Re: Religion and Politics in Video Games
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:12 pm
Judging people from a moral high horse smacks too closely to me to judging people from a religious high horse.
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
It took me a while to digest all the stuff I've read. I can certainly see how you come to the conclusion that "if you don't boycott it like I do, you're a bad person."
Which is pretty unfair. Loud shouting on the internet is not a good basis of evaluating how "good" anyone supports a group of people who are fairly diverse in opinion on this issue themselves.EvilHomer3k wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 7:44 pmIt took me a while to digest all the stuff I've read. I can certainly see how you come to the conclusion that "if you don't boycott it like I do, you're a bad person."
I don't think that was said outright. What was said outright is that if you don't boycott this game I don't consider you an ally to the LGBTQ+ community.
Now, in rare and wide-ranging interviews for the podcast series “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling,” which begins next week, Rowling is sharing her experiences. “I have had direct threats of violence, and I have had people coming to my house where my kids live, and I’ve had my address posted online,” she says in one of the interviews. “I’ve had what the police, anyway, would regard as credible threats.”
This campaign against Rowling is as dangerous as it is absurd. The brutal stabbing of Salman Rushdie last summer is a forceful reminder of what can happen when writers are demonized. And in Rowling’s case, the characterization of her as a transphobe doesn’t square with her actual views.
So why would anyone accuse her of transphobia? Surely, Rowling must have played some part, you might think.
The answer is straightforward: Because she has asserted the right to spaces for biological women only, such as domestic abuse shelters and sex-segregated prisons. Because she has insisted that when it comes to determining a person’s legal gender status, self-declared gender identity is insufficient. Because she has expressed skepticism about phrases like “people who menstruate” in reference to biological women. Because she has defended herself and, far more important, supported others, including detransitioners and feminist scholars, who have come under attack from trans activists. And because she followed on Twitter and praised some of the work of Magdalen Berns, a lesbian feminist who had made incendiary comments about transgender people.
You might disagree — perhaps strongly — with Rowling’s views and actions here. You may believe that the prevalence of violence against transgender people means that airing any views contrary to those of vocal trans activists will aggravate animus toward a vulnerable population.
But nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic. She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.
Except, of course, to exist in her spaces. She denies them basic womanhood and tells them to go pee with the men, where transgender people are far more likely to be harmed. I don't disagree with many of her stances - it certainly seems reasonable to keep trans people who have committed violent crimes against women out of women's prisons. However, Rowling extends this to pretty much all female spaces including restrooms.malchior wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:24 pm She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.
And she has been casting a whole lot of doubt on whether trans people should be able to access medical care to transition.“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman — and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones — then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.
This handwaving away of her feelings about trans women is just wrong. She certainly seems to believe that they are not women, as do many of the people she has lavishly praised. IMO, when you lavishly tweet your support for someone who says this:Every time she starts talking about trans issues, Rowling seems to resurface another damaging and debunked misconception. She has claimed, erroneously, that youths who transition often “grow out of their dysphoria” and regret their decision — an attitude that is, right now, guiding Republicans as they restrict access to gender-affirming care for minors. She has speculated that hormone therapy is just “a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people.” In that sense, beliefs like Rowling’s are dangerous — particularly when they’re peddled by a figure with her level of reach and influence.
you are denying the very core of trans people. From my perspective, there is no way to support that view and not be hostile to folks who are trans.“I believe that it is impossible to change sex or to lose your sex. Girls grow up to be women. Boys grow up to be men. No change of clothes or hairstyle, no plastic surgery, no accident or illness, no course of hormones, no force of will or social conditioning, no declaration can turn a female person into a male, or a male person into a female.”
I think this gets far too binary. I'm not going to defend her on this but I'll explain how I interpret her positions (as we seem to understand them) a little differently. She has made some arguments here seem to hinge on the self-identification aspect. Essentially if you allow people to just declare themselves anything then there are no limits. It has sounded to me from her comments that she would have no problem with people who've been 'confirmed trans' to use those bathrooms. There are obviously problems with that but the idea she doesn't support them 'existing' isn't true. She doesn't however agree with the most liberal interpretation. That's different IMO. As an aside, I think self-identification is the least mainstream idea in trans activism. I have no problem with it personally but it often appears to be the stickiest issue.gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 7:38 amExcept, of course, to exist in her spaces. She denies them basic womanhood and tells them to go pee with the men, where transgender people are far more likely to be harmed. I don't disagree with many of her stances - it certainly seems reasonable to keep trans people who have committed violent crimes against women out of women's prisons. However, Rowling extends this to pretty much all female spaces including restrooms.malchior wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:24 pm She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.
This is the heart of the disagreement. A definitional difference between sex and gender identity. She seemingly supports the idea that biological sex exists and has relevance. Which is fairly hard to argue against existence since at least for now, you can't change a person's genetic makeup to obliterate or create a Y chromosome. There are obviously all sorts of exceptions and variation but the idea that sex doesn't exist is pretty far out of mainstream.you are denying the very core of trans people. From my perspective, there is no way to support that view and not be hostile to folks who are trans.“I believe that it is impossible to change sex or to lose your sex. Girls grow up to be women. Boys grow up to be men. No change of clothes or hairstyle, no plastic surgery, no accident or illness, no course of hormones, no force of will or social conditioning, no declaration can turn a female person into a male, or a male person into a female.”
I think this is the crux of the issue. People should be able to declare any sexuality they want. What is the difference between someone identified as male putting on a dress and one who has their genitalia surgically altered, gets breast implants, gets cosmetic surgery and injects female hormones? Who makes the distinction and where do they draw the line?malchior wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 12:54 pmI think this gets far too binary. I'm not going to defend her on this but I'll explain how I interpret her positions (as we seem to understand them) a little differently. She has made some arguments here seem to hinge on the self-identification aspect. Essentially if you allow people to just declare themselves anything then there are no limits.gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 7:38 amExcept, of course, to exist in her spaces. She denies them basic womanhood and tells them to go pee with the men, where transgender people are far more likely to be harmed. I don't disagree with many of her stances - it certainly seems reasonable to keep trans people who have committed violent crimes against women out of women's prisons. However, Rowling extends this to pretty much all female spaces including restrooms.malchior wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 8:24 pm She is not disputing the existence of gender dysphoria. She has never voiced opposition to allowing people to transition under evidence-based therapeutic and medical care. She is not denying transgender people equal pay or housing. There is no evidence that she is putting trans people “in danger,” as has been claimed, nor is she denying their right to exist.
That's easy.Jaymann wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:14 pm I think this is the crux of the issue. People should be able to declare any sexuality they want. What is the difference between someone identified as male putting on a dress and one who has their genitalia surgically altered, gets breast implants, gets cosmetic surgery and injects female hormones? Who makes the distinction and where do they draw the line?
It's sort of an odd concept to me. How does one *not* self identify as a gender? As far as I know there is no governmental organization that will certify "this person is a trans female but this other person isn't serious enough about it yet".malchior wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 12:54 pm Essentially if you allow people to just declare themselves anything then there are no limits. It has sounded to me from her comments that she would have no problem with people who've been 'confirmed trans' to use those bathrooms. There are obviously problems with that but the idea she doesn't support them 'existing' isn't true. She doesn't however agree with the most liberal interpretation. That's different IMO. As an aside, I think self-identification is the least mainstream idea in trans activism. I have no problem with it personally but it often appears to be the stickiest issue.
In the quote I posted above she compared hormone therapy to anti-gay conversion therapy, so I'm not sure I would say that she is supporting gender affirming medical treatments. We can obviously disagree and that's fine, but it seems to me that if you believe that sex = gender and it is an immutable property that then saying you support trans people is innately contradictory.malchior wrote: This is the heart of the disagreement. A definitional difference between sex and gender identity. She seemingly supports the idea that biological sex exists and has relevance. Which is fairly hard to argue against existence since at least for now, you can't change a person's genetic makeup to obliterate or create a Y chromosome. There are obviously all sorts of exceptions and variation but the idea that sex doesn't exist is pretty far out of mainstream.
There is definitely an issue where she doesn't ignore the blurry lines of what gender identity is in relation to sex. However, I don't think that this is in exclusion to trans people. To my knowledge supported gender affirming therapies, surgeries, etc. That doesn't sound anti-trans or transphobic to me.
Is it wrong to treat people as militant extremists when they are passing laws to outlaw needed medical treatment? Passing laws that make it a felony for doctors to aid underage patients? Passing laws to force school districts to use birth gender pronouns and dead names? Hell, Oklahoma wants to make it a felony for doctors to provide gender affirming care to adults. Sorry, but fuck those people.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:49 pm
And yeah, that sucks if you're fully supporting of one side, and even more so if you're the people needing change. But we can't just flick the switch and expect hundreds of millions of people to fall into line behind the new idea at once, and then treat those who don't as if they were militant extremists.
I'm not talking about people who are actively working against trans people. I'm talking about someone who makes an uninformed comment, or who complains about the wrong thing, and is then treated the same as the true hatemongers. I'm talking about who is behind 95% of the changes suggested, but is hesitant about one thing on the list being treated like an enemy. I'm talking about people who need time to adjust and are being damned for not converting completely the second the fingers are snapped.gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:51 pmIs it wrong to treat people as militant extremists when they are passing laws to outlaw needed medical treatment? Passing laws that make it a felony for doctors to aid underage patients? Passing laws to force school districts to use birth gender pronouns and dead names? Hell, Oklahoma wants to make it a felony for doctors to provide gender affirming care to adults. Sorry, but fuck those people.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:49 pm
And yeah, that sucks if you're fully supporting of one side, and even more so if you're the people needing change. But we can't just flick the switch and expect hundreds of millions of people to fall into line behind the new idea at once, and then treat those who don't as if they were militant extremists.
Atomic Heart was a bolt from the blue when its first trailer dropped in 2018, showcasing a shining Soviet retrofuture FPS that seemed like it was learning all the right lessons from BioShock, Stalker, and the Metro series. Never mind that it was the debut game from a new developer—a Russian studio called Mundfish—it was laser-targeted at a category of players who devoured immersive sims and ambitious-but-flawed works of genius from East European studios alike. It very quickly became an object of internet obsession, a game we were intrigued by but knew very little about.
But a lot has happened since then. In February last year, Russia invaded Ukraine, starting a war that has killed thousands on both sides and sparked one of the biggest refugee crises in modern history, with millions of Ukrainians fleeing abroad to escape the war at home. Russia became an overnight pariah in the west, excised from fundamental mechanisms in the international banking system, deserted by some of the biggest corporations in the world—including several gaming titans—and censured in the UN.
In the wake of that invasion, Atomic Heart's Russian provenance became more than an interesting detail of the game's development. As many kinds of Russian art found itself subject to intense scrutiny and swift bans, rumours began to swirl about Mundfish's investors and excited fans feared their purchase would somehow end up funding a brutal war. Even though Mundfish says it's based in Cyprus, gamers are still arguing about whether it's okay to buy Atomic Heart.
In the opaque bramble of our global economy, we're all put in the difficult position to buy stuff that may be financially entangled with people, causes, or governments that, say, commit unspeakable atrocities. If we buy Hogwarts Legacy, are we indirectly supporting JK Rowling's transphobic comments? If we buy Call of Duty, are we endorsing Activision Blizzard's harmful labour practices? And if we buy Atomic Heart, are we, through some winding, invisible scheme, backing Russia's war against Ukraine?
We all have to make that decision ourselves. Personally I think the frustration felt by Ukrainians whose homes are being destroyed with Mundfish's vague, equivocal statements is entirely understandable. But I don't think there's enough concrete evidence to condemn the studio as a whole as 'pro-war' or anything like it. I suspect Mundfish, like millions of Russians, had the rug pulled out from under it by the start of a war it didn't ask for, and its moves since have been a clumsy attempt to navigate uncharted and choppy waters.
If you're interested in grappling more with this tough moral question, someone basically made four seasons of a TV show about it: The Good Place, a philosophical 2016 comedy basically about how it's impossible to get into heaven because modern society is unavoidably complicated.
Rowling is passing laws?gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:51 pmIs it wrong to treat people as militant extremists when they are passing laws to outlaw needed medical treatment? Passing laws that make it a felony for doctors to aid underage patients? Passing laws to force school districts to use birth gender pronouns and dead names? Hell, Oklahoma wants to make it a felony for doctors to provide gender affirming care to adults. Sorry, but fuck those people.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:49 pm
And yeah, that sucks if you're fully supporting of one side, and even more so if you're the people needing change. But we can't just flick the switch and expect hundreds of millions of people to fall into line behind the new idea at once, and then treat those who don't as if they were militant extremists.
Considering that Rowling posted an extensive essay describing, in her own words, her positions on these issues, I’m not sure why we’re still debating things like whether she supports gender affirming medical treatments:gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:41 pm In the quote I posted above she compared hormone therapy to anti-gay conversion therapy, so I'm not sure I would say that she is supporting gender affirming medical treatments. We can obviously disagree and that's fine, but it seems to me that if you believe that sex = gender and it is an immutable property that then saying you support trans people is innately contradictory.
She does. It’s not open for debate. She supports gender affirming medical treatment as a solution for some trans people.I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoriahas .
As to the first part, it’s a reach to say that she’s not supporting transition when she says it’s “a solution.”Max Peck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 3:00 pm Technically, in that quote she doesn't say she supports it, she simply acknowledges that it's a solution for those that don't "grow out of it." There's a clear implication that she doesn't support it for people under some arbitrary age, before which they may still "grow out of it."
When I was responding to Blackhawk, I wasn't talking about Rowling. We were having a larger discussion around trans acceptance and the huge number of anti-gay and anti-trans bills that are being passed in parts of the U.S.Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 7:04 amRowling is passing laws?gbasden wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 8:51 pmIs it wrong to treat people as militant extremists when they are passing laws to outlaw needed medical treatment? Passing laws that make it a felony for doctors to aid underage patients? Passing laws to force school districts to use birth gender pronouns and dead names? Hell, Oklahoma wants to make it a felony for doctors to provide gender affirming care to adults. Sorry, but fuck those people.Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 18, 2023 2:49 pm
And yeah, that sucks if you're fully supporting of one side, and even more so if you're the people needing change. But we can't just flick the switch and expect hundreds of millions of people to fall into line behind the new idea at once, and then treat those who don't as if they were militant extremists.
Hmm, I'm not sure how to take that post, so I'll just ask you: Do you feel there should be no guidelines/rules/requirements before a minor receives potentially permanent gender affirming treatment?
Nice deflection, but I specifically asked about someone who met Rowling's criteria, which presumably means the person is an adult. Personally, in the case of a minor I think the parents and doctors involved with the individual are better positioned to provide informed guidance than myself or a random billionaire on Twitter.
To me, that is a conversation between the minor, their parents and their doctor. The first step for most children is puberty blockers which is entirely reversable.
Not a deflection. It just struck me that you’re putting a lot of emphasis on the notion that Rowling was making “arbitrary” requirements which made me wonder whether you thought there should be any requirements.Max Peck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 7:16 pmNice deflection, but I specifically asked about someone who met Rowling's criteria, which presumably means the person is an adult. Personally, in the case of a minor I think the parents and doctors involved with the individual are better positioned to provide informed guidance than myself or a random billionaire on Twitter.
However, you dodged the actual question. If Rowling accepts that gender transition is the correct "solution" -- for an adult, if we want to avoid the issue of whether it is appropriate for a minor -- then does she accept that transwomen are women? If so, where does she unequivocably state that? If not, then she comes off with at least a whiff of the transphobic about her. Would I "cancel" her for it? No, but the idea that she can be "cancelled" is laughable in the first place. She's a billionaire who is literally laughing all the way to the bank no matter what people say about her. She's going to be just fine no matter what mean things people say about her on Twitter (or Mastodon or whatever). In fact, from quickly scanning her Twitter posts, she seems to enjoy punching down at random people who say unpleasant things about her. If it doesn't seem to bother her, why would it bother me?
Are we still whiffing the transphobic here?Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass.
I've absolutely read her essay. It's consistent in the idea that trans women are not actual women and that they are absolutely not welcome in women's spaces.
I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces.
Her entire philosophy seems to be consumed with the idea that there are innumerable men who will want to put on a dress to enter women's spaces and assault them. I do not believe that the evidence shows this as true.I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class. The hundreds of emails I’ve received in the last few days prove this erosion concerns many others just as much. It isn’t enough for women to be trans allies. Women must accept and admit that there is no material difference between trans women and themselves.
But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive.
I think that’s an entirely fair critique. Based on her writings, I think it’s also tied into her personal experiences being a victim of abuse by men. Understandable maybe, but not a good foundation for a policy rationale re trans issues.
I think it would really help to link to the source when you are quoting someone and the source of the quote isn’t apparent.Zarathud wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 10:31 pm When JK Rowling writes “I deny your movement and will fight against you” and “I have free speech to oppose your beliefs”, there’s no misunderstanding. She’s not “failing to be an ally.”
She decided this is a fight she wanted to participate in, and chose to make a Last Stand on the F’ing Ridge. When you fight in the wars, you’re going to get hurt. And so will other people.
Speaking as a biological woman, a lot of people in positions of power really need to grow a pair (which is doubtless literally possible, according to the kind of people who argue that clownfish prove humans aren’t a dimorphic species).
So why am I doing this? Why speak up? Why not quietly do my research and keep my head down?
Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.
But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces. Polls show those women are in the vast majority, and exclude only those privileged or lucky enough never to have come up against male violence or sexual assault, and who’ve never troubled to educate themselves on how prevalent it is.
Yep.Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:15 am Seem reasonable to me. Against "the new trans activism" doesn't mean she is against trans.
Could be. How would we know? But probably not.
Max Peck wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 7:16 pm No, but the idea that she can be "cancelled" is laughable in the first place. She's a billionaire who is literally laughing all the way to the bank no matter what people say about her. She's going to be just fine no matter what mean things people say about her on Twitter (or Mastodon or whatever). In fact, from quickly scanning her Twitter posts, she seems to enjoy punching down at random people who say unpleasant things about her. If it doesn't seem to bother her, why would it bother me?
I can't speak to what is reasonable to you. I can say that for me, the derision practically seeps from her words.Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:15 am Seem reasonable to me. Against "the new trans activism" doesn't mean she is against trans.
Me too.
Not sure how you measure what’s a “larger than reasonable voice,” but setting that aside, here’s my problem with all of this: To an overwhelming degree, JK Rowling has used her platform to advocate on behalf of vulnerable groups. She’s not some evil “billionaire” with inherited wealth from a privileged background.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 12:00 pmMe too.
The problem is that people like JK Rowling have a larger than reasonable voice, and that angry protestors are claimed to be more or less representative of the movement as a whole, depending on the movement.
Black Lives Don't Matter because looters exist, for example.
I think the forum does quite well discussing disagreement.