You can't "lock" something that doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahlnir

Just because they mean what they say doesn't mean it's even remotely correct though.

---

From what I understand, they aren't trying to argue that the allegations of sexism are correct or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Senn

From what I understand, they aren't trying to argue that the allegations of sexism are correct or not.

---

I get that. I was just offering my 2 gil. Admittedly this is the part about all of this that bugs me the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vahlnir

Just because they mean what they say doesn't mean it's even remotely correct though.

---

Right. I dont think it was sexism either. But that was their opinion on the subject. That opinion, IMO, was not constructive to the discussion regarding the issue. It was more inflammatory and hyperbolic than useful to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akonyl

Everyone knows what people mean when people say a race with one gender option is genderlocked. If anyone using the term actually believes these assets are in-game and just hidden from us, it's a very small minority of the people using the term, and I've personally never seen anyone who believes that. It's a good, easy, descriptive word to immediately get across what you're talking about without having to explain yourself every time, even if you can conjure up a reason why there might be better alternative words.

But I really don't think most people complaining about the term "genderlock" are really just complaining about the term, it just seems like another way to complain about people who want the other options in the game. Would the OP + others in this thread really care that much if people complaining about genderlocked races started complaining about "gender exclusive races" instead? Would they just go "oh, thanks for using the right word" and stop? Or would they just find another reason to complain about the people asking for male viera/female hrothgar, because they think implementing them is a waste of resources?

---

I don't think anyone would have made an issue if this term wasn't being used because it wouldn't seem like people were trying to conflate the argument to get more people upset. Of course this wouldn't be an issue anyways if people were capable of being patient and waiting for an official statement before dog-piling the devs. Also, no-one is saying that implementing them would be a waste of resources, just that the fuss and outrage is wholly unwarranted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joven

I don't think anyone would have made an issue if this term wasn't being used because it wouldn't seem like people were trying to conflate the argument to get more people upset. Of course this wouldn't be an issue anyways if people were capable of being patient and waiting for an official statement before dog-piling the devs. Also, no-one is saying that implementing them would be a waste of resources, just that the fuss and outrage is wholly unwarranted.

---

I am though.

I've seen other people make that argument too.

But yes... the outrage is unwarranted as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WaterShield

I am though.

I've seen other people make that argument too.

But yes... the outrage is unwarranted as well.

---

Why would you think they would be a waste of resources if the devs are given enough time to implement them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chalbee

Context is key. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. That's why one of the dictionary definitions of "literally" is literally the opposite of the primary definition, and this thread is literally going to make me shoot myself.

---

I think the word you're looking for is figuratively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nestama

I think the word you're looking for is figuratively.

---

People kept using literally wrong, so much so that it gained the secondary definition, which is what he was talking about. Now literally sometimes has the same usage as figuratively, I think it's dumb, but it is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Razard

"But you can stretch out and add pointy ears on a Hyur and call it a new race apparently. >_>"
"But you can put Kitty ears and a tail on a Hyur and call it a new race apparently. >_>"
"But you can put scales and horns on an Male Elezen/ Female Midlander Hyur and call it a new race apparently. >_>"
"But you can put Bunny Ears on a Female Elezen and call it a new race apparently. >_>
"But you can put in a Potato call it a new race apparently. >_>"

... You want to go on?

---

Hrothgar use a new model. The Roegadyn have more of a square shape torso, while the Hrothgar have more of a v shape torso.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DamianFatale

Hrothgar use a new model. The Roegadyn have more of a square shape torso, while the Hrothgar have more of a v shape torso.

---

It was mentioned before: all races (with the exception of Roe and Lala), use one model, adjusted to different parameters. Look at male Mid Hyur and male Au Ra. They are very different, but they use same body model. So there is a high chance that Hrothgars use Roe's body, not unique one. Welp, miners will investigate it quite soon anyway.