If the produced offspring is fertile, then the animals are of the same species, and if the produced offspring is sterile, then they are of different species. Because of this, both horses and donkeys are considered separate species. A species is generally defined as a group of organisms which are capable of interbreeding and creating viable offspring.
So Half Elves and Half Orcs are sterile? The only race that had this correct was Mul from Athas.
Fantasy humans aren't Earth humans. Some people get darkvision, some get wings, and humans get the ability to reproduce with nearly everything. Humans developed all these stories and the tropes they've formed because a high degree of sexual expression is one of the traits that defines humanity as a species. Bonobos and rabbits may be close, but nothing else on Earth is nearly as xenophilic as a human. Rule 34 and all that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
I'll admit that I probably just ignored these instances but that is my point. I don't dispute that they have used the term species before; instead I assert that they should not have. It's going to be impossible to ignore the word moving forward and my concern is that it's presence will foster discussions about evolution in a fantasy world. I don't want to have those conversations.
Why? I believe strongly in evolution. It's the truth in real life. Religious people want to fight with me about it and I judge them in a very harsh way. That said, I've played D&D with people who I now know do not believe in evolution and because the issue never came up, I actually enjoyed their company while blisfully immersed in this world of magic.
I've had the evolution debate too many times and it just isn't something I consider recreational.
I was a kid into D&D in the '80s. I don't take evolution-denialists seriously as thinkers, but I have to take that religious gtoup's disproportionate influence on US culture seriously. A moral panic, like the 'satanic panic' of my childhood, is a fearmongering tactic. Fear makes people want to retreat into the past and close their minds to diversity, which becomes increasingly dangerous for anyone outside of the narrowing 'normal'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism?
It's been pointed out. The major problem with that argument is that it's straight up wrong -- biological essentialist arguments have never shied away from using the term 'race'.
The only valid argument I've seen against species is "I just don't like the way it sounds."
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism? Unlike race, species is actually real. It's maybe a tad more technically accurate than race, most of the time, but I do not see how it contributes in any way to solving the problem it's intended to solve, which is that "race" encourages, or at least facilitates, narrative themes that are harmful to people of color. I don't really personally have much issue with the word "race" even, in this context, but most of this thread has been arguing about biology, which makes me feel like the people who want orcs to all be evil are now gonna feel scientifically justified to be extremely gross about things. "Look, orcs are just a completely different species!" isn't something I want anyone saying at any table I'm playing at.
I've mentioned the issue a few times, after all my own ancestors were murdered by 1930s & 1940s Germans for being of another species. It was so bad my Grand Father renounced his faith when he moved to Scotland in the 1940s.
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism?
It's been pointed out. The major problem with that argument is that it's straight up wrong -- biological essentialist arguments have never shied away from using the term 'race'.
That doesn't really demonstrate that the argument is wrong at all.
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism?
It's been pointed out. The major problem with that argument is that it's straight up wrong -- biological essentialist arguments have never shied away from using the term 'race'.
That doesn't really demonstrate that the argument is wrong at all.
The claim 'even worse than' would require either that the use of species in bioessentialist arguments was worse than the use of the word race (it was basically identical), or that the use of species was more common (it was and is much less common). The reality is, bioessentialist arguments have go back pretty much forever, and using 'species' instead of 'race' was a fairly short lived fad within that long history.
(Apologies to anybody I've upset here. Some of my previous messages were a little, uh, rude. Gonna try and do better.)
Yurei said more or less what I was trying to say, in #382. Here's my version, for closure or whatever:
You'll get over it. I really think, all the criticisms I've heard about species so far, people are gonna get over it. Because it's small potatoes, and the trade-off is worth it. Even if you, like me, don't really have any ethnic diversity in your play group, and you, unlike me, don't feel weird about anything in the game as it is, so you don't think this change will do anything positive for you; but you think it'll do something negative for you in the form of [immersion/accuracy/inciting theological debates/etc], so it's a net loss for you, I think you're going to get over it. And not in a, "well I have to get over it because it's not like I can travel back in time and fix it" kind of way, but in a, "I haven't thought about it at all, I guess it didn't matter" kind of way.
Is that projection on my part? Do I only say it because I myself don't think it's a big deal even now? Yeah, probably. Maybe? I don't know. I mean, I've been that person before, nitpicking some change or other, only to discover I don't actually care. So yeah, probably projection. Still, it's what I think. Sometimes being aware of the reason you're thinking something doesn't stop you from thinking it.
It's dangerously cold out, where I am. I hope everybody's safe.
At the end of the day, race was a pretty bad word to use. Species is better, even if not perfect or ideal. However, I've yet to hear a word that would be better in the context of the game. I'd love a better word, but all the ones suggested either already have an in-game use, or aren't specific enough to the intent that we have.
I'm curious as to what adjective they'll use. That was about the only redeeming feature of the word "race"; we could easily adapt it to be an adjective (ie "racial"). I guess we'll see.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Has no one pointed out that species is even worse than race for justifying oppressive hierarchies with biological essentialism?
It's been pointed out. The major problem with that argument is that it's straight up wrong -- biological essentialist arguments have never shied away from using the term 'race'.
That doesn't really demonstrate that the argument is wrong at all.
The claim 'even worse than' would require either that the use of species in bioessentialist arguments was worse than the use of the word race (it was basically identical), or that the use of species was more common (it was and is much less common). The reality is, bioessentialist arguments have go back pretty much forever, and using 'species' instead of 'race' was a fairly short lived fad within that long history.
You seem to have misread my post. I'm saying that using the word "species" gives shitty people more legitimate-sounding ammunition for their bullshit. The historic prevalence of one word or the other has no bearing on anything I'm saying.
Then your problem isn't with the specific word, but with the actual mechanic itself. There's never going to be an agreement, because they want a more neutral s re, whereas you want a word that highlights the racism. The only solution, realistically, is to remove the current of having mechanics tied with your species/race/whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Then your problem isn't with the specific word, but with the actual mechanic itself. There's never going to be an agreement, because they want a more neutral s re, whereas you want a word that highlights the racism. The only solution, realistically, is to remove the current of having mechanics tied with your species/race/whatever.
Well that’s certainly not true. I may find it pretentious, but “ancestry” doesn’t have the baggage that both race and species do, and there are plenty of other words besides. I’m only pointing out that the word “species” does not seem to solve the problem I had thought it was trying to, and no one has yet articulated any way that it does. Maybe I’m wrong and the goal of the change wasn’t to be less offensive to people of color (a good and worthy goal), but in that case I guess I just don’t understand the need to change the word at all.
Ancestry doesn't have the same baggage for you. It does elsewhere, and where I'm from, it's worse, much worse. Species has purely scientific connotations (and judging from the many, many comments on this thread, that's true for a lot of people and seems to be predominant), whereas ancestry, her at least, is a dog whistle for racism. A rather broken one where even the racists avoid using it because it's too obvious.
Out of the 350+ posts on this thread, the vast majority of posts either side seem to think that the word "species" has significantly less baggage than "race", with only two posters saying that they're the same (even if the two sides disagree on whether the move is a positive one or not).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ancestry doesn't have the same baggage for you. It does elsewhere, and where I'm from, it's worse, much worse. Species has purely scientific connotations (and judging from the many, many comments on this thread, that's true for a lot of people and seems to be predominant), whereas ancestry, her at least, is a dog whistle for racism. A rather broken one where even the racists avoid using it because it's too obvious.
Out of the 350+ posts on this thread, the vast majority of posts either side seem to think that the word "species" has significantly less baggage than "race", with only two posters saying that they're the same (even if the two sides disagree on whether the move is a positive one or not).
I'm going to echo this, where I'm from ancestry and heritage come very close to race in terms to harmful baggage and usage. Species on the other hand doesn't come anywhere close to any of the three. Heritage and ancestry not only intersect with racism in my part of the world, but also general xenophobia and classism. I would much rather see species used than those terms.
Species has purely scientific connotations (and judging from the many, many comments on this thread, that's true for a lot of people and seems to be predominant), whereas ancestry, her at least, is a dog whistle for racism. A rather broken one where even the racists avoid using it because it's too obvious.
“Purely” is patently false, but as I originally stated, the scientific connotations are why it’s worse. It lends legitimacy to the racist bullshit. “The word the majority of the affected people prefer and which is increasingly standard in the industry is also bad” doesn’t explain how “species” solves the problem.
Out of the 350+ posts on this thread, the vast majority of posts either side seem to think that the word "species" has significantly less baggage than "race", with only two posters saying that they're the same (even if the two sides disagree on whether the move is a positive one or not).
Have you even read this thread? The vast majority of posts are arguing about biological definitions. If that doesn’t demonstrate the extremely obvious problems, I dunno what does.
If anyone sincerely believes that species is any less racist than race, I can only assume they don’t really have to deal with racism much in their day-to-day lives.
There I was thinking that it was going to link to a poll, or something, rather than just a Tweet discussion. I'm not wading through all of that hunting for what you're hoping I might pick up on.
Species has purely scientific connotations (and judging from the many, many comments on this thread, that's true for a lot of people and seems to be predominant), whereas ancestry, her at least, is a dog whistle for racism. A rather broken one where even the racists avoid using it because it's too obvious.
“Purely” is patently false
Thanks for removing the explicatory context for using the word "purely" then calling it patently false.
but as I originally stated, the scientific connotations are why it’s worse. It lends legitimacy to the racist bullshit.
You're welcome to your opinion.
“The word the majority of the affected people prefer and which is increasingly standard in the industry is also bad” doesn’t explain how “species” solves the problem.
You've not shown this.
Out of the 350+ posts on this thread, the vast majority of posts either side seem to think that the word "species" has significantly less baggage than "race", with only two posters saying that they're the same (even if the two sides disagree on whether the move is a positive one or not).
Have you even read this thread? The vast majority of posts are arguing about biological definitions. If that doesn’t demonstrate the extremely obvious problems, I dunno what does.
Yes, I've read it all. If you think that people using an obviously poor definition for a word to argue it's the wrong word to use, then ancestry isn't a good substitute.
If anyone sincerely believes that species is any less racist than race, I can only assume they don’t really have to deal with racism much in their day-to-day lives.
So...the racism and bigotry that I, and others, have faced, observed and experienced is lesser than yours because what we''ve experienced is different to yours?
You know what, I'm done. I'm not even going to bother coming back to this thread, and I think it's obvious why.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There I was thinking that it was going to link to a poll, or something, rather than just a Tweet discussion. I'm not wading through all of that hunting for what you're hoping I might pick up on.
It's a video link to a longer-form discussion. It's pretty interesting and does a better job of explaining the conversation than I'm capable of doing.
Thanks for removing the explicatory context for using the word "purely" then calling it patently false.
I didn't remove any context? Not sure what you're getting at here.
You've not shown this.
It's not really my job to show that you haven't shown something. You've said "Well I don't have a problem with species." That's great for you, but doesn't solve the problem.
Yes, I've read it all. If you think that people using an obviously poor definition for a word to argue it's the wrong word to use, then ancestry isn't a good substitute.
I'm not saying ancestry is a good substitute. I'm saying "species" is ****in' racist.
So...the racism and bigotry that I, and others, have faced, observed and experienced is lesser than yours because what we''ve experienced is different to yours?
You know what, I'm done. I'm not even going to bother coming back to this thread, and I think it's obvious why.
What the hell, dude? That's nowhere near anything I've said. You're the one arguing that "species is fine" over the objections of the people who've been injured by it.
Welp, seems like it isn't long until this thread's locked. I don't understand why we can't just use kin, kind, kindred, lineage, or similar but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
One thing of note: in the latest survey they have a question about word preference that has two alternatives and they ask you about your reasoning for ranking things in the order you did. So for those that prefer something other than species, you now have an opportunity to give that feedback officially.
One thing of note: in the latest survey they have a question about word preference that has two alternatives and they ask you about your reasoning for ranking things in the order you did. So for those that prefer something other than species, you now have an opportunity to give that feedback officially.
The alternative options are:
- Species
- Subtype, with your “type” being your creature type (humanoid, ooze, etc.)
- Kind
Of these, I would rank species the highest - for reasons already discussed. Followed by Subtype, followed by Kind.
Subtype is a bit sterile and modern for my taste, starting to appear in English in the 1800s as a word, but type is a fairly old word and already has usage within D&D, so this isn’t the most egregious application of modernity. My biggest issue with type is how sterile it is - like with creature type, the word “type” does not really have any close connection to a classification of organisms, so you need to add the qualifier Creature at the front. That’s fine, but two-word solutions are hardly the most elegant of options.
Kind has a lot going for it - it linguistically makes sense and dates back to Old English, so it invokes an archaic feel. But I have a huge problem with the word - it has multiple inapplicable definitions (such as meaning “friendly”). A word that adds an unnecessary additional linguistic hurdle of figuring out the proper definition from multiple (something that most English speakers might do instantly, but could prove a bit awkward for non-native speakers) hardly seems like the best option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fantasy humans aren't Earth humans. Some people get darkvision, some get wings, and humans get the ability to reproduce with nearly everything. Humans developed all these stories and the tropes they've formed because a high degree of sexual expression is one of the traits that defines humanity as a species. Bonobos and rabbits may be close, but nothing else on Earth is nearly as xenophilic as a human. Rule 34 and all that.
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
Backgrounds • Feats • Magic Items • Monsters •
Ancestries• Spells •SubclassesI was a kid into D&D in the '80s. I don't take evolution-denialists seriously as thinkers, but I have to take that religious gtoup's disproportionate influence on US culture seriously. A moral panic, like the 'satanic panic' of my childhood, is a fearmongering tactic. Fear makes people want to retreat into the past and close their minds to diversity, which becomes increasingly dangerous for anyone outside of the narrowing 'normal'.
"There might yet be a heaven, but it isn't going to be 'perfect', and we're going to have to build it ourselves." - Philhellenes, Science Saved My Soul
Backgrounds • Feats • Magic Items • Monsters •
Ancestries• Spells •SubclassesIt's been pointed out. The major problem with that argument is that it's straight up wrong -- biological essentialist arguments have never shied away from using the term 'race'.
I've mentioned the issue a few times, after all my own ancestors were murdered by 1930s & 1940s Germans for being of another species. It was so bad my Grand Father renounced his faith when he moved to Scotland in the 1940s.
That doesn't really demonstrate that the argument is wrong at all.
The claim 'even worse than' would require either that the use of species in bioessentialist arguments was worse than the use of the word race (it was basically identical), or that the use of species was more common (it was and is much less common). The reality is, bioessentialist arguments have go back pretty much forever, and using 'species' instead of 'race' was a fairly short lived fad within that long history.
(Apologies to anybody I've upset here. Some of my previous messages were a little, uh, rude. Gonna try and do better.)
Yurei said more or less what I was trying to say, in #382. Here's my version, for closure or whatever:
You'll get over it. I really think, all the criticisms I've heard about species so far, people are gonna get over it. Because it's small potatoes, and the trade-off is worth it. Even if you, like me, don't really have any ethnic diversity in your play group, and you, unlike me, don't feel weird about anything in the game as it is, so you don't think this change will do anything positive for you; but you think it'll do something negative for you in the form of [immersion/accuracy/inciting theological debates/etc], so it's a net loss for you, I think you're going to get over it. And not in a, "well I have to get over it because it's not like I can travel back in time and fix it" kind of way, but in a, "I haven't thought about it at all, I guess it didn't matter" kind of way.
Is that projection on my part? Do I only say it because I myself don't think it's a big deal even now? Yeah, probably. Maybe? I don't know. I mean, I've been that person before, nitpicking some change or other, only to discover I don't actually care. So yeah, probably projection. Still, it's what I think. Sometimes being aware of the reason you're thinking something doesn't stop you from thinking it.
It's dangerously cold out, where I am. I hope everybody's safe.
At the end of the day, race was a pretty bad word to use. Species is better, even if not perfect or ideal. However, I've yet to hear a word that would be better in the context of the game. I'd love a better word, but all the ones suggested either already have an in-game use, or aren't specific enough to the intent that we have.
I'm curious as to what adjective they'll use. That was about the only redeeming feature of the word "race"; we could easily adapt it to be an adjective (ie "racial"). I guess we'll see.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
You seem to have misread my post. I'm saying that using the word "species" gives shitty people more legitimate-sounding ammunition for their bullshit. The historic prevalence of one word or the other has no bearing on anything I'm saying.
Then your problem isn't with the specific word, but with the actual mechanic itself. There's never going to be an agreement, because they want a more neutral s re, whereas you want a word that highlights the racism. The only solution, realistically, is to remove the current of having mechanics tied with your species/race/whatever.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well that’s certainly not true. I may find it pretentious, but “ancestry” doesn’t have the baggage that both race and species do, and there are plenty of other words besides. I’m only pointing out that the word “species” does not seem to solve the problem I had thought it was trying to, and no one has yet articulated any way that it does. Maybe I’m wrong and the goal of the change wasn’t to be less offensive to people of color (a good and worthy goal), but in that case I guess I just don’t understand the need to change the word at all.
It bears repeating, yet again.
Ancestry, lineage, kin, kindred, or folk. There. Problem solved.
[REDACTED]
Ancestry doesn't have the same baggage for you. It does elsewhere, and where I'm from, it's worse, much worse. Species has purely scientific connotations (and judging from the many, many comments on this thread, that's true for a lot of people and seems to be predominant), whereas ancestry, her at least, is a dog whistle for racism. A rather broken one where even the racists avoid using it because it's too obvious.
Out of the 350+ posts on this thread, the vast majority of posts either side seem to think that the word "species" has significantly less baggage than "race", with only two posters saying that they're the same (even if the two sides disagree on whether the move is a positive one or not).
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I'm going to echo this, where I'm from ancestry and heritage come very close to race in terms to harmful baggage and usage. Species on the other hand doesn't come anywhere close to any of the three. Heritage and ancestry not only intersect with racism in my part of the world, but also general xenophobia and classism. I would much rather see species used than those terms.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
And yet it seems to be what most actual PoC would prefer.
“Purely” is patently false, but as I originally stated, the scientific connotations are why it’s worse. It lends legitimacy to the racist bullshit. “The word the majority of the affected people prefer and which is increasingly standard in the industry is also bad” doesn’t explain how “species” solves the problem.
Have you even read this thread? The vast majority of posts are arguing about biological definitions. If that doesn’t demonstrate the extremely obvious problems, I dunno what does.
If anyone sincerely believes that species is any less racist than race, I can only assume they don’t really have to deal with racism much in their day-to-day lives.
There I was thinking that it was going to link to a poll, or something, rather than just a Tweet discussion. I'm not wading through all of that hunting for what you're hoping I might pick up on.
Thanks for removing the explicatory context for using the word "purely" then calling it patently false.
You're welcome to your opinion.
You've not shown this.
Yes, I've read it all. If you think that people using an obviously poor definition for a word to argue it's the wrong word to use, then ancestry isn't a good substitute.
So...the racism and bigotry that I, and others, have faced, observed and experienced is lesser than yours because what we''ve experienced is different to yours?
You know what, I'm done. I'm not even going to bother coming back to this thread, and I think it's obvious why.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's a video link to a longer-form discussion. It's pretty interesting and does a better job of explaining the conversation than I'm capable of doing.
I didn't remove any context? Not sure what you're getting at here.
It's not really my job to show that you haven't shown something. You've said "Well I don't have a problem with species." That's great for you, but doesn't solve the problem.
What the hell, dude? That's nowhere near anything I've said. You're the one arguing that "species is fine" over the objections of the people who've been injured by it.
Welp, seems like it isn't long until this thread's locked. I don't understand why we can't just use kin, kind, kindred, lineage, or similar but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[REDACTED]
One thing of note: in the latest survey they have a question about word preference that has two alternatives and they ask you about your reasoning for ranking things in the order you did. So for those that prefer something other than species, you now have an opportunity to give that feedback officially.
The alternative options are:
- Species
- Subtype, with your “type” being your creature type (humanoid, ooze, etc.)
- Kind
Of these, I would rank species the highest - for reasons already discussed. Followed by Subtype, followed by Kind.
Subtype is a bit sterile and modern for my taste, starting to appear in English in the 1800s as a word, but type is a fairly old word and already has usage within D&D, so this isn’t the most egregious application of modernity. My biggest issue with type is how sterile it is - like with creature type, the word “type” does not really have any close connection to a classification of organisms, so you need to add the qualifier Creature at the front. That’s fine, but two-word solutions are hardly the most elegant of options.
Kind has a lot going for it - it linguistically makes sense and dates back to Old English, so it invokes an archaic feel. But I have a huge problem with the word - it has multiple inapplicable definitions (such as meaning “friendly”). A word that adds an unnecessary additional linguistic hurdle of figuring out the proper definition from multiple (something that most English speakers might do instantly, but could prove a bit awkward for non-native speakers) hardly seems like the best option.