It's time (Option to Hide other players Glamour)

[Packetdancer]

And guess what - it's also an expression of individual diversity that not everyone likes and therefore chooses to engage with what others do when they express their individual diversity...

I'd say that "expressions of individual diversity" have limits, though. In general, I'd say your "expression of individual diversity" ends where it starts to directly erode my own rights. In particular, my right to exist in the same general vicinity as you do.

If someone objects to a woman being a senior engineer rather than being in the kitchen, and decides that they don't want to listen to me in a meeting (by pretending I'm just not there and not acknowledging me any time I speak), that is not "an expression of individual diversity", that is jackass behavior that directly affects my life and my job. (And unfortunately, behavior I've actually experienced. If I'm the freaking program lead and you insist on ignoring everything I say and talking to the junior engineer who's job-shadowing me just because he happens to be male, this meeting's going to be real awkward and we're probably not going to end up with our companies working together.)

And the same is true with objecting to anything that reminds you that gay people exist. Or trans people. Non-binary people. Women in general. People with different skin colors than your own. Etc.

I get that this is not what you're going for. ("Such prejudice! This was not my intention!") I'm assuming you—the generic "you", meaning "everyone in the thread arguing for this feature"—are saying that some folks prefer a tone for player-created content (i.e. outfits) which matches the tone of the dev-created content (i.e., the actual questlines/cutsenes). And while a shirtless warrior wearing a moogle head, a subligar, and fending greaves might (sort-of) fit in when you're doing the Hildibrand quests, that feels fairly out-of-place in Amaurot. And that can be extremely irritating, I agree! And whether or not that clash of tones bothers you is a matter of individual opinion; some people could really not care less if there's a giant Roegadyn chocobo tank, or if the healer is a miqo'te dude wearing only underwear. Others find it's like nails across a chalkboard every time they encounter it.

And I think that's where the core problem of this thread comes from. The folks who are speaking most vehemently for the conflicting positions here are literally seeing the issue as two entirely different things.

One side is saying "I would prefer not to see a dude in swim-trunks and sunglasses tanking in the emotional climax of Shadowbringers, and I don't think that there's a rational argument to be made for the fact that I should have to; why does it impact you if I push a button that says 'tanks must wear armor' and everyone goes on with life?" and basically viewing such a feature as enforcing a dress code and generally making it easier for everyone to get along. Which is perfectly rational; if I run an Italian restaurant, I can certainly say that you have to be wearing pants (or a skirt, or a dress, or whatever) if you want me to seat you and serve you. The fact you are a customer who would pay me does not mean I have to let you sit on the table in your underwear.

And seen that way it's wholly understandable that someone would go "look, I don't care what you wear—or don't wear—at home; in public, or at least in this restaurant, we wear pants. This makes everyone get along better in public. Please put on some pants and stop doing the Manderville on the table. You can call it 'personal expression', I call it 'disturbing the peace' and if you don't stop I'm going to call the police." From that standpoint, this request seems totally reasonable and probably fairly mild; it's no different than putting a sign on the door of that restaurant saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service". (Or in my hypothetical example, "no pants, no pasta".)

When approaching the matter from that angle, saying "I find this idea chilling" is ridiculous, because it seems self-evident that of course you can make rules in a restaurant that pants (or at least some form of lower-body clothing) are not optional but rather required. After all it seems absurd that anyone would cry 'personal expression' (and expect to be taken seriously) in response to "I don't care if you wear pants at home or walk around naked; more power to you. However, I would prefer you not walk around naked in my pizza joint for reasons of generally accepted standards of public decency (and also, y'know, general hygiene concerns, as well as a lack of desire to get sued for grease burns in sensitive spots)."

In fact, taken from that standpoint, it seems like this feature should be less objectionable than a dress code because it's not even saying "you have to put on pants here" but pushing a button that says "please make this customer appear to be wearing pants when I look at them, regardless of whether or not they see themselves as wearing pants." And then hey, everybody wins!

The other side of the argument, however, is looking at it from the standpoint of "there are people who think a masculine person in a dress is an abomination, and you want to give them a button to literally erase those people from the world? Why are we even discussing this as though that isn't appalling? Have I taken crazy pills?" And from that standpoint, this suggestion is downright horrifying; being able to push a button and turn the world into one where no one is anything you object to—where you don't have to see anyone who isn't straight, white, and conforming to gender stereotypes, or you don't have to see women in "men's jobs" or whatever else—is a deeply disturbing thought. And it becomes downright 'yikes' territory when—taken from that standpoint—it seems as though other folks are saying such a button promotes 'tolerance', because it basically comes across as "if all those pesky gay people/trans people/non-binary people/dark-skinned people/whatever would just stop insisting on going around existing publicly, then the people who object to them wouldn't be upset; everyone would get along better and the world would be more peaceful."

("Yikes factor five, Mr. Data. Engage.")

And when you look at it that way, yes, giving people a button that makes people whose existence offends them turn into something that aligns with their views will make things more civil in the short term, because now they no longer need to be reminded by a miqo'te dude in a dress that nonbinary folks exist. Or that darker-skinned people exist. Or any other class of people they find objectionable. But those folks won't see it as a button that is there to keep folks from dressing up like a giant moogle during the climactic moment before the final trial of 5.0, but rather that "the devs agree with me that I shouldn't have to see nonbinary folks/dark-skinned folks/whatever, and gave me the power to make the world better". It emboldens people by making them think that the majority share their opinions, even if most just don't say anything. And that reinforcement actually can affect their behavior in the offline world.

There's been psychological studies! (They're really kind of depressing, actually...)

So it also makes perfect sense that some people are wildly unsettled by the request for this feature and arm-flailing about "why are we even discussing this, this is horrifying."

And the biggest problem of all in this debate is that both of these viewpoints are right.

Because even if everyone in this particular thread would only use a "turn people into their default race/gender character appearance and wear the racial starting gear" option to not have to see a giant chocobo running around in Doma Castle when they're at an emotionally intense part of Stormblood's story, there would also be people out there who would use that feature because "a man in a dress is an abomination and no one should have to see that, so I'll push this button to make the dress go away". Or because "I don't like seeing dark-skinned characters; it's unrealistic that someone with skin that dark would be a hero. I'll push this button so they turn into the fair-skinned default character and then The World is Right."

Which I think the majority of folks here would agree is appalling, or at the very least deeply unsettling.

And yet not everyone would use it that way, and there are no small number who would just be like, "And here I am in the Praetorium for the first time, trying to enjoy the climax of A Realm Reborn and the culmination of what feels like an inordinate number of fetch quests, and the tank is in underwear and a Namazu head. Well, you're going on my glam blacklist, and I'm going back to the story." Which also seems wholly reasonable.

And that's why I also don't think this thread's likely to actually go anywhere useful: there's unlikely to be any agreement because the actual core view of this feature which people have is coming from two entirely separate—and wildly different, yet equally understandable—viewpoints. And so, unfortunately, I imagine neither side is terribly likely to yield.

(Also: yikes, I apologize for how wordy I got there. And possibly how often I used the word "yikes".)