Frustrating relative lack of LGBT NPCs in this game

[Darthgummibear]

Making characters whose only singular purpose is to say "I love X person of my gender" or "I don't feel comfortable with my assigned gender" isn't good representation. And people not wanting LGBT characters in this game simply because they think that will be how they're written should understand that it's honestly just as bad. No one wants that.

You say no one wants that, but the loudest portion of that community has made it pretty clear they will never be satisfied unless those attributes are front and center.

[Midareyukki]

You say no one wants that, but the loudest portion of that community has made it pretty clear they will never be satisfied unless those attributes are front and center.

Then they themselves don't know what they're asking.

It still doesn't mean that's representation.

Let them whine. You've seen other posts here in this website, do you think every single idea people have is good? If people don't think and care to know the topic and the concept, then it will never be done right.

But it also doesn't mean that it's wrong to ask for representation in general. Nor that it in itself is a bad thing. The reason I wrote all that is because I keep seeing people shut down the very idea without telling the people you're criticising "No, that's not how they should do it. No one in real life makes it their one unique trait to be gay, and neither should well-written fictional characters".

What they're asking for are token minority characters. Not representation. And we've been proven for the last 30 years how much of a bad idea those are.

So if people are going to criticise them, they should at least also know what representation really is. And why they shouldn't avert it entirely either. Because that's what I keep seeing. People see a bad interpretation of the concept, and deny the concept entirely.

[BrokentoothMarch]

Then they themselves don't know what they're asking.

It still doesn't mean that's representation.

Let them whine. You've seen other posts here in this website, do you think every single idea people have is good? If people don't think and care to know the topic and the concept, then it will never be done right.

But it also doesn't mean that it's wrong to ask for representation in general. Nor that it in itself is a bad thing. The reason I wrote all that is because I keep seeing people shut down the very idea without telling the people you're criticising "No, that's not how they should do it. No one in real life makes it their one unique trait to be gay, and neither should well-written fictional characters".

What they're asking for are token minority characters. Not representation. And we've been proven for the last 30 years how much of a bad idea those are.

So if people are going to criticise them, they should at least also know what representation really is. And why they shouldn't avert it entirely either. Because that's what I keep seeing. People see a bad interpretation of the concept, and deny the concept entirely.

Didn't expect to pop in and see someone reasonable. I heavily agree with you and your previous post. I just also agree that it seems many in earlier pages simply want token gay characters who exist for the sole purpose and traits that are stereotypically gay or otherwise. If there is a character built from the ground up with lore, backstory, struggles, humanization and they happen to be gay? That's fine. It's a normal person, honestly. But we actually do have a few representations like this already. Which means what's desired is your mentioned tokenism.

I still will not get over the fact that people mentioned being flamboyant or eccentric means you are absolutely gay, no discussion. If you are not flamboyant, you are absolutely straight. No discussion. I'm bewildered by the ironic bigotry.

[dustdjinn]

I still will not get over the fact that people mentioned being flamboyant or eccentric means you are absolutely gay, no discussion. If you are not flamboyant, you are absolutely straight. No discussion. I'm bewildered by the ironic bigotry.

Thats not what I said. I said you don't have to be straight passing. AKA hiding any flamboyant traits to be considered normal because people were bragging how no one could ever tell they were lgbtq without telling them. Some people have lisps, or more stereotypical "queer" mannerism who were never able to hide it growing up and they are not lesser because of it. No one said we needed them to act a certain way, you made that up.

There is nothing wrong with being more traditional with your mannerism but its not the ideal people need to try to be. They can just be themselves and your sexuality is a part of you, in addition to everything else.

[Xirean]

You say no one wants that, but the loudest portion of that community has made it pretty clear they will never be satisfied unless those attributes are front and center.

Consider a possibility. Two characters are presented as maybe being in a relationship or maybe just being friends. People speculate and find pretty good reasons for either reality. Some people kinda of want a confirmation on one of those things because grey areas are frustrating.

Now lets also consider that straight characters tend to have little in the way of preventing that confirmation. Sure there are plenty of will they won't they stories, but it's often exceedingly clear that both characters are attracted to each other. Gay characters however are often not confirmed and often have comments like "they are just friends" or "that's gross" surrounding them. But that desire for confirmation still exists.

So often what I tend to see is that people are unwilling to accept the possibility that characters might be gay unless beyond shadow of doubt they are, and they usually can't be confirmed to people unless there are overt portrayals like kissing.

For example, I'm strongly certain that Ryne and Gaia are a young gay couple. I don't mind of others head canon them as just friends, however I do take issue with people demanding that my interpretation is wrong.

[KariTheFox]

For example, I'm strongly certain that Ryne and Gaia are a young gay couple. I don't mind of others head canon them as just friends, however I do take issue with people demanding that my interpretation is wrong.

Finding it endlessly fascinating that people will say "I interpret Ryne and Gaia as a couple" and people in this thread reply with, "that's wrong, headcanon whatever you want though ".

As if the difference between "headcanon" and interpretation is anything except semantic.

[Toutatis]

For example, I'm strongly certain that Ryne and Gaia are a young gay couple. I don't mind of others head canon them as just friends, however I do take issue with people demanding that my interpretation is wrong.

Maybe most people don’t have the same interpretation as you because LGBTQ form about 3% of the population and people tend to simply go with what they are used to. It’s a game and people are free to imagine whatever they want. I personally never imagined those two adolescent npcs as a couple. Not everything has to be sexualized.

SE left many things opened to personal interpretation/imagination, including WoL’s relationships and it’s all right.

[Xirean]

Maybe most people don’t have the same interpretation as you because LGBTQ form about 3% of the population and people tend to simply go with what they are used to. It’s a game and people are free to imagine whatever they want. I personally never imagined those two adolescent npcs as a couple. Not everything has to be sexualized.

SE left many things opened to personal interpretation/imagination, including WoL’s relationships and it’s all right.

And right there is where you misunderstand the situation. People being a couple is NOT them being sexualized.

[Toutatis]

And right there is where you misunderstand the situation. People being a couple is NOT them being sexualized.

You are giving them a sexual orientation so yes it is. I didn’t mean it as sexual objectification. Please open a dictionary: the word has a much broader meaning (it can simply be to endow with sex, attribute sex). Personally, I don’t really care or think about what npcs sex life’s/ orientations are. Imagine them as you want if it pleases you.

[Xirean]

You are giving them a sexual orientation so yes it is. I didn’t mean it as sexual objectification. Please open a dictionary: the word has a much broader meaning (it can simply be to endow with sex, attribute sex). Personally, I don’t really care or think about what npcs sex life’s/ orientations are. Imagine them as you want if it pleases you.

Then that would include literally every teen romance story, every hallmark film, or even just the presentation of someone having a parent at all. There are implications much broader than a simple definition. People having an orientation or being in a relationship is not them being sexualized.