Suggestion - Gender equality "Battle Stance", "Victory Pose" and weapon idle emotes

I'm not too fussed about the animations, but the idle poses for sure are something I'd like to see available for everyone. I really like the male DRK stance, and I hear lots of male characters say that the female stance is the best one. (It's possible to get the male stance on female characters for about 1 frame, since it's part of the victory or battle emote).

I would like to see these animations unlocked. And also, I'd like the butler outfit to be made available to all, as well. Either way, supported.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

I think it's rather unfair of you to assume I harbor some kind of fear or am offended by the concept of a man wearing a dress. And yes, I understand nudity in the game is obviously not allowable. I was simply taking your side of the argument to its logical conclusion.

What I do believe is that it's better to go with the traditional genders for multiple reasons based in faith, various sciences, and overall common sense (e.g., this study).

---

I'm gonna tap you for this one because an opinion piece article about a sociological topic written by a philosophy major does not, in and of itself, validate whatever studies that were mentioned within the article. Not to mention one study does not dictate the general consensus of a topic/experiment. Meta-analyses and peer review exists for this very reason.

This is not a rabbithole you want to jump down, my friend. And it was also a matter of time before this thread approached this event horizon.

Lol at everyone in here that are so sensitive that they'd get triggered by two words in the title.

On Topic:
I like this idea. Anything to get me away from the lightning pose on GNB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

I'm gonna tap you for this one because an opinion piece article about a sociological topic written by a philosophy major does not, in and of itself, validate whatever studies that were mentioned within the article. Not to mention one study does not dictate the general consensus of a topic/experiment. Meta-analyses and peer review exists for this very reason.

This is not a rabbithole you want to jump down, my friend. And it was also a matter of time before this thread approached this event horizon.

---

Then let me give you another, which ends with, "In summary, the fundamental paradox may best be explained as a conflict within ourselves--a conflict between our biological and cultural heritage on the one hand and our more contemporary aspirations on the other," and, "As these mixed findings suggest, the internal conflict between who we have been in the past and who we wish to become in the future is evident in our lives as well as in our data. The same traditional gender roles that facilitate men's and women's attraction to each other may also, in the context of egalitarian social ideals, impede their ability to communicate and lead to dissatisfaction in their relationships. As much as we might like to eliminate such conflicting elements in our theories about human social behavior, our understanding might be better served by openly acknowledging and confronting them."

I would posit that an egalitarian view is incorrect. Certainly, there is a level of equality among all human beings, but there is no denying that men and women are not only physically different, but psychologically different. Disrespecting and eliminating such differences will only further erode our humanity, and give further rise to the cited "internal conflict."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

Then let me give you another, which ends with, "In summary, the fundamental paradox may best be explained as a conflict within ourselves--a conflict between our biological and cultural heritage on the one hand and our more contemporary aspirations on the other," and, "As these mixed findings suggest, the internal conflict between who we have been in the past and who we wish to become in the future is evident in our lives as well as in our data. The same traditional gender roles that facilitate men's and women's attraction to each other may also, in the context of egalitarian social ideals, impede their ability to communicate and lead to dissatisfaction in their relationships. As much as we might like to eliminate such conflicting elements in our theories about human social behavior, our understanding might be better served by openly acknowledging and confronting them."

I would posit that an egalitarian view is incorrect. Certainly, there is a level of equality among all human beings, but there is no denying that men and women are not only physically different, but psychologically different. Disrespecting and eliminating such differences will only further erode our humanity, and give further rise to the cited "internal conflict."

---

Based on the abstract alone and the summary, I would posit that the egalitarian view is no more incorrect than the stereotypical view many in the past and today now adhere to. Gender roles and the concept of gender itself is a social construct, sociology has confirmed this. Women don't sport dresses and wear high heels because they're women, many of us wear high heels and dresses because that was something humanity, as a whole, decided it was a "feminine" thing to do. It's completely at the whim of humans for that to change. The "internal" conflict stems from what that very study implied: that it's difficult to square breaking away from a concept that we'd adhered to for so long, which is why it may considered more "satisfactory" to go along with traditional gender roles since there is a massive stigma towards breaking them/switching them out. It is, for this very reason, people maintain the idea that "women are best left to stay at home and raise the children because they're better at it". This is also patently false and diminishes the value of paternal parental units as well as provides a rather harmful and, dare I say, sexist view in regards to child rearing.

So yes, while I do agree with you that there are psychological reasons as to why this internal conflict exists, them stemming from sociology, it does not, however have a biological basis to it--not in the way you'd think. If you want me to provide the scholarly articles affirming this, I can.

Edit: And to address your point on the differences you've mentioned, I maintain that acknowledging the differences to the degree we have so far has already done a fine job at eroding our humanity as a whole. People aren't secure with themselves because of such a high demand that "traditional" gender roles are something that is demanded that we adhere to. Also, and I don't know where you live, but in the US, policy in regards to topics such as child custody is lopsided because of the ideas that you and others posit. I've said it before, this is not the rabbithole you want to jump down or the hill you want to die on. Nor is it something best suited for a forum dedicated to a videogame. We're getting off-topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

Based on the abstract alone and the summary, I would posit that the egalitarian view is no more incorrect than the stereotypical view many in the past and today now adhere to. Gender roles and the concept of gender itself is a social construct, sociology has confirmed this. Women don't sport dresses and wear high heels because they're women, many of us wear high heels and dresses because that was something humanity, as a whole, decided it was a "feminine" thing to do. It's completely at the whim of humans for that to change. The "internal" conflict stems from what that very study implied: that it's difficult to square breaking away from a concept that we'd adhered to for so long, which is why it may considered more "satisfactory" to go along with traditional gender roles since there is a massive stigma towards breaking them/switching them out. It is, for this very reason, people maintain the idea that "women are best left to stay at home and raise the children because they're better at it". This is also patently false and diminishes the value of paternal parental units as well as provides a rather harmful and, dare I say, sexist view in regards to child rearing.

So yes, while I do agree with you that there are psychological reasons as to why this internal conflict exists, them stemming from sociology, it does not, however have a biological basis to it--not in the way you'd think. If you want me to provide the scholarly articles affirming this, I can.

---

I would first like to thank you for approaching this with respect and without ad hominem attacks, unlike many others on this thread. It's a rare thing to see. And by all means, provide your sources. I did so, after all, so I think it's only fair.

I'd also like to present this and this to your attention. The first, while admittedly a blog entry, was written by a well-published sociologist who pointed out errors in one of the most influential psychology journals to date. The latter is a study on reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men ("gay" here being the accepted vernacular for men who like other men in a sexual manner, not to be taken as an insult or anything derogatory in any way).

Considering the former, I would disagree that the idea that "women are best left to stay at home and raise the children because they're better at it" is a false, sexist idea that diminishes the value of paternal parental units. Rather, it is a correct one, as it takes into account the natural feminine capability of nurturing young on several fronts, including but not limited to the emotional and the physical. I would also point out that traditional gender roles have been around since the dawn of humanity, not because it is a social construct, but because it is the natural course for humans who follow their natural capabilities. This is an acceptance of our nature, not a denial of an oppressive culture.

Considering the latter, I'd like to take a quote from near the end: "Altogether, traditional masculine ideals may to some degree amplify the adverse effect that some gay men experience when compared to heterosexual men. In other words, gay men may feel pressured to live by the same expectations and restrictions that heterosexual men—whether it be as a defensive reaction or because it genuinely reflects their personality—while simultaneously experiencing some of the adverse effects of misogyny and sexual objectification that heterosexual women feel." I would argue that this is only to be expected, as human biology defies homosexuality. Certainly, people can live the way they want, but just as a belief that two and two make chair has an adverse effect on one's ability to perform mathematics, a similar belief that traditional gender roles are inaccurate can only lead to incorrect conclusions.

Indeed, there have been cases of even peer-reviewed scientific journals falling victim to such a mentality, abandoning actual science (e.g., this infamous story). Considering how useful a tool fiction can be in terms of shaping the ideologies of a culture, perhaps it is time FINAL FANTASY XIV led by example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

Edit: And to address your point on the differences you've mentioned, I maintain that acknowledging the differences to the degree we have so far has already done a fine job at eroding our humanity as a whole. People aren't secure with themselves because of such a high demand that "traditional" gender roles are something that is demanded that we adhere to. Also, and I don't know where you live, but in the US, policy in regards to topics such as child custody is lopsided because of the ideas that you and others posit. I've said it before, this is not the rabbithole you want to jump down or the hill you want to die on. Nor is it something best suited for a forum dedicated to a videogame. We're getting off-topic.

---

Ah, this I did not see right away. Fair enough. Perhaps I'm just tired of seeing real life politics in video games, and even more tired of companies that take political stances one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

-snip-

---

You've provided me a lot to dissect on the topic and, for the sake of abiding by forum ToS and with respect to the OP, I'll be including my responses in a spoiler bar. Breaking it into two parts because there's literally too much in my response.

On-topic, I would love the male DRK pose for my Lalafilly, please and thank you.

Part 1

Quote:

---

-snip-

---

So, I read that first link, because I actually care about the scientific method and sociological topics of debate. Not every scholarly link in that article worked, a few were broken, but from what I was able to gather from everything that did work and what the article provided I can say it is, indeed, an interesting read at the very least. With that said, and I mean this respectfully, I don't think you read it and if you did, you would understand that it does not in any way prove your point. The main point of contention that I find myself agreeing with was that bit about the Simpson's Paradox present. You cannot gather a superficial and casual conclusion from statistical data. However, that small contention does not invalidate the whole of what the challenged article was provided. There is a small kernel of truth in regards to specific and certain stereotypes, but the mere existence of the marginal exception to the rule does not invalidate the reason for its exclusion. I can clarify on that if needed, but I'll do it by drawing a parallel.

Quote:

---

-snipped bit about gay men

---

Again, I don't see how this article proves your point, it, in fact, does a better job of proving mine. Much like the previous article you linked in your previous comment. To summarize, gay men often find their value and attractiveness influenced by the concept of masculinity and how it breeds insecurity because it squares with having to embrace the typical gender roles of males vs. abandoning them. Something you point out later, but don't...seem to reach the same conclusion I have. In fact you go waaaaay out of left field by saying something that was rather disappointing.

Ten entire characters.

Part 2

Quote:

---

-snipped bit where you challenge my stance on the inaccuracy of women being inherently better caregivers than men-

---

I understand if that's how you feel, but data suggests otherwise. In fact, I would posit that the success of child-rearing depends wholly on the stability of the household and not the sex or sexual orientation of the parents. Here are a few of the scholarly articles supporting my claim:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...71-2458-14-635
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-17268-001

Call it a cross-reference. The general consensus is that children of same-sex parents (gay/lesbian) fared no better than children of opposite-sex parents, so that immediately challenges your contention.

Quote:

---

I would argue that this is only to be expected, as human biology defies homosexuality

---

Bolded the literally logically incoherent thing you just said. If homosexuality is biologically present in humans, it is, by definition, biological. It doesn't defy biology, it is quite literally biological. I'm also going to tap you for citing an article from a site with a very heavy, very well-known right-wing bias. There is a reason why I'm making an appeal to raw data and not HuffingtonPost or Daily Kos or some other such nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

You've provided me a lot to dissect on the topic and, for the sake of abiding by forum ToS and with respect to the OP, I'll be including my responses in a spoiler bar. Breaking it into two parts because there's literally too much in my response.

---

Oh, so that's how that works? I honestly didn't think of using the spoiler tags for that, sorry. For the topic, I would say that I think things are fine as they are, and we don't need any further androgyny foisted upon us by the devs for the sake of a small, though vocal minority. There's even a thread asking for customizable pronouns for NPCs to use in reference to the player, which is even more ridiculous and would require much more work.

I brought up the study on gay men because, by definition of being gay, they defy traditional gender roles by making themselves more effeminate, thereby being an example of why going against traditional gender norms is unwise. As far as what I've presenting proving your point, I disagree. For instance, from the first link, "We do know, however, that, throughout the social sciences, empirical findings that contest social justice narratives often are systematically ignored, overlooked, denigrated, and dismissed." I've found this to be very much true, which is why I am so thankful that we can have a civil discourse about it. Of course, if the author of this blog post is correct (and the "infamous story" I linked to would suggest that he is), that would suggest an agenda being adhered to by those who run scientific journals, among others, in favor of breaking down traditional gender roles.

Before you object to my use of the word "agenda" here, I'd like to remind you that everyone, without exception, has an agenda, even if it's as simple as earning enough tomestones for the week. It's really just another word for "goal."

Are you familiar with the concept of two people with two different worldviews having the same evidence but coming to different conclusions? I admit it's a bit philosophical, but it could be that's where you and I are now. Everything I've presented so far is, to me, an example of why the traditional gender roles are superior to what we're seeing in our culture now. You disagree, and that's fine. I believe respectful verbal conflict such as this is essential for our growth as people, and so I welcome the challenge. But as far as what we see throughout history, things don't tend to last long under the weight of gender politics and political correctness. I'd sooner see less than more inundation of such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

I understand if that's how you feel, but data suggests otherwise. In fact, I would posit that the success of child-rearing depends wholly on the stability of the household and not the sex or sexual orientation of the parents. Here are a few of the scholarly articles supporting my claim:

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentra...71-2458-14-635
http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/ffp10b.pdf
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-17268-001

Call it a cross-reference. The general consensus is that children of same-sex parents (gay/lesbian) fared no better than children of opposite-sex parents, so that immediately challenges your contention.

Bolded the literally logically incoherent thing you just said. If homosexuality is biologically present in humans, it is, by definition, biological. It doesn't defy biology, it is quite literally biological. I'm also going to tap you for citing an article from a site with a very heavy, very well-known right-wing bias. There is a reason why I'm making an appeal to raw data and not HuffingtonPost or Daily Kos or some other such nonsense.

---

You say that, but the "no differences" thesis is hardly settled science. Further, the statement that "homosexuality is biologically present in humans" is probably the most logically incoherent thing you've said. Tell me, how do you get offspring via two men or two women without intervening with things like donated sperm? On the other hand, obviously a heterosexual couple can create their own children via the conventional method. Human biology is very obviously in favor of heterosexuality, therefore homosexuality is not biologically present in humans. Rather, if there was anything about sexuality to call a "social construct," it would probably be this. Humans have always been fascinated with the idea of claiming the taboo, after all. This looks much more psychological to me, for the sake of sticking to science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

-snip-

---

It's to stay on topic. It would be inconsiderate if we continued without regard to other posters. If they do not wish to see our discussion, they have that option.

And on that note, I would at least like the option to have different /cposes for my characters regardless of gender though I will not be upset if we don't anyway. It's wholly cosmetic.

Quote:

---

-snip-

---

First of all, you're dead wrong because not all gay men are "camp" or effeminate. A pretty decent number of them are, but they're not all like that. In fact, you probably know a few gay men you may have otherwise considered straight because they're not camp. I'll digress, this wouldn't be an issue if we didn't demonize people who behaved outside of the traditional gender conforming norms instead of demanding that they do arbitrarily. There is no biological bases for women wearing dresses or makeup just as there's no biological basis for men to be the breadwinners while women stay home and raise the children. It's scientifically verified for my latter example to be a tremendously malleable thing regardless of gender. By your very logic, lesbian couples who raise children should be rearing some well-developed, well-rounded, superhuman children.

Quote:

---

-snip about agenda-

---

You're playing with some fine fire here, as I'm familiar with the conspiracy that academia is out to dismantle "traditional values" in favor of "degeneracy". I'm not sure if this is where you're headed with the topic and I'd hope not because this is a nice change of pace.

But if that really is the hill you want to die on, I will kill you on it. I mean that with respect and metaphorically speaking, of course.

Quote:

---

-snip about philosophy and culture-

---

What we're seeing in our culture is that gender roles need not be this rigid thing considering gender roles are arbitrarily decided by us. People have been having our exact conversation for centuries, my friend and it was all to reach this singularity of egalitarianism that we continue to steadily march towards that will overall be more beneficial to the species when we stop allocating ridiculous standards that have no biological bases towards the sexes. Women wearing pants, women going to work, men being stay-at-home parents, this was all a long time coming.

In response to your edit, Ceallach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

You say that, but the "no differences" thesis is hardly settled science.

---

And yet there are more studies being published with an increased efficiency in methodology to support that the science is pretty much settled at this point. For instance, that article you've provided was posted int 2012, one of the articles I linked was submitted in 2014 for posterity's sake. If you want me to find more up to date articles, that can be arranged.

Quote:

---

Further, the statement that "homosexuality is biologically present in humans" is probably the most logically incoherent thing you've said. Tell me, how do you get offspring via two men or two women without intervening with things like donated sperm? On the other hand, obviously a heterosexual couple can create their own children via the conventional method. Human biology is very obviously in favor of heterosexuality, therefore homosexuality is not biologically present in humans. Rather, if there was anything about sexuality to call a "social construct," it would probably be this. Humans have always been fascinated with the idea of claiming the taboo, after all. This looks much more psychological to me, for the sake of sticking to science.

---

Yet science purports that it's literally nothing to do with "claiming the taboo" and more evidence supporting the fact that there is a biological precedent considering heterosexual parents are having gay kids. This is precisely the reason why you can't "cure" homosexuality. Yes, there is a psychological aspect present, but that also includes heterosexual individuals as well. They didn't wake up and decided to prefer the opposite sex, that's something literally hardwired into them. The same goes for homosexual individuals. If you want to tell me that heterosexuality is a social construct, feel free to claim that. Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon, it's existed since the dawn of humanity. The difference is that we kill people a lot less now for simply being gay.

If you're positing that homosexuality is a choice for the sake of taboo and degeneracy, I pinky promise I'll crush you on that topic. No question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

What I do believe is that it's better to go with the traditional genders

---

Traditional gender roles are old and boring. It's 2019. And that link? Not only does it sound fishy as hell ("traditional gender roles bring the greatest happiness"? This isn't the 50s, and it literally says that households with men that do household chores have sex less? Gross x1000), but definitely not accurate. I defy gender roles and would be considered gender nonconforming at the very least, and I like it so much more than being forced to dress, act, etc. a certain way based on gender. I can do whatever I want, and that makes me a lot happier than whatever garbage you're clinging on to.

This is getting off topic, and you seriously creep me out. You sound like you'd send me to conversion therapy. I'm not interacting with you anymore.

And thank you ScarboroughFairy for tackling something I'm tired of fighting from dealing with it irl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

First of all, you're dead wrong because not all gay men are "camp" or effeminate. A pretty decent number of them are, but they're not all like that. In fact, you probably know a few gay men you may have otherwise considered straight because they're not camp. I'll digress, this wouldn't be an issue if we didn't demonize people who behaved outside of the traditional gender conforming norms instead of demanding that they do arbitrarily. There is no biological bases for women wearing dresses or makeup just as there's no biological basis for men to be the breadwinners while women stay home and raise the children. It's scientifically verified for my latter example to be a tremendously malleable thing regardless of gender. By your very logic, lesbian couples who raise children should be rearing some well-developed, well-rounded, superhuman children.

---

Except that they'd have no strong male influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

You're playing with some fine fire here, as I'm familiar with the conspiracy that academia is out to dismantle "traditional values" in favor of "degeneracy". I'm not sure if this is where you're headed with the topic and I'd hope not because this is a nice change of pace.

But if that really is the hill you want to die on, I will kill you on it. I mean that with respect and metaphorically speaking, of course.

---

Well, ultimately, I am a Christian and I will adhere to the Bible above even what peer-reviewed journals state. In light of that, I believe our understanding of science can be flawed, and all people have inherent biases we cannot escape from, some of which are categorically in favor of what the Bible teaches is right or wrong. Whether there is or is not actually a "degeneracy" agenda running amok in academia isn't really the point, though it wouldn't surprise me if that actually was the case. Either way, different people are going to see the same things in different ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

What we're seeing in our culture is that gender roles need not be this rigid thing considering gender roles are arbitrarily decided by us. People have been having our exact conversation for centuries, my friend and it was all to reach this singularity of egalitarianism that we continue to steadily march towards that will overall be more beneficial to the species when we stop allocating ridiculous standards that have no biological bases towards the sexes. Women wearing pants, women going to work, men being stay-at-home parents, this was all a long time coming.

---

I'd simply argue that traditional gender roles are the ideal. I recognize they are not always possible. I just worry that, once you've achieved this totally egalitarian society, it will be that equality that will prove its downfall. You'd end up with a more extreme version of a real life Amaurot: a culturally Marxist community in which individuality does not exist, and self-destruction is the only escape. You say certain standards are ridiculous, yet you have yet to accomplish the proof of egalitarianism as a moral high ground. I posit that you cannot, though this discussion would take us away from peer-reviewed journals and well into the realm of faith and philosophy. I'd like to bring this to your attention, as I found it interesting. It may or may not be proof of much of anything, but I'll get to why I think it's worth looking at in a moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

In response to your edit, Ceallach.

And yet there are more studies being published with an increased efficiency in methodology to support that the science is pretty much settled at this point. For instance, that article you've provided was posted int 2012, one of the articles I linked was submitted in 2014 for posterity's sake. If you want me to find more up to date articles, that can be arranged.

Yet science purports that it's literally nothing to do with "claiming the taboo" and more evidence supporting the fact that there is a biological precedent considering heterosexual parents are having gay kids. This is precisely the reason why you can't "cure" homosexuality. Yes, there is a psychological aspect present, but that also includes heterosexual individuals as well. They didn't wake up and decided to prefer the opposite sex, that's something literally hardwired into them. The same goes for homosexual individuals. If you want to tell me that heterosexuality is a social construct, feel free to claim that. Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon, it's existed since the dawn of humanity. The difference is that we kill people a lot less now for simply being gay.

If you're positing that homosexuality is a choice for the sake of taboo and degeneracy, I pinky promise I'll crush you on that topic. No question.

---

You say that, but science hasn't found anything resembling a "gay gene." I'm sure you'd say "not yet," but until then, you may as well claim Oort clouds create comets.

As I understand it, science would not function without laws of several types. There are, of course, the laws of physics that we can test against empirically, but there are also laws of logic. I argue that such laws require an absolute to set them in place and cannot be the product of random chance. After all, if something like gravity worked differently at some given time and without some workable pattern, you obviously couldn't rely on it. That's not what we observe, however, and there are even mathematical formulas to figure out the force of gravitational pull.

Now here's why I bring such things up. If there are indeed laws of logic, then such laws must be static, eternal, and impossible to change. These prerequisites make it impossible for them to have been created by mankind. Discovered? Sure. Taught? You betcha. But not created. Like the laws of physics, the laws of logic would be inherent in reality well before there were people to think about them. Without these laws, science would be impossible. Therefore, logic dominates science in much the same way it dominates philosophy.

As a Christian, I believe it was God who put these laws in place. It's fine if you don't, I'm simply explaining my stance. As a result, it is also my belief science "submits" to God, and human logic has limitations. We can debate all day about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, about whether traditional gender roles are better or worse, and so forth. But at the end of the day, when there's a Final Authority, it's only logical to side with the Final Authority. It is on Him the laws of logic are based, in addition to the laws of nature and the laws (yes, laws) of morality. This is why I would posit moral relativism, as one example, is an extremely flawed view.

It is also on this basis that I challenge the morality of egalitarianism. Upon what absolute(s) can you say it is morally correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doozer

Traditional gender roles are old and boring. It's 2019. And that link? Not only does it sound fishy as hell ("traditional gender roles bring the greatest happiness"? This isn't the 50s, and it literally says that households with men that do household chores have sex less? Gross x1000), but definitely not accurate. I defy gender roles and would be considered gender nonconforming at the very least, and I like it so much more than being forced to dress, act, etc. a certain way based on gender. I can do whatever I want, and that makes me a lot happier than whatever garbage you're clinging on to.

This is getting off topic, and you seriously creep me out. You sound like you'd send me to conversion therapy. I'm not interacting with you anymore.

And thank you ScarboroughFairy for tackling something I'm tired of fighting from dealing with it irl.

---

We were being respectful enough to hide this conversation from those who didn't want to look at it (like you, apparently). You could at least show the same decency. But as an aside, that sounds like selfish pride to me, and that is always a bad sign no matter what one believes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

-snip-

---

To be honest, I understand some of this argument in regards to science. But as far as science is concerned morality, or 'god' do not go hand in hand with science, that is obvious. In regards to sex -from a biology standpoint- it is used to reproduce. In biology, it isn't the norm if a male gamete and female gamete isn't involved as reproduction can't take place. That's where it ends for us in the biology standpoint, sure some would go into greater depth but that's it. However, scientists also agree that this doesn't mean homosexuality is either incorrect or wrong. If anything, it aids with overpopulation and from another point of view, helps with the rearing of children that otherwise don't have their biological parents, fostering, adoption etc. We as a species are way past the point where 'homosexuality' is endangering us, we are not an endangered species.


So eh, don't try to hide behind science in regards to this. Most scientists don't care. So, I can say to my fellow LGBT+ out there, you be you.
- Signed, a human biologist

Blah blah 10/char

Ten entire characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

Except that they'd have no strong male influence.

---

You literally could not possibly know this, for one. Two, my inference, though it wasn't at all serious, supports your claim even though we both know that, based on the data, this isn't at all verified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

Well, ultimately, I am a Christian and I will adhere to the Bible above even what peer-reviewed journals state. In light of that, I believe our understanding of science can be flawed, and all people have inherent biases we cannot escape from, some of which are categorically in favor of what the Bible teaches is right or wrong. Whether there is or is not actually a "degeneracy" agenda running amok in academia isn't really the point, though it wouldn't surprise me if that actually was the case. Either way, different people are going to see the same things in different ways.

---

Out of respect for you and our conversation, I'll not engage with the topic of your faith as that's more so a preferential set of ideas. You would be correct that I do not follow it, however. I'll, instead, turn my attention to the bit of commentary after the fact. Why wouldn't it surprise you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

I'd simply argue that traditional gender roles are the ideal. I recognize they are not always possible. I just worry that, once you've achieved this totally egalitarian society, it will be that equality that will prove its downfall. You'd end up with a more extreme version of a real life Amaurot: a culturally Marxist community in which individuality does not exist, and self-destruction is the only escape. You say certain standards are ridiculous, yet you have yet to accomplish the proof of egalitarianism as a moral high ground. I posit that you cannot, though this discussion would take us away from peer-reviewed journals and well into the realm of faith and philosophy. I'd like to bring this to your attention, as I found it interesting. It may or may not be proof of much of anything, but I'll get to why I think it's worth looking at in a moment.

---

We have numerous, historical examples of egalitarianism being the superior stance in regards to the species, I've even provided them. Hell, I'll provide another: the abolition of slavery in the United States and the subsequent necessity of the Civil Rights era are testimonies to the fact of it being superior. I'd say much more on it, but I really don't want to drag faith into the conversation. May I also advice against linking right-wing biased sites in bids to back up your stance? You showed your hand when you began linking these articles that engage with bad faith argumentation, but all of this served as further confirmation.

Another ten entire characters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

You say that, but science hasn't found anything resembling a "gay gene." I'm sure you'd say "not yet," but until then, you may as well claim Oort clouds create comets.

---

I said nothing of a gay gene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

As I understand it, science would not function without laws of several types. There are, of course, the laws of physics that we can test against empirically, but there are also laws of logic. I argue that such laws require an absolute to set them in place and cannot be the product of random chance. After all, if something like gravity worked differently at some given time and without some workable pattern, you obviously couldn't rely on it. That's not what we observe, however, and there are even mathematical formulas to figure out the force of gravitational pull.

---

And here we come to the crux of where and why our perceptions diverge. I do not mean for you to take this the wrong way, but you've displayed a lack of scientific literacy. Scientific laws or not things to be described in the same vein one would use to describe judicial law. They aren't written in the way you'd infer nor are they set in stone as one cannot say anything with absolute certainty in scientific fields. These laws you describe are statements made to describe or predict a wide range of phenomena based on observable data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

-snip-

---

Refer to my previous point about the lack of scientific literacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

-snip-

---

Respectfully, I don't care about your faith. I don't care about whatever eternal cosmic entity you threw your lot in with that ultimately defines your current perception. I'm engaging from raw, observable data and hoped that you would do so comparably. If all that you can provide is proselytizing and persistent bad faith arguments then I'm afraid this discussion cannot continue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

It is also on this basis that I challenge the morality of egalitarianism. Upon what absolute(s) can you say it is morally correct?

---

You already know my answer, but I maintain that this is irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. I'm not going to get into the "absolutes" of morality and who or what divine authority prescribed them because the topic is beginning to shift. If you want to continue backpedaling and concede that your stance has little scientific veracity and has more to do with feelings and faith, I will grant you that courtesy.

I like the battle stance and victory stance as there I argee that they fine the way there are they don't need change. I also am Christian too but I understand the science of the human body men and woman are different this much are truth and can't be denied I often said the fantasy and realistic are linked in this case science and fantasy are linked male and female are different this can not ignore no matter how much one want to or denied it. how men and woman hold weapons in fantasy game are going be different and not the same this should be accepted. the bible teach that male and female have different roles this is true in script yet in fantasy game these roles are going be disgard for fantasy. through I do argee how woman and men will hold weapon will be different basic the strength the issue I see with this thread in the desire to throw away this fact for a even further fantasy the gender roles are basic the same this isn't every able to be accept because as I said before fantasy must be basic on elemental of reality or science to throw them out is to tried create a new set reality that isn't even or can be prove. as a opinion I like how my female hold her paladin shield and sword I love how my dark knight hold her sword I like all victory and battle stance through at one point I did argue for different stance between the scholar and summoner I still would like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gwenorai

To be honest, I understand some of this argument in regards to science. But as far as science is concerned morality, or 'god' do not go hand in hand with science, that is obvious. In regards to sex -from a biology standpoint- it is used to reproduce. In biology, it isn't the norm if a male gamete and female gamete isn't involved as reproduction can't take place. That's where it ends for us in the biology standpoint, sure some would go into greater depth but that's it. However, scientists also agree that this doesn't mean homosexuality is either incorrect or wrong. If anything, it aids with overpopulation and from another point of view, helps with the rearing of children that otherwise don't have their biological parents, fostering, adoption etc. We as a species are way past the point where 'homosexuality' is endangering us, we are not an endangered species.

So eh, don't try to hide behind science in regards to this. Most scientists don't care. So, I can say to my fellow LGBT+ out there, you be you.
- Signed, a human biologist

---

I wouldn't call it "hiding." Everyone has a bias. I'm simply admitting to mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

I said nothing of a gay gene.

---

True, but you did say people are born either gay or straight. If that's true, it would stand to reason there would be a genetic reason for that, and there isn't one as far as we know. There are some studies that claim there are differences between gay men and straight men, but the findings are by and large too vague to say a "gay gene" has been found in anything resembling a definitive sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

And here we come to the crux of where and why our perceptions diverge. I do not mean for you to take this the wrong way, but you've displayed a lack of scientific literacy. Scientific laws or not things to be described in the same vein one would use to describe judicial law. They aren't written in the way you'd infer nor are they set in stone as one cannot say anything with absolute certainty in scientific fields. These laws you describe are statements made to describe or predict a wide range of phenomena based on observable data.

---

I'd simply state, then, that scientific study from any level of bias should simply be taken with a grain of salt, and there are better things to trust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

Respectfully, I don't care about your faith. I don't care about whatever eternal cosmic entity you threw your lot in with that ultimately defines your current perception. I'm engaging from raw, observable data and hoped that you would do so comparably. If all that you can provide is proselytizing and persistent bad faith arguments then I'm afraid this discussion cannot continue.

---

No worries, you don't have to care about my faith. I would caution you, however, against the belief that raw, observable data is itself an absolute. All of this data that we've both presented was in some manner or other searched for and found by other people that have their own biases one way or the other, and that basic, inescapable set of the most fundamental beliefs those scientists, sociologists, etc. have colors their interpretation of their findings. Therefore the data itself can be seen as biased, which simply points back to my point about taking science itself with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

You already know my answer, but I maintain that this is irrelevant to the discussion as a whole. I'm not going to get into the "absolutes" of morality and who or what divine authority prescribed them because the topic is beginning to shift. If you want to continue backpedaling and concede that your stance has little scientific veracity and has more to do with feelings and faith, I will grant you that courtesy.

---

All I'm saying is raw data can only say so much, and I don't believe it's enough for this kind of topic. By the same logic you're using, I could say you're backpedaling from my points now that I've gone directly to the root of the problem. Certainly, data can seem much friendlier, as the nature of truth is binary (right or wrong, correct or incorrect). Real life is quite a bit messier.

As a final point, I want to bring to your attention again the historical data regarding the rise and fall of nations. Historians have generally stated there to be ten stages in the life of a nation. The first stage moves from bondage to spiritual faith. The second from spiritual faith to great courage. The third stage moves from great courage to liberty. The fourth stage moves from liberty to abundance. The fifth stage moves from abundance to selfishness. The sixth stage moves from selfishness to complacency. The seventh stage moves from complacency to apathy. The eighth stage moves from apathy to moral decay. The ninth stage moves from moral decay to dependence. And the tenth and last stage moves from dependence to bondage. Have a look around and think about it. But as for this conversation, I think we're pretty much done. We've reached the point where you'd rather not move away from raw data while I'd rather delve deeper into the logic behind the issues, and our debate can't continue like that, sadly.

I do want to thank you again for this debate and your respectful approach to it, even though I'm sure you think of me as an abject failure (noting the "scientific illiteracy" point here). No matter our differences, I want you to know I consider you someone others in this game's community should look up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceallach

-snip-

I do want to thank you again for this debate and your respectful approach to it, even though I'm sure you think of me as an abject failure (noting the "scientific illiteracy" point here). No matter our differences, I want you to know I consider you someone others in this game's community should look up to.

---

I'll admit that I've a bias towards data and the deeper meaning behind it, but I'm not so rigid in my beliefs in that I'd adhere to the results only if they prove favorable to my preconceptions. Even if they "hurt" me, even if they've challenged everything I believed previously, I should accept them for how they are post further investigation and alter my world view accordingly. I know that everything I believe could one day be proven wrong in their entirety and go about my studies with that in mind. There is a great benefit to approaching the sciences with this mindset. Would that a great few others would understand and acknowledge this, I think we could prosper further and fully facilitate the least amount of suffering for everyone.

And I'd like to thank you for engaging with me to this degree. While we have our differences, I do not think you to be a bad person nor an abject failure. It was hardly a proper discussion/debate with the appropriate mediation and necessary rules, but I do think through finding common ground and actually speaking with one another without the vehement vitriol are we able to compromise in spite of differing schools of thought. I am merely an aspiring composer, pianist and occasional forum troll, but I will accept your praise and positive perception of me in regards to this game's community. What makes this one of the better communities on the market is our capacity for understanding despite the difference of backgrounds. I'd like to extend likewise praise to yourself, though some might disagree with you.

first as gamer I don't like to be bully in to accept some else standard and this is what come back to a desire bully other to accept other standard. as Christian I realize that Christ Jesus doesn't desire force people to the faith. the difference between the me and Sjw is that one should be force to accept they standard the sjw demand everyone accept there standard. my question to orginal author is this why do you want remove gender base stance, I like the stance aren't neutral is your right to force the rest of us to your standard are you not the one tried force your standard down are throats or the japense or any other ffxiv community throat. Is your world view behind your demand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

I'll admit that I've a bias towards data and the deeper meaning behind it, but I'm not so rigid in my beliefs in that I'd adhere to the results only if they prove favorable to my preconceptions. Even if they "hurt" me, even if they've challenged everything I believed previously, I should accept them for how they are post further investigation and alter my world view accordingly. I know that everything I believe could one day be proven wrong in their entirety and go about my studies with that in mind. There is a great benefit to approaching the sciences with this mindset. Would that a great few others would understand and acknowledge this, I think we could prosper further and fully facilitate the least amount of suffering for everyone.

And I'd like to thank you for engaging with me to this degree. While we have our differences, I do not think you to be a bad person nor an abject failure. It was hardly a proper discussion/debate with the appropriate mediation and necessary rules, but I do think through finding common ground and actually speaking with one another without the vehement vitriol are we able to compromise in spite of differing schools of thought. I am merely an aspiring composer, pianist and occasional forum troll, but I will accept your praise and positive perception of me in regards to this game's community. What makes this one of the better communities on the market is our capacity for understanding despite the difference of backgrounds. I'd like to extend likewise praise to yourself, though some might disagree with you.

---

Thank you very much! To be honest, I'm not used to this sort of civil discourse being the response to my views. Nine times out of ten, I get the vitriol, and I had given up hope of ever meeting someone like you in a community I had anything to do with. I'm impressed there's still someone out there who can have a conversation like this without resorting to ad hominem attacks or slander on social media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savagelf

first as gamer I don't like to be bully in to accept some else standard and this is what come back to a desire bully other to accept other standard. as Christian I realize that Christ Jesus doesn't desire force people to the faith. the difference between the me and Sjw is that one should be force to accept they standard the sjw demand everyone accept there standard. my question to orginal author is this why do you want remove gender base stance, I like the stance aren't neutral is your right to force the rest of us to your standard are you not the one tried force your standard down are throats or the japense or any other ffxiv community throat. Is your world view behind your demand.

---

As a quick addendum, OP wants everyone to have both male and female versions of the battle stance and victory pose emotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Savagelf

I like the battle stance and victory stance as there I argee that they fine the way there are they don't need change. I also am Christian too but I understand the science of the human body men and woman are different this much are truth and can't be denied I often said the fantasy and realistic are linked in this case science and fantasy are linked male and female are different this can not ignore no matter how much one want to or denied it. how men and woman hold weapons in fantasy game are going be different and not the same this should be accepted. the bible teach that male and female have different roles this is true in script yet in fantasy game these roles are going be disgard for fantasy. through I do argee how woman and men will hold weapon will be different basic the strength the issue I see with this thread in the desire to throw away this fact for a even further fantasy the gender roles are basic the same this isn't every able to be accept because as I said before fantasy must be basic on elemental of reality or science to throw them out is to tried create a new set reality that isn't even or can be prove. as a opinion I like how my female hold her paladin shield and sword I love how my dark knight hold her sword I like all victory and battle stance through at one point I did argue for different stance between the scholar and summoner I still would like that.

---

Who wears what and does what chores is arbitrary. In real life males may be stronger but in Eorzea Rem can crack mountains with her fist. It is up to the writers and players to determine what and if gender roles exist in this game.

Also no one is talking about changing your emotes, just giving everyone the ability to choose what emotes to use. Please leave your irl hang ups at the door when you log into the game, you'll be happier for it.

I came late to this argument I glad to see it was handle with respect to between people I doubt many gamers agree with the OP on this issue. I like the stance the way there are as I said

seem to me this argument was finish on op post before I arrived

yet you want being really life into video game if I not mistake this go back to culture Marxism. the concept of doing away with gender in rl it also an attempt remove any gender battle stance in game I have though these have been base on past ff character battle stance under the cliam of gender equality the point is that video game characters are base off really life human being both male and female so tried to do away with gender battle stance and etc isn't impossible because really life human body men and women are different this can't be change by anything we tried to do the stance are base off animation use really life people both male and female really life people when they doing animation the base off female and male human who are use to for animation base. you can't have gender equality because the human being be use for models for animation are different no way you change that. have you or anyone studied how animation is done they have use really life people for animations, really life is connect to fantasy the ignorant of the OP doesn't realize this

neither men nor women hold giant anime sized swords in real life or in the bible.

I am say that they must use really life people to create the animation for the games these model are base of really men and womens for these animators to work with so the desire for gender equality is impossible because really men and women different for each other.

A man and a woman will not hold a BIG ANIME SWORD drastically different due to biology. Societal gender roles have nothing to do with how you would hold a BIG ANIME SWORD. BIG ANIME SWORDs do not play a role in the day to day lives of humans irl or in religious text.

The male idle pose for BIG ANIME SWORD class is Cloud Strife’s pose.

If you have 2 functioning arms + 2 functioning legs + 1 BIG ANIME SWORD (or something of approx. shape/size, ie. a broom) you can strike this pose in real life regardless of your race/gender/religion/sexuality/education/credit score.

big sword way a tons maybe we need more female and male emotions. or did you see the building of buster sword

the male samuri have different idle stance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xogheZdAO18

this awesome video about make the buster sword

I admit this reforce your point through I would more happy if SE did more female and male emotion not tried make them all the same or give both gender each other emotion. this would a waste of money. I still wait for the naught naught emotion of shake your finger at person.

The weight of the sword hardly matters in this game. If a male lala is strong enough to hold a sword like Cloud Strife I don't see why a femroe is not lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScarboroughFairy

Everything

---

Want to thank you for actually putting in all the time you have. What you've done here is something I've thought of doing, albeit usually in different fields where I actually have expertise or friends who are experts to assist, but never do because it'd be too much effort especially considering the venue.

You've thoroughly proven that apathetic conclusion wrong through your efforts here. Thank you.

I would love to use the female idle DRK pose as a Male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gaethan_Tessula

Want to thank you for actually putting in all the time you have. What you've done here is something I've thought of doing, albeit usually in different fields where I actually have expertise or friends who are experts to assist, but never do because it'd be too much effort especially considering the venue.

You've thoroughly proven that apathetic conclusion wrong through your efforts here. Thank you.

---

I'm glad I'm not the only one inspired by her. ^^

No idea what happened in this thread but yes please let me use the guy's poses, need me that sick DRK pose pls thx

Entire thread aside, why do people care this much about emotes? This is something I might use once in gpose for a screenshot and never use again.

Once you own /playdead you have no need for all other inferior emotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doozer

Except it doesn't homogenize anything, it just creates more options for uniqueness and creativity. Giving all options to players regardless of gender won't make them all look the same, it will allow them to be more original with what they choose to combine together and how they design their character.

---

Limitations drive creativity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadane

Limitations drive creativity.

---

While this statement is true, it doesn't really apply to the topic stated in the title of the thread.

The battle stance/victory pose emotes aren't too different from each other (as far as I know). It wouldn't really hurt "creativity" for a female RDM to be doing collar part of the victory pose emote, instead of the hair flick part.
Likewise, the weapon idle stances just involve holding a weapon differently. Personally, I'm a big fan of FF4 and Dragoons, yet I can't use the famous Kain pose due to the simple fact that I happen to be playing as a female character.

I support that. No reason to keep them separate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Canadane

Limitations drive creativity.

---

Limitations force you to get creative in order to create things with the limited things you have. Greater freedom gives you more options and variety to be creative and to create something unique. Don't be daft. Limitations when it comes to creativity are never a boon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doozer

Limitations force you to get creative in order to create things with the limited things you have. Greater freedom gives you more options and variety to be creative and to create something unique. Don't be daft. Limitations when it comes to creativity are never a boon.

---

And greater freedom give the oppotunity to just be lazy. New races? Why bother creating new pose for each gender when you can just staple all the already existing one.

+ its not unique if everybody have it.

I like having my own unique way of putting my glasses back on my nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nariel

And greater freedom give the opportunity to just be lazy.

---

what does that have to do with more variety in poses