Same, and it was one of the best characters I've ever played as. Mine was a changeling bladelock named Chance whose whole shtick was being completely changeable. Want to be a female wood elf archer? They'd turn into a wood elf, turn their pact weapon into a longbow, and throw on a cloak. If I felt like being a mage, throw on a robe, pull out a staff, turn into a wizard or sorcerer the character has seen before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Thank you, MidnightPlat. You make an excellent point about the difference between equality and equity.
Once again, because people keep deliberately misconstruing my point just to try and trigger me: I am not here to tell you that playing Boys is Wrong. That's an idiotic stance and I'm frustrated people keep ascribing it to me. What I'd be interested in is the data. DDB has, many times before, done charts on what percentage of players choose [X] species, or what percentage choose [X] class or subclass. That is interesting information and gives plenty of points of discussion.
I'd like to see similar data for the 'Gender' field in the character sheet. Now, because that field is form-fillable (good choice, DDB), a simple bar graph breakdown doesn't work. When I searched for the term "Keyword chart", it returned exactly the sort of table I think would be interesting to see. As an example:
THIS sort of chart, in which the number of times a given search term occurs within a data set determines its size/intensity in the resulting crossword, is something I think could be quite telling. As would the inclusion of the term "Nothing" for any result in which the field is left blank. I think there'd be some interesting talking points in that data, for DDB as well as for the playerbase.
I don't expect an exactly even split between genders. For one, a 50/50 split is disinclusive of many folks who find their home in between the ends of the spectrum and would be disingenuous and false. I am curious as to whether there's a significant disparity, for reasons of this shit interests me and I'd be curious as to why that disparity exists. There's reasons that disparity might exist - if it even does - beyond 'the game sucks at being inclusive'. As this is a Gender Equality thread rather than an Edition Wars thread, I felt it worthy of discussion.
So let's discuss, for the sheer sake of a good debate.
Not really, because then you'd be delving into the slippery slope territory of telling people what they can and can't find interesting or willing to play as.
Letting people have all the options is perfectly fine, there is enough opportunity for any character of any type of whatever to be created so whether or not people predominantly play as a gender or a race is not an issue because at that point we'd be saying preferences and personal choices that don't hurt anybody are problems.
It may be interesting data to see how many characters are female, but it would be equally interesting to see how many characters are tortles, halflings, gnomes, elves or dwarves for the exact same reasons.
Wow, another slippery slope argument. I haven't seen one of those in. . . in. . . about a week?
No, what the results would tell you is whether or not female characters are less common than male characters on D&D Beyond. Absolutely no one is going to force you to play a female character if that is outside the range of what you want to play.
Playing female characters should be encouraged if they are played less often than male characters. Encouraged. That's it. Because otherwise, you're okay with less female representation in the game than male ones.
What is the slippery slope is figuring that if there aren't enough people playing as women that that decision of so many people is problematic and something that needs to be fixed.
People can play whatever they want to play. D&D is, and always has been, about options and letting people be whatever they want to be.
I don't care if people want to play male or female, drow or orc, halfling or human. I do care if someone comes along and tells me that I'm a problem because I don't go along with a social theory of what is and is not problematic nor do I want to be encouraged to play differently. If someone encourages me to play as a female and I don't want to, they will just have to tolerate it and let it go. If they don't, that's the slippery slope territory.
So, you are saying that if more people play men than women, that is not a problem? I didn't use a slippery slope argument, I used logic. If there are less female characters than male characters by a large margin, that is inherently a problem.
Did I ever say that I was going to force anyone to play a certain character? Wait, let me answer that for you. No. No I did not ever say that. I said it should be encouraged in some way to play female characters, not mechanically or in an in-game way.
I didn't tell you that you were the problem, you keep putting words in my mouth. Also, stop accusing me of slippery slope arguments that I did not do after you literally just made a slippery slope argument, that's hypocrisy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I did find this earlier today, thanks for posting it. Though, I think Yurei is looking more for characters that identify as female, instead of players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Thank you, MidnightPlat. You make an excellent point about the difference between equality and equity.
Once again, because people keep deliberately misconstruing my point just to try and trigger me: I am not here to tell you that playing Boys is Wrong. That's an idiotic stance and I'm frustrated people keep ascribing it to me. What I'd be interested in is the data. DDB has, many times before, done charts on what percentage of players choose [X] species, or what percentage choose [X] class or subclass. That is interesting information and gives plenty of points of discussion.
I'd like to see similar data for the 'Gender' field in the character sheet. Now, because that field is form-fillable (good choice, DDB), a simple bar graph breakdown doesn't work. When I searched for the term "Keyword chart", it returned exactly the sort of table I think would be interesting to see. As an example:
THIS sort of chart, in which the number of times a given search term occurs within a data set determines its size/intensity in the resulting crossword, is something I think could be quite telling. As would the inclusion of the term "Nothing" for any result in which the field is left blank. I think there'd be some interesting talking points in that data, for DDB as well as for the playerbase.
I don't expect an exactly even split between genders. For one, a 50/50 split is disinclusive of many folks who find their home in between the ends of the spectrum and would be disingenuous and false. I am curious as to whether there's a significant disparity, for reasons of this shit interests me and I'd be curious as to why that disparity exists. There's reasons that disparity might exist - if it even does - beyond 'the game sucks at being inclusive'. As this is a Gender Equality thread rather than an Edition Wars thread, I felt it worthy of discussion.
So let's discuss, for the sheer sake of a good debate.
Good points Yurei, and like you (I am a studied data scientist so graphs really get me excited) I think seeing some form of cart to see what players are putting in the character field would be fun and interesting to discuss. However I think that is a separate data set than the break down of who is playing and if there is a issue of inclusivity. If that chart showed majority male, I mean let's face it it most likely is, I wouldn't look at that data without needing to also than look at the data of player gender as a correlator. Looking at simply what gender is put in the character field won't give us the data unless we sub-lay it over the data of player gender as well. Which I would love to see and compare!
But if we simply want to look at the issue of is D&D a inclusive game, we need to really look at the number of NPCs in official content and see if we have appropriate representation, and also need to look at the player base in general VS the player base of other RPGs. If say Pathfinder is more dominated by females, that would be a good indicator that D&D is seeing and issue of inclusivity it might not be, but it would indeed indiacte a possible issue. I don't buy the adventures or really look at the world lores (I home brew) so that would be the first place to look to see if representation is at a level that it needs to be at. Both of which data sets I would love to get my hand on. As someone who in general has always had more female friends than male, it is always harder for me to see if there are issues of male domination in a hobby. And use the word domination Vs majority, because that is the issue at heart. Something having majority of one gender is not a bad thing, however if that majority leads to toxicity towards the other genders and the want for those others to be excluded that is where we need to focus our energy and time in helping those disenfranchised genders reach a level of equity.
I did find this earlier today, thanks for posting it. Though, I think Yurei is looking more for characters that identify as female, instead of players.
doubt its much different, I would imagine an equal % on either side choose a different gender.
Saying that it shouldn't be inclusive is at its core saying that D&D is and should be more popular among males than females.
See there you go again, making up stuff that nobody said. Nobody said D&D shouldn't be inclusive. Any girl can pick up D&D and play with friends. She has 100% an equal opportunity to do that, the same as any boy. They both have equal opportunity to play D&D. There is nothing preventing, nothing discouraging girls from doing that. It is up to them.
Wow, I really love it when people cookie cut my post. Thanks! It really shows that you're great at making your point when you have to resort to taking people out of context. I will be a gentleman and do the opposite of what you did, address every single point of your post.
If you think D&D should be inclusive, why were you arguing that it's okay to have more male characters than female? That seems to be the exact opposite of inclusive, if I happen to know the definition of words. Additionally, previous editions did give an incentive to playing a male character over a female one and was not very great with properly depicting females (example; female monsters in previous editions), and so it's no wonder why it took so long for females to start coming to the game. Now, they can, and we should encourage the new surge of female characters, instead of saying that no problem exists.
If they find it a little childish and not very interesting, then that doesn't mean that they lost their equal opportunity.
Other than stereotypes or strange anecdotes, I don't know what would push you to believe that this is the reason for less people who identify as female playing D&D than males. No comment, but I'll refer you to my response above.
Will you drop the pharmacy analogy, already? I already responded to this in the previous post, go back and read it, please. Men have the equal opportunity to, but because of how our current society is structured, more females work in pharmacies than males. This is the same stupid excuse used by wage-gap deniers.
Last generations of women fought for the equal opportunity to vote, to go to university, to become doctors lawyers.
Your generation is like, well there is nothing left to fight for in the US and I don't care about asian countries, so lets try to find things that have more boys in the them so we can call foul, create an issue on twitter and try to feel relevant.
I don't know what's more offensive, the blatant bigotry against younger generations or your delusion that the world is so perfect right now that we have to imagine problems into existence for some hero complex (also, assuming we're racist against Asian countries). You don't know me. You don't know what the world is currently like if you think everything is perfect. Have you lived in this year? It's f*cking 2020. Go outside and tell me the world is perfect, and we're imagining problems.
(Also, besides the point, I don't even have a twitter account, and don't spend time on major social media platforms. Stop grouping me with everyone in my generation, please.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Thank you, MidnightPlat. You make an excellent point about the difference between equality and equity.
Once again, because people keep deliberately misconstruing my point just to try and trigger me: I am not here to tell you that playing Boys is Wrong. That's an idiotic stance and I'm frustrated people keep ascribing it to me. What I'd be interested in is the data. DDB has, many times before, done charts on what percentage of players choose [X] species, or what percentage choose [X] class or subclass. That is interesting information and gives plenty of points of discussion.
I'd like to see similar data for the 'Gender' field in the character sheet. Now, because that field is form-fillable (good choice, DDB), a simple bar graph breakdown doesn't work. When I searched for the term "Keyword chart", it returned exactly the sort of table I think would be interesting to see. As an example:
THIS sort of chart, in which the number of times a given search term occurs within a data set determines its size/intensity in the resulting crossword, is something I think could be quite telling. As would the inclusion of the term "Nothing" for any result in which the field is left blank. I think there'd be some interesting talking points in that data, for DDB as well as for the playerbase.
I don't expect an exactly even split between genders. For one, a 50/50 split is disinclusive of many folks who find their home in between the ends of the spectrum and would be disingenuous and false. I am curious as to whether there's a significant disparity, for reasons of this shit interests me and I'd be curious as to why that disparity exists. There's reasons that disparity might exist - if it even does - beyond 'the game sucks at being inclusive'. As this is a Gender Equality thread rather than an Edition Wars thread, I felt it worthy of discussion.
So let's discuss, for the sheer sake of a good debate.
Good points Yurei, and like you (I am a studied data scientist so graphs really get me excited) I think seeing some form of cart to see what players are putting in the character field would be fun and interesting to discuss. However I think that is a separate data set than the break down of who is playing and if there is a issue of inclusivity. If that chart showed majority male, I mean let's face it it most likely is, I wouldn't look at that data without needing to also than look at the data of player gender as a correlator. Looking at simply what gender is put in the character field won't give us the data unless we sub-lay it over the data of player gender as well. Which I would love to see and compare!
But if we simply want to look at the issue of is D&D a inclusive game, we need to really look at the number of NPCs in official content and see if we have appropriate representation, and also need to look at the player base in general VS the player base of other RPGs. If say Pathfinder is more dominated by females, that would be a good indicator that D&D is seeing and issue of inclusivity it might not be, but it would indeed indiacte a possible issue. I don't buy the adventures or really look at the world lores (I home brew) so that would be the first place to look to see if representation is at a level that it needs to be at. Both of which data sets I would love to get my hand on. As someone who in general has always had more female friends than male, it is always harder for me to see if there are issues of male domination in a hobby. And use the word domination Vs majority, because that is the issue at heart. Something having majority of one gender is not a bad thing, however if that majority leads to toxicity towards the other genders and the want for those others to be excluded that is where we need to focus our energy and time in helping those disenfranchised genders reach a level of equity.
Much more scientific and educated way to look at it.
Video games for example I would never defend, many are super toxic towards women.
Good find, Greg. Roughly 39% female actually seems about right as a general percentage, though I would've liked to see the data.
@Hollow: to be fair, other people were the ones telling me, and everyone else, that I was on a raging rant about inclusivity in the game. Heh, I am not. I just find the subject fascinating - as I've said half a dozen times by now - and would like to see what the data says. Seeing, via keyword chart, how much nonbinary and other unconventional alignments show up would be delightful simply as a data point.
Correlation between the character data and the player data would be even better, but that might well run into privacy issues. Given that DDB is a character hosting and digital book service, not an information provider, they've no obligation to share details about their customers like that and plenty of incentive against it. Much as it'd be interesting and informative to see those data sets, there'd definitely be room for privacy complaints if DDB publicized it.
The raw character data would definitely be interesting though, especially if a rough number of characters-per-player was given alongside it. I know I've got thirty-seven characters, of which twelve are male. That number honestly shocked me, I would've said maybe three of my characters were male before I went and counted, but to be fair, four of those twelve are different variations of the same character. Nevertheless, one player to thirty-seven characters defo skews the data set, and I know I'm not alone in having scads of characters. Knowing what the average character count per player is would also be helpful in drawing what conclusions there are to be drawn from the raw character data.
I'm not a data scientist, but I'll admit - this kind of thing fascinates me. Data is just knowledge that hasn't been cultivated yet, and knowledge, as they say, is power.
Nothing wrong with anything you said. I just wanted to as you said discuss the concept but also point out where the true data of "is there an inclusivity issue" will lie. I don't expect any of the data to be given (as you said due to privacy issues). But you did bring up a good point the % of gendered characters will be skewed by those that have dozens, so we'd also need to look at average character count and use that do directly link to a source like what Greg found.
I wasn't trying to accuse you of ranting about inclusivity (I know you mentioned this above but just want to confir I didn't mean anything if it seemed like I too was now coming at you), I just wanted to give my thoughts on the data that would really answer the threads topic of "Is D&D a gender inclusive game?"
It is as you say, data is untapped knowledge, but apply it wrong and the power it wields can be detrimental. That is why I love the idea of seeing how many characters are each gender, but also want the other data sets to really be able to look at the heart of the problem. For character genders is a consequence of the players, not a contributor to who plays. So that is all I wanted to add to the discussion. I wanted to give the "Where to we go with this data" so if we ever get it, we know it is not the final step, but the first step to this data set and the precursor to looking at the hypotheses you have.
Yep, absolutely. Knowing what one can and cannot draw from a given data set is something of an art. The raw character data doesn't speak to gender inclusivity of the players, but it might speak to how free players feel to choose wild, out-there options, or reveal gaps or disparities worth investigating. Assuming one knows what those gaps or disparities mean from just the character data sets is incorrect, but as long as one keeps in mind what the data doesn't say, more data is always more interesting than less.
I'm not upset at you, Hollow. Heh, you're one of the few people in the thread who decided to try and engage what I was saying properly. I appreciate it.
Not really, because then you'd be delving into the slippery slope territory of telling people what they can and can't find interesting or willing to play as.
Letting people have all the options is perfectly fine, there is enough opportunity for any character of any type of whatever to be created so whether or not people predominantly play as a gender or a race is not an issue because at that point we'd be saying preferences and personal choices that don't hurt anybody are problems.
It may be interesting data to see how many characters are female, but it would be equally interesting to see how many characters are tortles, halflings, gnomes, elves or dwarves for the exact same reasons.
Wow, another slippery slope argument. I haven't seen one of those in. . . in. . . about a week?
No, what the results would tell you is whether or not female characters are less common than male characters on D&D Beyond. Absolutely no one is going to force you to play a female character if that is outside the range of what you want to play.
Playing female characters should be encouraged if they are played less often than male characters. Encouraged. That's it. Because otherwise, you're okay with less female representation in the game than male ones.
What is the slippery slope is figuring that if there aren't enough people playing as women that that decision of so many people is problematic and something that needs to be fixed.
People can play whatever they want to play. D&D is, and always has been, about options and letting people be whatever they want to be.
I don't care if people want to play male or female, drow or orc, halfling or human. I do care if someone comes along and tells me that I'm a problem because I don't go along with a social theory of what is and is not problematic nor do I want to be encouraged to play differently. If someone encourages me to play as a female and I don't want to, they will just have to tolerate it and let it go. If they don't, that's the slippery slope territory.
So, you are saying that if more people play men than women, that is not a problem? I didn't use a slippery slope argument, I used logic. If there are less female characters than male characters by a large margin, that is inherently a problem.
Did I ever say that I was going to force anyone to play a certain character? Wait, let me answer that for you. No. No I did not ever say that. I said it should be encouraged in some way to play female characters, not mechanically or in an in-game way.
I didn't tell you that you were the problem, you keep putting words in my mouth. Also, stop accusing me of slippery slope arguments that I did not do after you literally just made a slippery slope argument, that's hypocrisy.
No, I'm saying having as many options is not a problem, letting people play what they want to play is not a problem. If it turns out there are more males than females, not a problem. If there are more females than males it is equally not a problem. If there are more tieflings than dwarves it's still not a problem. If there are more changelings (who can be whatever gender they want) than elves then it's not a problem.
The problem comes when someone looks at data and decides too many people are not acting in concert with that individual's personal view of how the world should be so they decide to impose their world-view and morals on other people.
I'm saying I don't care if a lot of people choose to play as another gender. I'm currently in a campaign where I'm the only person playing their own gender, and I'm having a great time with my party. I am also saying that if someone feels like encouraging me to play the characters they want me to play and not the characters I want to play is problematic, and if they decide to dictate what I can and cannot create for my characters then that is a serious problem.
Let people play what they want to play, have fun in our individual groups, and let the dice roll where they will, both in-game and what people make.
The issue, Rodney - and I say this not to pick a fight, but to try and explain - is that certain people have been hearing that it's "just biology" for their entire lives. Women are informed for their whole, entire life that they're not as physically powerful as men, and in many cases that information is used to discourage or dissuade women from pursuing any sort of physical activity, hobby, or career. Similarly, trans folk are often informed that gender is a simple two-option binary decision - 100% male or 100% female, and whichever physical sex you correspond to is the gender you are, period, no discussion, end of story. It's all Just Biology.
As you pointed out yourself, the fantasy worlds of tabletop roleplaying games are no place for that discouraging reality, and that is to the good. However, no one is telling us anything we haven't heard our entire lives when they inform us that certain physical attributes are 'Just Biology'. We know. Everybody knows. That doesn't mean folks aren't going to aspire to try and beat their biology, even if just in a fantasy story.
Insofar as it being "cool" or status-boosting to Claim Wokeness? In many cases I've seen, it's not a bad-faith argument for argument's sake, but an attempt to push back against pervasive, all-encompassing views of the world. Many people believe, openly and vocally, that ALL women are intrinsically weaker, smaller, frailer, and overall feebler than ALL men, outside of 'unnatural' outliers such as genetic giants or female bodybuilders - or, as stated, they believe that things such as transgenderism don't actually exist and it's all in the mind, due to 'Just Biology'. These views are destructive, dismissive, and genuinely hurtful, and some of us feel a need to combat them whenever we see them simply because the outspoken sorts among us are also speaking for the ones who're reading along, perhaps feeling hurt or dismissed, but who do not have the will or wherewithal to argue their own case.
This isn't necessarily intrinsic to D&D, which has taken the usual game programmer route of simplifying their game and garnering praise for being progressive by simply not bothering with any distinctions between gender, sexuality, or anything else in that space. But it's also kind of inevitable any time a discussion on gender arises, and as someone distinctly discontent with what 'Just Biology' insists I should be as a person, I do feel that need to defend a more progressive stance. Put it this way - when your biological sex indicates you are supposed to be a certain, specific kind of person and ONLY that kind of person, and you would rather skin yourself alive than be that kind of person...it can incite one to be unfortunately prone to making certain kinds of posts on Internet gaming threads about gender equality in a tabletop roleplaying game.
I'll never tell a male player he absolutely must play a female character. I'll never tell a female player the inverse. I will say that I encourage people to step outside themselves and experience life from another view, even if only once or twice. Try and really put themselves in a different set of shoes, as that's one of the joys of roleplaying. But it's not required, and this specific edition allows one more freedom to be what they wish to be than any previous edition. At least, insofar as core identity goes.
Not really, because then you'd be delving into the slippery slope territory of telling people what they can and can't find interesting or willing to play as.
Letting people have all the options is perfectly fine, there is enough opportunity for any character of any type of whatever to be created so whether or not people predominantly play as a gender or a race is not an issue because at that point we'd be saying preferences and personal choices that don't hurt anybody are problems.
It may be interesting data to see how many characters are female, but it would be equally interesting to see how many characters are tortles, halflings, gnomes, elves or dwarves for the exact same reasons.
Wow, another slippery slope argument. I haven't seen one of those in. . . in. . . about a week?
No, what the results would tell you is whether or not female characters are less common than male characters on D&D Beyond. Absolutely no one is going to force you to play a female character if that is outside the range of what you want to play.
Playing female characters should be encouraged if they are played less often than male characters. Encouraged. That's it. Because otherwise, you're okay with less female representation in the game than male ones.
What is the slippery slope is figuring that if there aren't enough people playing as women that that decision of so many people is problematic and something that needs to be fixed.
People can play whatever they want to play. D&D is, and always has been, about options and letting people be whatever they want to be.
I don't care if people want to play male or female, drow or orc, halfling or human. I do care if someone comes along and tells me that I'm a problem because I don't go along with a social theory of what is and is not problematic nor do I want to be encouraged to play differently. If someone encourages me to play as a female and I don't want to, they will just have to tolerate it and let it go. If they don't, that's the slippery slope territory.
So, you are saying that if more people play men than women, that is not a problem? I didn't use a slippery slope argument, I used logic. If there are less female characters than male characters by a large margin, that is inherently a problem.
Did I ever say that I was going to force anyone to play a certain character? Wait, let me answer that for you. No. No I did not ever say that. I said it should be encouraged in some way to play female characters, not mechanically or in an in-game way.
I didn't tell you that you were the problem, you keep putting words in my mouth. Also, stop accusing me of slippery slope arguments that I did not do after you literally just made a slippery slope argument, that's hypocrisy.
No, I'm saying having as many options is not a problem, letting people play what they want to play is not a problem. If it turns out there are more males than females, not a problem. If there are more females than males it is equally not a problem. If there are more tieflings than dwarves it's still not a problem. If there are more changelings (who can be whatever gender they want) than elves then it's not a problem.
The problem comes when someone looks at data and decides too many people are not acting in concert with that individual's personal view of how the world should be so they decide to impose their world-view and morals on other people.
I'm saying I don't care if a lot of people choose to play as another gender. I'm currently in a campaign where I'm the only person playing their own gender, and I'm having a great time with my party. I am also saying that if someone feels like encouraging me to play the characters they want me to play and not the characters I want to play is problematic, and if they decide to dictate what I can and cannot create for my characters then that is a serious problem.
Let people play what they want to play, have fun in our individual groups, and let the dice roll where they will, both in-game and what people make.
Did I ever express that I was going to force you to play something you didn't want to? Again, no. You keep putting words in my mouth. I agree that you should let people play what they want to play and how they want to play. I'm not trying to impose my "world view and morals" on anyone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
You seem to be under the impression I'm accusing you of something and putting words in your mouth. I am not. I am simply stating my position and leaving it open for everyone. If you feel like it's applied to you, then that is your interpretation, not my statement.
Take it as you will, I'm not accusing you of dictating how I play, merely stating that anyone encouraging people to play as women because they feel like women are under represented is a slippery slope because at that point whoever is choosing to do so is flirting with the line between acting on their belief and imposing their beliefs on others. If it's you, then it is nothing more than something to think about. If it's not you then there is nothing to make a big deal over.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just making an open statement about my position with the "you" being a broad generalization of anyone and everyone who would encourage people based on hypothetical data because they see it as problematic that not enough people are playing enough of one group or another group.
The other issue with the "Just Biology" argument is that it really isn't. It's based on an understanding of the physical differences between men and women that came from a society that encouraged men to be physically active and fit and women to be passive and pretty. Boys were expected to go outside and climb trees, wrestle, or play sports, while girls were expected to sit in the drawing room and sew. Anthropological studies of societies where everyone is expected to be physically active all the time and there's no gender divisions among labor have shown that there's far less difference in upper body strength between men and women.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The other issue with the "Just Biology" argument is that it really isn't. It's based on an understanding of the physical differences between men and women that came from a society that encouraged men to be physically active and fit and women to be passive and pretty. Boys were expected to go outside and climb trees, wrestle, or play sports, while girls were expected to sit in the drawing room and sew. Anthropological studies of societies where everyone is expected to be physically active all the time and there's no gender divisions among labor have shown that there's far less difference in upper body strength between men and women.
Except science has proven time and again that there are significant differences.
Muscle forces are a strong determinant of bone structure, particularly during the process of growth and development. The gender divergence in the bone-muscle relationship becomes strongly evident during adolescence. In females, growth is characterized by increased estrogen levels and increased mass and strength of bone relative to that of muscle, whereas in men, increases in testosterone fuel large increases in muscle, resulting in muscle forces that coincide with a large growth in bone dimensions and strength. In adulthood, significant age-related losses are observed for both bone and muscle tissues. Large decrease in estrogen levels in women appears to diminish the skeleton's responsiveness to exercise more than in men. In contrast, the aging of the muscle-bone axis in men is a function of age related declines in both hormones. In addition to the well-known age related changes in the mechanical loading of bone by muscle, newer studies appear to provide evidence of age- and gender-related variations in molecular signaling between bone and muscle that are independent of purely mechanical interactions. In summary, gender differences in the acquisition and age-related loss in bone and muscle tissues may be important for developing gender-specific strategies for using exercise to reduce bone loss with aging.
Biological differences between men and women contribute to many sex-specific illnesses and disorders. Historically, it was argued that such differences were largely, if not exclusively, due to gonadal hormone secretions. However, emerging research has shown that some differences are mediated by mechanisms other than the action of these hormone secretions and in particular by products of genes located on the X and Y chromosomes, which we refer to as direct genetic effects. This paper reviews the evidence for direct genetic effects in behavioral and brain sex differences. We highlight the `four core genotypes' model and sex differences in the midbrain dopaminergic system, specifically focusing on the role of Sry. We also discuss novel research being done on unique populations including people attracted to the same sex and people with a cross-gender identity. As science continues to advance our understanding of biological sex differences, a new field is emerging that is aimed at better addressing the needs of both sexes: gender-based biology and medicine. Ultimately, the study of the biological basis for sex differences will improve healthcare for both men and women.
There are always exceptions to the rules of course, but for the vast majority of the time, there are very key differences between men and women and ignoring those differences for the sake of some social theory is a recipe for disaster.
There's a difference between acknowledging medical facts and using those medical facts to attempt to force conformance with outdated, unhelpful, and in many cases actively harmful gender stereotypes. Lyran is correct - lifestyle is a far greater determinant of capability than biological gender, even after many thousands of years of humanity specifically attempting to breed any capacity for physical exertion and ability out of the female gender.
Have you ever noticed, as an aside, that the overwhelming majority of "Just Biology" arguments tend to come from male people? Many of whom, in discussions similar to this one that I've had elsewhere, go out of their way to stress that it's perfectly acceptable to be a woman and they have no problem with women. They simply want to acknowledge reality, and biology is reality.
The fact that people feel the need to make that defense - to point out that THEY don't have any issue with women - points to a pervasive skein of unconscious sexism in modern culture that sees the female human being as fundamentally ineffectual. Too weak and frail to look after herself without a strong, strapping male to protect and assist her.
Is it any wonder that ladies push back against that sort of thing?
Thank you. It's always a wonderful surprise when reason and accord come out of an online debate. I know there are certain biological limitations involved in any sort of War of the Sexes talk, but I'm also a firm believer in the idea that the human mind can defeat and overcome a far greater chunk of those limitations than many people think. Humanity does not NEED to be limited by base biology - through dedication and science we can break past more and more of those limitations every day.
And in our fantasy roleplaying space, absolutely nothing is preventing us from blowing those limitations down and exploring the reality many of us wish was true. Whether it's a slender, waifish gal living vicariously through her huge, muscle-drunk half-orc barbarian who can bench half an inn or a male physical laborer coming home to his shy, empathetic priestess of Sehanine, there's room for everyone to see through new eyes in this game.
And that's truly worth celebrating.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Same, and it was one of the best characters I've ever played as. Mine was a changeling bladelock named Chance whose whole shtick was being completely changeable. Want to be a female wood elf archer? They'd turn into a wood elf, turn their pact weapon into a longbow, and throw on a cloak. If I felt like being a mage, throw on a robe, pull out a staff, turn into a wizard or sorcerer the character has seen before.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Thank you, MidnightPlat. You make an excellent point about the difference between equality and equity.
Once again, because people keep deliberately misconstruing my point just to try and trigger me: I am not here to tell you that playing Boys is Wrong. That's an idiotic stance and I'm frustrated people keep ascribing it to me. What I'd be interested in is the data. DDB has, many times before, done charts on what percentage of players choose [X] species, or what percentage choose [X] class or subclass. That is interesting information and gives plenty of points of discussion.
I'd like to see similar data for the 'Gender' field in the character sheet. Now, because that field is form-fillable (good choice, DDB), a simple bar graph breakdown doesn't work. When I searched for the term "Keyword chart", it returned exactly the sort of table I think would be interesting to see. As an example:
THIS sort of chart, in which the number of times a given search term occurs within a data set determines its size/intensity in the resulting crossword, is something I think could be quite telling. As would the inclusion of the term "Nothing" for any result in which the field is left blank. I think there'd be some interesting talking points in that data, for DDB as well as for the playerbase.
I don't expect an exactly even split between genders. For one, a 50/50 split is disinclusive of many folks who find their home in between the ends of the spectrum and would be disingenuous and false. I am curious as to whether there's a significant disparity, for reasons of this shit interests me and I'd be curious as to why that disparity exists. There's reasons that disparity might exist - if it even does - beyond 'the game sucks at being inclusive'. As this is a Gender Equality thread rather than an Edition Wars thread, I felt it worthy of discussion.
So let's discuss, for the sheer sake of a good debate.
Please do not contact or message me.
https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-and-dragons-demographics-2020/
40 million players, 39% identify as female.
So, you are saying that if more people play men than women, that is not a problem? I didn't use a slippery slope argument, I used logic. If there are less female characters than male characters by a large margin, that is inherently a problem.
Did I ever say that I was going to force anyone to play a certain character? Wait, let me answer that for you. No. No I did not ever say that. I said it should be encouraged in some way to play female characters, not mechanically or in an in-game way.
I didn't tell you that you were the problem, you keep putting words in my mouth. Also, stop accusing me of slippery slope arguments that I did not do after you literally just made a slippery slope argument, that's hypocrisy.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I did find this earlier today, thanks for posting it. Though, I think Yurei is looking more for characters that identify as female, instead of players.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Good points Yurei, and like you (I am a studied data scientist so graphs really get me excited) I think seeing some form of cart to see what players are putting in the character field would be fun and interesting to discuss. However I think that is a separate data set than the break down of who is playing and if there is a issue of inclusivity. If that chart showed majority male, I mean let's face it it most likely is, I wouldn't look at that data without needing to also than look at the data of player gender as a correlator. Looking at simply what gender is put in the character field won't give us the data unless we sub-lay it over the data of player gender as well. Which I would love to see and compare!
But if we simply want to look at the issue of is D&D a inclusive game, we need to really look at the number of NPCs in official content and see if we have appropriate representation, and also need to look at the player base in general VS the player base of other RPGs. If say Pathfinder is more dominated by females, that would be a good indicator that D&D is seeing and issue of inclusivity it might not be, but it would indeed indiacte a possible issue. I don't buy the adventures or really look at the world lores (I home brew) so that would be the first place to look to see if representation is at a level that it needs to be at. Both of which data sets I would love to get my hand on. As someone who in general has always had more female friends than male, it is always harder for me to see if there are issues of male domination in a hobby. And use the word domination Vs majority, because that is the issue at heart. Something having majority of one gender is not a bad thing, however if that majority leads to toxicity towards the other genders and the want for those others to be excluded that is where we need to focus our energy and time in helping those disenfranchised genders reach a level of equity.
doubt its much different, I would imagine an equal % on either side choose a different gender.
Wow, I really love it when people cookie cut my post. Thanks! It really shows that you're great at making your point when you have to resort to taking people out of context. I will be a gentleman and do the opposite of what you did, address every single point of your post.
If you think D&D should be inclusive, why were you arguing that it's okay to have more male characters than female? That seems to be the exact opposite of inclusive, if I happen to know the definition of words. Additionally, previous editions did give an incentive to playing a male character over a female one and was not very great with properly depicting females (example; female monsters in previous editions), and so it's no wonder why it took so long for females to start coming to the game. Now, they can, and we should encourage the new surge of female characters, instead of saying that no problem exists.
Other than stereotypes or strange anecdotes, I don't know what would push you to believe that this is the reason for less people who identify as female playing D&D than males. No comment, but I'll refer you to my response above.
Will you drop the pharmacy analogy, already? I already responded to this in the previous post, go back and read it, please. Men have the equal opportunity to, but because of how our current society is structured, more females work in pharmacies than males. This is the same stupid excuse used by wage-gap deniers.
I don't know what's more offensive, the blatant bigotry against younger generations or your delusion that the world is so perfect right now that we have to imagine problems into existence for some hero complex (also, assuming we're racist against Asian countries). You don't know me. You don't know what the world is currently like if you think everything is perfect. Have you lived in this year? It's f*cking 2020. Go outside and tell me the world is perfect, and we're imagining problems.
(Also, besides the point, I don't even have a twitter account, and don't spend time on major social media platforms. Stop grouping me with everyone in my generation, please.)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Much more scientific and educated way to look at it.
Video games for example I would never defend, many are super toxic towards women.
Good find, Greg. Roughly 39% female actually seems about right as a general percentage, though I would've liked to see the data.
@Hollow: to be fair, other people were the ones telling me, and everyone else, that I was on a raging rant about inclusivity in the game. Heh, I am not. I just find the subject fascinating - as I've said half a dozen times by now - and would like to see what the data says. Seeing, via keyword chart, how much nonbinary and other unconventional alignments show up would be delightful simply as a data point.
Correlation between the character data and the player data would be even better, but that might well run into privacy issues. Given that DDB is a character hosting and digital book service, not an information provider, they've no obligation to share details about their customers like that and plenty of incentive against it. Much as it'd be interesting and informative to see those data sets, there'd definitely be room for privacy complaints if DDB publicized it.
The raw character data would definitely be interesting though, especially if a rough number of characters-per-player was given alongside it. I know I've got thirty-seven characters, of which twelve are male. That number honestly shocked me, I would've said maybe three of my characters were male before I went and counted, but to be fair, four of those twelve are different variations of the same character. Nevertheless, one player to thirty-seven characters defo skews the data set, and I know I'm not alone in having scads of characters. Knowing what the average character count per player is would also be helpful in drawing what conclusions there are to be drawn from the raw character data.
I'm not a data scientist, but I'll admit - this kind of thing fascinates me. Data is just knowledge that hasn't been cultivated yet, and knowledge, as they say, is power.
Please do not contact or message me.
Nothing wrong with anything you said. I just wanted to as you said discuss the concept but also point out where the true data of "is there an inclusivity issue" will lie. I don't expect any of the data to be given (as you said due to privacy issues). But you did bring up a good point the % of gendered characters will be skewed by those that have dozens, so we'd also need to look at average character count and use that do directly link to a source like what Greg found.
I wasn't trying to accuse you of ranting about inclusivity (I know you mentioned this above but just want to confir I didn't mean anything if it seemed like I too was now coming at you), I just wanted to give my thoughts on the data that would really answer the threads topic of "Is D&D a gender inclusive game?"
It is as you say, data is untapped knowledge, but apply it wrong and the power it wields can be detrimental. That is why I love the idea of seeing how many characters are each gender, but also want the other data sets to really be able to look at the heart of the problem. For character genders is a consequence of the players, not a contributor to who plays. So that is all I wanted to add to the discussion. I wanted to give the "Where to we go with this data" so if we ever get it, we know it is not the final step, but the first step to this data set and the precursor to looking at the hypotheses you have.
Yep, absolutely. Knowing what one can and cannot draw from a given data set is something of an art. The raw character data doesn't speak to gender inclusivity of the players, but it might speak to how free players feel to choose wild, out-there options, or reveal gaps or disparities worth investigating. Assuming one knows what those gaps or disparities mean from just the character data sets is incorrect, but as long as one keeps in mind what the data doesn't say, more data is always more interesting than less.
I'm not upset at you, Hollow. Heh, you're one of the few people in the thread who decided to try and engage what I was saying properly. I appreciate it.
Please do not contact or message me.
No, I'm saying having as many options is not a problem, letting people play what they want to play is not a problem. If it turns out there are more males than females, not a problem. If there are more females than males it is equally not a problem. If there are more tieflings than dwarves it's still not a problem. If there are more changelings (who can be whatever gender they want) than elves then it's not a problem.
The problem comes when someone looks at data and decides too many people are not acting in concert with that individual's personal view of how the world should be so they decide to impose their world-view and morals on other people.
I'm saying I don't care if a lot of people choose to play as another gender. I'm currently in a campaign where I'm the only person playing their own gender, and I'm having a great time with my party. I am also saying that if someone feels like encouraging me to play the characters they want me to play and not the characters I want to play is problematic, and if they decide to dictate what I can and cannot create for my characters then that is a serious problem.
Let people play what they want to play, have fun in our individual groups, and let the dice roll where they will, both in-game and what people make.
The issue, Rodney - and I say this not to pick a fight, but to try and explain - is that certain people have been hearing that it's "just biology" for their entire lives. Women are informed for their whole, entire life that they're not as physically powerful as men, and in many cases that information is used to discourage or dissuade women from pursuing any sort of physical activity, hobby, or career. Similarly, trans folk are often informed that gender is a simple two-option binary decision - 100% male or 100% female, and whichever physical sex you correspond to is the gender you are, period, no discussion, end of story. It's all Just Biology.
As you pointed out yourself, the fantasy worlds of tabletop roleplaying games are no place for that discouraging reality, and that is to the good. However, no one is telling us anything we haven't heard our entire lives when they inform us that certain physical attributes are 'Just Biology'. We know. Everybody knows. That doesn't mean folks aren't going to aspire to try and beat their biology, even if just in a fantasy story.
Insofar as it being "cool" or status-boosting to Claim Wokeness? In many cases I've seen, it's not a bad-faith argument for argument's sake, but an attempt to push back against pervasive, all-encompassing views of the world. Many people believe, openly and vocally, that ALL women are intrinsically weaker, smaller, frailer, and overall feebler than ALL men, outside of 'unnatural' outliers such as genetic giants or female bodybuilders - or, as stated, they believe that things such as transgenderism don't actually exist and it's all in the mind, due to 'Just Biology'. These views are destructive, dismissive, and genuinely hurtful, and some of us feel a need to combat them whenever we see them simply because the outspoken sorts among us are also speaking for the ones who're reading along, perhaps feeling hurt or dismissed, but who do not have the will or wherewithal to argue their own case.
This isn't necessarily intrinsic to D&D, which has taken the usual game programmer route of simplifying their game and garnering praise for being progressive by simply not bothering with any distinctions between gender, sexuality, or anything else in that space. But it's also kind of inevitable any time a discussion on gender arises, and as someone distinctly discontent with what 'Just Biology' insists I should be as a person, I do feel that need to defend a more progressive stance. Put it this way - when your biological sex indicates you are supposed to be a certain, specific kind of person and ONLY that kind of person, and you would rather skin yourself alive than be that kind of person...it can incite one to be unfortunately prone to making certain kinds of posts on Internet gaming threads about gender equality in a tabletop roleplaying game.
I'll never tell a male player he absolutely must play a female character. I'll never tell a female player the inverse. I will say that I encourage people to step outside themselves and experience life from another view, even if only once or twice. Try and really put themselves in a different set of shoes, as that's one of the joys of roleplaying. But it's not required, and this specific edition allows one more freedom to be what they wish to be than any previous edition. At least, insofar as core identity goes.
Please do not contact or message me.
Did I ever express that I was going to force you to play something you didn't want to? Again, no. You keep putting words in my mouth. I agree that you should let people play what they want to play and how they want to play. I'm not trying to impose my "world view and morals" on anyone.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
@ Third_Sundering.
You seem to be under the impression I'm accusing you of something and putting words in your mouth. I am not. I am simply stating my position and leaving it open for everyone. If you feel like it's applied to you, then that is your interpretation, not my statement.
Take it as you will, I'm not accusing you of dictating how I play, merely stating that anyone encouraging people to play as women because they feel like women are under represented is a slippery slope because at that point whoever is choosing to do so is flirting with the line between acting on their belief and imposing their beliefs on others. If it's you, then it is nothing more than something to think about. If it's not you then there is nothing to make a big deal over.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just making an open statement about my position with the "you" being a broad generalization of anyone and everyone who would encourage people based on hypothetical data because they see it as problematic that not enough people are playing enough of one group or another group.
The other issue with the "Just Biology" argument is that it really isn't. It's based on an understanding of the physical differences between men and women that came from a society that encouraged men to be physically active and fit and women to be passive and pretty. Boys were expected to go outside and climb trees, wrestle, or play sports, while girls were expected to sit in the drawing room and sew. Anthropological studies of societies where everyone is expected to be physically active all the time and there's no gender divisions among labor have shown that there's far less difference in upper body strength between men and women.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Except science has proven time and again that there are significant differences.
Bone density, upper body strength, hormone distribution in the brain and body, and other key physical differences. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/
There are always exceptions to the rules of course, but for the vast majority of the time, there are very key differences between men and women and ignoring those differences for the sake of some social theory is a recipe for disaster.
Just to note, Dragonlord.
There's a difference between acknowledging medical facts and using those medical facts to attempt to force conformance with outdated, unhelpful, and in many cases actively harmful gender stereotypes. Lyran is correct - lifestyle is a far greater determinant of capability than biological gender, even after many thousands of years of humanity specifically attempting to breed any capacity for physical exertion and ability out of the female gender.
Have you ever noticed, as an aside, that the overwhelming majority of "Just Biology" arguments tend to come from male people? Many of whom, in discussions similar to this one that I've had elsewhere, go out of their way to stress that it's perfectly acceptable to be a woman and they have no problem with women. They simply want to acknowledge reality, and biology is reality.
The fact that people feel the need to make that defense - to point out that THEY don't have any issue with women - points to a pervasive skein of unconscious sexism in modern culture that sees the female human being as fundamentally ineffectual. Too weak and frail to look after herself without a strong, strapping male to protect and assist her.
Is it any wonder that ladies push back against that sort of thing?
Please do not contact or message me.
@Rodney
Thank you. It's always a wonderful surprise when reason and accord come out of an online debate. I know there are certain biological limitations involved in any sort of War of the Sexes talk, but I'm also a firm believer in the idea that the human mind can defeat and overcome a far greater chunk of those limitations than many people think. Humanity does not NEED to be limited by base biology - through dedication and science we can break past more and more of those limitations every day.
And in our fantasy roleplaying space, absolutely nothing is preventing us from blowing those limitations down and exploring the reality many of us wish was true. Whether it's a slender, waifish gal living vicariously through her huge, muscle-drunk half-orc barbarian who can bench half an inn or a male physical laborer coming home to his shy, empathetic priestess of Sehanine, there's room for everyone to see through new eyes in this game.
And that's truly worth celebrating.
Please do not contact or message me.