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

[Anatha]

When a race or class is locked to a certain gender, it is called a "genderlock", this has been the meaning of the term since its inception, and this sad attempt to redefine it to serve as the foundation of a baseless argument against people upset by SE's decision is nothing short of disappointing.

[Alucard135]

When a race or class is locked to a certain gender, it is called a "genderlock", this has been the meaning of the term since its inception, and this sad attempt to redefine it to serve as the foundation of a baseless argument against people upset by SE's decision is nothing short of disappointing.

Gender-lock for classes is the term that was used and commonly known. But I've never seen gender-lock being used in any other MMOs for races that didn't have the opposite gender when there was no model to begin with.

[Melichoir]

Gender-lock for classes is the term that was used and commonly known. But I've never seen gender-lock being used in any other MMOs for races that didn't have the opposite gender when there was no model to begin with.

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available sex when it is clear that in regards to in game lore and descriptions, that it has 2?

Cause the argument you are putting forward is this:
Even though the game directly references them in lore, we have dev precedence with making sure there is a male and female variant on all the races once ARR kicked off, this ISNT gender-locking cause the game assets dont exist (even though I have 0 proof of this), so Gender locking is the wrong Terminology.

Mind you, as I pointed out before, people who make this point seem to understand quite clearly (or claim to do so) what is being directly referenced when people say genderlocking Viera and Hrothgar, and having a discussion about the correct terminology does nothing to address the core complaint. In fact, as the OP directly does, they discuss symantics as an explaination of why "Gender locking isnt happening" and people are complaining about nothing. It is quite literally "Well the in game assets dont exist, so you really cant clal it genderlocking (even though I completely understand that the complaint is people want the male and female varients of a race, and were only getting one, thus the player's choice when it comes to selection of a race is being "Locked" into a single gender.) But its not genderlocking cause....semantics. So just be happy, ok! Stop complaining."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As a quick aside,

I do think there are bad arguments regarding other aspects of this debate. As also mentioned before, the Sexism/Homophobia PoV are also not productive. Also having the mentality that "We're paying so things need to happen this minute" argument is also a non-starter. IMO, the conversation revolves around 2 points:

1) Feelings about the current situation: That is the happiness, positivity, annoyance, frustration, negative vibes, or whatever else theyre feeling regarding the fact that we are getting two races where we are only allowed to choose one sex. This point should be the expression aspect where people can just say how they feel about the situation. This is part one of hte conversation. Its purely subjective, people are just voicing their thoughts and feelings. There hsouldnt be any real criticism at this point cause people are entitled to hold their opinions and feelings.

2) How the Devs should address the situation: This is where people should voice how the devs should address it. These are suggestions, ranging from "Do nothing" to "Work hard to get those sexes out and in our hands ASAP." Whatever the view, however, reality has to be a part of it. So no, the Devs cant just drop every aspect of the entire company and game to make these two things the players want. There will be a time component, of course. Nor should it really be a thing to suggest the devs do something so egregiously out of character, such as "Make the models and make them background NPCs to dangle in front of players, but never implement." Neither of these suggestions is something the Devs can use, or we can discuss without devolving into idiocy.

That being said and coming full circle, the semantics argument does not fit into either point. It's got nothing to do wiht the feelings regarding the actual decision made, nor is it a suggestion for the devs. If you want to discuss the colloquial use of Genderlocking, open up a thread, talk about it. But bringing it up as a talking point where you are essentially saying "BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO POINT ONE, WE NEED TO ALL AGREE ON THE TERMINOLOGY" and where the redefinition of terminology ends up preventing point 1 from happening due to people not agreeing on definitions, is a derailment tactic. It does nothing to address what should be addressed.

[SendohJin]

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available sex when it is clear that in regards to in game lore and descriptions, that it has 2?

unisexual playable races

Mind you, as I pointed out before, people who make this point seem to understand quite clearly (or claim to do so) what is being directly referenced when people say genderlocking Viera and Hrothgar, and having a discussion about the correct terminology does nothing to address the core complaint. In fact, as the OP directly does, they discuss symantics as an explaination of why "Gender locking isnt happening" and people are complaining about nothing. It is quite literally "Well the in game assets dont exist, so you really cant clal it genderlocking (even though I completely understand that the complaint is people want the male and female varients of a race, and were only getting one, thus the player's choice when it comes to selection of a race is being "Locked" into a single gender.) But its not genderlocking cause....semantics. So just be happy, ok! Stop complaining."

the semantic problem is people who use this term incorrectly trivialize the solution.

the response is frequently "just unlock it", "unlock it already" when it really should be, "we want 2 complete races added this expansion instead of 2 halves". it sounds much more unreasonable to ask for two races to be added to one expansion.

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

maybe some people feel like we're owed two races since Stormblood didn't have one and that's probably a discussion worth having but we rarely if ever talk about it like that because semantics dictates that we just talk about unlocking what's been locked.

[Alucard135]

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available sex when it is clear that in regards to in game lore and descriptions, that it has 2?

unisexual playable races

That lol.

There are so many games out there that just because the lore stated that there is only one gender available, everything was ok (Tera Popori, Elin, Baraka. Blade and Soul Yun. Warhammer greenskins). I wouldn't call it gender locked since, as I have stated many times before, there are no playable features that you were prevented from by having one gender only. And the same lore you're using is explaining why such feature doesn't exist. Lord of the rings online got away from making female dwarves just because they used the lore to state that they look like males. FFXIV used the lore also to explain the lack of male Viera. But let's be honest, everyone for male Viera are saying lore is no excuse.

But let's assume something fun. If the only reason for all this outcry and we're considered genderlocked in Viera race was because the lore said there are males (not because they made them and have them already in the game), then if SE was to make up their own lore on Hrothgar (since they can because they're not tied to FFX lore) and said that they are only males, would you consider Hrothgar gender locked?

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

Just look at the news articles echoing the same things to see how bad this have gotten.

[Melichoir]

unisexual playable races

Except this is also a misnomer by the same logic used for Genderlock. We can either read that as 1 sexuality, or unisex, both do not describe the situation. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter as unisex describes being for both sexes, not limitation to a single sex. If you want to argue the nuance here that since youve added "playable races" gives it context, then simply the same logic cna be applied to Genderlocked - Genderlocked Playable races; races that are playable but locked to one gender.

See how semantics over what were describing is stupid?

the semantic problem is people who use this term incorrectly trivialize the solution.

the response is frequently "just unlock it", "unlock it already" when it really should be, "we want 2 complete races added this expansion instead of 2 halves". it sounds much more unreasonable to ask for two races to be added to one expansion.

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

maybe some people feel like we're owed two races since Stormblood didn't have one and that's probably a discussion worth having but we rarely if ever talk about it like that because semantics dictates that we just talk about unlocking what's been locked.

This is pretty much hogwash. Not even joking or being hyperbolic. No one is trivializing any solution, because people understand what is meant by genderlocked, and they understand what they mean by unlock it. Again, people colloquially know what is being stated when they say the race is genderlocked (race being limited to one gender for whatever reason), and they know what is being said when they want it 'unlocked' (making both genders available for that race). The only people who are giving this trouble is people arguing semantics, and theyre arguing the semantics generally to dismiss the core complaint by changing the focus away from what it is to talk about pedantic literal interpretations of a word, or by using same said semantics to dismiss the core of the issue.

OR TLDR - Youre trying to steer the conversation away from the core issue people have, or discredit that complaint by using semantics to claim "There is no genderlock cause there is no second gender to choose, so what are you complaining about!"

I outlined what this conversation is supposed to have. The discussion about semantics of a word and people using said word to describe a situation has nothing to do with the core issue, nor has anything to do with suggestions.

There are so many games out there that just because the lore stated that there is only one gender available, everything was ok (Tera Popori, Elin, Baraka. Blade and Soul Yun. Warhammer greenskins). I wouldn't call it gender locked since, as I have stated many times before, there are no playable features that you were prevented from by having one gender only.

Yes, the lore stated it. It doesnt make it a good choice, or one the player desires. Let's talk Tera - There were people who wanted male Elin, female popori. While the lore stated why something was genderlocked, that did not stop people requesting having a more expanded character creation system to create characters they wanted. Do the devs have to do it? No. Far as I know, they still havent. That's fine. Players who want it voiced their opinions and desires, devs chose a response, players chose how to respond. Notice though how that exchange goes : Players voice their feelings, give suggestions to the situation, devs listen and respond, players make a choice at that time.

Notice how that exchange wasnt stopped before it was started by people saying "Hold up here! We gotta make sure our terminology is just right!" The semantics debate doesnt have anything to do with the issue at hand.

Second, You are equating the idea that just because you dont ahve access to something, that the situation being described doesnt exist. Let's think this through a second. IF a race was denied access to a class, but another race had access to that class, Your logic states that you ARENT being class locked by race because you have the opportunity to play that 'feature', you just have to play a different race. Where as most people would point out "What if I want to play x class on A race? Youre not letting me do that." Essentially, youre preventing certain combinations from occuring. In this case, the prevention occuring is Male of a race with all Classes. It's an inverse of that example.

Youre also defining features by class and mechanics, and not appearance. Female and Male variations are features. Just like glamour is. Just like dungeons. Just like Classes. Genderlocking by race removes a feature that is available to other races.

And the same lore you're using is explaining why such feature doesn't exist. Lord of the rings online got away from making female dwarves just because they used the lore to state that they look like males. FFXIV used the lore also to explain the lack of male Viera. But let's be honest, everyone for male Viera are saying lore is no excuse.

No one (well mostly no one) said the lore doesnt exist (atleast for male viera). Ive said in many threads that the lore is there. My criticism is the lore is flimsy. It's flimsy in other games too such as LOTRO (as there is developmental artwork of female dwarves for the movies which are canon, and they do not 'look just like the men'). Unless there is extremely compelling reasons, lore should not be held up as a means to prevent player choice, particularly when there is precedence. In FFXIV ARR, they gave the opposite gender to all races that were locked in 1.0. They stated this was done because of fan request. This was done in spite of lore. The game is objectively better for it.

When you would want to keep it to the lore is when that lore is extremely important. As in, very key plots and themes of the story revolve around it. In FFXIVs case, for male viera there is almost no story point substantial enough that this is the case at this time, and there is zero when it comes to female hrothgar. The lore justification is flimsy (maybe even flimsier than Male Miqote to be frank), and is limiting player option. This is why that point is often discredited. There is nothing gained by holding the lore, except possibly fan service to tactics fans...which doesnt make sense. Can you fan service a fan by limiting what you give them? Like that is a strange argument to make from a fan point

"OH YISSS! IM SUPER HYPED! THE DEVS DIDNT GIVE ME MORE! YES, THAT MAKES ME TOTALLY HYPED!!!" I mean, if as a fan of something, Id probably want more as long as it was done nicely? Since the argument about genderlocking being incorrect revolves around in game assets not existing, that means that same argument states we will never see male viera in game, so were not really expanding on Viera. From that standpoint, the only thing going for you is it's faithful, which then only goes back to demonstrating how weak the lore is and how people are being limited by it. The only time the lore is important in this case is because it does demonstrate the race ISNT limited to one sex. This is important because this + the precedence set by the devs gave rise to a very important expectation: We would be getting male viera. This was even more fueled by the fact that Hrothgar was, for all intensive purposes, nothing more than the rumorest of rumors.

Getting two races that are genderlocked goes against previous precedence, and you cant use the lore to argue against the inclusion of male vieras because of that very same precedence. That key part is important.

But let's assume something fun. If the only reason for all this outcry and we're considered genderlocked in Viera race was because the lore said there are males (not because they made them and have them already in the game), then if SE was to make up their own lore on Hrothgar (since they can because they're not tied to FFX lore) and said that they are only males, would you consider Hrothgar gender locked?

Depends on the lore involved at that point. Shooting from the hip answer: Yes, they would be. Why? Because precedent set up by the devs concerning all other races, along with no formal lore currently for Hrothgar. Could that be overridden by lore? Sure, if its a big part of story or themes that give it substantial credibility. Will some people complain? Sure. Will people begrudgingly accept that design choice if teh story involved was really good (along with a lack of expectations, which Hrothgar does have)? Probably.

[Alucard135]

Second, You are equating the idea that just because you dont ahve access to something, that the situation being described doesnt exist. Let's think this through a second. IF a race was denied access to a class, but another race had access to that class, Your logic states that you ARENT being class locked by race because you have the opportunity to play that 'feature', you just have to play a different race. Where as most people would point out "What if I want to play x class on A race? Youre not letting me do that." Essentially, youre preventing certain combinations from occuring. In this case, the prevention occuring is Male of a race with all Classes. It's an inverse of that example.

Nope, that is not my logic. The class in this case already exists, in the game. It's animations, build, etc are all available. But it's locked by a gender, hence why it's called genderlocked classes (and that's how the term has been used for a long time along with racelocked classes). But let's look at Viera now. You only have females, but the males don't have a model, or any thing available in game (except their mention in the lore). So by your logic you want to say that Viera are genderlocked because you don't have access to something that doesn't even exist in the game yet. By that logic I can say we're locked from Garlemald, sharlayan or any other location that we don't even know if we'll visit in the future and demand that lock to be lifted and no one should question me and say "but how can they remove the lock if they're not in the game yet?".

Youre also defining features by class and mechanics, and not appearance. Female and Male variations are features. Just like glamour is. Just like dungeons. Just like Classes. Genderlocking by race removes a feature that is available to other races.

I do include appearance in features. But do they exist in the game yet? Let me give you an example. Suppose in 5.x in one MSQ there was a male Viera NPC. In this case, the feature already exists and you're being locked from it by only being able to play as female Viera. But if the only thing we have is literally text on said race and nothing more, and you consider that enough to be called features that you're locked from, then that brings me back to my point of asking for the lock to be lifted from zones that we only know from text also.

No one (well mostly no one) said the lore doesnt exist ....

I might have messed up the lore on LOTR but thanks for pointing out that they don't look exactly like males. Upon reading further on their lore, it seems a lot similar to Viera in terms of how rare you see a female dwarf. According to Tolkien Gateway website "Dwarves wanted their women to be protected from other races and they usually kept them concealed inside their mountain halls. They seldom traveled in the outside world, only in great need, and when they did, they were dressed as men". And in the game you get to only play as male dwarves. Yet all I could find was just a single thread where the word genderlock was used for dwarves by OP and most responses were "females dress as males". So it turns out the term was not commonly used in that context as some say.

Can you fan service a fan by limiting what you give them? Like that is a strange argument to make from a fan point

Yes if what they're getting is at the cost of the actual product's development. Let's say a product includes (X, Y and Z) core components that you're paying for. The developer knew you're interested in a feature β and decided to give it partially to you in a way that minimizes their cost when delivering the product and to ensure that you get X, Y and Z components. In that case, it's natural to be thrilled and happy. But let's assume the developer gave you X and Y only along with β. The first thing that would happen is that you'd ask for component Z. And since it's a core component, it can drastically affect your product's performance. So no one in their right mind would be happy about losing a core component over a side feature.

Since the argument about genderlocking being incorrect revolves around in game assets not existing, that means that same argument states we will never see male viera in game, so were not really expanding on Viera.

Not really, they can still add them if they wanted. There is no need for the use of a term that can't be applied to this case to get the dev team to make them. What needs to be shown to them is demand in the form of likes to a certain thread regarding that topic or asking them to create a poll for that. The fact that we got female Viera is a fact that they're listening. I have no doubt that they will add these two genders later on. But we shouldn't try to force them to do it knowing that it can cost us actual content that we're paying for. One example that comes to mind from the misuse of such terms is one user here that made a thread demanding SE to announce that they're making male Viera as soon as possible. And even in multiple posts stated that they think that SE are going to work on male Viera now and release them in 5.0 or 5.1. At one point that same user said that SE shouldn't do any modification to character creation until they remove the gender lock. So as SendohJin said, they are now sounding entitled.

[SendohJin]

Except this is also a misnomer by the same logic used for Genderlock. We can either read that as 1 sexuality, or unisex, both do not describe the situation. The former for obvious reasons, and the latter as unisex describes being for both sexes, not limitation to a single sex.

unisexual is not unisex. unisexual has a very specific definition that means exactly what we are talking about.

If you want to argue the nuance here that since youve added "playable races" gives it context, then simply the same logic cna be applied to Genderlocked - Genderlocked Playable races; races that are playable but locked to one gender.

See how semantics over what were describing is stupid?

the devs are giving players a race to play with. "playable races" was not added to the phrase for context, "playable races" is where you start. "playable races" is the topic.

of course it's stupid if someone is purposely going to make it something it's not.

and there is no nuance about the word unisexual, it means exactly what the word means. but this statement "races that are playable but locked to one gender." why is locked the appropriate word at all? isn't limited the best word there?

[reivaxe]

Humor me then, what would you call it when a player race only has one available gender?

An all/ only Female or Male race.

the semantic problem is people who use this term incorrectly trivialize the solution.

the response is frequently "just unlock it", "unlock it already" when it really should be, "we want 2 complete races added this expansion instead of 2 halves". it sounds much more unreasonable to ask for two races to be added to one expansion.

it allows them to be entitled without sounding like it. it allows them to make what would normally be an unreasonable demand sound more reasonable.

maybe some people feel like we're owed two races since Stormblood didn't have one and that's probably a discussion worth having but we rarely if ever talk about it like that because semantics dictates that we just talk about unlocking what's been locked.

This really is the reason behind this and doesn't get enough focus.
Which is why I casually point this out when I come to these forums. It's alarmist in that it makes others think something being taken away from them and makes it seem that it can easily be fixed.

[Raiya]

I'd be honest the whole gender-lock fiasco was overblown but that being said SE should have been more straightforward from the beginning about the situation regarding their development as well as the situation going foward. Interviews after the fanfest basically confirmed that Hrothgar was initially meant to be the next race then when Return to Ivalice happened and they got Fran included as part of this it basically became choice between developing resources to create an entirely new race gender (female hrothgar) or integrate another into the game (viera F) that was getting development anyways, hence we got the Hrothgar Male's and the Viera Females. The best way going foward to preventing any further controversy is to basically for them to commit to eventually releasing the other gender at some point for each race. Part of the upside to this though is that by introducing 2 races even if it's one gender now it's alot easier later on than introducing them seperately.

One other thing as well is that because of the different head sizes for example the new race's are going to be initially unfinished a little on 6.0's release though this will be patched later on. On top of that whenever they get round to developing the other sex of both races it might not take as long as initial development resources for the 1st half of the race can potentially be used to develop the other half quicker later on.