consensual reality - they are about physical reality.  And there are segments of the population who do not understand the reality, but hold on to an outmoded view. 

Human gender and sexuality are *not* entirely a matter of consensus - there are elements of their reality that are not up for debate, not subject to vote or mutual agreement.  Our understanding of these things has grown in recent decades.  There was a time when the consensus was that being homosexual was a choice.  The consensus was simply incorrect.

And when the consensus does not match reality, there will be problems.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> It may indeed be linguistically treacherous--which is a fascinating concept/turn of phrase in its own right--but in this instance, it happens to be accurate. The general consensus (though you'll certainly find individuals who argue otherwise) is that enbies--that is, nonbinary folks--do indeed fall under the larger umbrella of trans.




In my area/in my circles, the language goes thus:  Folks whose gender matches their birth sex are "cis-gender".  Those whose gender is the opposite of their birth sex are "transgender".  Those who do not well fit into the distinct two-gender pattern are "non-binary".  A transgender person still specifically identifies with one of the two broadly accepted genders, while non-binary people do not strongly identify with one, so the one cant' really be used as an overall term.  This is not "individuals who argue otherwise".  This is the common use of the local LGBTQ community that I interact with.  I can't say everyone in the Boston area follows this use, but I can say it is dozens of people.  I've been told that when I have to say, "not-cis", then say "not-cis" or say, "trans- and non-binary".

And, my apologies to those who don't like this form.  It is how I've been told to use the language by those I interact with, and I have to take *someone's* guidance.

Edit to add:  I've also been told that "gender-queer" is becoming a more accepted form to refer to all those who are not cis-gender.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> That's a good point on who it's aimed at, but the game is still a poor place to do it.




The good place to do it is the place you are, where you can reasonably reach.  The people who write D&D are not in schools.  They are in D&D.  So, the game becomes a good place for them to include and normalize.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 7, 2018)

No, I will not use it. It is not how elves are in my campaigns. However, if someone wants to play a transgender elf, they can play a transgender elf.


----------



## mrpopstar (Jun 7, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> The best explanation I've heard is that they don't learn as quickly, because as a race they just aren't time pressured to do it.  A human will be practicing constantly to hone skills, whereas an elf might learn how to pick locks, and then go do other things or relax for 10 or 20 years before getting back to practicing it some more.  Elven PCs would be an exception to that since they are involved in a lot of practice in a very short period of time during adventures.



Elves are fey and we refer to fey as 'children' of the wood for a reason.


----------



## MiraMels (Jun 7, 2018)

Transsexual & transgender elves were already canon in my games and settings (even the ones set in official settings like the Forgotten Realms) 

As are trans humans, trans dwarves, trans orcs, trans tieflings, etc. 

Some of my players are trans, so of course they can find themselves (and people such as themselves) in my worlds. That's my duty as a dungeon master.


----------



## Warpiglet (Jun 7, 2018)

Frankly, the sort of fantasy and swords and sorcery my group is interested in does little to explore gender identity or sexuality.  I believe if we make assumptions we are generally defaulting to typical depictions of fantasy characters in areas we don't actively have interest in.  

To the point, none of the group is really invested in hashing out sexual attractions or gender identity of characters to date.  I don't see that changing.  As a result, we usually default to heterosexual cis-gendered characters of either sex.

I don't see any of us thinking: "I really want to play a female barbarian who feels trapped in a male body."  Just not of interest.  Does not get the blood pumping.  

If someone wants to do so, that is fine.  If some is transgendered and a nice person I would play a game with them and make them feel welcome.  

I just do not see these issues of more modern awareness to be a big part of the campaign.  Just not terribly interesting for me...

At the same time, having some "chosen" individuals with something that is reminiscent of their deity is not a bad thing or without precedent.  My warlock has weird eyes that are similar to his patron.  Not unheard of...  

However I do sort of chuckle when the only people who have this ability are the good guys and anyone who assume people be cisgendered are likely neutral or chaotic evil.  Whatever.  I just shrug.  

The quality of the books and games are great and the rules are such you really can play the way you want.  I am glad that people can incorporate these elements if they are interested in them!  More choice = more players.  More players = more D&D.  More D&D = better world 

Bottom line is we play what seems cool regardless of what makes society happy.  I don't have a problems with this depiction but it does not make me want to play an Elven Eldritch Knight right away either.  It is there if someone has interest.  I just really don't.

At one time, many people were upset about the implications of D&D with the great panic.  I would not let that sway the content I use.  Neither would making genderqueer people happy on a societal level (someone at my table is another matter).  I am just into seems cool and evocative of swords and sorcery or maybe LOTR/Elric.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

Umbran said:


> In my area/in my circles, the language goes thus:  Folks whose gender matches their birth sex are "cis-gender".  Those whose gender is the opposite of their birth sex are "transgender".  Those who do not well fit into the distinct two-gender pattern are "non-binary".  A transgender person still specifically identifies with one of the two broadly accepted genders, while non-binary people do not strongly identify with one, so the one cant' really be used as an overall term.  This is not "individuals who argue otherwise".  This is the common use of the local LGBTQ community that I interact with.  I can't say everyone in the Boston area follows this use, but I can say it is dozens of people.  I've been told that when I have to say, "not-cis", then say "not-cis" or say, "trans- and non-binary".
> 
> And, my apologies to those who don't like this form.  It is how I've been told to use the language by those I interact with, and I have to take *someone's* guidance.



Yeah, the language surrounding gender is still developing and different people have different perspectives on how best to describe things. The most important thing is just to respect people’s preferences for what they want to be called, and specifically referring to “trans and nonbinary” people is a good way to keep your bases covered. Personally, I don’t care for the model you describe here because it implies a link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum - that your gender can be “the same as” or “opposite from” your sex, instead of treating them as two completely independent spectra. But I do understand the desire to distinguish nonbinary folks from trans folks of binary gender so as not to erase nonbinary identity. Personally, I tend to use “transgender” when referring to binary trans folks, “trans” when using it in the umbrella sense, and “queer” to refer to LGBTQIA as a whole.



Umbran said:


> Edit to add:  I've also been told that "gender-queer" is becoming a more accepted form to refer to all those who are not cis-gender.



Genderqueer is an interesting case, because queer is a reclaimed slur. I’m all for its widespread use personally, it’s a wonderful and versatile term. But it’s the kind of thing it’s best to make sure a person is ok with being referred to by it before doing so.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 7, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, the language surrounding gender is still developing and different people have different perspectives on how best to describe things.



I'm just glad to hear I wasn't completely off-base in my understanding of the terminology.



Charlaquin said:


> Personally, I don’t care for the model you describe here because it implies a link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum - that your gender can be “the same as” or “opposite from” your sex, instead of treating them as two completely independent spectra.



I'm curious how you reconcile the proposition that there is no link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum with the proposition that genders are culturally constructed and assigned to particular sexes. If culture constructs another sort of identity -- say, nationality -- and assigns that identity to people from a particular patch of land, it seems reasonable to say there is a link between nationality and geography, and it'd be odd to say that they are completely independent.



Charlaquin said:


> Genderqueer is an interesting case, because queer is a reclaimed slur. I’m all for its widespread use personally, it’s a wonderful and versatile term. But it’s the kind of thing it’s best to make sure a person is ok with being referred to by it before doing so.



Yeah, I avoid that one. Even aside from what the person being referred to is okay with, it feels like a slur _to me_. And talk about implications... it's a *ahem* _strange_ term for a community seeking normalcy.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 7, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm just glad to hear I wasn't completely off-base in my understanding of the terminology.



For sure 



TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm curious how you reconcile the proposition that there is no link between the gender spectrum and the sex spectrum with the proposition that genders are culturally constructed and assigned to particular sexes. If culture constructs another sort of identity -- say, nationality -- and assigns that identity to people from a particular patch of land, it seems reasonable to say there is a link between nationality and geography, and it'd be odd to say that they are completely independent.



I might not have worded that as well as I could have. What I mean to say is that sex characteristics do not dictate the identity of someone who has them. Framing someone who is born with a penis but  identifies more with women than with men and is a woman in their own self-image has a gender that is “opppsite” their sex implies that identifying as a man when you have a penis is “normal” and the “opposite” is by aberrant by contrast. But as sex characteristics do not dictate identity, it is clearly not abnormal for someone with a penis to identify with women and see themself as a woman. So that model is flawed. Rather, sex should be seen as one spectrum and gender as another, and any placement on either as a normal, natural thing. Most cultures, however, have an expectation that one’s place on the sex spectrum ought to dictate their place on the gender spectrum. And this creates conflict with people who do not meet that expectation.



TheCosmicKid said:


> Yeah, I avoid that one. Even aside from what the person being referred to is okay with, it feels like a slur _to me_. And talk about implications... it's a *ahem* _strange_ term for a community seeking normalcy.



Totally fair. Reclaimed slurs are a tricky thing, and when in doubt, not using them is always a safe bet, especially if you are not part of the group that has been targeted by it. Me, I love calling myself queer because it takes the power away from the people who would use it to hurt me. Damn right I’m odd, and proud of it! “Seeking normalcy” is kind of funky phrasing - we seek to be acknowledged as a normal part of life, not to pretend we aren’t different from cis people. To be accepted, not assimilated. To celebrate our differences rather than to have them ignored or demonized.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 7, 2018)

How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love?  In the USA 3.8% apparently identify as LBQT so in a somewhat liberal place a straight 5% of 1 in 20 chance an NPC might be receptive. In other parts of the world it would be functionally impossible to find anyone due to cultural norms that are oppressive?

I would let people RP whatever they wants but surgery or a magical equivalent would not be readily available. You would have to use magic to transition I suppose. Modern day liberal democratic norms and human rights would not exist. 

 Parts of my world you can and will get tortured and/or executed for being the wrong species or religion. I do not have a Kumbaya world where things like that happen in the evil lands. The default is kinda evil by modern standards but would more or less be the norm 500-1000 years ago.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 7, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love?  In the USA 3.8% apparently identify as LBQT so in a somewhat liberal place a straight 5% of 1 in 20 chance an NPC might be receptive. In other parts of the world it would be functionally impossible to find anyone due to cultural norms that are oppressive?
> 
> I would let people RP whatever they wants but surgery or a magical equivalent would not be readily available. You would have to use magic to transition I suppose. Modern day liberal democratic norms and human rights would not exist.
> 
> Parts of my world you can and will get tortured and/or executed for being the wrong species or religion. I do not have a Kumbaya world where things like that happen in the evil lands. The default is kinda evil by modern standards but would more or less be the norm 500-1000 years ago.




That 5% or so tends to be individuals who are strictly gay women and men, and self-identify as such. When you bring bisexuality into the equation, the percentage is much higher.

So, the actual number seems to depend more on culture.

As a rule of thumb, I try to make sure about one out of every ten couples is samesex.

Plus it is interesting. Sometimes I downplay characters, sometimes I emphasize them. It tends to be fun to include them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 7, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> That 5% or so tends to be individuals who are strictly gay women and men, and self-identify as such. When you bring bisexuality into the equation, the percentage is much higher.
> 
> So, the actual number seems to depend more on culture.
> 
> ...




Well 1 in ten is way higher than what it is in liberal democracies. People tend to over estimate how many LBQT people there actually are probably because you are going to see it more on TV for example than IRL. Our values are actuallyin the minority on Earth most of the population is not a liberal democracy and you can still get killed or face massice discrimination in a good chunk of the world for being LBQT so you I guess in those parts of the world its very much in the closest.

 USA the number came in at 3.8% using google fu. I'm in New Zealand bi sexuals are 1.8%, gay 2.6%

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

 Sure not everyone will tick the box on a census form but NZ is one of the most gay friendly countries on the planet in terms of rights and acceptance. 

 My world doesn't have anyhting close to a liberal democracy maybe some free cities where people don't care about much of anything where money is more important. The Elven lands they won't care to much about it but in their and slavery is the default so you could buy a boby pleasure slave to do whatever you like with. 
 In the Knights of Vanya lands slavery is illeal but they are basically very conservative humanocentric types. 

 These are the nice places to live. By nice I mean safe.

 Its basically if you want to make a nicer place you have to create it (going back to AD&D/BECMI domain type rules). Of course if you can amass enough political power/money/influence you can more or less do what you want (except maybe in the Knights of Vanya lands they are a theocracy).


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 7, 2018)

Ok, a couple of things. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with nationality. If there are variances in %s, that’s because of how it was collected, not because it’s an accurate representation. In large populations, it’s probably going to be the same all over the world. 

Secondly, the % matters not at all if a player had an LBGTQ PC who was looking for love. It’s a game. Pretend. If a player wanted to do that, I’d implement it in the game regardless of whatever % of real life people who happen to be LGBTQ


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 7, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Ok, a couple of things. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with nationality. If there are variances in %s, that’s because of how it was collected, not because it’s an accurate representation. In large populations, it’s probably going to be the same all over the world.
> 
> Secondly, the % matters not at all if a player had an LBGTQ PC who was looking for love. It’s a game. Pretend. If a player wanted to do that, I’d implement it in the game regardless of whatever % of real life people who happen to be LGBTQ




 Well by now you probably have noticed I take a bit of a stimulationist approach to D&D. I tend towards a very sandbox type game (you can attempt anything you want). 

 A lot of basic assumptions about modern life (freedom of association, religious freedom, the right to a fair trial) do not exist in my worlds. You can play a monstrous race in my game but think Drizzt in Sojourn if you rock into some places as a Tiefling of Dragonborn they will literally see you as the spawn of Satan (or equivalent), or a monster and such a PC can easily face the death penalty or mob violence. In dark shadows vampires exist to basically eat you. IN some parts of the world a human more or lees may as well have slave tattooed on them and Elves are barely tolerated. Anything more exotic than a Gnome, Elf or Dwarf might have an interesting life. 

 My PCs usually tend to flee or set up their own nations where they can pass the law themselves or do what they want. I read a lot of history books and everyday life for most people was fine- as long as you conformed. Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions,slavery these are all part of my world. Its not a nice world by modern standards but that is kind of the point.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 7, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> the % matters not at all if a player had an LBGTQ PC who was looking for love. It’s a game. Pretend. If a player wanted to do that, I’d implement it in the game regardless of whatever % of real life people who happen to be LGBTQ




Right?!

I mean, how many times in Fantasy or Sci Fi games has my character had a romance with a member of another species (including robots)? As often as Bioware, CDProjectRed, Bethesda, and any other game developer allowed it.

Having been indulged in my weirdness I see no reason not to to help someone else in their comparatively, scratch that completely, normal in game romance request.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 7, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Well by now you probably have noticed I take a bit of a stimulationist approach to D&D. I tend towards a very sandbox type game (you can attempt anything you want).
> 
> A lot of basic assumptions about modern life (freedom of association, religious freedom, the right to a fair trial) do not exist in my worlds. You can play a monstrous race in my game but think Drizzt in Sojourn if you rock into some places as a Tiefling of Dragonborn they will literally see you as the spawn of Satan (or equivalent), or a monster and such a PC can easily face the death penalty or mob violence. In dark shadows vampires exist to basically eat you. IN some parts of the world a human more or lees may as well have slave tattooed on them and Elves are barely tolerated. Anything more exotic than a Gnome, Elf or Dwarf might have an interesting life.
> 
> My PCs usually tend to flee or set up their own nations where they can pass the law themselves or do what they want. I read a lot of history books and everyday life for most people was fine- as long as you conformed. Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions,slavery these are all part of my world. Its not a nice world by modern standards but that is kind of the point.




As long as you and your players want to explore those concepts in your games that's great. Fantastic even.

These days I find it refreshing to be in a fantasy world, either through games or books typically, that doesn't rehash those tropes.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> I might not have worded that as well as I could have. What I mean to say is that sex characteristics do not dictate the identity of someone who has them. Framing someone who is born with a penis but  identifies more with women than with men and is a woman in their own self-image has a gender that is “opppsite” their sex implies that identifying as a man when you have a penis is “normal” and the “opposite” is by aberrant by contrast. But as sex characteristics do not dictate identity, it is clearly not abnormal for someone with a penis to identify with women and see themself as a woman. So that model is flawed. Rather, sex should be seen as one spectrum and gender as another, and any placement on either as a normal, natural thing. Most cultures, however, have an expectation that one’s place on the sex spectrum ought to dictate their place on the gender spectrum. And this creates conflict with people who do not meet that expectation.



I see the underlying problem as the equivocation between "normal"/"natural" in the descriptive sense and "normal"/"natural" in the evaluative sense. The jump from "is" to "ought". Statistically, one's place on the sex spectrum _does_ dictate their place on the gender spectrum, to a high degree of correlation. But the correlation is not 100%, and there is no "ought" in that sentence. The correlation between "playing the lottery" and "losing the lottery" is also extremely high, but that doesn't mean we should shame and oppress lottery winners.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 8, 2018)

Let's not pretend that homophobia is the default reality even for "simulationist" games.

Lots of historical cultures were fine with it. Indeed, in many places in the Middle Ages, nobody cared who you took as a lover, as long as you were married to someone in order to produce an heir. And "gay/straight" often weren't seen as identities the way they are today. Who you slept with had no bearing on who you were.

Just as Middle Ages Europe was far less universally white than most modern portrayals suggest.

If you want to make your D&D cultures oppressive, you have that right. But saying it's oppressive _because_ it's simulationist is inaccurate, because while that's true of some places, it's untrue of others. It's oppressive because you chose to make it so.

(That's not a moral judgment. There's some solid RPing and story potential to be found in oppressive cultures. But it _is_ a choice the DM made.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I see the underlying problem as the equivocation between "normal"/"natural" in the descriptive sense and "normal"/"natural" in the evaluative sense. The jump from "is" to "ought". Statistically, one's place on the sex spectrum _does_ dictate their place on the gender spectrum, to a high degree of correlation. But the correlation is not 100%, and there is no "ought" in that sentence. The correlation between "playing the lottery" and "losing the lottery" is also extremely high, but that doesn't mean we should shame and oppress lottery winners.




Yes, exactly.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love?



I don't get a lot of players looking to roleplay romance, queer or otherwise. Probably because I tend to play with my irl friends, and roleplaying romantic scenes could get awkward for both parties. But, if one did want to, I'd try to accommodate. 



Zardnaar said:


> In the USA 3.8% apparently identify as LBQT so in a somewhat liberal place a straight 5% of 1 in 20 chance an NPC might be receptive. In other parts of the world it would be functionally impossible to find anyone due to cultural norms that are oppressive?



Yeah, but also in the USA, 0% of the population can create fire out of nothing or turn invisible. Real-life demographics have no influence on what I allow in my D&D games.



Zardnaar said:


> I would let people RP whatever they wants but surgery or a magical equivalent would not be readily available. You would have to use magic to transition I suppose. Modern day liberal democratic norms and human rights would not exist.
> 
> Parts of my world you can and will get tortured and/or executed for being the wrong species or religion. I do not have a Kumbaya world where things like that happen in the evil lands. The default is kinda evil by modern standards but would more or less be the norm 500-1000 years ago.



This gets into "queer folk use gaming as an escape too" territory. Don't we have enough of these issues to deal with in real life without having to drag them into our fantasies too? I mean, there's a time and place for examining serious sociopolitical issues, but Friday nights with a couple of friends over enjoying a beer and throwing dice is not that place for me.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> Let's not pretend that homophobia is the default reality even for "simulationist" games.
> 
> Lots of historical cultures were fine with it. Indeed, in many places in the Middle Ages, nobody cared who you took as a lover, as long as you were married to someone in order to produce an heir. And "gay/straight" often weren't seen as identities the way they are today. Who you slept with had no bearing on who you were.
> 
> ...




 My oppression as such is not universal. If you walk into Kriegsburg as an Elf they will be hostile to you, walk in as a Tiefling you are probably gonna get killed. In the free city of L'Trel no one cares to much but L'trel is being competed over by the Elven houses and the Knight of Vanya. PCs can pick a side or forement a revolution which is what they did in my last campaign. The Paladin of Apollo wanted to conquer Nithia (the Paladin was Thyatian) Thyatis= Rome, Nithia= Egypt BTW. 


 Yeah most places are crappy, if its a problem make the world a better place, a Paladin shattered the Elven Empire and killed their Empress on the field of battle. The nation of Solaria however has morphed into the Knights of Vanya a Theocratic monotheistic state.

Europe had minorities of course but it was not liberal in the modern sense,. In the 18th century perhaps 10 000 Africans live in London (UK population 5 million or so 1700), the Turks had the Turkish house in Venice which at one point had the only Orthodox church in western Europe outside the Orthodox lands. The Ottomans had the millet system where people tended to live in there own suburbs and Jews lived in ghettoes until the post Napoleonic era as Napoleon was the one who liberalised things in that regard.

There were no mosques in most parts of Europe (Sicily I think was the only place that had them IIRC outside of Muslim lands),  no pagans, not much in the way of democracy and no universal suffrage (1 in 7 UK citizens could vote). As bad as Victorian England was by our standards at the time that was as liberal as Europe got. The 1st Indian restaurant opened in London in the 19th century before the 1st Fish and Chip shop IIRC. 99%+ of the UK was white. mass immigration from the colonies to Europe is a modern day (20th century) thing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> My oppression as such is not universal...




*nod*

I should have been clearer. I was using what you said as a jumping-off point for what I wanted to say, but I was addressing the common topics of "my setting is oppressive because realism" and "in-game oppression of real-world marginalized people" in general, not making a point about your setting in specific.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> *nod*
> 
> I should have been clearer. I was using what you said as a jumping-off point for what I wanted to say, but I was addressing the common topics of "my setting is oppressive because realism" and "in-game oppression of real-world marginalized people" in general, not making a point about your setting in specific.




 Most people get oppressed in my world I dont target anyone in particular. Its up to the PCs to find somewhere where they are not oppressed or create somewhere where they are not oppressed. 

 Elves don't care about things like sexuality but they have slavery. The Knights of Vanya do not have slavery but they are very humanocentric and conservative. The nice Elven houses want to reform into a human, elven, half elven confederation the nasty ones enslavement and cannon fodder soldiers. There is only 1 good aligned major Elven house though, 4 bad ones and a few minor ones that are "nice"

 I like Darksun a lot for example. Everyone's oppressed by the Sorcerer Kings and the alternative is a lot worse (genocide).

Its also an easy way to get heat on NPCs if they are a villain. Just model them on someone in real life who did something nasty by modern standards.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Most people get oppressed in my world I dont target anyone in particular. Its up to the PCs to find somewhere where they are not oppressed or create somewhere where they are not oppressed.




Sure. I meant it when I said there's great story potential in oppression (as long as all the players are on board with it). The upcoming _Lost Citadel_ campaign I worked on has slavery--particularly of dwarves--as a cornerstone of the city's culture/government.

I just object to people saying their setting is oppressive _because_ they're trying to be "historically accurate," is all.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sure. I meant it when I said there's great story potential in oppression (as long as all the players are on board with it). The upcoming _Lost Citadel_ campaign I worked on has slavery--particularly of dwarves--as a cornerstone of the city's culture/government.
> 
> I just object to people saying their setting is oppressive _because_ they're trying to be "historically accurate," is all.




 I base some of my cultures on RL ones, classical Greece, Rome, and ancient Egypt. 

 The European parts are not very ye olde Medieval England/France. If anything its more eastern European the HRE, and the merchant Republics (Venice, Hanseatic League, Ragusa, Genoa etc). Knights of Vanya are basically the Teutonic Order. 

 I don't play Europa Unversalis IV at all. It not a bad place to look for non Feudal monarchy forms of government though.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

@_*Zardnaar*_

5% or so self-identify as strictly gay. But bisexuality dramatically increases this percentage.

In settings, it tends to be fun to make about one out ten couples samesex.

• some of these couples are spouses
• some of these couples are close friends
• some of these couples are one-night stands

(Same goes for oppositesex couples.)


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 8, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> Sure. I meant it when I said there's great story potential in oppression (as long as all the players are on board with it). The upcoming _Lost Citadel_ campaign I worked on has slavery--particularly of dwarves--as a cornerstone of the city's culture/government.
> 
> I just object to people saying their setting is oppressive _because_ they're trying to be "historically accurate," is all.




I think one of the things to make clear in the presentation of any overtly oppressive society is that it's _not good_.  Sure, members of certain races may benefit from civilizations that favor them, but that's not the same as making a positive presentation of the matter.  Even oppressive societies _know_ that what they're doing is bad, even if they won't admit it.  That's why slaves always get "out of sight" jobs, and slaves that don't (maids, butlers, etc...) get dressed up.  Even the common folks at the time saw it for what it was, but typically they were too powerless to do anything about it.

It's why you're more likely to see players object to it, even discounting modern sensibilities: the players have power.  Something that most people in an oppressed society fundamentally _don't_.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> @_*Zardnaar*_
> 
> 5% or so self-identify as strictly gay. But bisexuality dramatically increases this percentage.
> 
> ...




 As I said I looked at it in  and its around 4-5% total. In the USA figures seem to be similar (3.8%). Bi sexual is less than 2%, gay is close to 3% so overall its a bit less than 5% total. The entire LGBT community here is just less than 5%. That is official/confidential census figures in one of the more liberal nations in the world. Sure not everyone might tick the box but its probably higher than 5%.

 10% you can use but its around double official numbers from the most liberal nations on the planet.  Also see this.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

 Before I went digging a couple of days ago my estimate was around 3% so I was slightly off its more than I thought.

 Trans basically don't exist form a medical point of view (lack of technology). Have not thought about the % of people who might identify as the opposite gender but they would technically be male or female as you can't get surgery and magic is not widespread enough to duplicate it on a statistically significant scale. You might find a magic submarine for example but you can't get a fleet of them anyone who has transitioned would be via magic and be very rare almost unique. Mostly from ye olde Girdle that changes your gender.

 Similar reason why nukes don't exist although there are similar ancient magitech versions hidden here and there. I don't have magical versions of most modern inventions except maybe as one of things in certain locations.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> As I said I looked at it in  and its around 4-5% total. In the USA figures seem to be similar (3.8%). Bi sexual is less than 2%, gay is close to 3% so overall its a bit less than 1% total. The entire LGBT community here is just less than 5%. That is official/confidential census figures in one of the more liberal nations in the world. Sure not everyone might tick the box but its probably higher than 5%.
> 
> 10% you can use but its around double official numbers from the most liberal nations on the planet.  Also see this.
> http://news.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx
> ...




If bisexuality was 2%, then probably things like prison sex, boarding school sex, and other samesex environments would be unheard of.

Objectively speaking, the human species seems more fluid than cultures like to pretend.

When there are various forms of persecution, discrimination, and social pressures, any statistics need caution.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

When I was a kid, I remember when my (usually sane, intelligent) dad said, ‘There are no gay people in Norway’.

I laughed.

I told him, ‘Well, Norway legalized gay marriage, so there are at least two’.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> If bisexuality was 2%, then probably things like prison sex, boarding school sex, and other samesex environments would be unheard of.
> 
> Objectively speaking, the human species seems more fluid than cultures like to pretend.
> 
> When there are various forms of persecution, discrimination, and social pressures, any statistics need caution.




 Somewhat extreme situations where members of the other sex are in limited supply lol. 

 As I said NZ is one of the best places in the world to be gay, beats me why they would need to hide it in a confidential government census where sexuality is expressly covered by our laws. 
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11459271

 Our numbers here are similar to the US numbers and I provided a link to show how people over estimate the amount of LBGT people in the general population.

 LBGT are probably over represented in pop culture and in big cities which would skew the perception of how many there actually are. Gay people exist in my worlds, mass media does not. Trans basically do not exist in any significant numbers (due to technology)although if someone cared enough I would let them quest to enable it via magic I suppose. They would need to find a magical mc guffin or gain enough power and be a spellcaster and create their own spell to do it.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Somewhat extreme situations where members of the other sex are in limited supply lol.
> 
> As I said NZ is one of the best places in the world to be gay, beats me why they would need to hide it in a confidential government census where sexuality is expressly covered by our laws.
> https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11459271
> ...




Almost all other animals only have sex seasonally. Humans (and bonobos) are the only species who have sex whenever they want because of *social* cooperative survival strategies.

This biological revolution entails fluidity in sexual orientation. Indeed, bonobos are fully bisexual.

Human sexuality is a phenomenon that scientists are still investigating. It is fascinating.



In situations where the opposite sex is unavailable, it would be impossible for bisexuality to occur, unless humans were biologically bisexual.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Almost all other animals only have sex seasonally. Humans (and bonobos) are the only species who have sex whenever they want because of *social* cooperative survival strategies.
> 
> This biological revolution entails fluidity in sexual orientation. Indeed, bonobos are fully bisexual.
> 
> ...




 I don't regard people in extreme situations like prison as gay or bi sexual if they take a lover. Its whats available not what they have a choice of. I know one women who is more or less hetrosexual but takes women lovers instead due to what happened to her with an ex boyfriend. She craves someone to care for her but its not really her 1st choice but she takes whats available for her due to her back ground. She is to scared of the males and its a fling with the girls. Extreme situation not gonna stick a label on that.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Heh, logical fallacy of ‘a true Scotsman’ seems to be in play.

A ‘true’ bisexual would only have samesex sex if outside of prison.

We pretend the bisexuals who have samesex sex in prison, dont count as bisexuals.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Trans basically do not exist in any significant numbers (due to technology)although if someone cared enough I would let them quest to enable it via magic I suppose.




Why would trans people be less common due to technology? Trans is an identity where your gender doesn't match the physical sex you were born with. The ability to change that (via surgery) isn't a defining factor. Lots of trans people go for surgeries if they can, but many can't, and many choose not to. They're still trans.

Trans people have existed from the beginning, and many cultures even have "third genders" to represent them.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> Why would trans people be less common due to technology? Trans is an identity where your gender doesn't match the physical sex you were born with. The ability to change that (via surgery) isn't a defining factor. Lots of trans people go for surgeries if they can, but many can't, and many choose not to. They're still trans.
> 
> Trans people have existed from the beginning, and many cultures even have "third genders" to represent them.




Of course if that is your definition they exist. I meant actually transitioning they would not exist for the most part (very very very rare via magic sure). It has never really come up from a player or been an issue however its up to the player to sort that type of stuff out just don't expect me to RP it out if I am DMing. In general that type of stuff happens off camera though even with hetero PCs and players with female/male DM/players. Most of the time its find someone nice, get married or whatever and sometimes retire the PC if they want to settle down.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Of course if that is your definition they exist. I meant actually transitioning they would not exist for the most part (very very very rare via magic sure).




Okay, but that actually _is_ the definition. Whether one has transitioned or not, or _wants_ to transition or not, is separate from the trans identity.

I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you, I just feel that people's identities and definitions are important, which makes the terminology by which they're referred to important.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Almost all other animals only have sex seasonally. Humans (and bonobos) are the only species who have sex whenever they want because of *social* cooperative survival strategies.



Dolphins too, I'm pretty sure.



Zardnaar said:


> Of course if that is your definition they exist.



There's no "your" about it, that's _the_ definition.



Zardnaar said:


> I meant actually transitioning they would not exist for the most part (very very very rare via magic sure).



You say that like Alter Self isn't a 2nd level spell.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Dolphins too, I'm pretty sure.
> 
> 
> There's no "your" about it, that's _the_ definition.
> ...




ALter self is temporary and yes magical.

 Polymorph exists a well, once again not permanent. Permanent alteration that cant be dispelled maybe level 5 or 6 arcane spell for wizards? If someone really wanted to do it for whatever reason there is ways to enable it in game I suppose (spell research, finding a magic item).

 Such things have always existed of course but I think people are projecting modern values etc onto places in time where things were not tolerated. 

 Hell one of the Kings of France had someone executed for sleeping with his 2 sisters, the crime was insulting the king. In Saudi Arabia in the 70's they executed some royals for having a heterosexual affair. Often you would have to be politically powerful or connected to be protected. There were exceptions of course and it varied by culture and time frame and how much money, power and influence one had as to what was acceptable or what you could get away with.

 My history lecturer told me a story about a gay Knight, it was not accepted of course but it was kind of hush hush if challenged he would defend his honor and he won all of his fights so after a while people stopped calling him on it. I'm not denying anything always been there always well be can't wipe out even if you wanted to.

 Basically you can find examples of people being executed for heterosexual "crimes" let alone gay or other things. Those ones are a lot easier to find. Ima cynic the world is an unfair and cruel place.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> ALter self is temporary and yes magical.
> 
> Polymorph exists a well, once again not permanent. Permanent alteration that cant be dispelled maybe level 5 or 6 arcane spell for wizards? If someone really wanted to do it for whatever reason there is ways to enable it in game I suppose (spell research, finding a magic item).




My dude, if I could change my body a couple times a day for an hour at a time just by wiggling my fingers and chanting some latin, that'd get me through the day a hell of a lot more easily than going through puberty a second time.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> My dude, if I could change my body a couple times a day for an hour at a time just by wiggling my fingers and chanting some latin, that'd get me through the day a hell of a lot more easily than going through puberty a second time.




Puberty sucks.  I think both sexes agree on that.

Also, I mean I just gotta ask: would a M->F or F->M player actually _want_ to play a sex shifting character?  I would assume they'd be more likely to play a character of the sex they transitioned into (or are transitioning into or want to be)?  (Assuming they're going for a self-insert character.)  Honestly asking.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 8, 2018)

In my games, changes for new products do not get added during an ongoing game unless all of these are true

 it does not disrupt or invalidate existing characters and history.

A player including gm asks for it.

It passes a unanimous vote.

As gm i wont ask since it doesnt add anything that spawns new plots that link to pcs.

No player has yet asked.

So, no.

Next campaign, it will be a posdible inclusion.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> In my games, changes for new products do not get added during an ongoing game unless all of these are true
> 
> it does not disrupt or invalidate existing characters and history.
> 
> ...




 This is kinda similar to what I do as well. I might run a restrictive game for example and follow it up with a very sandbox one where anything goes.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> This is kinda similar to what I do as well. I might run a restrictive game for example and follow it up with a very sandbox one where anything goes.



For us a lot of choices at beginning are mutually decided but afyer the game is ongoing little changes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

5ekyu said:


> For us a lot of choices at beginning are mutually decided but afyer the game is ongoing little changes.




Yeah the campaign needs to be consistent I think regardless of what you are doing IMHO. Magi tech on Darksun not so much on Eberron sure.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

As DM, I kinda feel weird about roleplaying an NPC romantic interest for a PC character.

I feel like everyone would have to really be into the Romance genre ... heh, or be openly flirting in reallife ... to make it work.

I might describe a particular NPC showing interest. And maybe something lighthearted and suggestive. But I dont really dwell on it.

If the player shows interest, I let him or her run the NPC and roleplay the relationship. I have had more than one player run two player characters that were a duo in a relationship.

I do similar with other family members and friends, but these are usually more offcamera during the adventure. I try to make sure I have permission before I mess with their family characters for adventure hooks.



How do you guys handle this stuff?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> How do you guys handle this stuff?




Mostly the same. Anything beyond casual conversation or, at most, light/flirty banter happens "off-screen." But even if it's mostly "fade to black," such events are still a part of character development, and it's not like I have the NPCs forget what happened afterward.

(The above applies to all manner of romantic/sexual encounters with PCs, regardless of the gender of the participants.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Also, I mean I just gotta ask: would a M->F or F->M player actually _want_ to play a sex shifting character?  I would assume they'd be more likely to play a character of the sex they transitioned into (or are transitioning into or want to be)?  (Assuming they're going for a self-insert character.)  Honestly asking.



So, first of all, that “M->F/F->M” terminology is not favored by most trans people. It puts emphasis on the person’s sex and the process of transitioning, instead of on the person’s gender and their identity. And it’s kind of invalidating to trans folk who either can’t or don’t want to transition physically. The most widely preferred terms are “trans woman” for someone who was assigned male at birth but identifies as w woman. and “trans man” for someone who was assigned female at birth but identifies as a man. And that terminology is equally applicable to trans folks regardless of whether or not they are transitioning or what stage of transition they may be in.

That out of the way, I can only speak for myself, but if I was going to make a self-insert character for some reason, I would definitely make that character an AMAB trans woman just like I am. Being trans has had a huge impact on my life, and I am a different person as a direct result of being trans than I would be if I had been an AFAB cis woman. Any character that was meant to be my avatar in a fictional world would need to be trans to feel true to who I am. Being trans is as much a part of my identity as being a woman is.

Of course, I don’t really make self-insert characters (any more. I did more when I was younger, and most of them were cis men cause I hadn’t realized I was trans are that point in my life. Though I did on occasion create cis women that I didn’t frame as self-inserts at the time, but in retrospect totally were.) And the characters I make are all over the gender spectrum. I make cis men and women most often, but I also enjoy playing trans and new non-binary characters on occasion as well.


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> As DM, I kinda feel weird about roleplaying an NPC romantic interest for a PC character.
> 
> I feel like everyone would have to really be into the Romance genre ... heh, or be openly flirting in reallife ... to make it work.
> 
> ...



Pretty much the same here. I’d be willing to do a little “on-camera” romantic roleplaying if a player expressed an interest in that and the rest of the group was ok with it, but it would be pretty light, fluffy kind of stuff, and I’d keep it brief. But I’ve never really had a player express such a desire, and that’s perfectly fine with me.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Pretty much the same here. I’d be willing to do a little “on-camera” romantic roleplaying if a player expressed an interest in that and the rest of the group was ok with it, but it would be pretty light, fluffy kind of stuff, and I’d keep it brief. But I’ve never really had a player express such a desire, and that’s perfectly fine with me.




Women gamers have been a standard part of my D&D experience. I notice, their influence tends make men gamers pay more attention to the relationships of their character. And it is great for setting immersion.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Next time I am a player, I think I will try run two characters, two brothers, one straight and one gay. See where it goes.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> Next time I am a player, I think I will try run two characters, two brothers, one straight and one gay. See where it goes.




Heh. Of course, I will make sure I char op them to make their teamwork mechanics powerfully synergize.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> That out of the way, I can only speak for myself, but if I was going to make a self-insert character for some reason, I would definitely make that character an AMAB trans woman just like I am. Being trans has had a huge impact on my life, and I am a different person as a direct result of being trans than I would be if I had been an AFAB cis woman. Any character that was meant to be my avatar in a fictional world would need to be trans to feel true to who I am. Being trans is as much a part of my identity as being a woman is.
> 
> Of course, I don’t really make self-insert characters (any more. I did more when I was younger, and most of them were cis men cause I hadn’t realized I was trans are that point in my life. Though I did on occasion create cis women that I didn’t frame as self-inserts at the time, but in retrospect totally were.) And the characters I make are all over the gender spectrum. I make cis men and women most often, but I also enjoy playing trans and new non-binary characters on occasion as well.




I'm curious, how/where does that impact play - playing a trans woman character as opposed to a cis woman character?

Okay I have just thought of something else - D&D games (I'm not necessarily speaking of published material) often elicit a medieval period along with the baggage that comes with that such as the ideologies and regressive culture practices that we would imagine at the time such as sexism, slavery, racism, religious extremism...etc. I would imagine a trans dressed character (i.e. male dressed in woman garb) could find pushback from the setting ideologue. In that instance I would imagine exception might be made. Yes, no maybe?

HOWEVER, having said that - the racism that has been explored at my table has not been black/white/asian but rather between the various playable races - so exclusions already exist or at least that have not been explored by our table.

EDIT: I have at my table, had NPCs verbally insult the PCs based on their race, faith, sex or garb - is gender forbidden?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> a few elites try to force the change and that encounters blowback and you get things like the 2016 election.If things happen organically most of the time I think you would have a better outcome. When you try and force change bad things usually happen (WW1, USA civil war, Bolsheviks etc).



I'm not sure what "organic" change you are envisaging in lieu of the US Civil War. When reconstruction was ended, the "organic" result was Jim Crow. Jim Crow was ended by a mixture of popular struggle (I'm not sure if you count that as organic or not) and exercises of federal government power. To the extent that the current US Supreme Court has wound back the Voting Rights Act, that seems to be allowing an "organic" re-emergence of the exclusion of Black people from the democratic process.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what "organic" change you are envisaging in lieu of the US Civil War. When reconstruction was ended, the "organic" result was Jim Crow. Jim Crow was ended by a mixture of popular struggle (I'm not sure if you count that as organic or not) and exercises of federal government power. To the extent that the current US Supreme Court has wound back the Voting Rights Act, that seems to be allowing an "organic" re-emergence of the exclusion of Black people from the democratic process.




 I think slavery would have eventually ended naturally and maybe things like Jim Crow laws would not have been used due to bitterness over reconstruction. The UK may have for example told them no more slave produced cotton and yields were down anyway and cotton production was picking up in places like Egypt. Economically slavery was unsustainable and I think it would have ended anyway by the 1880's. 

 Other things are the conservatives in Germany backing Austria in WW1 to stop socialism spreading. Or Imperial Russia which may have been better off waiting for the Tsar to die rather going down the path they did. That is what I meant by waiting things out they may have had a better result. Can't stop change try to violently fight it tends to cause more problems than organically letting things play out. Syria and Iraq perhaps more modern examples turns out there are worse alternatives than Assad.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 8, 2018)

Sadras said:


> EDIT: I have at my table, had NPCs verbally insult the PCs based on their race, faith, sex or garb - is gender forbidden?




I've had a very conservative bishop npc in my campaign insult women in general. But then again, he was meant to be an unlikable guy. And the goal of the situation was for the players to deal with the prejudice and hidden agendas of the various npc's in that social situation.

So, I don't think it's entirely off limits. But context matters.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 8, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I've had a very conservative bishop npc in my campaign insult women in general. But then again, he was meant to be an unlikable guy. And the goal of the situation was for the players to deal with the prejudice and hidden agendas of the various npc's in that social situation.
> 
> So, I don't think it's entirely off limits. But context matters.




True. The only time I have used prejudice outside of such similar example is if the PCs are in a foreign land or among foreigners who might view specific races as distrustful (and there is a PC playing such race) or if the role of woman in the specific culture engaged with is very different to the PCs (and there is a female PC present).

EDIT: In the latter example, I turned it slightly into a positive in that one of the men of that particular culture developed a fascination with the female-warrior PC. Some humourous moments developed between her male retainer and the individual. The player liked the exchange, and was saddened/annoyed when her 'doe-eyed' barbarian fell victim to the breath attack of Icingdeath.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I think slavery would have eventually ended naturally and maybe things like Jim Crow laws would not have been used due to bitterness over reconstruction. The UK may have for example told them no more slave produced cotton and yields were down anyway and cotton production was picking up in places like Egypt. Economically slavery was unsustainable and I think it would have ended anyway by the 1880's.



I'm not sure what makes a foreign trade boycott more "organic" than a domestic fight for liberation. I don't think there's a lot of historical evidence that it produces less bitterness either.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 8, 2018)

gyor said:


> They aren't transgendered or transgendered, they are more magigendered, because their is no real would human eqivilant to people who can change their biological sex daily whenever they feel like it.
> 
> But you can have more like real life transgendered characters of any race, that is pure RP, not mechanics unlike blessed of Corellon Larethian.




It's sex not gender. Looking at the text it is only the more androgynous elves that seem blessed with this ability, their gender doesn't change only their sex does.

Personally I'll be fine with them in my game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what makes a foreign trade boycott more "organic" than a domestic fight for liberation. I don't think there's a lot of historical evidence that it produces less bitterness either.




 Well they would not have had their cities trashed in the civil war and had them occupied by the feds. Cotton production was declining anyway in the traditional areas, I think they would have realised it was a waste of time by the 1880's anyway. I don't really see it lasting much longer without the war. Its one of those great unknowns I suppose. In the long runIDK if the war made it worse or not. A federal buyout of the slaves probably would have been cheaper than fighting the war as well.


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 8, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> I've had a very conservative bishop npc in my campaign insult women in general. But then again, he was meant to be an unlikable guy. And the goal of the situation was for the players to deal with the prejudice and hidden agendas of the various npc's in that social situation.
> 
> So, I don't think it's entirely off limits. But context matters.




I agree. Combating and dealing with prejudices ingame can be fun if everyone is on board. Same as dealing with ideologies and means of government- we once had a PC with a noble background who didn't think that _democracy _could work at all and that it would doom the society he lived in. Despite the fact that their noble houses just ended a near-fatal war a few years ago. 

I'd rather direct prejudices etc. at everyone (not necessarily all at once), depending on the circumstances. Not just at PCs belonging to one kind of group.


----------



## Shasarak (Jun 8, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've seen the Jeremy Crawford interview where he talks about Elves as portrayed in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes - specifically, some of them can now change sex after a long rest, so they're transsexual in practice.
> 
> What do you think of it ?




I think it is a fine addition to Jeremys home brew game.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

Lylandra said:


> I agree. Combating and dealing with prejudices ingame can be fun if everyone is on board. Same as dealing with ideologies and means of government- we once had a PC with a noble background who didn't think that _democracy _could work at all and that it would doom the society he lived in. Despite the fact that their noble houses just ended a near-fatal war a few years ago.
> 
> I'd rather direct prejudices etc. at everyone (not necessarily all at once), depending on the circumstances. Not just at PCs belonging to one kind of group.




Well Democracy seems to be failing after less than 100 odd years as universal democratic ideal (since 1893 here). Monarchy was stable for centuries. 

 I live in a liberal democracy with a monarch as head of state, when I was younger I was anti monarchist, now once I look at Republics maybe having an educated hereditary head of state is not the worst thing in the world. The Queen can fire the NZ prime minster theoretically so if we elected a pumpkin who was a disaster the armed forces and police are theoretically loyal to her majesty not the government. We can also remove a prime minister without having to resort to impeachment they get rolled by their own party on occasion, we elect the party the party elects the leader.


----------



## Lylandra (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> How do you guys handle this stuff?




Depends. As a DM, I play NPC like regular people with regular interests. This includes romance, especially if my PCs like to court and flirt. If they do get hooked up, I play the relationship but fade to black once the sexy stuff starts (other than, like, saying "oh and you noticed he/she really liked your hair"). They have to deal with the consequences though, which means long-term interests, broken hearts, retaliation or even marriage. 

If they are in a relationship, I regularly hint at small gestures the couple might be exchanging, depending on the nature of their relationship. One of my PCs is constantly teasing his girlfriend and is being teased in return for example. 

As a player, I just roleplay the interests of my character. PC-PC relationships are a bit easier to play as you don't take time from your DM to play your romance. And you both usually play only one character. Which means discussing emotions is much more straightforward.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 8, 2018)

mrpopstar said:


> Elves are fey and we refer to fey as 'children' of the wood for a reason.




As long as they aren't children of the corn, we're good.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> My world doesn't have anyhting close to a liberal democracy maybe some free cities where people don't care about much of anything where money is more important. The Elven lands they won't care to much about it but in their and slavery is the default so you could buy a boby pleasure slave to do whatever you like with.
> In the Knights of Vanya lands slavery is illeal but they are basically very conservative humanocentric types.




A fair number of ancient societies were not liberal democracies, but were still sexually open and free.  Ancient Rome, Greece, China and Egypt were all places that were open sexually.  Undoubtedly there were more places like that as well.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Well by now you probably have noticed I take a bit of a stimulationist approach to D&D. I tend towards a very sandbox type game (you can attempt anything you want).




I also take a stimulationist approach to D&D.  If my players aren't being stimulated, something is horribly wrong with my DMing.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> How would everyone deal with a PC who was LBQT and went looking for love?



I would start with a private conversation between sessions.  (Well, actually I'd have to start by telling the player "I want to think about that a bit; let's talk later.")  
I'd want to sound out if this proposal is legit or is going to turn into a parody / demeaning.  I also need to know what they consider a dignified handling of the subject.  
If I had teens / kids in the group, as a subsequent step I would have to include their parents, to get _their_ perspective - if I offend them, I can wind up with one less player.  Being a parent myself I find "but don't tell your parents about this" highly insulting and offensive.

I usually play PG to PG-13 D&D so bedroom topics stay back from the spotlight and/or behind closed doors.  There are too many ways to get upset people and far fewer ways to get happy people.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> I meant actually transitioning they would not exist for the most part (very very very rare via magic sure).



The secret origin of the _Girdle of Masculinity / Femininity_?


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 8, 2018)

Eltab said:


> The secret origin of the _Girdle of Masculinity / Femininity_?




Or the polymorph spell.  Hardly rare magic, still resulted in a permanent change that could include sex.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what "organic" change you are envisaging in lieu of the US Civil War.



In the 1850s, the advocates of slavery were winning politically (Dred Scott decision, Kansas-Nebraska Act opened up more territory to slavery) and had begun talking about how the industrial wage employees of the North would be better off if they were made slaves and had somebody to take care of them instead of struggling with dire poverty.  The 'organic social change' (or at least the flow of the tide) at the time was MORE slavery - and the Civil War was a reaction against that.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> So, first of all, that “M->F/F->M” terminology is not favored by most trans people. It puts emphasis on the person’s sex and the process of transitioning, instead of on the person’s gender and their identity. And it’s kind of invalidating to trans folk who either can’t or don’t want to transition physically. The most widely preferred terms are “trans woman” for someone who was assigned male at birth but identifies as w woman. and “trans man” for someone who was assigned female at birth but identifies as a man. And that terminology is equally applicable to trans folks regardless of whether or not they are transitioning or what stage of transition they may be in.



Oh okay.  Sorry.



> That out of the way, I can only speak for myself, but if I was going to make a self-insert character for some reason, I would definitely make that character an AMAB trans woman just like I am. Being trans has had a huge impact on my life, and I am a different person as a direct result of being trans than I would be if I had been an AFAB cis woman. Any character that was meant to be my avatar in a fictional world would need to be trans to feel true to who I am. Being trans is as much a part of my identity as being a woman is.



Okay makes sense.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 8, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> The Queen can fire the NZ prime minster theoretically so if we elected a pumpkin who was a disaster the armed forces and police are theoretically loyal to her majesty not the government.



Unless things are very different in New Zealand from what I've heard, the prospects of a police or miliatry-led coup would be close to zero. And the Queen would not endorse it were it to happen. (I'm not sure that she would reject it either. She might stand aloof, as she did during the constitutional crisis in Australia.) The Queen's role is to appoint the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's it. Whether the Governor-General would support a coup would of course depend on the local political situation at the time.


----------



## Imaculata (Jun 8, 2018)

Eltab said:


> I usually play PG to PG-13 D&D so bedroom topics stay back from the spotlight and/or behind closed doors.  There are too many ways to get upset people and far fewer ways to get happy people.




We do the good old fade to black, but bedroom stuff IS allowed. We just don't want to feel like voyeurs while one player plays it out. 

On a side note, I do have some gay characters (npc's) in my current campaign, but it's not their defining character trait.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 8, 2018)

Imaculata said:


> ...We just don't want to feel like voyeurs while one player plays it out.




Reminds me of that episode of "Community".

Oh internet, you never disappoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgu_-rR1X8


----------



## Charlaquin (Jun 8, 2018)

Sadras said:


> I'm curious, how/where does that impact play - playing a trans woman character as opposed to a cis woman character?
> 
> Okay I have just thought of something else - D&D games (I'm not necessarily speaking of published material) often elicit a medieval period along with the baggage that comes with that such as the ideologies and regressive culture practices that we would imagine at the time such as sexism, slavery, racism, religious extremism...etc. I would imagine a trans dressed character (i.e. male dressed in woman garb) could find pushback from the setting ideologue. In that instance I would imagine exception might be made. Yes, no maybe?
> 
> ...



But is racial predjudice in your games on the basis of human ethnicity, or on race in the fantasy gaming sense of the term? Do bigots in your world hate people of certain skin color, or do they hate elves?

I agree with people who say “I don’t want to bring real-life political issues into my gaming.” I have to live in a world where people are discriminated against on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. every day. If I’mgoing to spend my free time in an imaginary world, i’d Kind of like it to be one where I don’t have to deal with those same issues. Now, my world does still have its own sociopolitical issues. But they are different from real life issues. You can play a black character without the guards profiling you, but if you want to play a character who deals with the long-term reprocussions of slavery even generations after its abolition, that’s halflings in my world. You can play a woman without having to worry about being taken less seriously as a warrior than your male party members, but if you want to explore gender-based discrimination in game, might I recommend a male drow? Likewise, I want to make sure you can play a trans character without NPCs misgendering you or disrespecting your identity. But if you want to play a character who’s identity isn’t considered valid by the rest of society, something like an Eladrin who’s seasonal fluidity is seen as an act by other, less mercurial races. Or a Changeling who doesn’t consider their “true” form to be who they really are.


----------



## Thomas Bowman (Jun 8, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've seen the Jeremy Crawford interview where he talks about Elves as portrayed in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes - specifically, some of them can now change sex after a long rest, so they're transsexual in practice.
> 
> What do you think of it ?




Could not a _True Polymorph_ spell do that?

Here is a description:

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/True Polymorph?fromList=True Polymorph&Name=#content

*True Polymorph*

Choose one creature with at least 1 hit point or nonmagical object that you can see within range. You transform the creature into a different creature, the creature into an object, or the object into a creature (the object must be neither worn nor carried by another creature). The transformation lasts for the Duration, or until the target drops to 0 hit points or dies. If you concentrate on this spell for the full Duration, the transformation becomes permanent.

Shapechangers aren't affected by this spell. An unwilling creature can make a Wisdom saving throw, and if it succeeds, it isn't affected by this spell.

Creature into Creature: If you turn a creature into another kind of creature, the new form can be any kind you choose whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's (or its level, if the target doesn't have a challenge rating). The target's game Statistics, including mental Ability Scores, are replaced by the Statistics of the new form. It retains its alignment and personality.

The target assumes the hit points of its new form, and when it reverts to its normal form, the creature returns to the number of hit points it had before it transformed. If it reverts as a result of Dropping to 0 Hit Points, any excess damage carries over to its normal form. As long as the excess damage doesn't reduce the creature's normal form to 0 hit points, it isn't knocked Unconscious.

The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and it can't speak, cast Spells, or take any other action that requires hands or Speech unless its new form is capable of such actions.

The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its Equipment.

Object into Creature: You can turn an object into any kind of creature, as long as the creature's size is no larger than the object's size and the creature's challenge rating is 9 or lower. The creature is friendly to you and your companions. It acts on each of your turns. You decide what action it takes and how it moves. The DM has the creature's Statistics and resolves all of its actions and Movement.

If the spell becomes permanent, you no longer control the creature. It might remain friendly to you, depending on how you have treated it.

Creature into Object: If you turn a creature into an object, it transforms along with whatever it is wearing and carrying into that form. The creature's Statistics become those of the object, and the creature has no memory of time spent in this form, after the spell ends and it returns to its normal form.

This spell as the description goes can change any form into any other form, it is not restricted to a form of the same gender as the original. So in a fantasy D&D campaign, if you want to change the gender of somebody, say from a human male to a human female, then you just cast this spell, and the caster concentrates for the duration of this spell to make the new form permanent. Of course when the target dies, he/she reverts to her natural form. This is not a transgender in the modern sense, because it is not done by a medical procedure, a magic spell would do it much better, leave not a trace or an inkling of the targets original form. So basically the Elf you are talking about is a shapechanger if he/she can do this naturally.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 8, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But is racial predjudice in your games on the basis of human ethnicity, or on race in the fantasy gaming sense of the term? Do bigots in your world hate people of certain skin color, or do they hate elves?




Not the poster you replied to, but- in my campaign, it's mostly cross-species (and there's even a broader old-skool category, 'demihuman' vs. 'humanoid', that gets brought up by racists). But there have been times when e.g. some human ethnicities have had prejudices against others (for example, when the human Forinthian Empire was ascendant, many native populations were prejudiced against the Forinthians).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2018)

Thomas Bowman said:


> Could not a _True Polymorph_ spell do that?
> 
> Here is a description:
> 
> ...




You might want to edit your post so that the text of the spell is in a color that can be read on a black background.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 8, 2018)

Coming in late and there's a few points I wanted to address:

1) The big one is that representation matters. I don't remember who said it, but to paraphrase an earlier post "Reach where you're most able to reach." 5e has already done a great job of opening the door the gender fluidity in the PHB; this simply creates a more concrete idea and tying it to the androgynous-ness of Corellon and the mutability that's being established with the 5e elvish mythos. Makes perfect sense, and if I ran in FR I would definitely use it.
2) "Trans" is the _generally_ accepted "umbrella" term for all manner of gender- and sex-nonconforming identities, but it would be a mistake to suggest that everyone within that community appreciates the term, and there's actually quite a bit of strife within and between gender- and sex-nonconforming identities; ie; folx complaining about "gender reassignment" surgery as capitulating to a gender binary, transsexual-identified individuals equating drag performances to blackface, intersex erasure, etc. While there is a compelling reason for the use of "trans" as a catch-all umbrella term, just be aware that not all that would be classified within that umbrella would appreciate the term. Speaking of which...
3) "Queer" as a reclaimed word tends to have its roots in intersectional identity analysis, particularly with regards to race and class stratification (I've heard that San Fransisco is gay and Oakland is queer, for instance). While not universal, I've noticed that those who adopt "queer" as a moniker tend to care less about "normalization" or other tactics that they'd consider "assimilation", and rather more about expressing one's identity without regards to what others individually or society as a whole thinks, which is why "genderqueer" might be an identity used by people who may not necessarily agree that society treating being gender nonconforming as nothing particularly special or out of the ordinary is a worthy goal. "Queer" also tends to coincide much more with more radical political causes as well. As a result, you can kind of see why many in the LGBTQIA community (particularly the folx who stop at the "T", if they even make it that far) might not mesh as well with anyone using the term "queer" as a part of the identity. For another point of departure, ask a person who identifies as primarily as "queer" how big a deal marriage equality is.
4) The main point to all of this is that there's a lot of diversity itself within the LGBTQIA, such that quibbling semantics over terminology or lexicon doesn't really do anybody any justice. I've found that the most successful (or at least most respectful) way to go is to respect everyone's preferences and identities individually and not make large sweeping generalizations as a whole. "Don't yuck my yum," as it were. I assume there are many gamers who might identify as "trans" that think the Gift of Corellon is awesome or amazing; I also assume there are those that roll their eyes at it. Neither is particularly right or wrong in the larger sense of those terms, but the fact that it would appeal to some marginalized gamers is alone worth it, in my book.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 8, 2018)

the Jester said:


> Not the poster you replied to, but- in my campaign, it's mostly cross-species (and there's even a broader old-skool category, 'demihuman' vs. 'humanoid', that gets brought up by racists). But there have been times when e.g. some human ethnicities have had prejudices against others (for example, when the human Forinthian Empire was ascendant, many native populations were prejudiced against the Forinthians).




I tried to write it up once.  It didn't work out so well for humans.  Seemed just too generally irrelevent given that whole areas of the "world" have essentially been replaced with other humanoids.  There isn't a continent of mostly dark-skinned humans, there isn't a continent of mostly slender, dark-haired humans.  These areas of the world have been replaced with elves, dwarves, orcs and other races.  Humans are more unified against the threat of the "other" and contextually in my worlds that's elves or orcs, not humans with different eye shape or skin color.  

It DID however work out for several other races, Elves (using a dawn/day/evening/night variant on the "seasons" of elves) and Orcs (using the different colors) in particular.  The presence of magic also lead to a smaller technological gap between the races, which plays a large role in the ability to enslave others.

EDIT: this is also the first time I noticed [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION] lives in Arcata, I used to live there!


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 8, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> It's sex not gender. Looking at the text it is only the more androgynous elves that seem blessed with this ability, their gender doesn't change only their sex does.
> 
> Personally I'll be fine with them in my game.




You can read the rules for Blessing that way, where the special androgyne retains the *central gender*, despite switching physical sex organs.

However, Corellon is a shapechanger, who oneself takes on any form, including any gender and any sex (and any orientation). Androgynes are the sacred because their being in the middle of the sex-gender spectrum, are *suggestive* of symbolizing the entire spectrum. They are a vision of the entirety of everyone, holistically. But those rare shapechangers among the Blessed, actually go beyond the potential into the actual, and are shapechanging dramatically into any location on that spectrum.

I prefer to read the rules as saying, when certain of these androgynes can change ‘sex’, it means they can switch from extreme male physical features (heavy testosterone) to extreme female physical features (heavy estrogen) − especially with regard to secondary sexual characteristics − and fluidly transition the entire spectrum.

This understanding of being anywhere on the spectrum helps reallife players who seek to *appear* as a trans man or a trans woman, especially with regard to secondary sexual characteristics.

A more dramatic transformation makes the storytelling more interesting. If it was nothing more than what is happening in someones clothes, few people would ever even know.



The sacred status of androgynes has reallife examples in various cultures. It is an interesting phenomenon, and worthwhile to include in any setting. (Even in settings that lack Corellon or polytheism generally.)


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 8, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Reminds me of that episode of "Community".
> 
> Oh internet, you never disappoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgu_-rR1X8




Ah Hector the Well Endowed.

I think the seeds of HarmonQuest were planted in this episode.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 8, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> EDIT: this is also the first time I noticed [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION] lives in Arcata, I used to live there!




Technically I'm in McKinleyville now, but I work at the university so I haven't really bothered to change it. We might be moving back soon though.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 8, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Technically I'm in McKinleyville now, but I work at the university so I haven't really bothered to change it. We might be moving back soon though.




Heh, the guy who got me to love D&D lives in McKinleyville.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 8, 2018)

Yaarel said:


> This understanding of being anywhere on the spectrum helps real-life players who seek to *appear* as a trans man or a trans woman, especially with regard to secondary sexual characteristics.




Forgive me if I misunderstand you on this sensitive issue, but none of the trans-people I've spoken to want to *appear* as trans men or trans women, they would prefer to "pass" and appear as, and be treated as, a man or a woman. Now admittedly their are internet personalities that make a big thing about being trans, but most would rather not have the attention and would happy "pass". I think it is pretty dangerous to apply any of this to real-life trans people, as many have issues with "passing" since their isn't some magical switch.


----------



## epithet (Jun 8, 2018)

I suppose it was inevitable that people would get all politicky about this, but I don't see it that way. An elf with this trait isn't "transsexual," it is your basic female today (able to bear live offspring,) and your basic male tomorrow (able to impregnate a female.) At no point does that elf necessarily get complicated about it.

The one thing I'd need to figure out if a player wanted to have this trait would be what would happen if the character were pregnant and decided to wake up male the next day. _That _would be complicated.

I don't think the trait is very interesting as-is. I'd be inclined to make it a racial feat that would let the elf wake up with a sub-race _and _gender of its choice. That gets interesting.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 8, 2018)

pemerton said:


> Unless things are very different in New Zealand from what I've heard, the prospects of a police or miliatry-led coup would be close to zero. And the Queen would not endorse it were it to happen. (I'm not sure that she would reject it either. She might stand aloof, as she did during the constitutional crisis in Australia.) The Queen's role is to appoint the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister. That's it. Whether the Governor-General would support a coup would of course depend on the local political situation at the time.




No the Queen actually has a lot of constitutional power here.  The only one she uses is to reopen parliament. The governor general can fire the prime minister and I think she can dissolve parliament as well.

She never uses her power but theoretically she can stop the rise of say a fascist government. If her use of the power was not popular, I imagine we would become a republic fairly quickly. The police/armed forces would not launch a coup but say there was a minority government that convinced some stupid minor party to coalition with them and turn the country into a dictatorship in theory she can dissolve parliament and fire the Prime Minister via the governor general. If they refused to go legally the Police (independent of parliament) could arrest them and new elections would be called.

 In practice it would depend on how popular the current prime minster would be and if the Police would choose sides, collude or do nothing. Technically we are a constitutional monarchy (we have no constitution). The armed forces are supposed to be loyal to the governor general not the government.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 8, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> Forgive me if I misunderstand you on this sensitive issue, but none of the trans-people I've spoken to want to *appear* as trans men or trans women, they would prefer to "pass" and appear as, and be treated as, a man or a woman. Now admittedly their are internet personalities that make a big thing about being trans, but most would rather not have the attention and would happy "pass". I think it is pretty dangerous to apply any of this to real-life trans people, as many have issues with "passing" since their isn't some magical switch.




Neither case is particularly universal to the modern trans experience. I would say that I personally have met more trans-identified individual who don't give a flying f--- about "passing" than I have those that do. I would imagine that a significant number of trans men and trans women who do concern themselves with "passing" probably wouldn't even self-identify as "trans", at least not in public, though their reasons for doing so are also pretty varied (they might consider themselves a cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex, for instance, or any number of other reasons related to societal guilt and shame; or even fear; on average more than two trans individuals are murdered every month in the U.S., and some states still allow so-called "trans panic" defenses to be used in trials).

Again, the most important thing I can caution against is any assumption that there is some kind of universal "trans" experience.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jun 9, 2018)

Gradine said:


> a cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex




That is an contradiction. Since cis is someone whose identity and gender matches their birth sex. Did you mean straight, rather than cis, or did you mean to convey something else?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 9, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> Or a Changeling who doesn’t consider their “true” form to be who they really are.



The way I've played changeling characters in the past, seeing their natural form is like seeing them full-frontal naked. And they change identity as they change physical form -- name, gender, personality, the whole shebang. Even when they're e.g. disguising themselves as a bad guy, they adopt the identity of that bad guy, who just happens to be helping the party at the moment.

Although this character was a psion, so the mental changes could have had something to do with that as well.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 9, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> That is an contradiction. Since cis is someone whose identity and gender matches their birth sex. Did you mean straight, rather than cis, or did you mean to convey something else?



It doesn't line up with the standard definition of "cis", but I bet there are people out there who identify that way. Some people say they are "straight men who prefer sex with men", too.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 9, 2018)

Bagpuss said:


> Forgive me if I misunderstand you on this sensitive issue, but none of the trans-people I've spoken to want to *appear* as trans men or trans women, they would prefer to "pass" and appear as, and be treated as, a man or a woman. Now admittedly their are internet personalities that make a big thing about being trans, but most would rather not have the attention and would happy "pass". I think it is pretty dangerous to apply any of this to real-life trans people, as many have issues with "passing" since their isn't some magical switch.




At least the trans persons who I know personally take hormonal injections to develop these secondary sex characteristics.

I mentioned one of my friends who I failed to fully recognize because his hormonal injections made him able to grow a beard.

By contrast, I have met (but dont know personally), individuals who prefer to be in between, and to be neither/either gender or sex. In a way, that seems natural. Some humans are this way, and there is nothing to fix, and it is worthwhile to appreciate the marvel and the diversity.


 [MENTION=3987]Bagpuss[/MENTION], maybe you are agreeing? If the special shapechanging abilities among certain Blessed, allows them to acquire secondary sex characteristics as well, then they can ‘pass’ as the desired sex − indeed be the epitome of it.

So, for those individuals who want to be recognized as a specific sex and gender, can, by means of the sacred miracle.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 9, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> It doesn't line up with the standard definition of "cis", but I bet there are people out there who identify that way. Some people say they are "straight men who prefer sex with men", too.




At some point you have to just say no to people trying to commandeer definitions for their own personal use.  Straight man = heterosexual man = prefers sex with women.  Someone who prefers sex with men is one of the other terms that are in use, or if they are a part of a new subcategory, a new term can be created for them.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 9, 2018)

Charlaquin said:


> But is racial predjudice in your games on the basis of human ethnicity, or on race in the fantasy gaming sense of the term? Do bigots in your world hate people of certain skin color, or do they hate elves?




Haven't explored skin colour but certainly the fantasy race and the human ethnicity (Traladarans vs Thyatians in Mystara). The Mystara setting is full of examples like these.



> I agree with people who say “I don’t want to bring real-life political issues into my gaming.” I have to live in a world where people are discriminated against on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. every day. If I’m going to spend my free time in an imaginary world, i’d Kind of like it to be one where I don’t have to deal with those same issues.




Fair enough.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 9, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> It doesn't line up with the standard definition of "cis", but I bet there are people out there who identify that way. Some people say they are "straight men who prefer sex with men", too.




Well, I mean that's kinda the glory of gender _identity_.  You can identify pretty much however you want, and none of it has to have any basis on anything else.


----------



## Lalato (Jun 9, 2018)

The funny thing is this is pretty much how I play Elves already... much to the consternation of my gaming group.


----------



## Knight_Marshal (Jun 9, 2018)

If I ever get around to running my world, then Elf is both the race and the gender. I actually am considering patterning them after the Asari from Mass Effect.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 9, 2018)

Knight_Marshal said:


> If I ever get around to running my world, then Elf is both the race and the gender. I actually am considering patterning them after the Asari from Mass Effect.




On that note, in case anyone is interested: http://www.masseffectd20.com/

It's impressively comprehensive, and its free!


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> No the Queen actually has a lot of constitutional power here.  The only one she uses is to reopen parliament. The governor general can fire the prime minister and I think she can dissolve parliament as well.
> 
> She never uses her power but theoretically she can stop the rise of say a fascist government. If her use of the power was not popular, I imagine we would become a republic fairly quickly. The police/armed forces would not launch a coup but say there was a minority government that convinced some stupid minor party to coalition with them and turn the country into a dictatorship in theory she can dissolve parliament and fire the Prime Minister via the governor general. If they refused to go legally the Police (independent of parliament) could arrest them and new elections would be called.
> 
> In practice it would depend on how popular the current prime minster would be and if the Police would choose sides, collude or do nothing. Technically we are a constitutional monarchy (we have no constitution). The armed forces are supposed to be loyal to the governor general not the government.



I'm a constitutional lawyer in Australia. I don't think NZ constitutional law is very different from Australia's or the UK's (which I also know pretty well) in these respects.

It's not the Queen's job to stop fascist governments. And dissolving parliament other than on the advice of the PM would itself constitute a coup. Some people describe the 1975 crisis in Australia in those terms, but it was a little bit more ambiguous because that government had failed to guarantee supply; but you are positing the Queen dissolving a parliament that has establsihed a government and/or dismissing a PM who enjoys the confidence of a unicameral parliament.

The loyalty of the armed forces to the Governor-General is a device. Given that the GG is herself acting unconstitutionally if she disregards the advice of the PM and Minister of Defence, the armed forces in practice act at the direction of Cabinet. Again, there is no signficant difference in this respect between NZ and Australian practice, and the principle of civilian control over the armed forces, which in practice means direction by the Cabinet, was strongly re-affirmed in a fairly recent High Court case here (the CPCF case, dealing with migrant interdiction).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2018)

Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone decided to make a Transgender Elf *Cannon* for their game?  (Asking for a friend.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm a constitutional lawyer in Australia.




Good to know.

_*scribble scribble*_


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> I'm a constitutional lawyer in Australia. I don't think NZ constitutional law is very different from Australia's or the UK's (which I also know pretty well) in these respects.
> 
> It's not the Queen's job to stop fascist governments. And dissolving parliament other than on the advice of the PM would itself constitute a coup. Some people describe the 1975 crisis in Australia in those terms, but it was a little bit more ambiguous because that government had failed to guarantee supply; but you are positing the Queen dissolving a parliament that has establsihed a government and/or dismissing a PM who enjoys the confidence of a unicameral parliament.
> 
> The loyalty of the armed forces to the Governor-General is a device. Given that the GG is herself acting unconstitutionally if she disregards the advice of the PM and Minister of Defence, the armed forces in practice act at the direction of Cabinet. Again, there is no signficant difference in this respect between NZ and Australian practice, and the principle of civilian control over the armed forces, which in practice means direction by the Cabinet, was strongly re-affirmed in a fairly recent High Court case here (the CPCF case, dealing with migrant interdiction).




 We never had the 1975 Aussie thing here where the Governor General fired the PM after the opposition leader talked him into it. That one of the powers a GG can use, I think one of the other 3 is she can dissolve parliament. 4 of them have not been used (3 in Aussies case).


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Good to know.
> 
> _*scribble scribble*_



You're thinking of getting into Australian public affairs?


----------



## pemerton (Jun 9, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> We never had the 1975 Aussie thing here where the Governor General fired the PM after the opposition leader talked him into it.



Because your parliament is unicameral. Australia is fairly distinctive in combining Westminster parliamentary government with strong bicameralism.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 9, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone decided to make a Transgender Elf *Cannon* for their game?  (Asking for a friend.)




If they have, the Blessing of Corellon probably makes it easier to find ammo now.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 9, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Well, I mean that's kinda the glory of gender _identity_.  You can identify pretty much however you want, and none of it has to have any basis on anything else.



Ehh... in the standard analysis, the gender identity is the "man" or "woman" part. It does have that property. But the "trans" or "cis" part is a description of how they came by that identity, and so has a basis in certain biological and/or biographical facts. It can itself be an identity on top of the gender identity, obviously, but it's not quite so... open.

The thing is, the sort of person who is going to say a thing like that is probably _aware_ of the standard analysis, and so is presumably bucking it deliberately. It's an interesting question as to why, and what they're trying to communicate about themselves. (They're more than likely _failing_ to communicate it, because everybody else is misunderstanding them as saying something crazy. I wouldn't _recommend_ bucking the standard analysis, if anyone were to ask me. But for some reason, people usually don't.  )


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 9, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone decided to make a Transgender Elf *Cannon* for their game?  (Asking for a friend.)



Is it a cannon that fires transgender elves?

Or a cannon of elven make that does not identify as the expected gender for its biological sex?

The ambiguity abounds!


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2018)

epithet said:


> The one thing I'd need to figure out if a player wanted to have this trait would be what would happen if the character were pregnant and decided to wake up male the next day. _That _would be complicated.



There's two ways to handle this.

The simple way is to have pregnancy more or less force the Elf to remain female until birth (or until weaning?).  As a side effect this gives then-female Elves the most accurate pregnancy test of all: the morning after an "encounter", try to flip to male.  If you can, you're not pregnant. 

The less-simple way is to allow a pregnant Elf to switch to male in all respects other than the internal child-supporting bits - in effect, resulting in a pregnant male - and only force the Elf to female when labour and birth are imminent.  It's up to the individual Elf to decide whether to remain female in order to nurse; a flip to male would end lactation.



> I'd be inclined to make it a racial feat that would let the elf wake up with a sub-race and gender of its choice. That gets interesting.



Gender doesn't affect stats but Elvish sub-race does, at least in my game, which would immediately make this a bookkeeping nightmare.  Not gonna happen. 

Lanefan


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 9, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone decided to make a Transgender Elf *Cannon* for their game?  (Asking for a friend.)



A cannon made out of transgender Elves?

I don't think that's gonna work very well.

That said, there is real-world precedent for Human cannon*balls*......


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2018)

pemerton said:


> You're thinking of getting into Australian public affairs?




Gotta know who to warn when someone suggests The Butcher Directive as the first step in improving society...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> The ambiguity abounds!




It is always thus, the Ambigu-Asp striketh!


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 9, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> There's two ways to handle this.
> 
> The simple way is to have pregnancy more or less force the Elf to remain female until birth (or until weaning?).  As a side effect this gives then-female Elves the most accurate pregnancy test of all: the morning after an "encounter", try to flip to male.  If you can, you're not pregnant.
> 
> The less-simple way is to allow a pregnant Elf to switch to male in all respects other than the internal child-supporting bits - in effect, resulting in a pregnant male - and only force the Elf to female when labour and birth are imminent.  It's up to the individual Elf to decide whether to remain female in order to nurse; a flip to male would end lactation.




False Dichotomy!! 

The third way is to just have the pregnancy only progress while female.  This could result in a pregnancy that lasts hundreds of years potentially, and result in the male version of the elf impregnating other elves after becoming pregnant, and those children being born and achieving adulthood before the pregnancy goes full term.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 9, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Ehh... in the standard analysis, the gender identity is the "man" or "woman" part. It does have that property. But the "trans" or "cis" part is a description of how they came by that identity, and so has a basis in certain biological and/or biographical facts. It can itself be an identity on top of the gender identity, obviously, but it's not quite so... open.
> 
> The thing is, the sort of person who is going to say a thing like that is probably _aware_ of the standard analysis, *and so is presumably bucking it deliberately.* It's an interesting question as to why, and what they're trying to communicate about themselves. (They're more than likely _failing_ to communicate it, because everybody else is misunderstanding them as saying something crazy. I wouldn't _recommend_ bucking the standard analysis, if anyone were to ask me. But for some reason, people usually don't.  )




Bolded for emphais.  Ah, ya found me out.  

The "standard analysis" as you call is it fine for producing a narrow range of alternatives based on definitions set forth from the binaries.  The problem therein lies of course with the definition of the binaries which, as most binaries go, are highly polarized.  Being male means Y and being female means X.  Identifying as cis means A and identifying as trans means B.  Typically framing it in a "Identifying as cis means you _are_..." while the opposite is identified with a negative, being trans means "you are not..."  That's generally what happens when you have two binary elements.  Being one means you are _not_ the other.  

People don't buck the system for a number of reasons.

For example, the homosexual community relies _heavily_ on sex and orientation binaries.  This is why there are often tiffs between homosexuals and more gender and sex fluid elements of the LGBT+ community.  The first part is important because it has allowed themselves to define themselves as a distinct group, based on how they are _not_ heterosexual.  The second part is an expected result of hard binary positions: everyone who isn't gets tossed under the same bus, much in the same way heterosexuals see homosexuals as "other".  

For some transgendered individuals, the binary is equally useful to identify what they are _not_ and what they _are_.  For others, it's not because they're  A: not sure.  B: somewhere in the middle.  C: generally disinterested in the binary dynamic.  

The binary can also be used as a political tool, to once again: define who is what and who isn't what.

That's kinda the problem, and kinda my rejection of the standard analysis, it just relies too heavily on that binary and produces incomplete analysis of what I see as a rather ridiculously multi-faceted subject.

I don't mind people misunderstanding and thinking I'm crazy.  I probably am.  But the general level of understanding of gender and sex identity issues is so poor, if I worried about people understanding what I was talking about, I'd _go_ crazy!


----------



## epithet (Jun 9, 2018)

Lanefan said:


> ...
> Gender doesn't affect stats but Elvish sub-race does, at least in my game, which would immediately make this a bookkeeping nightmare.  Not gonna happen.
> ...




Well, that's what makes it interesting. You can get more distance on your darkvision, or gills, or different cantrips, or a _misty step_. You could just leave the stat bonuses alone.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 9, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> False Dichotomy!!
> 
> The third way is to just have the pregnancy only progress while female.




The fourth--which I find the most interesting, for character purposes--is simply that changing to male during pregnancy kills the fetus.

Which means the elf now has genuine consequences and decisions to deal with. What if the character feels more comfortable as a man, or with the ability to constantly change? Given the rarity of elven childbirth, that's pitting the personal against the societal. What's the elven cultural view on abortion? And why would their god grant a blessing with such a significant (if rare) cost?

I find the need for the character to address such questions far more interesting than finding them a loophole in the process.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 9, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> The fourth--which I find the most interesting, for character purposes--is simply that changing to male during pregnancy kills the fetus.
> 
> Which means the elf now has genuine consequences and decisions to deal with. What if the character feels more comfortable as a man, or with the ability to constantly change? Given the rarity of elven childbirth, that's pitting the personal against the societal. What's the elven cultural view on abortion? And why would their god grant a blessing with such a significant (if rare) cost?
> 
> I find the need for the character to address such questions far more interesting than finding them a loophole in the process.




Sure, if you're going for a 'consequences' game, though I suspect anyone who's actually running sexytimes with a pregnancy risk probably is.

EDIT: that would be an interesting extra level of rules to apply to the various polymorph spells and wildshape as well.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 10, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone decided to make a Transgender Elf *Cannon* for their game?  (Asking for a friend.)




No, but a giant slingshot or a catapult has come to mind.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 10, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> (They're more than likely _failing_ to communicate it, because everybody else is misunderstanding them as saying something crazy. I wouldn't _recommend_ bucking the standard analysis, if anyone were to ask me. But for some reason, people usually don't.  )



In one of the two current threads on this general topic, somebody (name redacted to protect the innocent) told me I should not expect them to use words according to the dictionary definitions.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 10, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> The fourth--which I find the most interesting, for character purposes--is simply that changing to male during pregnancy kills the fetus.
> 
> Which means the elf now has genuine consequences and decisions to deal with. What if the character feels more comfortable as a man, or with the ability to constantly change? Given the rarity of elven childbirth, that's pitting the personal against the societal. What's the elven cultural view on abortion? And why would their god grant a blessing with such a significant (if rare) cost?
> 
> I find the need for the character to address such questions far more interesting than finding them a loophole in the process.




Personally, I think all 4 have consequences and are interesting for character purposes.

#1 requires the PC to stop changing sex, which is a definite consequence that will impact how the character is played.

#2 sets the elf up as a pregnant male, which could and would bring all kinds of questions from people encountered.  I doubt many would know about the blessing outside of elf communities.  That, too has character impact and consequences.  Hard to switch as a potential disguise when the pregnancy follows you.

#3 Gives the pregnant character potential pregnancy issues for years, decades or even centuries, depending on how often the switch happens.  I find that to be interesting for character purposes as well.

#4 is similar to #1, except you have the option to kill the baby and switch anyway.  That is as you noted, interesting and as different consequences that could result from a switch back to male.

I'd be okay with any of those four from both a DM and player standpoint.


----------



## Jester David (Jun 10, 2018)

epithet said:


> The one thing I'd need to figure out if a player wanted to have this trait would be what would happen if the character were pregnant and decided to wake up male the next day. _That _would be complicated.



I think the _Races of Eberron_ book that described changelings touched on that. I believe they were locked into one sex for the duration.

But I also haven't ever seen a PC get pregnant. So I wouldn't worry too much until that happened.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 10, 2018)

Jester David said:


> I think the _Races of Eberron_ book that described changelings touched on that. I believe they were locked into one sex for the duration.
> 
> But I also haven't ever seen a PC get pregnant. So I wouldn't worry too much until that happened.




You are correct.  They can take on other _female_ forms, but not male ones.  Though they can use their abilities to disguise their pregnancy to some extent.

But yeah, I haven't had a game where anyone actually slept around enough to risk PC pregnancy or _wanted_ to.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 10, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Sure, if you're going for a 'consequences' game, though I suspect anyone who's actually running sexytimes with a pregnancy risk probably is.
> 
> EDIT: that would be an interesting extra level of rules to apply to the various polymorph spells and wildshape as well.



I already had to worry about this when DMing a pregnant Druid-equivalent with wildshape.

What I ended up doing was deciding that it'd work fine up to a certain point in the pregnancy (halfway?  I forget now) after which she pretty much couldn't do it without losing the fetus.

Ironically enough, given the theme of this thread, this same character also had gender-swap issues.  She started out as female, got turned to male by a wild magic effect applying a curse but was able to get herself turned back to female - temporarily - via Remove Curse.  Problem was, every time she shapeshifted she'd flip back to male...until she got pregnant, which forced her to stay female until giving birth...after which she almost immediately flipped to male again.  She has since been able to get the curse permamently removed.

Lan-"for anybody who might thinks I've never had to give this stuff any serious thought..."-efan


----------



## Enkhidu (Jun 10, 2018)

So has anyone made the "I'm considering using transsexual elf cannons," joke yet?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 10, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> The "standard analysis" as you call is it fine for producing a narrow range of alternatives based on definitions set forth from the binaries.  The problem therein lies of course with the definition of the binaries which, as most binaries go, are highly polarized.  Being male means Y and being female means X.  Identifying as cis means A and identifying as trans means B.  Typically framing it in a "Identifying as cis means you _are_..." while the opposite is identified with a negative, being trans means "you are not..."  That's generally what happens when you have two binary elements.  Being one means you are _not_ the other.



Yeah, a while back now  [MENTION=15729]Charlequin[/MENTION] and I touched on the binary logic inherent in the system.

I don't know how you identify yourself; if you mentioned it, I missed it, so we may not be talking about the same sort of bucking of the system at all. When I see a phrase like "a cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex" (to quote  [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION]), my concern is that the speaker is using terms which have known meanings within the standard analysis, and so appears to be endorsing or buying into the analysis and simply doing so in a confused way. I've known other people who have objections to binary dichotomies (or other aspects of the standard analysis) to adopt distinctive terms for their own identity, or just to state outright that they don't want to put a label on it. That seems to me a much more effective way of communicating this fact about themselves. So if you _do_ identify yourself in a "cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex" type of way, I guess my question is why you think that's a better method than other methods of rejecting the binaries.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 10, 2018)

Eltab said:


> In one of the two current threads on this general topic, somebody (name redacted to protect the innocent) told me I should not expect them to use words according to the dictionary definitions.



"Don't trust the dictionary" is good general advice when diving deep into any technical field, actually. Lexicographers can't be experts in every field, nor is it really their job to be. The purpose of a dictionary is more to identify and document words than to attempt to pin down precise definitions.

That said, we do expect a dictionary definition to be _broadly_ correct. It might not be able to bring out all the nuances in a word, but if someone says, "I am a woman because I have green eyes", we can look at a dictionary and go, "I think you've made a mistake somewhere."


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> The fourth--which I find the most interesting, for character purposes--is simply that changing to male during pregnancy kills the fetus.
> 
> Which means the elf now has genuine consequences and decisions to deal with. What if the character feels more comfortable as a man, or with the ability to constantly change? Given the rarity of elven childbirth, that's pitting the personal against the societal. What's the elven cultural view on abortion? And why would their god grant a blessing with such a significant (if rare) cost?
> 
> I find the need for the character to address such questions far more interesting than finding them a loophole in the process.




Some years back, there was a reallife hoax about a male who was pregnant, convincing because the medical data that the hoax presented was sound. Essentially, the placenta attaches to the intestinal tract, and because the placenta develops its own autonomous environment, the baby develops normally within the pregnant male.



I was googling to see if the hoax website was still around. But came across this. In the UK, the first legally identified trans man becoming pregnant.

In other words, this seems to be a female to male, after operation, but still retains a womb within.

The point is, a person can ‘pass’ as a man, while still being pregnant.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 10, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> On that note, in case anyone is interested: http://www.masseffectd20.com/
> 
> It's impressively comprehensive, and its free!




Wow. Thanks for this. This is awesome.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Yeah, a while back now  [MENTION=15729]Charlequin[/MENTION] and I touched on the binary logic inherent in the system.
> 
> I don't know how you identify yourself; if you mentioned it, I missed it, so we may not be talking about the same sort of bucking of the system at all. When I see a phrase like "a cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex" (to quote  [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION]), my concern is that the speaker is using terms which have known meanings within the standard analysis, and so appears to be endorsing or buying into the analysis and simply doing so in a confused way. I've known other people who have objections to binary dichotomies (or other aspects of the standard analysis) to adopt distinctive terms for their own identity, or just to state outright that they don't want to put a label on it. That seems to me a much more effective way of communicating this fact about themselves. So if you _do_ identify yourself in a "cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex" type of way, I guess my question is why you think that's a better method than other methods of rejecting the binaries.




I might have worded it poorly; there are people I know who were biologically born “male”, but identify themselves strictly as “female”; not as “trans” or any other qualifier. They have no interest in bucking any sort of gender binary; they prefer to identify themselves as, and therefore be treated as, essentially as cis-women. 

I don’t think of this as any more or less of a valid way to identify as “trans woman” or “gender queer”.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 11, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Yeah, a while back now  @_*Charlequin*_ and I touched on the binary logic inherent in the system.
> 
> I don't know how you identify yourself; if you mentioned it, I missed it, so we may not be talking about the same sort of bucking of the system at all. When I see a phrase like "a cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex" (to quote  @_*Gradine*_), my concern is that the speaker is using terms which have known meanings within the standard analysis, and so appears to be endorsing or buying into the analysis and simply doing so in a confused way. I've known other people who have objections to binary dichotomies (or other aspects of the standard analysis) to adopt distinctive terms for their own identity, or just to state outright that they don't want to put a label on it. That seems to me a much more effective way of communicating this fact about themselves. So if you _do_ identify yourself in a "cis-gendered individual who was born with wrong biological sex" type of way, I guess my question is why you think that's a better method than other methods of rejecting the binaries.




I'm bucking the system from a philosophical debate standpoint, not a personal one.  I identify as a generally cis-male.  

The answer is always because it is healthier to define _anything_ by what it _is_ as opposed to what is _isn't_.  The long story short is that when you define something by what it _isn't_ you haven't actually defined it at all.  You've only defined what _those other things_ are not, and whatever they are not is therefore you.  The problem there is that without actually defining _yourself_ (excluding for a moment, people who purposefully refuse to define themselves) is that you can't really make up an identity for yourself on what _other people aren't_.  It's not a healthy mindset to declare "I am not things things!"  As opposed to declaring "I am these things!"



Yaarel said:


> Wow. Thanks for this. This is awesome.





Yep, I'm actually putting together an IRL group for it right now.  It seems like a pretty good mesh of d20 and Mass Effect.


Will certainly post a play report once we get into it.



Lanefan said:


> I already had to worry about this when DMing a pregnant Druid-equivalent with wildshape.
> 
> 
> What I ended up doing was deciding that it'd work fine up to a certain point in the pregnancy (halfway?  I forget now) after which she pretty much couldn't do it without losing the fetus.
> ...



Lol, I think that seems reasonable.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 11, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I might have worded it poorly; there are people I know who were biologically born “male”, but identify themselves strictly as “female”; not as “trans” or any other qualifier. They have no interest in bucking any sort of gender binary; they prefer to identify themselves as, and therefore be treated as, essentially as cis-women.




Cisgender and heterosexual, which both mean the same thing, mean a person whose identity and gender match their birth sex, so someone can't identify as a gender other than their birth sex and be cisgender/heterosexual.  At least they can't and be correct.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 11, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Cisgender and heterosexual, which both mean the same thing




They do not even remotely mean the same thing. Cisgender has to do with one's own gender. Heterosexual has to do with who you're attracted to.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 11, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> They do not even remotely mean the same thing. Cisgender has to do with one's own gender. Heterosexual has to do with who you're attracted to.




Okay.  I can see the difference.  The rest of that post is still correct, though.  A cisgender individual who is born male identifies as a male and can't identify as any other gender without losing cisgender.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I might have worded it poorly; there are people I know who were biologically born “male”, but identify themselves strictly as “female”; not as “trans” or any other qualifier. They have no interest in bucking any sort of gender binary; they prefer to identify themselves as, and therefore be treated as, essentially as cis-women.
> 
> I don’t think of this as any more or less of a valid way to identify as “trans woman” or “gender queer”.




One time, at an airport, I ended up talking to an interesting person at a coffee shop, when both of our flights were delayed.

She was an elderly woman, who turned out to be one of the earlier participants in sex reassignment surgery. At the time, her wife supported her sex-reassignment procedure, and they remained married after it. When her drivers license, birth certificate, and other legal documents were legally changed to ‘female’, she became the first woman in US history to be legally married to an other woman.

I got the feeling she was trying to explain the situation in terms that were easier for me to grasp. But asked her, ‘So, really, you're a lesbian’.

She said, ‘Yes, exactly’.

She is someone who simply is a woman, who happens to prefer an other woman.



Oh by the way, before the surgery, she had her semen saved in a sperm bank, and they, thru her wife, continued to have children.


----------



## Yaarel (Jun 11, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Yep, I'm actually putting together an IRL group for it right now.  It seems like a pretty good mesh of d20 and Mass Effect.
> 
> Will certainly post a play report once we get into it.




Please do let us know how your Mass Effect setting goes. PM me about it too.

I hope scheduling allows me to get a group together to do this setting too. I like the themes, and the scifi, and the d20!

I will have a closer look at the Mass Effect d20 .com website.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Cisgender and heterosexual, which both mean the same thing---




I'ma stop you right there--



Mouseferatu said:


> They do not even remotely mean the same thing. Cisgender has to do with one's own gender. Heterosexual has to do with who you're attracted to.




Yeah, this.

Incidentally, one of the women I was referring to is attracted strictly to men and identifies as heterosexual.



Maxperson said:


> Okay.  I can see the difference.  The rest of that post is still correct, though.  A cisgender individual who is born male identifies as a male and can't identify as any other gender without losing cisgender.




The point isn't necessarily that they identify specifically as "cis"; the point is more that they do not identify as "trans". They are women; nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## epithet (Jun 11, 2018)

Gradine said:


> ...
> The point isn't necessarily that they identify specifically as "cis"; the point is more that they do not identify as "trans". They are women; nothing more, nothing less.




Biology notwithstanding?

At the most basic level, a (mammalian) female has morphology for bearing live young, and a male for impregnating a female. If you get to a point where you say none of that matters and your gender is based only upon your declaration of same, then what does it mean to be a woman, or a man, or female, or male? It begins to resemble Humpty Dumpty in _Through the Looking Glass_, who insisted that no one could know the meaning of the words he used until he told you what he meant by them.

On a certain level, to be sure, it doesn't matter at all. A person can call himself whatever he wants, live however he wants, and enjoy whatever relationships other consenting people wish to share. That's all fine, but there seems to be an additional level of expectation place upon everyone else to carefully use that person's terminology. That seems unreasonable to the point of being impossible. The circumstance you seem to be describing would not align with the common comprehension of the phrase "women; nothing more, nothing less," and I don't think it is reasonable to expect it to.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2018)

epithet said:


> Biology notwithstanding?




We are talking about gender, which has nothing to do with biology. There are fewer and fewer every day who would disagree with that statement, and one who would be able to speak from any place of authority.



> A person can call himself whatever he wants, live however he wants, and enjoy whatever relationships other consenting people wish to share.




Great.



> That's all fine, but...




Why is it that whenever everybody says something that seems to be supportive, they always have to follow it with a comma, a but, and some kind of absurd statement that betrays their unwillingness to treat other human being with a shred of decency or respect because it might somehow inconvenience them, slightly?



> ...there seems to be an additional level of expectation place upon everyone else to carefully use that person's terminology. That seems unreasonable to the point of being impossible.



"Hey, here's that new friend I've been telling you about. He plays-"
"Actually, I prefer she."
"Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. She runs a 5e game on Friday nights!"
I fail to understand how this is either unreasonable or impossible. It's actually quite easy to treat people the way they wish to be treated. All that it takes is actually caring to. Which reminds me...



> A person can call themself whatever they want, live however they want, and enjoy whatever relationships other consenting people wish to share.




There, that's fixed.



> The circumstance you seem to be describing would not align with the common comprehension of the phrase "women; nothing more, nothing less," and I don't think it is reasonable to expect it to.




I'm also struggling to understand how a woman presenting as a woman, wearing what would traditionally be considered "womens'" clothing, and asking to be called a woman, could possibly fall outside anyone's common comprehension of the phrase "woman; nothing more, nothing less" unless they were abnormally concerned about the shape and manner of a person's genitalia, both currently and at birth. But that strikes me as rather unreasonable to expect of the average person.


----------



## epithet (Jun 11, 2018)

Gradine said:


> We are talking about gender, which has nothing to do with biology. There are fewer and fewer every day who would disagree with that statement, and one who would be able to speak from any place of authority.
> ...
> There, that's fixed.
> ...



Wait, what?

How does gender not have anything to do with biology? Biology, in the form of reproduction, is the reason gender came to exist in the first place! When you're talking about any species other than humans, gender begins and ends with biology. I get that the concept, at least in humans, has moved beyond the biological, but it's ridiculous to say that it "has nothing to do with biology." That's taking the issue out of the realm of fact and into the realm of belief and mythology. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that a person's gender needs to be constrained by his biology, but to say the two are unrelated is preposterous.

Also, "they" is plural. You can use it all you want to as a singular pronoun, I certainly won't try to stop you, but don't presume to "fix" my sentence by breaking its grammar.


----------



## jgsugden (Jun 11, 2018)

What happens to a pregnant female elf with the Blessing of Corellon that elects to become male?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2018)

epithet said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> How does gender not have anything to do with biology? Biology, in the form of reproduction, is the reason gender came to exist in the first place! When you're talking about any species other than humans, gender begins and ends with biology. I get that the concept, at least in humans, has moved beyond the biological, but it's ridiculous to say that it "has nothing to do with biology." That's taking the issue out of the realm of fact and into the realm of belief and mythology. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that a person's gender needs to be constrained by his biology, but to say the two are unrelated is preposterous.




Gender is entirely a societal construct. Many of the cultures that exist currently, or once existed and left artifacts in forms that we can understand them from a modern lens, have often modeled their gendered structures around biology, which I think is the point you are trying to make. However, basically everyone who has taken the time to study biology, society, and/or gender have realized that there is nothing _inherently_ biological about gender.



> Also, "they" is plural. You can use it all you want to as a singular pronoun, I certainly won't try to stop you, but don't presume to "fix" my sentence by breaking its grammar.




Fun fact: the singular "they" is several centuries older than the more modern imperative towards a generic "he/him" (Shakespeare uses the singular they, for instance), and it has never universally been considered a-grammatical by the typical authorities on the subject, and in fact most of the style guides that have recommended avoiding it in the past have started to acknowledge it once again as perfectly acceptable in both informal and formal writing. At worst it's been described as clunky or sometimes unclear; which is rather the point, particularly in the case of the modern resurrection of the singular "they".

Other fun fact: Grammarians have been searching for gender-neutral singular pronouns for longer than they've been proscribing a generic "he/him". 

Edit: Edited due to fact-checking.


----------



## epithet (Jun 11, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Gender is entirely a societal construct. Many of the cultures that exist currently, or once existed and left artifacts in forms that we can understand them from a modern lens, have often modeled their gendered structures around biology, which I think is the point you are trying to make. However, basically everyone who has taken the time to study biology, society, and/or gender have realized that there is nothing _inherently_ biological about gender.
> 
> Fun fact: the singular "they" is several centuries older than the more modern imperative towards a generic "he/him" (Shakespeare uses the singular they, for instance), and it has never universally been considered a-grammatical by the typical authorities on the subject, and in fact most of the style guides that have recommended avoiding it in the past have started to acknowledge it once again as perfectly acceptable in both informal and formal writing. At worst it's been described as clunky or sometimes unclear (which is rather the point, particularly in the case of the modern resurrection of the singular "they").




Well, no--the point I'm trying to make is that gender exists because of gender dimorphism in the animal kingdom, which serves the purpose of reproduction. I'm agreeing that humans have made more out of it than that for ourselves, but the origin of gender is all about the origin of offspring.

You've made a couple of assertions which are telling. First was that no authority would consider gender to have anything to do with biology, and the second was your statement that no authority has ever considered the "singular they" to be bad grammar. These statements suggest the possibility that you consider agreement with your current position on these issues to be necessary for a person to have authority with regard to the issue. It suggests that you are A Believer, that you are a person of faith on this issue.

And that suggests that I should drop the discussion.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 11, 2018)

epithet said:


> Well, no--the point I'm trying to make is that gender exists because of gender dimorphism in the animal kingdom, which serves the purpose of reproduction. I'm agreeing that humans have made more out of it than that for ourselves, but the origin of gender is all about the origin of offspring.




Gender has nothing to do with offspring or sexual reproduction and everything to the way societies have constructed gender roles. Once again, there is nothing inherently biological in the formation or proscription of gender roles.

Hell, if gender roles were as linked to reproduction in humans as you suggest, we would all trace our lineage matrilinearly, and monogamy would not be the norm. The dominance of patrilineage and monogamy suggest that there absolutely no link between society's constructed gender roles and any biological imperative regarding reproduction.



> You've made a couple of assertions which are telling. First was that no authority would consider gender to have anything to do with biology, and the second was your statement that no authority has ever considered the "singular they" to be bad grammar. These statements suggest the possibility that you consider agreement with your current position on these issues to be necessary for a person to have authority with regard to the issue. It suggests that you are A Believer, that you are a person of faith on this issue.
> 
> And that suggests that I should drop the discussion.




One of those was admittedly a hyperbole that I should have face-checked and corrected _before_ posting; that's on me. That said, at least I'm appealing to those who would be considering authorities on the subject. You simply keep re-asserting that biology and gender are inextricably, as if these were simply common sense and not concepts obviously in dispute, with little attempt to back it up and absolutely no evidence that such a belief is backed by any sort of scientific community. If you have any -modern- studies to link to, please share them. I'm always happy to learn.

If a speak with a sense of confidence, I do so not because I have faith, but because I have the knowledge, study, and experience to understand what it is I am talking about. This is only an example of "belief" or "faith" in the sense that I have greater "faith" in academic research than I do in what appears to be your "gut" feel for "common sense".


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 11, 2018)

The ability to be transgendered has existed since the beginning - polymorph can make one transgendered much more efficiently than modern medicine.

I won't allow the "easy shifting" implied by the OP... not because its offensive (tho' it does offend my religious sensitivities) but because it's effectively a free polymorph daily, and that's more power than I think a race should carry without an experience hit.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> The ability to be transgendered has existed since the beginning - polymorph can make one transgendered much more efficiently than modern medicine.
> 
> I won't allow the "easy shifting" implied by the OP... not because its offensive (tho' it does offend my religious sensitivities) but because it's effectively a free polymorph daily, and that's more power than I think a race should carry without an experience hit.




I agree _to an extent_ with the latter.  Depending on the interpretation of the ability it could be any of the following:
Hard Closed: 4 distinct appearances for each of "Male", "Female", "Both" and "Neither".  All of which bear a _strong_ resemblance to each other (like twins when one is male and the other female).
Closed: 4 distinct appearances for each of "Male", "Female", "Both" and "Neither".  All of which have a fixed appearance, but need not resemble each other.
Open: 4 different sex options.  The appearance of which is determined each day.
Soft Open: A spectrum of sex options ranging from Extreme Male to Extreme Female and all the colors inbetween, with the appearances equally as varied.

The first two I see as less of a problem to include in the game.  Each "appearance" has the chance of being linked back to you, making using the ability as a trick to get out of trouble limited.  The latter two I have trouble with since yes, it's basically a free "Alter Self" at least within the fact that you still have pointy ears.  This isn't a huge problem at higher levels though, only at low levels.  And the fact that it lasts ALL DAY is both a buff in terms of spell duration, but a nerf in terms of you still have to hid the old fashioned way in case someone catches on.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 12, 2018)

Huh. It never even occurred to me to read the ability as anything other than what [MENTION=93444]Sunseeker[/MENTION] is defining as "hard closed." You're changing sex, not who you are or anything else about you. I see no reason for--and wouldn't allow--any other changes to appearance. That strikes me as not just mechanically imbalanced but outside the parameters of the ability's theme.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I agree _to an extent_ with the latter.  Depending on the interpretation of the ability it could be any of the following:
> Hard Closed: 4 distinct appearances for each of "Male", "Female", "Both" and "Neither".  All of which bear a _strong_ resemblance to each other (like twins when one is male and the other female).
> Closed: 4 distinct appearances for each of "Male", "Female", "Both" and "Neither".  All of which have a fixed appearance, but need not resemble each other.
> Open: 4 different sex options.  The appearance of which is determined each day.
> ...




All of which is a hassle I really don't care for.

If someone wants to be other-gendered (Functional Hermaphrodite, Non-functional hermaphrodite, Functional Female with non-reproductive male parts, functional male with non-reproductive female parts, no parts besides the ureter, etc.), fine, but stick with it. Any disadvantage or advantage these have balances out over time... the more unusual one's genitalia and the less they fit one's preferences, the less likely physical romance is to be found and last, and the more likely to experience both public disdain and private curiosity; sometimes inappropriate curiosity.

One thing 5E does that doesn't help is that a polymorph is no longer "Permanent until dispelled or saved against"... Which, in 3E and before, was the result of a 4th level Polymorph other. A near-permanent change. Now, it's a more complete but non-extensible Alter-Other.

A permanent change in 5E is a 9th level spell - True Polymorph - which requires an hour and a 17th level caster. (Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock). Prior editions (3.5 and earlier), it was 4th level. So, in 3.X, it was pretty reasonable to expect any large town to have a caster capable of it... not cheap... but available. And some of them  may do it once just for the asking.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> Huh. It never even occurred to me to read the ability as anything other than what [MENTION=93444]Sunseeker[/MENTION] is defining as "hard closed." You're changing sex, not who you are or anything else about you. I see no reason for--and wouldn't allow--any other changes to appearance. That strikes me as not just mechanically imbalanced but outside the parameters of the ability's theme.




I don't personally have any particular objection to any of them.  I think the concern of someone using them for roguey shenanigans is fairly narrow.  Someone doing that is more likely to be abusing the purpose of the ability.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> All of which is a hassle I really don't care for.
> 
> If someone wants to be other-gendered (Functional Hermaphrodite, Non-functional hermaphrodite, Functional Female with non-reproductive male parts, functional male with non-reproductive female parts, no parts besides the ureter, etc.), fine, but stick with it. Any disadvantage or advantage these have balances out over time... the more unusual one's genitalia and the less they fit one's preferences, the less likely physical romance is to be found and last, and the more likely to experience both public disdain and private curiosity; sometimes inappropriate curiosity.



I think that's really the players call on what sort of sex experience they want to have, if any.

The ability isn't there so one can be "other" gendered.  It's there _specifically_ to allow for people who feel like one or more or less at any given time.  "Sticking with" a sex is explicitly what the ability is there to allow you to _avoid_.  And I'm really not seeing what value "sticking with" one sex (of any flavor) actually adds to anything at all.



> One thing 5E does that doesn't help is that a polymorph is no longer "Permanent until dispelled or saved against"... Which, in 3E and before, was the result of a 4th level Polymorph other. A near-permanent change. Now, it's a more complete but non-extensible Alter-Other.
> 
> A permanent change in 5E is a 9th level spell - True Polymorph - which requires an hour and a 17th level caster. (Bard, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Warlock). Prior editions (3.5 and earlier), it was 4th level. So, in 3.X, it was pretty reasonable to expect any large town to have a caster capable of it... not cheap... but available. And some of them  may do it once just for the asking.




Riiiiight, I'm not even going to get into how you think having to find a high-level caster provide a one-time service that can _dispelled at any random time_ provides any sort of representation at all.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I think that's really the players call on what sort of sex experience they want to have, if any.
> 
> The ability isn't there so one can be "other" gendered.  It's there _specifically_ to allow for people who feel like one or more or less at any given time.  "Sticking with" a sex is explicitly what the ability is there to allow you to _avoid_.  And I'm really not seeing what value "sticking with" one sex (of any flavor) actually adds to anything at all.




Exactly the hassle I don't want at my table. I have enough trouble remembering who has chosen what gender already, let alone with it changing. I see no fun in it as a GM, and the people I know who would be likely to use of it are NOT open minded, but simply into doing whatever pisses off the GM fastest without getting ejected from the game. 

Want to play a physiologically-fluid character? Go play at someone else's table; I don't want the hassle.

Want to play a Founder in Star Trek? Go play at someone else's table.

A Dralasite in Star Frontiers? About as fluid as I'll tolerate for a PC. (since they're Asexual, reproducing by budding, that's an intentional play on words.)



> Riiiiight, I'm not even going to get into how you think having to find a high-level caster provide a one-time service that can _dispelled at any random time_ provides any sort of representation at all.




It cannot be dispelled. It's a permanent transformation on the 9th level, at least if the caster can maintain an hour's concentration. Permanent spells cannot be dispelled. Nor can instant ones, but that's a side point. Might want to read the rules; it really helps one to know what someone's talking about when critiquing. 

It's overpowered to have the lasting transmutation as a racial when it's emulating a 9th level spell's function, even limited to one's own subspecies/species.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2018)

epithet said:


> At the most basic level, a (mammalian) female has morphology for bearing live young, and a male for impregnating a female.




Well, only math has really exact definitions.  Biology and sociology are more squidgey.  But, let us take this for a moment.  

You said, "female" and "male".  Not Woman and Man.  When someone says, "Quit your whining and be a man!" they are most decidedly NOT suggesting you step out and fertilize some ova.  They are talking about your meeting some expectations of behavior - that is mostly a social construct, not a biological issue.  We could argue for very long periods of time about whether those expectations ever made any sense.  But the fact of the matter is that the majority of them ceased to be all that relevant after the Industrial Revolution - the time after which males in our culture stopped needing to personally face down things with yard-long horns in order to put a steak on the dinner table.



> If you get to a point where you say none of that matters and your gender is based only upon your declaration of same, then what does it mean to be a woman, or a man, or female, or male?




That is an excellent question.  For this discussion, we don't actually need to know the full answer.  What we need to know is that "man" does not need to equal "genetically male*", and "woman" does not equal "genetically female".   A typical way of dealing with this is to say that man and woman denote gender - those are expectations that are socially influenced.  Male and female denote sex.




> On a certain level, to be sure, it doesn't matter at all. A person can call himself whatever he wants, live however he wants, and enjoy whatever relationships other consenting people wish to share.




No.  A person SHOULD be able to call themselves whatever they want, live how they want, and all that.  If the reality matched that, I daresay this whole discussion would be unnecessary.



> That's all fine, but there seems to be an additional level of expectation place upon everyone else to carefully use that person's terminology. That seems unreasonable to the point of being impossible.




Oh?  Really?

You can remember that your friend who is named James prefers to be called Jim.  You can hold the fact that Rebecca is okay with Becky, but will slap you if you call her "Bek".  You can remember honorifics and such - Dr. Prof. Miss Mrs. Ms. Mr. Jr. and the III.  You can even switch forms of address as dictated by social situation - at work it may be Dr. Smith, but at home it is Mrs. Walters.  But keeping the pronoun straight is too much for you?  Your brain stores specific information about every named individual in your world already.  Are you sure the issue is that you can't?  Or is it that you can't be bothered? 




*Note this squidgeyness of biology - I had to specify "genetically" male, because there are cases where that morphology you mention does not match the genes, either by early accident, or by later medical design.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 12, 2018)

aramis erak said:


> Exactly the hassle I don't want at my table. I have enough trouble remembering who has chosen what gender already, let alone with it changing. I see no fun in it as a GM, and the people I know who would be likely to use of it are NOT open minded, but simply into doing whatever pisses off the GM fastest without getting ejected from the game.



Oh dear me, whatever isn't fun for the DM just has do go!  Right out!  Out out out!  An oh me oh my whatever will I do if I actually have to keep my players in line!?

That's you.  That's what you sound like.



> Want to play a physiologically-fluid character? Go play at someone else's table; I don't want the hassle.



You seemed perfectly fine with a myriad of "other" sex options about 2 posts ago, but being able to change once a day is too much for you?  Me thinks thou dost protesteth too much.



> It cannot be dispelled. It's a permanent transformation on the 9th level, at least if the caster can maintain an hour's concentration. Permanent spells cannot be dispelled. Nor can instant ones, but that's a side point. Might want to read the rules; it really helps one to know what someone's talking about when critiquing.



Actually that's not correct.  We've had several threads on the subject before.  Per some twitter responses, only the _magic_ remains permanent, and thus continuing its effect as long as the magic is there.  The magic can still be dispelled.



> It's overpowered to have the lasting transmutation as a racial when it's emulating a 9th level spell's function, even limited to one's own subspecies/species.



Lolz, yes, because being able to switch from a male elf, to a female elf, to a neither male or female elf is equivelent to a 9th level spell that can _literally_ turn players into full-blown dragons, giants and other incredibly powerful monsters.

I can see you're really worked up over this, so let me just finish by saying: it's your table, do whatever you darn well please.  I only responded to you initially to explain that I saw different interpretations of the ability and some of them were more easy to implement.  You clearly have some issue with this ability beyond its power, because your reaction is WAY out of line with what it actually provides.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 12, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I don't personally have any particular objection to any of them.  I think the concern of someone using them for roguey shenanigans is fairly narrow.  Someone doing that is more likely to be abusing the purpose of the ability.




What is the correct purpose of the ability?


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 12, 2018)

Edit: cannot figure out how to delete and I hit replay with out the quote


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Gender has nothing to do with offspring or sexual reproduction and everything to the way societies have constructed gender roles. Once again, there is nothing inherently biological in the formation or proscription of gender roles.
> 
> Hell, if gender roles were as linked to reproduction in humans as you suggest, we would all trace our lineage matrilinearly, and monogamy would not be the norm. The dominance of patrilineage and monogamy suggest that there absolutely no link between society's constructed gender roles and any biological imperative regarding reproduction.
> 
> ...




https://abcnews.go.com/Health/gender-identity-biological-study/story?id=29335854

https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/


----------



## Eltab (Jun 12, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> What happens to a pregnant female elf with the Blessing of Corellon that elects to become male?



That's been hashed out on either or both of the threads dedicated to _Corellon's Blessing_.  There are no written rules that demand One True Way to handle the situation.  Common sense suggests that the attempt to change would fail, or would cause a miscarriage.  The drama factor of the plot thread is increased, perhaps at the expense of the fun factor.  

Personally, I'd go with a version where the change is a public ritual and some officiant beforehand will run a medical checkup on you to make sure that such unforeseen consequences are caught early on in the process; you won't "qualify" until the child is born (and weaned?).  After that task is taken care of, you can join the next class of initiates.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 12, 2018)

Eltab said:


> Personally, I'd go with a version where the change is a public ritual and some officiant beforehand will run a medical checkup on you to make sure that such unforeseen consequences are caught early on in the process; you won't "qualify" until the child is born (and weaned?).  After that task is taken care of, you can join the next class of initiates.




Nice idea. I'm not a fan of such a Blessing available every long rest, it cheapens the Blessing IMO.


----------



## jasper (Jun 12, 2018)

jgsugden said:


> What happens to a pregnant female elf with the Blessing of Corellon that elects to become male?



The stork hides the baby underneath a pipeweed leaf.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 12, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> https://abcnews.go.com/Health/gender-identity-biological-study/story?id=29335854
> 
> https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/
> 
> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/




I'm forced to admit that these are completely fascinating. And surprised I hadn't heard about them before, given the implications they have. Thank you for indulging me.

I'll also admit that I'm not entirely sold, but then I'm fairly heavily entrenched in the nurture>nature camp (which shouldn't be surprising, given that I am a sociologist, which is probably why I also shouldn't be _that_ surprised I hadn't seen these studies make the rounds). But then I should also know better by now that the human being is way too complex to make hyperbolic absolutist statements about them.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> Think of the following example: you may have been raised with someone, and you call them, oh, Laurie. Now, maybe at some point years down the road, they prefer to go by Laura. You still call them Laurie not to hurt them, not to be a jerk, but because that is just grooved in your brain.




Humans are not the strongest animals.  Nor the fastest in the chase.  Our claim to fame is our cognitive flexibility.  So, you know, flex.  Unless you have some form of cognitive dysfunction, it isn't a lot to ask.  And yeah, if Granny is 90, we can give her a pass.  I was responding to, "...unreasonable to the point of being impossible," which falls down as a generalization.  




> I think that, depending on your age and your social cohort, you might be expecting a lot from people that they may not be fully able to give. Not to go all "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" on you, but if you are past a certain age, some ideas such as "cisgendered" which may be completely natural for some people to say or understand, still feel odd for those to whom the idea of labeling it would never have occurred.




We are talking about having a specific person say, "please use this form of address."  You don't need to know the jargon, or understand all the underlying stuff.  You need to understand that a fellow human being made a request.  Do you show them the basic respect of doing your level best to abide by a small request, or not?  That's the question.




> In the end, just try and be understanding, and treat people with the respect that you would want to be treated with, and if someone messes up, try and be understanding and teach them to do better.




I don't see as anyone here is suggesting anything more draconian.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 12, 2018)

Umbran said:


> I don't see as anyone here is suggesting anything more draconian.




I'll make a suggestion for Draconians. Maybe as a Dragonborn variant, but they might be different enough to merit their own race.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 12, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 12, 2018)

Regarding identity: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe4bUXopZ7E.

Trigger warning: this is safe for work but extremely opposable to the gender identity theory currently circulated on this forum.

And it's a disproval that every scientific authority out there subscribes to that theory.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 12, 2018)

Umbran said:


> Humans are not the strongest animals.  Nor the fastest in the chase.  Our claim to fame is our cognitive flexibility.  So, you know, flex.  Unless you have some form of cognitive dysfunction, it isn't a lot to ask.  And yeah, if Granny is 90, we can give her a pass.  I was responding to, "...unreasonable to the point of being impossible," which falls down as a generalization.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I, and pretty much every parent I know, still mixes up our kids' names and call the wrong kid the wrong name every once in a while.  I don't think it's a form of cognitive dysfunction to make an occasional slip now and then.  More than anything, we are creatures of habit and association, and assuming a flaw in someone, or act like something is broken with them for slipping up once in a while, is a pretty crappy thing to do, to be honest.

I have no problems addressing someone with how they want to be addressed because why wouldn't I?  That's just basic common courtesy.  But lowkey has a point as well.  Refusing to call the person Laura makes you a jerk.  Slipping up now and then by calling them Laurie because that's what you've called them your whole friendship just makes you human, and not broken with a cognitive dysfunction.


----------



## SkidAce (Jun 12, 2018)

I found out my best friend wanted to be called "Sarah" because they identified as female.

This was after working together for three years.

Once I started using Sarah at work, and referring to her as she, the rest of the workplace slowly fell into using the correct term.

I was a great help and comfort to my friend.

To this day I still occasionally mess up.  She knows it is not on purpose, and doesn't hold a grudge.

And the mistakes slowly get fewer and fewer.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I, and pretty much every parent I know, still mixes up our kids' names and call the wrong kid the wrong name every once in a while.  I don't think it's a form of cognitive dysfunction to make an occasional slip now and then.  More than anything, we are creatures of habit and association, and assuming a flaw in someone, or act like something is broken with them for slipping up once in a while, is a pretty crappy thing to do, to be honest.
> 
> I have no problems addressing someone with how they want to be addressed because why wouldn't I?  That's just basic common courtesy.  But lowkey has a point as well.  Refusing to call the person Laura makes you a jerk.  Slipping up now and then by calling them Laurie because that's what you've called them your whole friendship just makes you human, and not broken with a cognitive dysfunction.




Yeah. I think it was lowkey that pointed it out, but because there's been such a high-profile push to weaponize pronouns _against_ members of the trans community, there's a definite sensitivity to the wrong name/pronoun being used in spaces. What I will argue, however, is that that sensitivity is entirely _justifiable._ While there is a tendency in social justice spaces for circular firing squads and the so-called "callout culture", when you're so used to being called the wrong pronoun on purpose as a way to be hurt, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between that and a honest slip up.

The thing is though, because of that weaponization it's easy for that honest slip-up to cause actual, real harm. So just as I think that people are human and we shouldn't throw the book at everyone if they accidentally use the wrong pronoun once in a while (which honestly happens much more rarely than people might think), it's also important to recognize that trans-identified people are human too, and to cut _them_ some slack (and try not to act defensive) if they react strongly to a simple error.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Yeah. I think it was lowkey that pointed it out, but because there's been such a high-profile push to weaponize pronouns _against_ members of the trans community, there's a definite sensitivity to the wrong name/pronoun being used in spaces. What I will argue, however, is that that sensitivity is entirely _justifiable._ While there is a tendency in social justice spaces for circular firing squads and the so-called "callout culture", when you're so used to being called the wrong pronoun on purpose as a way to be hurt, it becomes difficult to tell the difference between that and a honest slip up.
> 
> The thing is though, because of that weaponization it's easy for that honest slip-up to cause actual, real harm. So just as I think that people are human and we shouldn't throw the book at everyone if they accidentally use the wrong pronoun once in a while (which honestly happens much more rarely than people might think), it's also important to recognize that trans-identified people are human too, and to cut _them_ some slack (and try not to act defensive) if they react strongly to a simple error.




Oh, absolutely.  I agree with everything you said.  I just don't think it's OK to assume someone has a broken cognitive ability if they slip up.  Once our brain makes a firm association with something, it's very difficult to suddenly change that, especially if it happens in casual conversation when you're not intentionally focusing on using the new name.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> Oh, absolutely.  I agree with everything you said.  I just don't think it's OK to assume someone has a broken cognitive ability if they slip up.  Once our brain makes a firm association with something, it's very difficult to suddenly change that, especially if it happens in casual conversation when you're not intentionally focusing on using the new name.




That's true. There's a point though, where intentionally focusing on using the new name/pronoun ought to the bar for "being respectful". Considering, again, the immense effort some in our society take towards turning "deadnames" and incorrect pronouns into a tool for hatred and demeaning, taking that extra effort to intentionally respect a person's true identity seems like the least those of us who don't have to deal with that in our lives could do.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> That's true. There's a point though, where intentionally focusing on using the new name/pronoun ought to the bar for "being respectful". Considering, again, the immense effort some in our society take towards turning "deadnames" and incorrect pronouns into a tool for hatred and demeaning, taking that extra effort to intentionally respect a person's true identity seems like the least those of us who don't have to deal with that in our lives could do.




I don't think that's realistic at all, to be honest.  If you've been friends with Bill for decades, who is now Sarah, and you're playing Call of Duty like you have for years, you're not going to be focused on "I need to intentionally focus on calling her Sarah."  Your mind will be on the activity, and it's entirely likely that you might slip up and say, "Hahahahaha, you totally smoked that newb Bill!" like you've said countless times in the past.  The point, is that changing that association takes time to reprogram the brain.  It has nothing to do with weaponizing, being a jerk, being respectful, whatever.  It's how the brain works.  And in those situations, I would like to think Sarah wouldn't have to wonder if you were being a jerk or not, and that decades of friendship gives you the benefit of the doubt of what your intent was/is, and just because you slipped up, it doesn't mean you're being disrespectful.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't think that's realistic at all, to be honest.  If you've been friends with Bill for decades, who is now Sarah, and you're playing Call of Duty like you have for years, you're not going to be focused on "I need to intentionally focus on calling her Sarah."  Your mind will be on the activity, and it's entirely likely that you might slip up and say, "Hahahahaha, you totally smoked that newb Bill!" like you've said countless times in the past.  The point, is that changing that association takes time to reprogram the brain.  It has nothing to do with weaponizing, being a jerk, being respectful, whatever.  It's how the brain works.  And in those situations, I would like to think Sarah wouldn't have to wonder if you were being a jerk or not, and that decades of friendship gives you the benefit of the doubt of what your intent was/is, and just because you slipped up, it doesn't mean you're being disrespectful.




I don't think it's all unrealistic, but I'm also not saying that everyone should be perfect at all times all the time. The scenario I'm thinking of applies more to casual acquaintances rather than close lifelong friends. To err is human, and everyone, even the most respectful and caring of friends, is sure to slip up on occasion. I'm more trying to caution that "people make mistakes all the time" is not cover for not really bothering to try learning to use a person's true name/pronoun regularly.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 12, 2018)

I do not plan to make any kind of cannon in my game, and I don't think an elf cannon is a good idea, and I am not sure why the sexual identity of the cannon (elf or not) would be relevant. I mean, I suppose if I were going to make a cannon of some kind, it would likely be a gnome cannon because they like to tinker with stuff. And they'd likely blow themselves up frequently.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> I suppose if I were going to make a cannon of some kind, it would likely be a gnome cannon because they like to tinker with stuff. And they'd likely blow themselves up frequently.




Which is for the best really.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 12, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> Which is for the best really.




Thank you. I appreciate you catching my pass and making a fine dunk.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 12, 2018)

Mistwell said:


> Thank you. I appreciate you catching my pass and making a fine dunk.




Well, dunking on gnomes is easy after all.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 12, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 12, 2018)

lowkey13 said:


> This isn't a new thing, either.
> 
> You can still find people that insist on calling the Greatest of All Time Cassius Clay, because reasons, or something.
> 
> People, as a rule, suck.



"The Boxer formerly known as . . ." is just so wordy


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 12, 2018)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Sadras (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> ...but because there's been such a high-profile push to weaponize pronouns _against_ members of the trans community, there's a definite sensitivity to the wrong name/pronoun being used in spaces.




Maybe, I cannot say, from what I have seen the issue is really not about the he/she, I tend to think the majority of people are accepting of their use. The real pushback is for the new list of pronouns which have been created. Also there are members from the LGBQT+ community which oppose the new pronouns so you don't necessarily have a united monolithic community that subscribes to their usage.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Maybe, I cannot say, from what I have seen the issue is really not about the he/she, I tend to think the majority of people are accepting of their use. The real pushback is for the new list of pronouns which have been created. Also there are members from the LGBQT+ community which oppose the new pronouns so you don't necessarily have a united monolithic community that subscribes to their usage.




I'm not really understanding how "xe" or "hir" are any more onerous than saying "he" or "his". People learn new words all the time, and most of them are not monosyllabic. 

There's also always the singular "they", which again, predates both "he or she" and the generic "he", and which most modern grammarians have no concern over.

It's anecdotal, but the bulk of the membership of the LGBTQIA+ community that I interact with have zero problems with that, even the ones that don't subscribe to those pronouns themselves. The entire point of that community is being accepting of everybody for who they are and how they choose to be. I'm not saying I don't know or haven't heard of gay people who roll their eyes at "xe", but those people don't typically identify as anything other than "gay" or "lesbian" and not really with the entire queer alphabet soup community as a whole.


----------



## LudicSavant (Jun 12, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Many animals can switch gender without magic so not sure why this is a shock.  Wasn't Corellon originally described as androgynous as well?




Corellon canonically changed genders in older editions, yeah.  Nothing new there.


----------



## epithet (Jun 12, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Maybe, I cannot say, from what I have seen the issue is really not about the he/she, I tend to think the majority of people are accepting of their use. The real pushback is for the new list of pronouns which have been created. Also there are members from the LGBQT+ community which oppose the new pronouns so you don't necessarily have a united monolithic community that subscribes to their usage.




Maybe.

But, maybe, there is a different issue that is also at play here. I can only speak for myself, but I don't care what gender you are. At all. Ever.

And as long as we're just casual acquaintances, I never will.

Now, I get that for some people, their gender has become the most important aspect of their self image, and has become a thing they think about and fight over and strive toward or away from on a daily basis. I get that for them, it really, _really _matters what gender they are. It just doesn't matter to me, because it isn't going to change my interaction with any of them in any significant way. It is, for me, a non-issue.

Expecting me to remember your custom pronoun, or to even try to, is like expecting me to remember your kid's names. Sure, if we're friends, I'll do that. If we work together, I'll make an effort, out of courtesy. For most of the people I encounter, I just don't care. I'm happy for you to seek fulfillment in whatever form that comes for you. Raise a kid, climb a mountain, explore your gender identity, write a novel... you do you. Just don't expect me to care much.

People have this tendency to assume that the big-freakin'-deal things in their life are important to everyone. It's why parents tend to show strangers the pictures of their kid's 3rd birthday party, and go on and on about how "advanced" he is because blah blah blah. As a courtesy, most of us smile and nod at their iPhone screen while we ignore the picture and the anecdote, waiting for the parent to get it out of his system and be ready to get back to business. That same tendency, it seems to me, causes a perception among folks who get exercised about gender issues to divide people into the supportive "with us" group and the combative "against us" group, when--and again, I can speak only for myself--some of us just don't care.

That's why I'll call people a "him" or a "her" based on what seems correct, and if someone undertakes to correct me I'll smile and nod and play along, out of courtesy. I'm not going to learn a bunch of new pronouns, because I just really don't care.

Now, if we become friends, or co-workers, or family, or whatever--if I do actually care about you--then I'll start caring about what you care about. I'll learn your kids' names--and their birthdays--and I'll read your novel. I'll also take the time to understand any gender identity you care to explain, and--because I now care--remember what you want to be called.

Until then, however, I'll just make a judgment call on "him" or "her" and I won't feel bad at all about it if it isn't what you want to hear.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I'm not really understanding how "xe" or "hir" are any more onerous than saying "he" or "his". People learn new words all the time, and most of them are not monosyllabic.



Pronouns occupy a special, closed category in a language's lexicon. It very, _very_ rarely gets new membership. The last time English did it was when it picked up the Norse "she" and "they" back in the 900s, and linguists are still kind of scratching their heads over how that happened because it was really weird. (For comparison, English got none of the pronouns of Norman French.)

So -- speaking technically, without casting any judgment on the value of such efforts -- it is not accurate to compare adopting a new pronoun to adopting a new noun or adjective or verb.

EDIT: Correction -- "They" came from Old Norse.  "She" evolved from the demonstrative pronoun, and is somewhat less weird of a development.



Gradine said:


> There's also always the singular "they", which again, predates both "he or she" and the generic "he", and which most modern grammarians have no concern over.



This seems to be where the English language is headed on the matter.

(It's not quite right to say it predates the generic "he", though.)


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Pronouns occupy a special, closed category in a language's lexicon. It very, _very_ rarely gets new membership. The last time English did it was when it picked up the Norse "she" and "they" back in the 900s, and linguists are still kind of scratching their heads over how that happened because it was really weird. (For comparison, English got none of the pronouns of Norman French.)
> 
> So -- speaking technically, without casting any judgment on the value of such efforts -- it is not accurate to compare adopting a new pronoun to adopting a new noun or adjective or verb.
> 
> EDIT: Correction -- "They" came from Old Norse.  "She" evolved from the demonstrative pronoun, and is somewhat less weird of a development.




As fascinating as this is, the world is composed of few grammarians and etymologists, professional or otherwise. I'd wager for the vast majority of the English-speaking world, pronouns are just words, like all the other words. Heck, I'd wager that there's a small but not insignificant chunk of that population that couldn't tell you the difference. Language changes all the time, and we often develop new words to describe new phenomena. Hell, there's a solid sliver of the English language, like 1500 words (both new words and new uses/conjugations of old words), we can accurately attribute the invention of to one man (William Shakespeare).

There is really no reason or principle to stand on to resist adopting new words in order to respect the identities of others. Unless one is deliberate in not ascribing to a theory of multiple genders or the existence of a gender spectrum, and therefore there must be something _wrong_ with those who attempt to break free of the gender binary. Which is definitely a position. And honestly, it's one that I wish more people would be upfront about rather than hiding behind Strunk & White.

For those that are genuinely interested in treating non-gender-conforming individuals with respect and dignity, I found this helpful flowchart that really gets to the root of how simple this really is:


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> As fascinating as this is, the world is composed of few grammarians and etymologists, professional or otherwise. I'd wager for the vast majority of the English-speaking world, pronouns are just words, like all the other words. Heck, I'd wager that there's a small but not insignificant chunk of that population that couldn't tell you the difference. Language changes all the time, and we often develop new words to describe new phenomena. Hell, there's a solid sliver of the English language, like 1500 words (both new words and new uses/conjugations of old words), we can accurately attribute the invention of to one man (William Shakespeare).



I'm aware that language changes all the time. I'm trying to tell you, as a matter of fact, that this is one part of language that doesn't. This is not a matter just for "grammarians and etymologists". It is a description of how normal everyday speakers of languages behave over time, whether or not they understand consciously what they're doing.

Shakespeare coined zero pronouns.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 12, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> I'm aware that language changes all the time. I'm trying to tell you, as a matter of fact, that this is one part of language that doesn't. This is not a matter just for "grammarians and etymologists". It is a description of how normal everyday speakers of languages behave over time, whether or not they understand consciously what they're doing.




Except that it has, as a matter of fact, changed. You provided two examples yourself (the generic "he", I learned, was also borrowed from Latin). It's rarer yes (because as a general rule we need fewer pronouns than we need nouns or verbs), but it still happens, either as a part of the the natural transmission of language or as a deliberate choice. English grammarians have been debating the proper gender-neutral singular term for at least a century, if not much, much longer, to the apparent satisfaction of nobody. Why resist a change that helps to increase clarity?


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Except that it has, as a matter of fact, changed. You provided two examples yourself (the generic "he", I learned, was also borrowed from Latin). It's rarer yes (because as a general rule we need fewer pronouns than we need nouns or verbs), but it still happens, either as a part of the the natural transmission of language or as a deliberate choice. English grammarians have been debating the proper gender-neutral singular term for at least a century, if not much, much longer, to the apparent satisfaction of nobody. Why resist a change that helps to increase clarity?




[Sorry for breaking the silence, but it seems the topic is a different one?]
Core parts of a language do change, but they change slowly, too slowly actually. It is possible to observe many linguistic changes in one's lifetime -America is in the middle of a consonant shift as we speak-, but ultra common core words hardly ever change. 

That's the thing with language, the most common something is, the most resilient it is to change. Linguistic special cases hardly ever last without reverting to the general form. Except -that is- if that special case happens too often, then it becomes resilient and harder to change. Just take a look at irregular verbs, they are extremely common in everyday speech, but uncommon, corner-case verbs, they all are regular. The same with German and strong verbs. And with irregular nouns -like person- and adjectives. They are part of the most common 500 words in English.  

Articles and pronouns form an even more common class of words. They are extremely common and form the basis for English language. Once you learn their proper use, you have basically learnt English. It may seem strange, but getting the proper use of pronouns -and auxiliary verbs- is the most challenging part of learning English as a second language, precisely because they are the most intensive in use. They also carry a heavy burden in meaning. Just try to use I,Me,My, Mine to talk about a third person.

NOt saying that this change cannot happen, but it is quite unlikely. It would take a lot of people adopting the same new pronoun and sticking to it for a few centuries until it becomes second nature for a lot of people.


----------



## Lychee of the Exch. (Jun 12, 2018)

Gradine said:


> There is really no reason or principle to stand on to resist adopting new words in order to respect the identities of others. *Unless one is deliberate in not ascribing to a theory of multiple genders or the existence of a gender spectrum[...]*



That would be me.



Gradine said:


> [...]and therefore there must be something _wrong_ with those who attempt to break free of the gender binary.



Everybody has his reasons, but I'm not privy with everybody's reasoning. On principle I don't judge people on one singular aspect of their beliefs, therefore I think that some of "those who are trying to break free of gender binary" are in the wrong, and some others have their cogent reasons, which I haven't been acquainted with - or convinced by.

Those who deem there _must_ be something fundamentally wrong with people whose opinions differ from theirs are ideologues or true believers - of which there are some examples in this thread. I'm not that (or at least, I'm trying not to be).



			
				Gradine said:
			
		

> Which is definitely a position. And honestly, it's one that I wish more people would be upfront about rather than hiding behind Strunk & White.



I'm glad I could be of service ;-).



			
				Gradine said:
			
		

> For those that are genuinely interested in treating non-gender-conforming individuals with respect and dignity,



That would be me too.



			
				Gradine said:
			
		

> I found this helpful flowchart that really gets to the root of how simple this really is:
> 
> View attachment 98388



That chart is much too loud for my taste. Also it reeks to me of self-righteousness and a sense of unearned moral superiority - but I admit it could be an adverse reaction to this naïve admonition.

Q.:" What pronoun do you use for a transgender person ?"
A.: It would depend. Probably a feminine or masculine pronoun.

Regarding: "Whatever they use for themselves" and "If you don't know, politely ask[..]": I strive to be polite (most of the time), which does not mean in the least that anyone gets to dictate my speech. Words are important, and who attempts to dictate the use of words attempt to shape our perception of reality. Just (re-)read George Orwell.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 13, 2018)

Lychee of the Exch. said:


> That would be me.
> 
> Everybody has his reasons, but I'm not privy with everybody's reasoning. On principle I don't judge people on one singular aspect of their beliefs, therefore *I think that some of "those who are trying to break free of gender binary" are in the wrong*, and some others have their cogent reasons, which I haven't been acquainted with - or convinced by.
> 
> *Those who deem there must be something fundamentally wrong with people whose opinions differ from theirs* are ideologues or true believers - of which there are some examples in this thread. *I'm not that (or at least, I'm trying not to be).*



I just want to point out, these two statements are contradictory.




> Regarding: "Whatever they use for themselves" and "If you don't know, politely ask[..]": I strive to be polite (most of the time), which does not mean in the least that anyone gets to dictate my speech. Words are important, and who attempts to dictate the use of words attempt to shape our perception of reality. Just (re-)read George Orwell.



No, they can't _force _you to call them what they would prefer.

But it is an exemplary litmus test to distinguish between the tolerant and the intolerant.

I look at it this way: what is the opportunity cost by calling them their pronoun of choice?  What do _you _in this context, lose by referring to people by their preferred pronoun?

I mean, by simple virtue of being on this forum we do it all the time without even blinking an eye.  Hint: they're called usernames.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 13, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Except that it has, as a matter of fact, changed. You provided two examples yourself (the generic "he", I learned, was also borrowed from Latin). It's rarer yes (because as a general rule we need fewer pronouns than we need nouns or verbs), but it still happens, either as a part of the the natural transmission of language or as a deliberate choice. English grammarians have been debating the proper gender-neutral singular term for at least a century, if not much, much longer, to the apparent satisfaction of nobody. Why resist a change that helps to increase clarity?



You seem to be attributing the resistance to malice, though, so it's pertinent to point out that there are deeper linguistic explanations for it. I can predict, with quite a high degree of confidence, that "xe" will not be a regular English third-person singular pronoun in a hundred years. But I can also predict, with comparable confidence, that "they" will be. As the need for a gender-neutral pronoun has increased, "they" has observably, measurably expanded in use to meet that need, and "xe" has made no such progress. Why fight an uphill battle -- more like running into a cliffside, really -- when you don't have to?

(And the generic "he" isn't from Latin.)


----------



## Eltab (Jun 13, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Why resist a change that helps to increase clarity?



Will it be OK to resist a change that decreases clarity?


----------



## jasper (Jun 13, 2018)

Umbran said:


> ....
> 
> 
> We are talking about having a specific person say, "please use this form of address."  You don't need to know the jargon, or understand all the underlying stuff.  You need to understand that a fellow human being made a request.  Do you show them the basic respect of doing your level best to abide by a small request, or not?  That's the question.
> ...



Does being 54 count with Granny? I have one of my semi regulars is trans. First time he show up I used the wrong pronoun a lot. But the couple corrected me. And I told them keep correcting me to get right. I did this out loud and very loudly so the whole table would start correcting me. Since they are still gaming at my table, I assume they are forgiving my slip ups.
BUT a DRACONIAN third party got ticked I did not use the correct pronoun off the bat. They back channeled to tell me I was "not welcoming ya ya ya  and evil old fart". The third party has not sit at my table since.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 13, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> No, they can't _force _you to call them what they would prefer.
> 
> But it is an exemplary litmus test to distinguish between the tolerant and the intolerant.
> 
> ...




I believe this is a bad analogy.

Usernames are not pronouns they are names hence the word _names_ in the word usernames. 
I'm not entirely convinced we use each other's usernames because we are tolerant or necessarily respectful of each other. We primarily use them because of the notification software that exists on Enworld. 

As for 'forcing' the way one addresses another in comparison to real life, this board has rules we have to subscribe to when addressing each other.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 13, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I'm forced to admit that these are completely fascinating. And surprised I hadn't heard about them before, given the implications they have. Thank you for indulging me.
> 
> I'll also admit that I'm not entirely sold, but then I'm fairly heavily entrenched in the nurture>nature camp (which shouldn't be surprising, given that I am a sociologist, which is probably why I also shouldn't be _that_ surprised I hadn't seen these studies make the rounds). But then I should also know better by now that the human being is way too complex to make hyperbolic absolutist statements about them.




I believe the articles in question.  It seems to me that gender differences still occur in places like the Middle East, where society very strongly pressures against it.  To do that, it seems to me that there would have to be a biological component to gender.  A person's genes, hormones, and/or physiological make-up would determine the gender(s) a person is prone to, and society would then influence things.  In a place like the Middle East, a person may or may not be able to come to an understanding of what gender they are, or might come to an incorrect understanding that is close to what they feel.  In a place like America where it's becoming much more accepted, the person would more easily be able to figure the gender out.  

What convinces me the most, though, is that you can't "pray the gay(or gender) away."  Attempts to do so almost universally fail or cause deep psychological harm to the person making the attempt.  For example, the male children who feel that they are females in a male body could be "cured" if there wasn't a biological component.  Instead, attempts to do so(and there are lots of attempts) cause clashes as the child feels one way and society around them pushes them to feel another.  Many hurt or kill themselves.  If it were only psychological or sociological, attempts to "cure" should have a much higher success rate.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 13, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> You seem to be attributing the resistance to malice, though, so it's pertinent to point out that there are deeper linguistic explanations for it.




I do attribute the resistance primarily to malice, yes, given the extreme lack of tolerance non-gender-conforming people still often face, and I don't think it unreasonable to expect a certain amount of evidence to attribute the resistance to some other, less nefarious reason. _At best,_ we are talking about a callous disregard for the respect and dignity of fellow human beings over... what, exactly? Digging ones heels in regarding language that is constantly morphing and shifting? I'm not saying that the malice is always _intentional_, but this is one of those instances where the impact matters more than the intention behind it.



> I can predict, with quite a high degree of confidence, that "xe" will not be a regular English third-person singular pronoun in a hundred years. But I can also predict, with comparable confidence, that "they" will be. As the need for a gender-neutral pronoun has increased, "they" has observably, measurably expanded in use to meet that need, and "xe" has made no such progress. Why fight an uphill battle -- more like running into a cliffside, really -- when you don't have to?




"They" is pretty much already a regular English third-person singular pronoun, as it has been for centuries (despite a comparatively brief period of falling out of favor). The arguments that it is "unclear" or "clunky" are patently absurd, given that the most commonly cited alternatives are the generic "he", which blessedly fewer and fewer people seem to be in favor of for reasons that should be obvious; and "he or she", which is just as likely to be unclear, is definitely clunkier, and is _more_ likely to be inaccurate. There can be no sensible reason to continue to resist singular "they" other than a defense of either the patriarchy or the gender binary, depending on one's favored "neutral" singular pronoun. I don't deny that there are people that continue to cling to that resistance for entirely nonsensical reasons; the "backfire effect" is a thing that exists, and not too long ago a small but significant subset of the American population was treating a change in light bulb design to be a serious threat to their way of life, so I can't say I don't understand people throwing up resistance over something a little more serious as language. But I can fault them for it, and suggest that there might be some bias, either conscious or unconscious, underlying it.

As for "xe" and its ilk, well, no, I don't expect to see a new pronoun hit the common parlance, at least not until the community comes together a chooses a single set, which seems unlikely now but whose to say what will happen later? Of course, I'm talking about neither formal English dictionaries nor informal English vernacular. I'm talking about a living, breathing, human being, asking others to refer to them, a single individual, as "xe" and "hir", because those are hir preferred pronouns. And rather than those same people, rather than realizing that treating this individual with the respect and dignity costs them _literally nothing_, as Sunseeker above just pointed out, they instead go into histrionics about {free speech.. grammar}. 



> (And the generic "he" isn't from Latin.)




Not according to this article, though I realize that etymology is often disputed:
"Generic _he_ first derived its authority from a rule about Latin gender that was applied to English even though gender in Latin, which has to do with word classes and suffixes, has nothing in common with gender in modern English, which is based entirely on chromosomes and social construction."


----------



## Gradine (Jun 13, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> I believe the articles in question.  It seems to me that gender differences still occur in places like the Middle East, where society very strongly pressures against it.  To do that, it seems to me that there would have to be a biological component to gender.  A person's genes, hormones, and/or physiological make-up would determine the gender(s) a person is prone to, and society would then influence things.  In a place like the Middle East, a person may or may not be able to come to an understanding of what gender they are, or might come to an incorrect understanding that is close to what they feel.  In a place like America where it's becoming much more accepted, the person would more easily be able to figure the gender out.
> 
> What convinces me the most, though, is that you can't "pray the gay(or gender) away."  Attempts to do so almost universally fail or cause deep psychological harm to the person making the attempt.  For example, the male children who feel that they are females in a male body could be "cured" if there wasn't a biological component.  Instead, attempts to do so(and there are lots of attempts) cause clashes as the child feels one way and society around them pushes them to feel another.  Many hurt or kill themselves.  If it were only psychological or sociological, attempts to "cure" should have a much higher success rate.




Oh no, that all totally makes sense, and I agree 100% with all of it. I think I'm mostly just recovering from the cognitive dissonance that my natural mindset forced myself into in this instance. It's a major paradigm shift that is taking my head a little bit longer to fully wrap itself around.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 13, 2018)

Gradine said:


> And rather than those same people, rather than realizing that treating this individual with the respect and dignity costs them literally nothing, as Sunseeker above just pointed out, they instead go into histrionics about {free speech.. grammar}.



You're kind of going into histrionics yourself. We're not talking on the same wavelength here yet.



Gradine said:


> Not according to this article, though I realize that etymology is often disputed:
> "Generic _he_ first derived its authority from a rule about Latin gender that was applied to English even though gender in Latin, which has to do with word classes and suffixes, has nothing in common with gender in modern English, which is based entirely on chromosomes and social construction."



With all due respect to a Professor of English... the article would apparently have us believe that the English language began in the 16th Century, doesn't actually cite a word of Latin, and has a very strident polemical tone which, even if you agree with its overall goals (I certainly do), should set off all kinds of warning bells in your head for biased analysis.

In fact: (a) the generic "he" is in Old English; (b) the generic "they" is not and could not be, because Old English plural pronouns were also gendered; and (c) English pronouns have no etymological connection to Latin pronouns beyond the most distant Indo-European relationship.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 13, 2018)

There _is_ a biological component to most aspects of identity, gender included. But it's in the brain, not the body.

They've recently done tests--I forget precisely which tests, so I won't make a guess and risk obscuring my actual point--which show that the brains of trans individuals tend to work/behave much more like the gender with which they identify than the one they were assigned at birth.

(I apologize for using "identify." I know that term is losing favor, and for good reason, but I'm not sure how better to phrase it in this particular instance.)

So, a trans woman's brain works more like a cis woman's brain than like a man's, and vice-versa.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 13, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> There _is_ a biological component to most aspects of identity, gender included. But it's in the brain, not the body.
> 
> They've recently done tests--I forget precisely which tests, so I won't make a guess and risk obscuring my actual point--which show that the brains of trans individuals tend to work/behave much more like the gender with which they identify than the one they were assigned at birth.
> 
> ...



Here's a good overview:

"Are the Brains of Transgender People Different from Those of Cisgender People?"

From my (layman's) reading of the neuroscience, I'd call it a simplification to say that _"a trans woman's brain works more like a cis woman's brain than like a man's, and vice-versa."_ There's _something_ going on in the brain, it's definitely not just sociological, but, like everything brain-related... it's complicated. Sometimes they're more like one cis gender, sometimes they're more like the other, sometimes they seem to be just doing their own thing.

But for our purposes as a society, the only really relevant part of the science is establishing that trans people are "born this way" (or, possibly, "developed this way"-- doesn't matter), that it's not a choice they make or something culturally imposed upon them. The details don't affect how we should move forward. A trans man could have an absolutely standard issue biologically female brain except for the one bit that says "I am a man", and that still wouldn't we should make him wear a dress, because we shouldn't make _anyone_ wear a dress unless they want to, that's just rude.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 13, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> A trans man could have an absolutely standard issue biologically female brain except for the one bit that says "I am a man", and that still wouldn't we should make him wear a *real green* dress, because we shouldn't make _anyone_ wear a *real green* dress unless they want to, that's mean just rude.




FTFa Bare Naked Ladies reference.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 13, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> You're kind of going into histrionics yourself. We're not talking on the same wavelength here yet.




I think the biggest reason we aren't the same wavelength is that I'm trying to talk about the implications of interpersonal interactions, and why some people seem to care more about resisting change in something that is ever-changing than in treating their fellow humans with respects. Again, as much as etymology is _fascinating_ to me, it's not really the main point of what I'm trying to get at here.



> With all due respect to a Professor of English... the article would apparently have us believe that the English language began in the 16th Century, doesn't actually cite a word of Latin, and has a very strident polemical tone which, even if you agree with its overall goals (I certainly do), should set off all kinds of warning bells in your head for biased analysis.
> 
> In fact: (a) the generic "he" is in Old English; (b) the generic "they" is not and could not be, because Old English plural pronouns were also gendered; and (c) English pronouns have no etymological connection to Latin pronouns beyond the most distant Indo-European relationship.




I'm not entirely sure what article you're reading, because nowhere in the article I linked to does the author discuss the formation of the English language (he, at one point very early in the article, refers to "modern English"). Secondly, subjectivity is not, by itself, any sort of red flag when it comes to academia. I happen be of the opinion, not as widely shared as I would hope I'm sure, that there is no such thing as true objectivity in humanities or social sciences. I actually prefer such works where the author's bias is clear, even when I disagree with it; I place significantly less trust in authors who pretend towards "objectivity". It should also be noted that this is a blog and not a published article (something I probably should have noted before citing it, but then this is also a web forum and not a forensics regional), which probably explains why the tone is less staid and academic, and more, well... readable.

I'm also going to ask for citations for what you have to say about Old English, because every source I've been able to find in my admittedly short jaunt through internet research land has proven completely _contradictory_ to what you're saying. Everything I've found suggests that Old English specifically had Neuter single personal pronouns (though, granted, lined up with the masculine pronouns for "him" and "his", but not for what we would consider today as "he"), and no gender distinction in plural pronouns (which, in fact, sometimes mirrored _feminine_ pronouns but never the masculine). Once again, I understand that etymology is subjective and contested, so I'd be happy to read from other sources that contradict these.

e: The original post came off as more hostile than I had intended.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 13, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I'm not entirely sure what article you're reading, because nowhere in the article I linked to does the author discuss the formation of the English language (he, at one point very early in the article, refers to "modern English").



If the claim is that the generic "he" was imported to English from Latin, then it seems like a relevant fact that it was present in Old English long before these modern grammarians began their alleged meddling.

"I accuse Miss Scarlet of killing Mr. Boddy last night!"
"Mr. Boddy has been dead for three years..."



Gradine said:


> I actually prefer such works where the author's bias is clear, even when I disagree with it; I place significantly less trust in authors who pretend towards "objectivity".



While certainly there can be horrendously biased works hiding behind a pseudo-objective tone, I find (and psychologists agree) that we tend to move towards what we pretend to be. Pretend to be angry and you'll make yourself angry; pretend to be calm and you make yourself calm. Wear your bias on your sleeve and you'll make yourself more biased; aspire to objectivity and, even though you'll never be perfect, you will get better at it.



Gradine said:


> Everything I've found suggests that Old English specifically had Neuter single personal pronouns (though, granted, lined up with the masculine pronouns for "him" and "his", but not for what we would consider today as "he")...



Old English did have a neuter singular pronoun. The same neuter singular pronoun that would evolve into the modern English neuter singular pronoun "it", and with the same non-person connotation.



Gradine said:


> ...and no gender distinction in plural pronouns (which, in fact, sometimes mirrored _feminine_ pronouns but never the masculine).



Not sure who compiled that table on Wikipedia, but it's incomplete. That's the paradigm for masculine plurals you see. Wikipedia's other table shows the feminine plurals. Because of the "generic he" rule, masculine plurals were used for mixed and neuter groups, so that could be one reason for the omission of the feminine forms.

It is interesting that you should mention genderless plurals mirroring the feminine singular paradigm, though, because that's exactly what happens in German.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 13, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> While certainly there can be horrendously biased works hiding behind a pseudo-objective tone, I find (and psychologists agree) that we tend to move towards what we pretend to be. Pretend to be angry and you'll make yourself angry; pretend to be calm and you make yourself calm. Wear your bias on your sleeve and you'll make yourself more biased; aspire to objectivity and, even though you'll never be perfect, you will get better at it.




My biggest problem is that what most people consider "objectivity" is not actually "objective" in the sense people mean it to be at all. "Objectivity" is very specifically a bias of its own, just that in most cases it tends to be a bias towards the status quo. If those claiming "objectivity" would be more open and honest about that fact (not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie) I would have significantly less problem with it.



> Old English did have a neuter singular pronoun. The same neuter singular pronoun that would evolve into modern English "it", and with the same non-person connotation.
> 
> Not sure who compiled that table on Wikipedia, but it's incomplete. That's the paradigm for masculine plurals you see. Wikipedia's other table shows the feminine plurals. Because of the "generic he" rule, masculine plurals were used for mixed and neuter groups, so that could be one reason for the omission of the feminine forms.
> 
> It is interesting that you should mention genderless plurals mirroring the feminine singular paradigm, though, because that's exactly what happens in German.




Thanks for the link; I was pulling my hair out because I had a feeling you knew what you were talking about but I couldn't find anything that agreed with it. The stuff I was able to find did mention multiple times that Old English pronouns was influenced some by German.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 14, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> FTFa Bare Naked Ladies reference.



Lemme put it this way: I am only just barely aware that the Bare Naked Ladies are, in fact, fully dressed men. I'm glad I got that far, at least, because otherwise I'd have been _really_ confused.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 14, 2018)

Gradine said:


> I think the biggest reason we aren't the same wavelength is that I'm trying to talk about the implications of interpersonal interactions, and why some people seem to care more about resisting change in something that is ever-changing than in treating their fellow humans with respects. Again, as much as etymology is _fascinating_ to me, it's not really the main point of what I'm trying to get at here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You can't stop change but to much change that comes to fast has always created social problems doesn't matter if that change is progressive or conservative it can go either way. 

 Here for example there were a couple of high profile cases of trans men entering womens sports and unsurprisingly won (lifting and cycling). The liberal hippy dippy thing is "they are women let them compete" but the reality is they are men with superficial surgery and taking female hormones. 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other...nwealth-games-ban-on-transgender-weightlifter

The public restroom thing in the USA was also an issue here at schools the girls did not want transgender men in their bathrooms. Wasn't a political problem like the US more of a practical problem. NZ is probably one of the better places in the world to be trans.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff-nation...-nz/10792980/NZ-pretty-safe-place-to-be-trans

 But yeah the sporting codes here are struggling over what to do. Women can and do use male bathrooms here especially at things like rock concerts (the guys don't care) but males walking into a female bathroom can get you arrested. Technically the females in male bathrooms can as well but its not really enforced. 

 Most new restrooms constructed are either unisex, have a unisex option and/or have nappy changing stations. My nephews and nieces school (9-13 years old) has rainbow rooms safe rooms for the LGBT community since with 4000 students you can expec them to have 150-200 students that would identify as LBQT. At my highschool you would have got your testicles jumped on and thrown in the pool (happened in 1993/94) so times are changing and getting better. Such things usually take a generation or so to really change although the might be ahead of behind the curve when it comes to the person in the street. Being gay was legalized in the 1980's you could still get beaten up in the 90's though and such things were not exactly rare (these days it can happen but its very rare/shocking).


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 14, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> There _is_ a biological component to most aspects of identity, gender included. But it's in the brain, not the body.
> 
> They've recently done tests--I forget precisely which tests, so I won't make a guess and risk obscuring my actual point--which show that the brains of trans individuals tend to work/behave much more like the gender with which they identify than the one they were assigned at birth.
> 
> ...




Yes,  but things produced in the body like estrogen and testosterone can alter the brain chemistry and affect thinking.  The article below talks about female to male transitions, but I was once listening to a woman on the radio who went male to female and talked about a similar effect in the opposite direction.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...women-hormone-treatment-men-brain-traits.html


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 14, 2018)

Oh, it's all connected, absolutely. And hormones play a big part of it. My point, however, was that it's not all societal/cultural, or upbringing, or chromosomal, and certainly not all based on genitalia. That there are real, proven, scientific reasons for gender dysphoria and other potential* aspects of trans identity.

*(I say "potential" because dysphoria, while exceedingly common, is not universal in the trans community.)


----------



## Eltab (Jun 14, 2018)

Gradine said:


> There can be no sensible reason to continue to resist singular "they" other than a defense of either the patriarchy or the gender binary, depending on one's favored "neutral" singular pronoun.



I wonder if this statement can be used as irrefutable proof of malice?

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet


----------



## Eltab (Jun 14, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> What convinces me the most, though, is that you can't "pray the gay(or gender) away."  Attempts to do so almost universally fail or cause deep psychological harm to the person making the attempt.  For example, the male children who feel that they are females in a male body could be "cured" if there wasn't a biological component.  Instead, attempts to do so(and there are lots of attempts) cause clashes as the child feels one way and society around them pushes them to feel another.  Many hurt or kill themselves.  If it were only psychological or sociological, attempts to "cure" should have a much higher success rate.



I haven't followed these incidents closely, yet my first reaction was 'an unwilling patient is a recipe for failure'.  The amateur status of the person / people applying the "treatment" will aggravate this.  The patient would resist the treatment not respond positively to it.
Do you know of any cases where a person who _wanted_ to change their self-identification went through one of these treatments and it succeeded (without damaging side-effects)?


----------



## Eltab (Jun 14, 2018)

I wonder how this conversation about linguistics might be different if it was carried out in German, which has masculine and feminine pronouns attached to inanimate (and non-sexual) objects.
"The table" could be a him and "the chair" could be a her.


----------



## MoonSong (Jun 14, 2018)

Eltab said:


> I wonder how this conversation about linguistics might be different if it was carried out in German, which has masculine and feminine pronouns attached to inanimate (and non-sexual) objects.
> "The table" could be a him and "the chair" could be a her.




That's but the tip of the iceberg. Depending on the context people can be referred to using the neutral pronouns normally reserved for inanimate things. (like a teacher used to say "Children are almost people"). And using masculine and feminine forms for inanimate things is more the rule than the exception in indo-european languages. In this case I thing that English is quite unique in its strong human/non human divide and its almost vestigial -but quite strong- gender system that makes it quite easy to "invent" one's own pronouns. In German  you would have to consider all of the interactions with the declination by case and in Romance languages you'd have to consider the interaction with almost every other word in the language -and there's also a limited number of vowels to work with-. And in other language families pronouns/grammatical gender doesn't really exist.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 14, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Lemme put it this way: I am only just barely aware that the Bare Naked Ladies are, in fact, fully dressed men. I'm glad I got that far, at least, because otherwise I'd have been _really_ confused.




I remember the first time I heard of Bare Naked Ladies and that they would be performing on the Today show. 

Imagine my adolescent disappointment.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 14, 2018)

Double post


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 14, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Lemme put it this way: I am only just barely aware that the Bare Naked Ladies are, in fact, fully dressed men. I'm glad I got that far, at least, because otherwise I'd have been _really_ confused.




Their song If I Had a Million Dollars includes a line "I'd buy you a fur coat, but not a real fur coat - that's cruel" and later humourously mirrors that line with a green dress in place of the fur coat.

The song popped into my head while reading your post.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 14, 2018)

Satyrn said:


> Their song If I Had a Million Dollars includes a line "I'd buy you a fur coat, but not a real fur coat - that's cruel" and later humourously mirrors that line with a green dress in place of the fur coat.
> 
> The song popped into my head while reading your post.




They also have my favorite dad joke in a song:

/I could hide out under there/
/I just made you say "underwear"/


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 14, 2018)

Gradine said:


> My biggest problem is that what most people consider "objectivity" is not actually "objective" in the sense people mean it to be at all. "Objectivity" is very specifically a bias of its own, just that in most cases it tends to be a bias towards the status quo. If those claiming "objectivity" would be more open and honest about that fact (not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie) I would have significantly less problem with it.



If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.

And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side. _My_ biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie...  )


----------



## Gradine (Jun 14, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.
> 
> And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side. _My_ biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie...  )




Here's the problem with objectivity: anything that can reasonably be considered an "objective fact of the matter" is can be more accurately described as "what we believe we can confirm". Because our capacity for knowledge is never capable of reaching true perfection we can never be truly _sure_ of anything, just what we can appear to confirm with our limited human senses and the aid of whatever limited technology we have available at the time. And that's taught us a lot so far, but we've also discovered many times after the fact where we've gotten a lot of stuff wrong. Even in the hard sciences. There's a reason we aren't all watching the sun circle around the earth while we make sure to keep our four bodily humours in good balance. 

The only way to progress; the only way to advance knowledge, is to upset the status quo, to reject what is "objectively known". The best way to do this is obviously with evidence. In a lot of cases concerning the humanities (linguistics, history) and social sciences (sociology, many forms of psychology), you're as likely to end up with more qualitative evidence than quantitative as you are to end up with more quantitative evidence than qualitative. 

There was a point, not too long ago mind you, that one particular "fact of the matter" is that "there are two genders", and attempting to argue otherwise is an example of bias. There are still those who take this stance. And yet, any folx speaking truth to their identity (and those voicing their support in believing them) have been treated as totally being subjective and biased and or "advancing an agenda" while those who support the status quo are able to argue from their own biases and agendas while getting to pretend to cloak themselves in a veneer of "objectivity" (again, more likely than not believing the lie). If you want really obvious examples of this phenomenon in action, look at any trial jury selection process ("Will a black juror be able to judge this hate crime objectively?") Or hell, the entire judicial system, for that matter. People still make demands that openly gay judges recuse themselves from cases that involve gay rights (because, when it comes to civil rights and constitutional law, only straight people can be _truly_ objective ). 

"Objectivity", *true* objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda". 

Everyone always forgets that the status quo is an agenda too.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 14, 2018)

Gradine said:


> "Objectivity", *true* objectivity in the way people define it, simply does not exist. Everyone is biased, either for or against the status quo in any given situation, and those who claim "objectivity" only believe themselves having the right to do so because they have a bias for the status quo. This not only unjustly allows them to claim some kind of moral or intellectual high ground, but it also allows them to reject wholesale any and all qualitative evidence they don't agree with as "obviously coming from a place of bias" or from people with an "agenda".



Then you get to say, "Hey, you're rejecting evidence without looking at it! That's not very objective!" You progress, advance knowledge, upset the status quo, not by discarding objectivity but by _being better at it_.

Keep in mind, too, that claiming "true objectivity does not exist" is what is allowing _you_ to claim some kind of moral and intellectual high ground, right here and right now. It could also very easily allow you to reject wholesale any and all evidence _you_ don't agree with. To be sure, I don't see you doing this at the moment, but then again, I don't see anyone else rejecting evidence out of "objectivity" at the moment either. If you've seen the latter done at other times and places, well, I've seen the former done at other times and places too. And between objectivity and anti-objectivity, one of them contains a commitment to the value of evidence which can serve as a check on unjust rejection, while the other... doesn't.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 15, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If the real problem is that people who claim to be objective aren't, then taking aim at "objectivity" is wildly counterproductive. When somebody says something that is objectively untrue, any commitment to objectivity they profess is an invaluable gift to you. It means that they're obliged to accept in principle that there is a fact of the matter, that they might currently be wrong about it, and that certain rules of evidence can determine whether or not they are. You don't want to reject all that; you want to double down on it.
> 
> And if you get to the point where you do think that objectivity itself favors the other side, that's still no reason to question objectivity -- it's reason to question whether you're on the right side. _My_ biggest problem is that most people who reject objectivity do so not out of principle, but because they get to this point but would rather keep arguing than concede. (Not that I think they're being deliberately dishonest, but far more likely to be believing their own lie...  )



People will almost always choose an pretty lie over an ugly truth. 

The pretty lie most often selected on the internet is, "I'm not acting the fool in this conversation where I'm obviously talking from my hind end to people that study this stuff."


----------



## Gradine (Jun 15, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Then you get to say, "Hey, you're rejecting evidence without looking at it! That's not very objective!" You progress, advance knowledge, upset the status quo, not by discarding objectivity but by _being better at it_.




The problem is that the status quo often is backed by those who get to claim authority (often earned by upsetting and overthrowing the previous status quo) and people resist change strictly for the sake of not having to admit that you, too, were wrong. This process basically seeps into all fields of cultural production*, not just in regards civil rights or human dignity; that's just where that kind of intransigence is the most aggravating and actually damaging to people.

You're still not refuting the point that what is claimed to be "objective" is always the "status quo" until such time as enough evidence to the contrary overwhelms it, or the point that defenders of the status quo wield so-called "objectivity" as a weapon to protect their own agendas, often with the power and authority to get away with it.



*Speaking of, Fields of Cultural Production by Pierre Bourdieu is an excellent book that covers this subject pretty well, and one I'd recommend to anyone who wants to also study this stuff, even the peanut gallery


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 15, 2018)

Gradine said:


> The problem is that the status quo often is backed by those who get to claim authority (often earned by upsetting and overthrowing the previous status quo) and people resist change strictly for the sake of not having to admit that you, too, were wrong. This process basically seeps into all fields of cultural production*, not just in regards civil rights or human dignity; that's just where that kind of intransigence is the most aggravating and actually damaging to people.
> 
> You're still not refuting the point that what is claimed to be "objective" is always the "status quo" until such time as enough evidence to the contrary overwhelms it, or the point that defenders of the status quo wield so-called "objectivity" as a weapon to protect their own agendas, often with the power and authority to get away with it.
> 
> ...




 Objectively from a historical PoV you can find plenty of examples where trying to stop change or speed it up have blown up and made things worse and counter productive to whatever the people were actually trying to achieve. 

 German conservatives giving Austria a blank check to rally the nation around the flag and overthrowing the Tsar would be prime examples of conservatives/progressives dropping the ball and making things worse. Hell you would have had a better outcome in 1914 if everyone stayed at home and had a national lottery to randomly execute 50 000 of your own citizens would have been cheaper and saved lives vs fighting WW1. 

 Similar theory in USA politics I suppose. If you aggressive push a social engineering agenda you annoy the conservatives and Trump gets elected. Trumps annoying a lot of people the effects of that will be clear in the 2018 mid terms and/or 2020 elections. If you do nothing sure you may not get the change you want (liberal or conservative) as fast as you want, but you don't take a massive step backwards when you get annihilated at the national level in elections (2008 or 2016 same thing really). Can't get progressive laws passed if you're in opposition or lose control of the senate, congress, presidency and the supreme court. 

 Here we had a right wing government pass the human rights bill covering discrimination against sexuality, a left wing government made prostitution legal and when they got voted out the right wing government left it in place. Having a government that works funny concept that. Sometimes waiting 10 years or doing nothing is the better play IMHO.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 15, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> People will almost always choose an pretty lie over and ugly truth.
> 
> The pretty lie most often selected on the internet is, "I'm not acting the fool in this conversation where I'm obviously talking from my hind end to people that study this stuff."



And now that I'm not surrounded by kiddos at VBS, I will finish my comments.

1) I'm just as guilty of my post above post as anyone else.

2) Gender is between your ears. Sex is between your legs.

3) The fact that traditional gender roles strongly tend to match with the sex of the person is a societal "happy accident" and has almost nothing to do with biology.

4) If you're talking about your support for something like LGBTQA+ (if I missed some, I'm sorry) and toss in the aforementioned "but" then: 
A) Stop right there. 
B) Delete what you just typed. 
C)Find another thread to add to.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> You can't stop change but to much change that comes to fast has always created social problems doesn't matter if that change is progressive or conservative it can go either way.
> 
> Here for example there were a couple of high profile cases of trans men entering womens sports and unsurprisingly won (lifting and cycling). The liberal hippy dippy thing is "they are women let them compete" but the reality is they are men with superficial surgery and taking female hormones.
> 
> ...



I wish your final couple sentences was true here in the U.S. The LGBTQIA+ social and crime victim stats are a complete horror show. A full 40% of this community's dead are unclaimed and have to be buried by the state they resided or died in. Violent crime victim stats are through the roof from physical assault to sexual assault, and it has a ridiculous suicide rate.

To be frank, the LGBTQIA+ community is the biblical "least of these" in the U.S.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 15, 2018)

Zardnaar said:


> Having a government that works funny concept that. Sometimes waiting 10 years or doing nothing is the better play IMHO.




Which is a much easier argument to make from the sidelines when it’s not your rights or dignity or life on the line. 

I’m not saying I don’t understand why this is, from a political, historical, or even simply practical viewpoint. Yes, the arc of history bends, if ever so slowly, towards justice. It just strikes me that telling people to wait for justice until enough people can be arsed to give and damn and there’s not enough bigots left to cause trouble in a backlash is a pretty monstrous thing to do, in my not so humble opinion. 

Besides, mass popular movements don’t spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. They start as smaller, very unpopular movements, and build up from there. Nobody won anything by staying home and waiting for justice to appear spontaneously.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 15, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> I wish your final couple sentences was true here in the U.S. The LGBTQIA+ social and crime victim stats are a complete horror show. A full 40% of this community's dead are unclaimed and have to be buried by the state they resided or died in. Violent crime victim stats are through the roof from physical assault to sexual assault, and it has a ridiculous suicide rate.
> 
> To be frank, the LGBTQIA+ community is the biblical "least of these" in the U.S.




 And you need to win a federal election to change things like that. Don't focus on things like that, pick someone electable who is not gonna fire up the GOP base and IDK try not losing elections over social issues that you need to be in power to actually help those people you want to help. 

 That is what I mean you don't have to push the liberal thing to the forefront, win an election on the economy or whatever and make small changes along the way vs no change or regressive change. If you try and do everything at once you make it worse not better.


----------



## Zardnaar (Jun 15, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Which is a much easier argument to make from the sidelines when it’s not your rights or dignity or life on the line.
> 
> I’m not saying I don’t understand why this is, from a political, historical, or even simply practical viewpoint. Yes, the arc of history bends, if ever so slowly, towards justice. It just strikes me that telling people to wait for justice until enough people can be arsed to give and damn and there’s not enough bigots left to cause trouble in a backlash is a pretty monstrous thing to do, in my not so humble opinion.
> 
> Besides, mass popular movements don’t spring fully formed from the forehead of Zeus. They start as smaller, very unpopular movements, and build up from there. Nobody won anything by staying home and waiting for justice to appear spontaneously.




See previous post. To change things you need power, if you lose elections you don't have the power to change things. 

 Having Hilary as your standard bearer not the best political move and that was 100% predictable.

 Same thing happens here the progressive keep losing elections as they are idealists over pragmatists. Money helps but here a 37 year old pregnant women won while being outspent 3-1 and Hilary outspend Donald. Depending on how things turn out in say 10 years time I think the GOP won't be able to win elections, USA is getting more liberal and they can't slow that down. They can abuse the rules in the short term to try and drag that process out. 

 To win power you have to compromise. Small gains (or even no gains) is better than no gains or going backwards yes? Main point is if you try and do everything at once well you might just end up with nothing, Or worse than nothing.We have quite a few Americans over here and alot of them are what you you Reagan Republicans they tend to turn into liberals after a few years here. You're never going to change the hardcore conservatives minds but you cant get the ones in the middle by pandering to every ideal progressives can think up. And not all of the conservative views are unreasonable (better border security doesn't mean you have to do mass deportations). 

 You have to let people change their minds or come to their own conclusions. Telling them they are wrong and calling them deplorable isn't going to help. Basically I agree with you guys about change being needed, but how you get there is also important. Over here we have a few nutters as well but its a waste of time trying to get a holocaust denier or international socialist to change their minds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2018)

Folks, we’re approaching a page and a half of politics at this point.  Get back to discussing gaming soon or...


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 15, 2018)

EDIT: Never mind, didn't see the above instruction.

EDIT EDIT: Wait, is  [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] a mod?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> EDIT: Never mind, didn't see the above instruction.
> 
> EDIT EDIT: Wait, is  [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] a mod?




Quasi.  99% of what I do is nuke spammers.  Sometimes I step into the breach when the REAL guys are too busy, on leave of absence, or if something is _obviously _wrong- porn, someone using a multi to get around a permaban, etc.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 15, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Quasi.  99% of what I do is nuke spammers.  Sometimes I step into the breach when the REAL guys are too busy, on leave of absence, or if something is _obviously _wrong- porn, someone using a multi to get around a permaban, etc.



I am so sorry.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 15, 2018)

What for?  It’s nice to help keep the place tidy.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 15, 2018)

Eltab said:


> I haven't followed these incidents closely, yet my first reaction was 'an unwilling patient is a recipe for failure'.  The amateur status of the person / people applying the "treatment" will aggravate this.  The patient would resist the treatment not respond positively to it.
> Do you know of any cases where a person who _wanted_ to change their self-identification went through one of these treatments and it succeeded (without damaging side-effects)?




I don't really know of any case where it succeeded.  The problem is that the "pray the gay away" groups are very religious, and the sites and articles put out about success rates are also very religious and therefore heavily biased, so I can't trust any accounts that I've seen.  The wikipedia has a lot of interesting things to say on the matter.  I'll post the link below.  Other articles by reputable sources similarly show that the "successes" are dubious at best.

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


----------



## Eltab (Jun 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> … Other articles by reputable sources similarly show that the "successes" are dubious at best.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy




Thanks for the link !  In light of the orange ink a few posts up, I'll have to read this at home and ponder on it.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 15, 2018)

Okay to bring this thread back on track.
What possible adventure themes could be based around the BoC?

1. The Blessing mysteriously no longer works causing much concern amongst the elves. It appears Corellon's gift has been abused by a secret lascivious sect of elves which has incurred the elven god's disfavour. The BBEG behind this being a powerful succubus and her incubus cohort which have dark designs for the elves.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 15, 2018)

Eltab said:


> Thanks for the link !  In light of the orange ink a few posts up, I'll have to read this at home and ponder on it.




Pretty sure he was talking about the switch from this topic to pure politics.  This topic has been going a lot longer than a page and a half.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 15, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> Pretty sure he was talking about the switch from this topic to pure politics.  This topic has been going a lot longer than a page and a half.




And to be fair, a good 50% of that page-and-a-half-of-politics was comprised of an (admittedly still off-topic) separate argument over positivism and Barenaked Ladies references. 

Back on-on-topic, here's a story/NPC/character idea, but a twist on the old "pretending-to-be-my-twin" trope: an elf with BoC who pretends to be twins. Motivations: to get around a particular society's stratified gender expectations; to pull off a long con; to get away from uncomfortable social situations a la _The Importance of Being Earnest_ (I have to think that Oscar Wilde would approve of the Blessing of Corellon).


----------



## dwayne (Jun 15, 2018)

I play games and watch movies to escape reality not to have everyday issues forced upon me from them. If it is a player they play whatever they want does not matter i think that games and everything else should just stay neutral in regards to any real-world issues. Let the people who watch or play decide for them selves, in movies this may be hardcer to be represented but being very vocal and in your face is not the way to go ether. As to games keep things general and basic and let those whos character they are making role play and do it, there is no reason to put an arbatrary rule about this of go offical and all that horse crap.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 15, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Back on-on-topic, here's a story/NPC/character idea, but a twist on the old "pretending-to-be-my-twin" trope: an elf with BoC who pretends to be twins. Motivations: to get around a particular society's stratified gender expectations; to pull off a long con; to get away from uncomfortable social situations a la _The Importance of Being Earnest_ (I have to think that Oscar Wilde would approve of the Blessing of Corellon).



Hmm. Having an alternate form represents a concrete mechanical advantage. Problem?


----------



## Gradine (Jun 15, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> Hmm. Having an alternate form represents a concrete mechanical advantage. Problem?




Seems in line (if not mechanically a little weaker) than the other Blessings found in the DMG.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 15, 2018)

Gradine said:


> Seems in line (if not mechanically a little weaker) than the other Blessings found in the DMG.



Forgot about those. I was just thinking of the Blessing of Corellon as an optional racial feature. yeah, it's a _lot_ weaker than they are.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jun 15, 2018)

Sadras said:


> Okay to bring this thread back on track.
> What possible adventure themes could be based around the BoC?
> 
> 1. The Blessing mysteriously no longer works causing much concern amongst the elves. It appears Corellon's gift has been abused by a secret lascivious sect of elves which has incurred the elven god's disfavour. The BBEG behind this being a powerful succubus and her incubus cohort which have dark designs for the elves.




Most of my ideas are based on someone who was thought dead, and returns having assumed a different gender to disguise themselves as part of a typical revenge plot.

It's maybe a tired trope, but a classic for a reason.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 15, 2018)

BookBarbarian said:


> Most of my ideas are based on someone who was thought dead, and returns having assumed a different gender to disguise themselves as part of a typical revenge plot.
> 
> It's maybe a tired trope, but a classic for a reason.




Reverse revenge plot: An elf who was a witness or "sole survivor" or some crime has gone into hiding, the party needs to find them in order to convict the criminal, but upon finding the individual finds they're now the other sex, has a family and doesn't want their family to know.

Similar: A rogue attempting to infiltrate the *secret society/other kingdom* assumes the identity of the opposite sex in order to win the attention of someone, but attracts the attention of more than one individual, each interested in the Rogue's "other side".  How many faces can the Rogue juggle before it all falls apart?  

Elves with the Blessing are common, but suddenly discover they can't control which sex they are any given morning.  The players (who many or may not be these elves) must uncover WTF is going on!

Lets go a little darker here: Rumor has spread that a Drow with the Blessing has used it to escape their duties (female->male) or risen above their station (male->female).  They must be hunted down and assassinated, but none can find out what is going on, because this person is from the party's patron House!  Secrets and intrigue and bloodshed abound!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2018)

I’ma just leave this here...
[video=youtube;x7OmzG-5Ywk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OmzG-5Ywk[/video]


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 16, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Lets go a little darker here: Rumor has spread that a Drow with the Blessing has used it to escape their duties (female->male) or risen above their station (male->female).  They must be hunted down and assassinated, but none can find out what is going on, because this person is from the party's patron House!  Secrets and intrigue and bloodshed abound!



This one is pretty strongly implied by the book itself.

Although given all the other changes it describes for drow given the severance of their connection to Corellon (no memories during trance, no moonbow in the eyes, etc.), I'm kind of skeptical that a major Blessing of Corellon would still be present among them.

On the other hand, even the rumor of the Blessing appearing among the drow would be enough to send their crazy-sexist society into an uproar, whether or not it actually did.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 16, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’ma just leave this here...



That was one of the *ahem* _weaker_ episodes of the show, if I recall correctly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2018)

It was, but it is on point.


----------



## Les Moore (Jun 16, 2018)

Pauln6 said:


> Many animals can switch gender without magic so not sure why this is a shock.  Wasn't Corellon originally described as androgynous as well?




I just don't see where gender change would affect the general outcome of the game. Would it perhaps, as sex change to female, make the character a 
thinner, lighter, rogue/thief? Would a change to a male give the character better upper body strength for climbing, or fighting?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2018)

Hmmm...back a while ago, Marvel Comic’s Hercules used to bestow “The Gift” of combat with the son of Zeus only upon those he deemed worthy.

Also a while back, I wrote an (as yet unfinished) story about how all the “Prince Charmings” of European folklore were all the same guy, a serial bigamist.*

Combining this with Corellan’s Blessing...we get an Elven adventurer/trickster/grifter who- as a charming noble prince- settles down for a decade or so with a beautiful human princess to give her _his_ gift.  Until the pressures and responsibilities of being a palace dad get too much, that is.  The Prince then becomes female merchant to evade pursuit.

20 years later and 100 miles away, “an elvish Prince” reappears, and repeats.




* in my story, he’s being hunted by 7 very angry dwarves because he skipped out on their beloved Snow.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 16, 2018)

Some great ideas. Definitely going to run my next short campaign around one of these.

 @_*BookBarbarian*_, in case you had missed it, you might be interested in this poster's take on flanking. I quite like it, although I just might also be willing to give flankers a +2 bonus.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 16, 2018)

I find it interesting to note the assumption that there is sexual dimorphism among elves. Why would elven females be on average, smaller, lighter, or less strong than male elves?


----------



## gyor (Jun 16, 2018)

Les Moore said:


> I just don't see where gender change would affect the general outcome of the game. Would it perhaps, as sex change to female, make the character a
> thinner, lighter, rogue/thief? Would a change to a male give the character better upper body strength for climbing, or fighting?




 The only mechanical effect I think would be as a disguise.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2018)

I haven't read the whole thread (obviously!), but I just wanted to say that I found this all a little hilarious because I've long thought of Elves as basically transhuman, and sort of "future people", because of their sort of "better at everything" deal (nigh-immortality, great memories, don't sleep, perfect vision, etc. etc.), and how close it often runs to transhuman visions. And this is spot on for that, because it's just like stuff people in The Culture (from Iain M Banks' books) can do. So it's so spot-on to how I've always thought of elves that it almost seems funny.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> I find it interesting to note the assumption that there is sexual dimorphism among elves. Why would elven females be on average, smaller, lighter, or less strong than male elves?



Well, they’ve always been written up that way in the PHBs.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 16, 2018)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, they’ve always been written up that way in the PHBs.




In fluff terms, but not in any mechanical sense, not for _several_ editions anyway.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2018)

So what?  The question wasn’t about the nature of the write-ups, just the source of the assumption.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 16, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> In fluff terms, but not in any mechanical sense, not for _several_ editions anyway.




Exactly the fluff make no sense in the context of the mechanical expression. So I am inclined to regard the fluff as unreliable and a reflection of human beliefs about sex phenotypes. I think Elves become more interesting the more alien they are. One of the reasons I really like the Blessing of Corellan, it solves a lot of issues I have always had, but learned to ignore, about D&D elves.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 16, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> Exactly the fluff make no sense in the context of the mechanical expression. So I am inclined to regard the fluff as unreliable and a reflection of human beliefs about sex phenotypes. I think Elves become more interesting the more alien they are. One of the reasons I really like the Blessing of Corellan, it solves a lot of issues I have always had, but learned to ignore, about D&D elves.




Well, the fluff applies to all the races.  Even dragonborn females, though now without boobs, are described/depicted as somewhat thinner and less muscly than males, though there's no rule support for that.  Even humans are still described that way and we all know there's sexual dimorphism between humans.

But a mechanical representation of that fact does a disservice to the sort of game D&D is trying to present.  Characters are always _exceptions_, as Mary-Suey as that can sound, as a-typical members of their race/culture/world the one female in your party may just happen to be the strongest *person* in the world.  

Personally, I find the Blessing dramatically _less_ interesting if all elves are assumed to be rather androgynous in appearance to begin with.  Sure, it lets them switch sex, but much of _gender_ is based on physical appearance and capability.  If there difference between male and female elves is already a fraction of a fraction, then elvish gender distinctions are going to be equally androgynous.  Which sort of, IMO,reduces the value of including an element like the Blessing.

I find such a thing like the Blessing to be far more interesting in a race with defined gender roles and marked physical dimorphism between the sexes.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 16, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Lets go a little darker here: Rumor has spread that a Drow with the Blessing has used it to escape their duties (female->male) or risen above their station (male->female).  They must be hunted down and assassinated, but none can find out what is going on, because this person is from the party's patron House!  Secrets and intrigue and bloodshed abound!



Not only has he/she risen above his/her allotted station!  He/she is an infil-traitor with alliegance to another god!  In Lolth's name, he/she must be drowned in his/her own blood!

… hey, wait, I described this plot line about a week ago, minus the emotional fervor...


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 16, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Well, the fluff applies to all the races.  Even dragonborn females, though now without boobs, are described/depicted as somewhat thinner and less muscly than males, though there's no rule support for that.  Even humans are still described that way and we all know there's sexual dimorphism between humans.
> 
> But a mechanical representation of that fact does a disservice to the sort of game D&D is trying to present.  Characters are always _exceptions_, as Mary-Suey as that can sound, as a-typical members of their race/culture/world the one female in your party may just happen to be the strongest *person* in the world.
> 
> ...




Shrug, different strokes different folks. I guess I am in a minority here.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 16, 2018)

Eltab said:


> Not only has he/she risen above his/her allotted station!  He/she is an infil-traitor with alliegance to another god!  In Lolth's name, he/she must be drowned in his/her own blood!
> 
> … hey, wait, I described this plot line about a week ago, minus the emotional fervor...




Honestly I'm thinking of running the Blessing as "genetic".  It's just an element of elven ancestry that manifests in some, but not in others.  Drow, being children of Corellion like all elves, are just sometimes randomly born with it.  Though much like secondary sex characteristics themselves, it doesn't manifest until puberty.

Which makes the implication _even worse_ for the Drow.  Now not just _one elf_ is a problem, but potentially their *entire bloodline* is tainted.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2018)

> Well, the fluff applies to all the races. Even dragonborn females, though now without boobs, are described/depicted as somewhat thinner and less muscly than males, though there's no rule support for that. *Even humans are still described that way and we all know there's sexual dimorphism between humans.*




Yep.  No mechanics for dimorphism in any PC races since the advent of 3Ed, even though we know it exists in humans.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 16, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> I find it interesting to note the assumption that there is sexual dimorphism among elves. Why would elven females be on average, smaller, lighter, or less strong than male elves?



Yeah, I actually brought that up a ways back. 
I would assume that make/female would have clothing and/or other visual social markers to denote the current sex of the person rather than the typically fairly obvious dimorphism of humans. Secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, changes in hip/femur geometry) would probably be more subtle and/or mostly happening as necessary rather than at birth.
I also see that there is an assumption of "can and regularly does" when it comes to the available change(s). Since elves are "adults" at around 100 you can figure that they've given both sexes a go for at least a bit to find their place in their society. In fact, I think it would be safe to assume they find human sexism to be confusing and/or even incredibly offensive because they have probably literally in the the shoes of that serving wench the human barbarian is making rapey-eyes at.


----------



## Dire Bare (Jun 17, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> Exactly the fluff make no sense in the context of the mechanical expression. So I am inclined to regard the fluff as unreliable and a reflection of human beliefs about sex phenotypes. I think Elves become more interesting the more alien they are. One of the reasons I really like the Blessing of Corellan, it solves a lot of issues I have always had, but learned to ignore, about D&D elves.




I'm with you. Elves have always been portrayed as somewhat androgynous, although not with consistency through the editions. My favorite depiction of elves is from Jackson's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings movies. When watching the films, the male and female elves are often sporting pretty much the same clothing and hairstyles, and sometimes they are hard to tell apart. It gave (me) the implicit message that elves don't make a big deal about gender differences.

In D&D, elves have . . . maybe not always, but often been described as androgynous. This hasn't always been reflected in the art, but it's been there from the beginning of the game. Mordy's Tome simply takes that thread running through D&D elven lore and brings it to the forefront, and not all that strongly really. It kinda blows my mind how people are misunderstanding the Blessing of Corellon, and making such a big deal of it. According to the updated elven lore, all elves are somewhat androgynous, both physically and socially (gender differences in clothing, hairstyle, behavior, and "appropriate" work isn't much of a thing in elven culture). A small subset of these already androgynous elves have the "Blessing of Corellon" are super androgynous, making it tough for even other elves to tell which physical gender they are, not that it matter much to the elves. A small subset of the Blessed of Corellon can actually change their gender.

A lot of folks in this thread are making this into some sort of game-breaking mechanical advantage or clever ruse for elven rogues when it isn't anything of the sort. If non-elves, and even other elves, have a hard time telling whether you are a girl or a boy in the first place, being able to actually change your gender isn't changing your appearance very much at all. This blessing is useless as a disguise or con or anything other than a background. It's not gamebreaking at all. It isn't a mechanical or even a story advantage at all. It's just another way for a character's gender to be described, as truly fluid rather than fixed.

I get the feeling there is a lot of trans-phobia in this thread, which is sad. But that doesn't mean that if you don't like and/or choose not to offer the Blessing of Corellon in your campaign that you are trans-phobic. But take a long and hard look before you say "no" to this character option. Is it *really* breaking your game or your world in some meaningful way?

I'm saying "yes" to the Blessing of Corellon in my campaigns. It is a small way to offer more support for my trans friends who play (or who might want to play) D&D and it is also a nice way to set elves apart even further from the other races that is consistent with longstanding D&D lore. I'm very happy Wizards included this option and story hook into Mordy's Tome!


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 17, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> Yeah, I actually brought that up a ways back.
> I would assume that make/female would have clothing and/or other visual social markers to denote the current sex of the person rather than the typically fairly obvious domorpisn of humans. Secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, changes in hip/femur geometry) would probably be more subtle and/or mostly happening as necessary rather than at birth.
> I also see that there is an assumption of "can and regularly does" when it comes to the available change(s). Since elves are "adults" at around 100 you can figure that they've given both sexes a go for at least a bit to find their place in their society. In fact, I think it would be safe to assume they find human sexism to be confusing and/or even incredibly offensive because they have probably literally in the the shoes of that serving wench the human barbarian is making rapey-eyes at.




I tend to view that the 100 years to adulthood to be a cultural thing as it takes that long to truly master the etiquette and other stuff that elves consider to be a basic education. So yeah, humans are ignorant and boorish with some really odd views about what people can and cannot do.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 17, 2018)

Dire Bare said:


> …..
> In D&D, elves have . . . maybe not always, but often been described as androgynous. This hasn't always been reflected in the art, but it's been there from the beginning of the game. Mordy's Tome simply takes that thread running through D&D elven lore and brings it to the forefront, and not all that strongly really. It kinda blows my mind how people are misunderstanding the Blessing of Corellon, and making such a big deal of it. According to the updated elven lore, all elves are somewhat androgynous, both physically and socially (gender differences in clothing, hairstyle, behavior, and "appropriate" work isn't much of a thing in elven culture). A small subset of these already androgynous elves have the "Blessing of Corellon" are super androgynous, making it tough for even other elves to tell which physical gender they are, not that it matter much to the elves. A small subset of the Blessed of Corellon can actually change their gender.
> ...



This would be my take also. So for practical purposes the gender switch does not act as a disguise, certainly not to other elves.


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 17, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> Sure, it lets them switch sex, but much of _gender_ is based on physical appearance and capability.




I said it before and I will say it again. Gender is between your ears and sex is between your legs. If you hear your entire life that "Boys/Girls can't/don't do those things" and you follow that social pressure then you are being molded by social constructs, not ability. If you choose the way you look or carry yourself to be "normal" then you are matching a societal construct entirely separated from ability. Yes, most folks choose to follow the herd, and that fine for them, but to say gender is based upon physical appearance and ability?

I think your assumptions are pretty misguided. As an example, I'm 6'2" and 250lbs. There are several ladies in my CrossFit box that can smoke me any day of the week in terms of reps, but I can out lift them in raw weight just because I'm a physical monster. Their thrust to weight ratio blows me out of the water and they run past my rhino trundling like gazelles when we have runs in our workouts. In fact, in *every single* measurable workout metric they outperform me except in raw maximum liftable weight.
That said, as long as your social system or culture isn't based on raw brute violence (read: ability to kill others, or make other do that killing for us, to get what we want) like the skeleton that current human societies have been built upon then the assumption that these are "man things" and those are "woman things" get tossed pretty quickly. Removing obvious dimorphic differences and other "Low Magic" human assumptions from the mix and you can quite easily see the human mainstream gender distinctions as based far more on societal pressures than assumed physical attributes.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 17, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> I tend to view that the 100 years to adulthood to be a cultural thing as it takes that long to truly master the etiquette and other stuff that elves consider to be a basic education. So yeah, humans are ignorant and boorish with some really odd views about what people can and cannot do.




I dunno, the idea that elves are "enlightened" because they take longer to "grow up" doesn't necessarily follow.  Elves live hundreds and hundreds of years.  That gives them the ability to have "old school" traditionalists rule over them for thousands of years.  

I think we're setting ourselves up for some poor examples by suggesting that the elves are more "enlightened" thanks to the Blessing.  

What sort of expectations does a society wherein the Blessing exists place on people with it?

What of people who have it, but _don't want it_?  (assuming you can get it randomly and not like, have to request it in-character).  

Perhaps given their ability to shift, the elves hold higher expectations of the Blessed, to be exemplars of the flexibility of elven society.  Perhaps it is considered bad form for a Blessed to even choose their preferred form, perhaps they are culturally pressured to shift regularly, or shift when society has need of another sex.  Sort of a "great power great responsibility" situation.

Perhaps as above, in a traditionalist society, elves who can shift are expected to know both (or more) sexes social etiquette, to be both chivalrous and delicate, to be both forward and reserved.  Flexibility does not necessarily mean freedom.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 17, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> I think your assumptions are pretty misguided. As an example, I'm 6'2" and 250lbs. There are several ladies in my CrossFit box that can smoke me any day of the week in terms of reps, but I can out lift them in raw weight just because I'm a physical monster. Their thrust to weight ratio blows me out of the water and they run past my rhino trundling like gazelles when we have runs in our workouts. In fact, in *every single* measurable workout metric they outperform me except in raw maximum liftable weight.
> That said, as long as your social system or culture isn't based on raw brute strength like the skeleton that human societies have been built upon then the assumption that these are "man things" and those are "woman things" get tossed pretty quickly. Removing obvious dimorphic differences, magic prowess as a measure of societal status, and other "Low Magic" human assumptions from the mix and you can quite easily see the human mainstream gender distinctions as based far more on societal pressures than assumed physical attributes.




I think you're reading something I didn't write.  'cause what you're saying here doesn't really track with what I was writing.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 17, 2018)

Sunseeker said:


> I dunno, the idea that elves are "enlightened" because they take longer to "grow up" doesn't necessarily follow.  Elves live hundreds and hundreds of years.  That gives them the ability to have "old school" traditionalists rule over them for thousands of years.
> 
> I think we're setting ourselves up for some poor examples by suggesting that the elves are more "enlightened" thanks to the Blessing.
> 
> ...




Ok, I did not express myself well there, I did not mean that Elves are more enlightened but that there is a lot that an adult elf is expected to master to be considered an adult. Enough that it is considered normal that it takes a century or so to learn it. By that standard humans and any other short lived species are boorish and ignorant but they can't help it so allowances are made for them from the elvish point of view. 

Not that elves are enlightened in some absolute sense. 

In my view there is a considerable pressure on the Blessed of Correllan (you don't get called Blessed in a society without some hefty social expectations landed on your. No good deed goes unpunished) and they are expected to shift if the society has need of one or other sex.  
There is probably a religious ritual that can make more of the Blessed is the need is great enough.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 17, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> Ok, I did not express myself well there, I did not mean that Elves are more enlightened but that there is a lot that an adult elf is expected to master to be considered an adult. Enough that it is considered normal that it takes a century or so to learn it. By that standard humans and any other short lived species are boorish and ignorant but they can't help it so allowances are made for them from the elvish point of view.



The Tome of Foes explains the elvish maturation process in rather different terms. It's not that they spend a century learning, it's that they don't even really _start_ learning until they stop experiencing memories of their past lives and thus are considered a distinct individual, which takes a while.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 17, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> The Tome of Foes explains the elvish maturation process in rather different terms. It's not that they spend a century learning, it's that they don't even really _start_ learning until they stop experiencing memories of their past lives and thus are considered a distinct individual, which takes a while.




Edit: Slight brain fart there, I have not yet received my copy of that book. I am going by hearsay as to the contents and some of my own noodling over the years.
Part of that is that I have real issues with the generally received view of elven lifespan and maturation.

Edit more: How long does this memories of plast lives thing go on for? and does it say anything about the physical growth of the elf?


----------



## psychophipps (Jun 17, 2018)

As should be pretty obvious from the tone of my posts, I prefer the more alien approach to Elves that this change creates. In fact, I will simply assume that all non-Drow Elves have this blessing and it's up to the individual players to decide if they want to do something with it in terms of character development or if their character is quite happy with how things turned out when they reached "adulthood", thanks. The days of Elves simply being the pointy-eared beef/cheesecakes with cool racial abilities/bonuses, but are really just like humans, are gone forever in my games. Male and female elves will default roll on the male height and weight chart unless they indicate they want to use the old chart for some reason.

I will have this in my next game starting later this week and will keep you posted if this thread continues to show interest.


----------



## Sunseeker (Jun 17, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> As should be pretty obvious from the tone of my posts, I prefer the more alien approach to Elves that this change creates. In fact, I will simply assume that all non-Drow Elves have this blessing and it's up to the individual players to decide if they want to do something with it in terms of character development or if their character is quite happy with how things turned out when they reached "adulthood", thanks. The days of Elves simply being the pointy-eared beef/cheesecakes with cool racial abilities/bonuses, but are really just like humans, are gone forever in my games. Male and female elves will default roll on the male height and weight chart unless they indicate they want to use the old chart for some reason.
> 
> I will have this in my next game starting later this week and will keep you posted if this thread continues to show interest.




Well I'm interested in a play report.  Though curious: are your players familiar with your desire to present a more "alien" elf?  Or will your overall presentation (including the Blessing) be fresh to them?

I mean, to add a little context to this whole discussion, it might be helpful for us all to lay our cards out on the table as to how we like the presentation of elves, though that might be something better handled for a whole thread on its own.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jun 17, 2018)

I will allow them in a game if a player asks about it.

I've been gaming and running games since the early days on D&D 2E. These days I am less inclined to make my games pedantic and less likely to take rules and settings as proscriptive. I don't need to lecture the players on transsexual issue via elves. But if someone asks about these elves in some capacity, then I will happily allow it. By some capacity i mean, expressing an interest in running such an elf or asking if they exist in the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2018)

You want alien elves, make alien elves.

In one campaign, “Elves” were actually crashlanded Greys who used chameleon holography tech to resemble super-attractive humanoids (in order to smooth relations with the dominant life form- humans) becoming the elves of folklore, and whose tesseract, stasis & wormhole tech are the basis of legends about the odd geometries and time distortions of Underhill...


----------



## superstition (Jun 17, 2018)

A few points:

1) "(As gender is a social construct.)"

No. Masculine and feminine are not social constructs. They are the result of humans being quite sexually dimorphic. There are significant differences due to the influence of male and female hormones. What is a social construct is the _rigidity_ of the gender roles. That is where it gets artificial, going over/above the natural differences.

Rigidity = "Boys don't cry", "Men can't enjoy cooking", "Men can't wear pink unless they're gay"

Natural = "Boys like action video games and girls like games where they dress avatars in a variety of neat outfits", "Boys fidget more, especially in school"

I've seen more than enough evidence of that natural example that I am certain it is more than just social programming, although it is true that boys are programmed to "behave like boys", too. Work in an elementary classroom, though, and watch what the two sexes choose to do with their free time when they have iPads. The vast majority of girls choose, without anyone prompting them, to do the avatar customization stuff and the boys choose the action games — even if they're playing solo with no peer involvement. And, boys do fidget more than girls. I've seen it time and time again. They want to be up and moving around. Girls are, as a rule, much more content to be less physically active. Girls are generally more socially polite and thoughtful in elementary school, too (with exceptions, of course). The differences are too common to be all due to socialization.

Of course, there is plenty of overlap between gender stereotypes. However, there are real differences between typical male and typical female behavior based on sex hormones.

2) "Androgynous". Androgyny should be looked at with a grain of salt. Except for chromosome abnormalities, like XXX females and XXY males, true androgyny is almost impossible to find. Now, an XXY male is the closest one can get to it. Also, often enough, the more androgynous-looking men are not more attractive. To me, the bodies of XXY males can have such womanly body shapes that I don't find that attractive at all. It's a matter of taste but masculine males are more common because that's what more women have found attractive enough to reproduce with.

Makeup, hormones, and plastic surgery can make people look more like the opposite sex but that's not the same thing as being naturally androgynous. I've seen some people who are quite androgynous without being XXY or XXX but it's rare and not necessarily more or less attractive, merely different. Being androgynous does not make you more beautiful by default. I know someone who could pass as a lesbian if he were to make some adjustments. However, he is neither as beautiful as women I would call beautiful nor as beautiful as men I would call beautiful.

3) The sexist idea that androgynous males are more beautiful than masculine males. This is based on the heterosexual male point of view that the female body is more beautiful. So, based on that bias, the male that looks the most female is the most beautiful. That is a bias, not a universal fact. Erasing the masculinity erases the maleness, so you're just saying that females are more beautiful in the end. Not everyone shares that particular bias. I was not particularly impressed with Paizo's Arshea due to this. The implication seems to me to be that male beauty has to be "males who look more like women than men" or "males who look really female, androgynous, are the most beautiful". That's either a heterosexual male point of view or the point of view of a transgendered person, or a heterosexual woman, or something. It is not the point of view of most gay men, hence the usually clear dichotomy between bara and yaoi. In Yaoi, males who look more androgynous are considered more attractive. In bara, males who look masculine are considered more attractive. Different biases. Bara males, though, are more true-to-life. Yaoi males tend to be rather alien-looking, stylized.

It is true that people (at least a statistical random sample in America) tend to see male faces with larger eyes, smaller noses, and other features more typically associated with women as being more attractive. Some of this (small noses, for instance) can be cultural bias. However, there is a big difference between being male-looking and attractive and simply looking like a mannish woman. It's complicated to explain but it's too simplistic to simply state that "male faces that look more feminine are more beautiful".

4) "Elves are historically depicted as androgynous." Elfin features are actually representative of a genetic disorder called Williams Syndrome. Whenever you read about the syndrome the faces are described as elfin. I bet folklore came up with the elf look concept, in part, based on this syndrome. The notion that elfin faces are more beautiful than regular human faces is one that I don't agree with. I was just looking at the drawing of the elf and half-elf in the 1e book yesterday and I didn't think either of them looked particularly gorgeous, especially the half-elf male with his bug eyes. I've seen plenty of Williams Syndrome faces. If you ignore their teeth (which are usually not well-formed) I don't think you'll find that their facial shape is more beautiful than a non-Williams non-elfin face. In fact, it's just unusual.

Male faces, in particular, tend to be wide, "flared", especially around the cheeks as I recall — and compressed in height around the eye area. The compression in particular seems to be the most common thing with male faces. The flare/compression runs contrary to the narrowed stretched elfin look. However, it is interesting that the 1e book's half-elf did have a wide face, although with a heart shape jaw.

5) "Elves switching sex is uncomfortable." I can understand why. A person's sex and gender are very strongly related to their core self-concept. I don't think it's transphobia, as someone suggested. I think it's mainly due to it being difficult for us to relate to a creature that doesn't strongly feel/see one sex/gender or the other as being strongly-linked to their core self-concept. It's like a creature that can switch from being old and young when it wants to. That is difficult to relate to. Elves are already quite difficult to relate to because of their very unhuman relationship to mortality and aging. Gaming/gamers have glossed over this difficulty a lot in the way elves have been depicted and behave. In reality, any creature that's as intelligent as an intelligent human that lives that long is going to act very differently than we do, at least the vast majority of us. Mortality, and the brevity of our lives (especially at our physical peak) plays an extremely important role in influencing how we behave and see the world.

Sex/gender switching makes elves even more difficult to relate to, more supernatural. The more supernatural something becomes the tougher it is for us to understand it and feel comfortable with it. The distance between us and it increases the more supernatural it becomes. This isn't a matter of phobia. It's a matter of basic intelligibility. One can more readily understand what is the most familiar. This is why men understand men better than women do and women understand women better than men do. It's why the concept of peers is important. Peers are more similar because of age and such, and thus typically easier to relate to.

Now I have to read the remaining 54 pages.


----------



## TheSword (Jun 17, 2018)

superstition said:


> A few points:
> 
> 1) "(As gender is a social construct.)"
> 
> ...




Well they’re certainly valid opinions but I’d be a bit more cautious presenting gut feeling, stereotype and personal anecdote as fact.

- plenty of girls like action games
- plenty of girls couldn’t give two hoots about dressing up 
- think you’re reading too much into elven attractiveness. Slim with good bone structure is probably as far as elven attractiveness goes. Williams syndrome inspiration seems like quite the leap. I’d put 1st ed elves down to bad art.
- Heaving read a lot of responses it’s clear that it is transphobia for some people (not all)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 17, 2018)

Let's not pretend that elementary school kids haven't already received _enormous_ amounts of cultural conditioning where gender is concerned.

Every well-meaning relative who buys pink and frilly clothes for girls vs. little sports jerseys for boys; every cartoon modeled toward one or the other; every commercial for toys; the _existence_ of gender-specific toys; every comment from passing adults about her being a princess or his rambunctiousness just coming down to "boys will be boys"...

By the time they so much as hit kindergarten, children in America have had their brains absolutely flooded with stereotypical gender roles and preferences.


----------



## superstition (Jun 17, 2018)

TheSword said:


> Well they’re certainly valid opinions but I’d be a bit more cautious presenting gut feeling, stereotype and personal anecdote as fact.
> 
> - plenty of girls like action games
> - plenty of girls couldn’t give two hoots about dressing up



I specifically wrote that there is overlap between the gender stereotypes and that there are exceptions. Of course individuality matters and there is also a spectrum of masculinity and femininity for both sexes. Also, a person's socialization does have influence.

My post isn't just gut feeling, personal anecdote, and empty stereotyping. The notion that males and females are the same, except for some physical differences, is proven false by a lot of hard scientific evidence.



TheSword said:


> I think you’re reading too much into elven attractiveness. Slim with good bone structure is probably as far as elven attractiveness goes. Williams syndrome inspiration seems like quite the leap. I’d put 1st ed elves down to bad art.



I was speaking to the concept of elfin features. Elfin features are found in Williams Syndrome. That may be the cultural origin for the idea of people with elfin features. Legends, mythology, and the like have some kind of root in reality. The concept of elfin features means something. That is the word that is used in every source I've seen by professionals to describe the appearance of people with Williams.


----------



## superstition (Jun 17, 2018)

Mouseferatu said:


> Let's not pretend that elementary school kids haven't already received _enormous_ amounts of cultural conditioning where gender is concerned.
> 
> Every well-meaning relative who buys pink and frilly clothes for girls vs. little sports jerseys for boys; every cartoon modeled toward one or the other; every commercial for toys; the _existence_ of gender-specific toys; every comment from passing adults about her being a princess or his rambunctiousness just coming down to "boys will be boys"...
> 
> By the time they so much as hit kindergarten, children in America have had their brains absolutely flooded with stereotypical gender roles and preferences.



There is a difference between recognizing the power of socialization and claiming that there aren't significant innate differences between the sexes.

Pink clothes and footballs don't make boys fidget in elementary schools the way they do. It is beyond socialization. The blank slate hypothesis has been _disproven_. I learned that in social psychology at university. We are not blank slates. We have innate qualities. Not only that, are affected by the influence of sex hormones, both on an ongoing basis and in terms of their affect on us in the womb.

Some research has even found that gay people tend to have hybrid brains to some degree. The study found that gay men were, like heterosexual women, more likely to ask for directions when lost. Gay women, like heterosexual men, were less likely to ask. Of the four categories, heterosexual men were the least likely to ask and heterosexual women the most. I am gay and have known plenty of mannish lesbians. There are also some who look very masculine, like the tennis player Mauresmo. She is a good example of an androgynous person, in terms of natural appearance. It's not just socialization. It's physical difference. Other brain scan research found differences in the way intense brain activity tends to be distributed. The brains of intelligent females, in this research, show less intensity in localized areas than the brains of intelligent males. The take-away from those scans is that the male brain seems to heat up more in certain areas in order to accomplish the same work. The research was published in Time magazine. A feminist wrote about how, around age 8, boys begin to speak lower and girls begin to speak higher, despite having identically-sized larynxes. No one tells the boys and girls they need to start speaking differently at the age of 8. If it's socialization, why would there be that kind of uniformity? Well, one possibility is the pruning of neurons, a biological process that happens in the brain at that age.

From my experience as a teacher, I have come to the conclusion that it is probably more ideal to have single-sex classes until high school. I know that's not a popular opinion. The trend has been to put everyone into the same room, even people who aren't fluent speakers of the language and people who have very different IQs. I don't think it's particularly efficient, especially for the higher-level students. It's interesting that the alleged innovation is to return to the one-room schoolhouse model from something like Little House on the Prairie, only with less age mixing.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 17, 2018)

superstition said:


> There is a difference between recognizing the power of socialization and claiming that there aren't significant innate differences between the sexes.
> 
> Pink clothes and footballs don't make boys fidget in elementary schools the way they do. It is beyond socialization. The blank slate hypothesis has been _disproven_. I learned that in social psychology at university. We are not blank slates. We have innate qualities. Not only that, are affected by the influence of sex hormones, both on an ongoing basis and in terms of their affect on us in the womb.
> 
> ...




Look mate, I realise that there are generalities that can be drawn from the behaviour of children and such generalities are the basis of the common gender stereotypes. I know about nature and nurture and also that there are long tails to the distribution of behaviours where both nature and nurture can get decidedly odd.


But why plant all of this down on a discussion of genuinely alien imaginary fairies, we had just started discussing what if androgyny and gender fluidity was a dominant trait in elves and what would the society be like.


----------



## superstition (Jun 17, 2018)

If people are considered with anti-trans bias they should remember that the claim that gender is purely a social invention, not something that has an innate biological origin at all, are essentially arguing that there is no solid basis for being transgender. That strikes me as anti-transgender bias. It reduces it from being a very powerful force (the correction of a mismatch between one's biological/innate sex and the outward physical attributes) to being a matter of fashion that's dictated by social programming. That strikes me as a reductionist stance along the lines of the thoroughly debunked belief that the percentage of gay people born, per capita, in a culture is determined by how positive the culture views gayness.

You asked me why I discussed the things I did. I tried to contribute a bit of what I know and have considered to the discussion. On the first page I saw the claim that gender is a social construct, a common claim. It's not that simple, though. People worry about stereotyping, but that claim is an oversimplification. The blank slate is still very popular but it has been disproven. Parents, for instance, are often shocked to learn that their parenting is not often as influential as they think in a variety of developmental areas. Yes, it has a strong influence in certain areas but peers can exert a stronger influence and innate genetic personality is much stronger than most know. Many other psychological concepts continue to be accepted as common sense, even if they have been disproven, like the catharsis hypothesis. The evidence shows that, rather than reducing negative feelings and behavior, catharsis therapy (like screaming into a pillow or breaking tennis racquets) behaviors serve as practice for more negative behaviors and feelings. The _Cognitive Behavioral Model_ in psychology is illustrative in that our future behavior is strongly guided by the practice we have already had. In that respect, certainly, it suggests why socialization can be quite powerful. Also, environmental factors make a difference. But, the third part of the model is genetics/physiology.



> But why plant all of this down on a discussion of genuinely alien imaginary fairies, we had just started discussing what if androgyny and gender fluidity was a dominant trait in elves and what would the society be like.




The concept of elves isn't merely imagination. It comes from a long folklore tradition. It's impossible to discuss fantasy without also discussing how it relates to reality.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 17, 2018)

superstition said:


> If people are considered with anti-trans bias they should remember that the claim that gender is purely a social invention, not something that has an innate biological origin at all, are essentially arguing that there is no solid basis for being transgender. That strikes me as anti-transgender bias. It reduces it from being a very powerful force (the correction of a mismatch between one's biological/innate sex and the outward physical attributes) to being a matter of fashion that's dictated by social programming. That strikes me as a reductionist stance along the lines of the thoroughly debunked belief that the percentage of gay people born, per capita, in a culture is determined by how positive the culture views gayness.
> 
> You asked me why I discussed the things I did. I tried to contribute a bit of what I know and have considered to the discussion. On the first page I saw the claim that gender is a social construct, a common claim. It's not that simple, though. People worry about stereotyping, but that claim is an oversimplification. The blank slate is still very popular but it has been disproven. Parents, for instance, are often shocked to learn that their parenting is not often as influential as they think in a variety of developmental areas. Yes, it has a strong influence in certain areas but peers can exert a stronger influence and innate genetic personality is much stronger than most know. Many other psychological concepts continue to be accepted as common sense, even if they have been disproven, like the catharsis hypothesis. The evidence shows that, rather than reducing negative feelings and behavior, catharsis therapy (like screaming into a pillow or breaking tennis racquets) behaviors serve as practice for more negative behaviors and feelings. The _Cognitive Behavioral Model_ in psychology is illustrative in that our future behavior is strongly guided by the practice we have already had. In that respect, certainly, it suggests why socialization can be quite powerful. Also, environmental factors make a difference. But, the third part of the model is genetics/physiology.
> 
> ...




Elves in D&D have been their own thing for over 40 years so they can be discussed without reference to the real world. We were doing it. Secondly, while you may have a point concerning Williams Syndrome and fairies of popular imagination, D&D elves are very heavily influenced by the first generation of gamers that wanted to meet Galadriel in their D&D campaigns and not so much Titania and Oberon. 

As for your other points, I have some points of disagreement but their more nuances than at the fundamentals but I have been through variations of this discussion at least 5 times in the past couple of weeks and in some cases with people that did not have benign intent. So I will decline to engage further on this topic.

Finally, it is helpful to people like me, whose memories are not as good as they used to be, when responding to a post at the beginning of a 50 page + thread to preface the post with something like "saw this on page one …."quote"....

Thanks.


----------



## Henry (Jun 17, 2018)

Personally I dislike the idea because you’ve basically turned elves into changelings from Eberron. Plus, I’ve never seen a problem from Elves or any other race because you have the ultimate power in morphism and gender identity already: Character creation. If you want your elf/human/dwarf/half-orc to identify as female for instance, why not just make them female at character creation? 

If you wanted a special story arc where the character goes through a search for gender identity (not unlike what’s going on with the character of Nott in Critical Role currently), I’d rather make that a one-off that is part of the story as a DM, rather than make it a blanket trait that applies to a whole race that has never shown this ability in previous game fiction before, that steps on the shoes of an existing race no less.


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Jun 17, 2018)

I like the concept for Eladrin more than I do for Elves.

I'm already working on a concept for Eladrin society where season expression matters more than gender expression. Many Eladrin choose either a Summer or Winter expression to throw-in with the Summer Court or the Winter Court, with Springs and Autumns on the fence. Eladrin who change season expression are looked upon as unreliable.

Gender expression, though? Who cares?


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Jun 18, 2018)

psychophipps said:


> Male and female elves will default roll on the male height and weight chart unless they indicate they want to use the old chart for some reason.



If you were to take a second look at the height and weight chart on p. 121 of the Player's Handbook, I think you would notice that 5E is way ahead of you on this point.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 18, 2018)

TheCosmicKid said:


> If you were to take a second look at the height and weight chart on p. 121 of the Player's Handbook, I think you would notice that 5E is way ahead of you on this point.




You know, I never bothered to read that page.  I let people just choose the height and weight of their PCs.  Looking at it, though, I saw this.

"You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. *Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture’s expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society*, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface."

It seems the game already normalizes transgender(and other genders), so it isn't true that the blessing needs to be added in to normalize transgender.


----------



## Eltab (Jun 18, 2018)

ardoughter said:


> But why plant all of this down on a discussion of genuinely alien imaginary fairies, we had just started discussing what if androgyny and gender fluidity was a dominant trait in elves and what would the society be like.



That is the nature of a Thread.  Superstition reacted on the basis of the first page-ish of posts and said so.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 18, 2018)

Eltab said:


> That is the nature of a Thread.  Superstition reacted on the basis of the first page-ish of posts and said so.




Oh! I know, I was just venting. I have been around a long time.


----------



## flametitan (Jun 22, 2018)

Maxperson said:


> It seems the game already normalizes transgender(and other genders), so it isn't true that the blessing needs to be added in to normalize transgender.




No, it isn't _needed_, per se, but more examples to point to for positive reinforcement is always nice.


----------

