I'm okay retiring race as a term, but can we get a replacement term other than species?

Quote from SciWizo >>

So there is much disinformation in the thread and topic.

The Scientific definition, no politics; A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

Questions that at some level need to be answered;

Does the game or my game need fertile gene flow between species? Why?

Other terms proposed still do not answer the genetics question...are all the choices essentially human or not?

The issue; I want Half-whatevers. Keeping that above definition strict, I cannot have Half-whatevers. (not everything is human)

Now I want Half-whatevers, I need to know more about genetics. (maybe not everything is human)

I can get fertile Half-whatevers if the species are Ring Species or through Hybridisation (gene flow between populations)(not misspelled) -- (this means roughly everything is human but close to a speciation event)

This means I need to consider what is going on in my game world, are the populations at the start of speciation? are they ring species (essentially separated by geography and miss classified)? 

I don't mean to kick more discussion off, I just wanted to bring up what the term is and when using it what it actually means.

 You can also just say magic or gods allow it.

Quote from SciWizo >>

The Scientific definition, no politics; A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

That's only one of the definitions of species; the non-scientific definition of the word just means "a kind or sort", and it's synonyms with several of the other that are candidates for replacement of "race".

How many times does it have to be explained that there are multiple definitions for a word, and that the scientific definition isn't the one that's being used here? I get not wanting to read 32 pages of a thread, but you could have at least searched for key words or looked at a page or two.

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from SciWizo >>

The Scientific definition, no politics; A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

That's only one of the definitions of species; the non-scientific definition of the word just means "a kind or sort", and it's synonyms with several of the other that are candidates for replacement of "race".

How many times does it have to be explained that there are multiple definitions for a word, and that the scientific definition isn't the one that's being used here? I get not wanting to read 32 pages of a thread, but you could have at least searched for key words or looked at a page or two.

 That's not even the only scientific definition. That's the middle school scientific definition. Once you start studying evolutionary biology seriously it gets a lot fuzzier and more complicated.

It seems to be a pretty common phenomenon in many different fields that any time someone talks about "the scientific definition, no politics" of a thing, they mean the definition they learned in grade school and not the definition actual scientists in the field use.

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from SciWizo >>

The Scientific definition, no politics; A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

That's only one of the definitions of species; the non-scientific definition of the word just means "a kind or sort", and it's synonyms with several of the other that are candidates for replacement of "race".

How many times does it have to be explained that there are multiple definitions for a word, and that the scientific definition isn't the one that's being used here? I get not wanting to read 32 pages of a thread, but you could have at least searched for key words or looked at a page or two.

Or you could recognize that the term is clearly problematic and that very obviously a different term should be used. Aka Ancestry. It isn't problematic in the same way species is. Lacks this type of baggage.

This thread and others like it are what happens when you try to hamfist the wrong term onto something.

Race was never the right term either, but it was tradition at some point. Replacing one wrong word for a newer more wrong word isn't fixing anything. At least replace it with a appropriate term.

Quote from SagaTympana >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from SciWizo >>

The Scientific definition, no politics; A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

That's only one of the definitions of species; the non-scientific definition of the word just means "a kind or sort", and it's synonyms with several of the other that are candidates for replacement of "race".

How many times does it have to be explained that there are multiple definitions for a word, and that the scientific definition isn't the one that's being used here? I get not wanting to read 32 pages of a thread, but you could have at least searched for key words or looked at a page or two.

 That's not even the only scientific definition. That's the middle school scientific definition. Once you start studying evolutionary biology seriously it gets a lot fuzzier and more complicated.

It seems to be a pretty common phenomenon in many different fields that any time someone talks about "the scientific definition, no politics" of a thing, they mean the definition they learned in grade school and not the definition actual scientists in the field use.

The rate of successful interbreeding between humans and elves, or with humans and orcs, is so high, and so common, that no definitions of species really fit. They don't seem to have any issues whatsoever. They're prolific, even.

Species is a scientific term, and it carries with it that baggage. People of all educations are exposed to this term. They will bring all levels of scientific literacy with them.

So unless you're trying to exclude people who aren't educated enough to your particular liking, then trying to force this term into the game like this isn't the move.

Easier to go with a term that lacks this issue.

I like the bland and technically correct (since it has no very few assumptions about meaning) 'subtype' mentioned in one of the 1D&D surveys.

Quote from Ravnodaus >>

Quote from SagaTympana >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from SciWizo >>

The Scientific definition, no politics; A biological species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring.

That's only one of the definitions of species; the non-scientific definition of the word just means "a kind or sort", and it's synonyms with several of the other that are candidates for replacement of "race".

How many times does it have to be explained that there are multiple definitions for a word, and that the scientific definition isn't the one that's being used here? I get not wanting to read 32 pages of a thread, but you could have at least searched for key words or looked at a page or two.

 That's not even the only scientific definition. That's the middle school scientific definition. Once you start studying evolutionary biology seriously it gets a lot fuzzier and more complicated.

It seems to be a pretty common phenomenon in many different fields that any time someone talks about "the scientific definition, no politics" of a thing, they mean the definition they learned in grade school and not the definition actual scientists in the field use.

The rate of successful interbreeding between humans and elves, or with humans and orcs, is so high, and so common, that no definitions of species really fit. They don't seem to have any issues whatsoever. They're prolific, even.

Species is a scientific term, and it carries with it that baggage. People of all educations are exposed to this term. They will bring all levels of scientific literacy with them.

So unless you're trying to exclude people who aren't educated enough to your particular liking, then trying to force this term into the game like this isn't the move.

Easier to go with a term that lacks this issue.

 Just a small point. You call species a scientific term, which it is.  Properly they should be divided into Genus > Species.  i.e  

Genus: Elf

Species: Wood, High, Sea, etc.

To me at least Species is still fine, but it is the incorrect use of it in the case of DND 

Taxonomic rank has been around since the 1700's 

Quote from Pantagruel666>>

I like the bland and technically correct (since it has no very few assumptions about meaning) 'subtype' mentioned in one of the 1D&D surveys.

Yeah it really is bland, but it gets the job done. It'd be a fine replacement for 'race'.

If Species doesn't work, then I really like Folk, though it may no longer be in the running.

Quote from BoringBard >>

If Species doesn't work, then I really like Folk, though it may no longer be in the running.

 I think Folk is an excellent option it fits the Fantasy vibe much more than species which sounds more SciFi..

Quote from Torchy_FF >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

If Species doesn't work, then I really like Folk, though it may no longer be in the running.

 I think Folk is an excellent option it fits the Fantasy vibe much more than species which sounds more SciFi..

To be honest, while I like Folk, species doesn't feel very Sci-Fi to me. I mean, it comes from what? The 1500s or so?

The term is more medieval than the word "rapier", it's just lasted longer.

Quote from BoringBard >>

Quote from Torchy_FF >>

Quote from BoringBard >>

If Species doesn't work, then I really like Folk, though it may no longer be in the running.

 I think Folk is an excellent option it fits the Fantasy vibe much more than species which sounds more SciFi..

To be honest, while I like Folk, species doesn't feel very Sci-Fi to me. I mean, it comes from what? The 1500s or so?

The term is more medieval than the word "rapier", it's just lasted longer.

The Sci in Sci-fi is short for Science. And the term Species is a term used in... well, Science. So  science fiction is likely to use the term.

"Science" likes to use latin words, because latin is a "dead" language. That's all.

I'll keep using Race.
As it is a descriptive term which fits the bill.
I fail to see the need to cancel it's use.
And it works better than "Them. From There".
As it relates to Humanity, we're all one Race.
In the larger context of multiple species....we aren't.

Quote from Tex_Arcana >>

I fail to see the need to cancel it's use.

 To start, there is nothing wrong with a table continuing to use the term, provided they are using it out of habit rather than to intentionally dog whistle. 

But I did want to take a moment and let you know why there is a need for Wizards to change the phrase, even if that same reason does not apply to your individual table.

Wizards has effectively acknowledge that their game has a history of racially-motivated elements that are a holdover from the game’s earlier days.  With Wizards acknowledging that parts of their game were created by outspoken racists, Wizards sees the need to change the language insofar as that language became racially charged by the bigotry of those who chose to use those words.

This change is really just about “hey, sorry that our game took a fairly regular fantasy word and used it in a racist way. We’re going to take a mulligan and start afresh with a word that doesn’t have the stains of our own past.”

Trying to distance yourself not from a word per se, but from the hatred your own product installed into that word’s usage within the product itself is a pretty valid reason to make a change.

So regarding the use of species and half-whatevers, I should point out that we don’t know for absolute certain that D&D world reproduction occurs by gamete cells undergoing meiosis. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Quote from Fifinger >>

So regarding the use of species and half-whatevers, I should point out that we don’t know for absolute certain that D&D world reproduction occurs by gamete cells undergoing meiosis. Just wanted to throw that out there.

It almost certainly doesn't, a fair amount of evolution in the D&D setting appears to be Lamarkian.

Any universe/setting in which a multi-ton flying destruction-breathing reptillian exists can successfuly produce offspring with a three-foot mammalian humanoid (halfling Dragonblood sorcerers) is a universe/setting in which the IRL "scientific" definition of the word 'Species' holds no meaning.

Y'all know what species means.  Quit trying to hide behind false science.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

I like the bland and technically correct (since it has no very few assumptions about meaning) 'subtype' mentioned in one of the 1D&D surveys.

Agreed, this is the one I voted for as well.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Tex_Arcana >>

I fail to see the need to cancel it's use.

 To start, there is nothing wrong with a table continuing to use the term, provided they are using it out of habit rather than to intentionally dog whistle. 

But I did want to take a moment and let you know why there is a need for Wizards to change the phrase, even if that same reason does not apply to your individual table.

Wizards has effectively acknowledge that their game has a history of racially-motivated elements that are a holdover from the game’s earlier days.  With Wizards acknowledging that parts of their game were created by outspoken racists, Wizards sees the need to change the language insofar as that language became racially charged by the bigotry of those who chose to use those words.

This change is really just about “hey, sorry that our game took a fairly regular fantasy word and used it in a racist way. We’re going to take a mulligan and start afresh with a word that doesn’t have the stains of our own past.”

Trying to distance yourself not from a word per se, but from the hatred your own product installed into that word’s usage within the product itself is a pretty valid reason to make a change.

I'd agree if they were using a better replacement. 

But the promlematic stuff was when people used the various fantasy races as analogs for real world peoples and did the ol wink wink nudge nudge while creating a space to play out their screwed up stereotypes.

But, here's the issue. Does it make it more, or less problematic when you are now referring to these analogs as entirely different species from one another.

To me that is worlds worse. Because we're now back to some old timey 18th century racism where we're calling different people different species. That's leagues worse.