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

[ScarboroughFairy]

-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

-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.

-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.

[Ceallach]

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.

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.

[ScarboroughFairy]

In response to your edit, 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.

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.