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

[ScarboroughFairy]

-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.

-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.

-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.

-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.

[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.

[Doozer]

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.

[Ceallach]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Gwenorai]

-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

[ScarboroughFairy]

Ten entire characters.

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.

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?

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.

[ScarboroughFairy]

Another ten entire characters.

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.

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.

-snip-

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

-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.

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.

[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.

[Ceallach]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[ScarboroughFairy]

-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.