Mike Mearls, Bigots, Homosexuality, Transgender, All-female Art Team, etc

[AteTheHeckUp]

...What exactly is [Mearls] saying, here? That people who do not accept/endorse homosexuality (homosexuals are 2-3% of the population in North America) are bigots? Really?

Pretty much--and it's true, by definition.

[nightwind1]

I was reading the following article:

http://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/

wherein, Mike Mearls states:

MM: Any social change takes time. My personal sense is that I’ve always been much more leery about offending gay and transgender folks by fumbling the issue in an effort to include them. I’m not worried about offending bigots – quite the opposite, in fact. The value lies simply in acknowledgement, and realizing that it’s better to put something out there than remain quiet out of a misplaced bout of sensitivity. (emphasis mine)

What exactly is he saying, here? That people who do not accept/endorse homosexuality (homosexuals are 2-3% of the population in North America) are bigots? Really?

Of course, really. Why, do you think it's okay to be bigoted against GLBTetc.?

[jhkim]

Transgenderism causes problems that do not arise with homosexuality. My son has been around lesbian Rugby players since he was four years old, "Zoe likes Chloe" is no problem. The stuff in Wrath of the Righteous - well, by the time I had edited it and removed the magical sex change etc (etc etc - several columns of text) it became a regular Xena/Gabrielle style lesbian relationship. Before that, it was weird - weirder than real-world transgenderism can be - and didn't make sense to me (the half-orc Paladin bio reads weirdly like somebody's slash fiction fanfic idea of a pre-existing celebrity character - and she's the 'normal' one), never mind to a 7 year old.

OK, I haven't read Wrath of the Righteous, but I have transgender friends - and I think there is zero problem with them being around children. I consider the idea pretty flatly offensive.

There may be a problem with the module - that I don't know about - but there is not a problem with transgenderism in general.

(From the reference to slash fanfic, I presume that the issue was sexual suggestiveness in the characters?  I'd agree that can be a problem with children, but it's hardly exclusive to transgender characters.)

[snooggums]

Socially constructed notions of sexual orientation certainly do change over time, as do social attitudes, so yes it certainly might well seem dated, one way or another. For instance the SJWs were complaining that the text "man trapped in a woman's body" was archaic and offensive etc. In 20 years that text might seem like a hate crime - possibly a hate crime against a sexuality that doesn't even 'socially' exist yet - or it might seem mundane, or it might seem like a transgressive relic of the naughty early-21st century. Etc etc.

Haha, no, that is ridiculous hyperbole.

At most, people may stop complaining that they have to be exposed to things that don't fit their worldview, just like the people that don't support interracial marriage or women being in positions of power being mocked when they express those views in public.

[Herr Arnulfe]

Ah, but if you got rid of the fundamentally adolescent male power/growth fantasy, would it still be D&D?

Good point, maybe it's less about attracting more women to D&D and more about improving public perception of the hobby.

[Iosue]

Ah, but if you got rid of the fundamentally adolescent male power/growth fantasy, would it still be D&D?

Adolescent females have power/growth fantasies, too.  Perhaps more so.

[Skywalker]

Adolescent females have power/growth fantasies, too.  Perhaps more so.

And most of the time they are the same, regardless of gender.

[jeff37923]

Yes, it's anyone who can't mind their own fucking business. What other people do in their bedrooms has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else. If you don't like it, don't do it.

So beastiality is OK with you as long as it is kept in the bedroom.

I didn't know you were so kinky....

No, bigot still means someone who is intolerant of others and refuses to accept them.

I'm intolerant of the Westboro Baptist Church and refuse to accept them, I must be a bigot! Shame! Goddamn me to Hell!

[Alzrius]

In general, I think that organized boycotts are legitimate expression of opinion.

I disagree - an organized boycott is an attempt to put up a barrier between a particular thing and the people who want to patronize that thing. At that point, it's not a simple case of people expressing their opinion anymore; they're now trying to present an obstacle to those who have a different opinion and want to partake in something.

If I call for a boycott, the only barrier I'm putting up is the persuasiveness of my argument. For example, if a bunch of GamerGaters wanted to boycott certain gaming journals for their stance, I think that is reasonable.

If a group of people independently decided they wanted to boycott some particular website or publication, that's one thing. Attempting to work together to choke off patronage (which is funding) for that website is something else again. That's not withholding their participation purely due to their dislike for something, but an attempt to undercut that thing's ability to succeed in the marketplace of ideas.

In other words, the argument you're making is "Here's why I want you to help me undercut this thing's ability to exist, regardless of what everyone else wants." I don't think that's reasonable.

If what you're boycotting is a single person rather than a group or company, it is hard to avoid it seeming personal. However, it is still possible - and the same principles should apply whether you are boycotting 1, 2, or 500 people. For example, various people have called for a boycott of author Orson Scott Card for his anti-homosexual stance and activism. I think that's fine, too.

I'm not sure the question of whether it's personal or not is very relevant, here. It's your decision what to patronize or not patronize, so of course it's personal. That's different from attempting to manipulate public access to something so as to punish the people with whom you don't agree. It's a form of indirect attack.

Really, I don't think there's much difference in principle between publicly saying "This writer is shitty" - and saying "People shouldn't buy this writer's work."  Both of them can adversely affect a writer's livelihood.

Except these are two different things. One is an expression of personal opinion, the other is a statement that ascribes morality (that's what the "shouldn't" means) to not patronizing someone else's work - that's an attempt to change minds, rather than simply expressing yours.

[rawma]

I disagree - an organized boycott is an attempt to put up a barrier between a particular thing and the people who want to patronize that thing. At that point, it's not a simple case of people expressing their opinion anymore; they're now trying to present an obstacle to those who have a different opinion and want to partake in something.

...that's an attempt to change minds, rather than simply expressing yours.

And advertising for a competitor (an attempt to change minds) would also be wrong?  The boycott described was pretty clearly one of persuading people that they shouldn't patronize whatever is being boycotted; preventing people from getting something they still want despite your efforts at persuasion would be a different thing indeed.

[Zak S]

What exactly is he saying, here? That people who do not accept/endorse homosexuality (homosexuals are 2-3% of the population in North America) are bigots? Really?

Yeah. That's what that word means.

If you don't accept homosexuality you're a bigot.

Mike Mearls said that because it's true.

[jhkim]

I disagree - an organized boycott is an attempt to put up a barrier between a particular thing and the people who want to patronize that thing. At that point, it's not a simple case of people expressing their opinion anymore; they're now trying to present an obstacle to those who have a different opinion and want to partake in something.

Except these are two different things. One is an expression of personal opinion, the other is a statement that ascribes morality (that's what the "shouldn't" means) to not patronizing someone else's work - that's an attempt to change minds, rather than simply expressing yours.

Are you really saying that it is wrong to try to change someone else's mind?

I consider that to be a moral positive. People should communicate and convince each other of what is good, tell people about what they think is wrong, and try to resolve their differences.

And yeah, I'm trying to say what people should do. If you think that's wrong, I'd be glad to talk more about it, and I'd love to hear why you think it's wrong. :-)

[Alzrius]

And advertising for a competitor (an attempt to change minds) would also be wrong?

Saying that your competing product is better is a positive statement (e.g. why your thing is good); saying that someone else's product doesn't deserve to exist is a negative statement (e.g. why that thing is bad). The two are not the same thing.

Likewise, changing minds isn't wrong (and you'll notice that I never said that it was; I was making a distinction between personal expression and pushing your morals onto someone else) - trying to convince people that something shouldn't be allowed to exist just because you don't happen to like it is something else again.

The boycott described was pretty clearly one of persuading people that they shouldn't patronize whatever is being boycotted; preventing people from getting something they still want despite your efforts at persuasion would be a different thing indeed.

Organizing a boycott is an attempt to place a barrier (made of people) between a thing and the people who want to patronize it anyway. Your focus isn't on discussing the faults of a thing, but on the action you and others can take to diminish its chances of being able to sustain itself.

Telling people what they should or should not do (in other words, making "you" statements, rather than "I" statements) is another way of pushing your morality on them. I see that as being different than trying to change minds; one is presenting your own ideas and behaviors and letting them speak for themselves - the other is talking about someone else's behaviors and ideas and why they need to change to what you think is better.

Are you really saying that it is wrong to try to change someone else's mind

See above. Telling people why your idea is good is one thing; telling people why what they're doing is bad isn't the same thing.

I consider that to be a moral positive. People should communicate and convince each other of what is good, tell people about what they think is wrong, and try to resolve their differences.

You're describing several different things here. Insofar as "people should communicate," that's an overbroad statement that lumps all forms of communication in together, from praise to death threats. "Convince each other of what is good," doesn't account for making positive arguments versus negative arguments, "telling people about what they think is wrong" likewise doesn't take into account the manner of how you're doing that - if I take time out of my day to lecture you on how you're living your life wrong, is that really a moral positive?

Finally, nothing about an organized boycott is an attempt to resolve differences. It's an attempt to choke something off until it withers and dies.

And yeah, I'm trying to say what people should do. If you think that's wrong, I'd be glad to talk more about it, and I'd love to hear why you think it's wrong. :-)

You just made my argument for me. It's not up to you to say what people should or should not do. You have your opinions, but they're no more or less valid than anyone else's, and so you have no right to try and say that anyone else should live by your set of values.

[Herr Arnulfe]

Adolescent females have power/growth fantasies, too.  Perhaps more so.

I'd actually be really curious to see what D&D would look like if it was written by an all-female design team.

[1989]

Yeah. That's what that word means.

If you don't accept homosexuality you're a bigot.

Mike Mearls said that because it's true.

Just to throw some religion into the mix:

I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church endorses homosexuality, either, calling the acts "intrinsically disordered". Are they all bigots, too?