Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Indie dev skips PAX citing Penny Arcade artist's comments

Indie dev skips PAX citing Penny Arcade artist's comments

Fri 21 Jun 2013 9:29pm GMT / 5:29pm EDT / 2:29pm PDT
EventsPeople

Gone Home dev The Fullbright Company pulls out of fan convention citing objections to webcomic creators' actions

The PAX Prime convention is held in Seattle Washington, just a few hours' drive from The Fullbright Company's Portland, Oregon studio. Despite the proximity, and despite the developer having secured a booth at the event to show off its upcoming debut Gone Home, Fullbright will not be attending.

In a post on the company's blog today, co-founder Steve Gaynor said the company was withdrawing from its expected participation in the PAX Prime Indie Megabooth showcase. Gaynor said that the studio's four full-time employees no longer felt comfortable appearing at the show in light of recent comments made online by Penny Arcade artist Mike Krahulik.

In a series of tweets, Krahulik suggested that gender was determined solely by physical characteristics, saying, "If thinking that all women have a vagina makes me a monster, then yes, I am a monster," a remark seen as dismissive to the transgendered community. He also told people who use the word "cis" that they shouldn't tweet at him, telling one person, "If you use the word 'cis' I probably will hate you too."

Gaynor said the remarks were just the latest in a number of actions by Krahulik and Penny Acade writer Jerry Holkins that made them rethink their participation in PAX Prime. Among the others were the use of a rape joke in one of their comics (and their unapologetic response to outcry over it), a Kickstarter campaign they ran where people who contributed $7,500 or more were brought on as an intern for a day, and a scheduled PAX Australia panel with the following text in the description: "Any titillation gets called out as sexist or misogynistic, and involve any antagonist race aside from Anglo-Saxon and you're called a racist. It's gone too far and when will it all end?" (The panel description text has since been changed.)

"We believe that people's opinions and actions on social issues and business ethics are important," Gaynor said. "We believe that agreeing to pay the organizers of PAX over $1,000 for booth space, and to present our game on their show floor for four days, provides explicit support for and tacit approval of their publicly demonstrated positions on these subjects. And we have finally come to the conclusion that we cannot support Jerry, Mike, and their organization by participating in this event."

The developers took a vote, and when none of them felt comfortable presenting their game at PAX Prime, the decision was made to withdraw.

"We are a four-person team," Gaynor said. "Two of us are women and one of us is gay. Gone Home deals in part with LGBT issues. This stuff is important to us, on a lot of different levels. And Penny Arcade is not an entity that we feel welcomed by or comfortable operating alongside."

Krahulik addressed the uproar over his tweets in a post on Penny Arcade today. He didn't mention The Fullbright Company specifically, but he did say he didn't want to be the reason people didn't go to PAX Prime, or support Penny Arcade projects like the Child's Play charity.

"I'm very sorry about yesterday," Krahulik said. "There are very few things that someone can say to me that will actually make me lose my temper. All my buttons got pushed yesterday though and I snapped. I doubt that will change anyone's opinion but there you go. I'm not qualified to talk about the ambiguity of sexuality and frankly I don't give a shit about it. I like drawing comics and playing video games. I'll keep my mouth shut when it comes to all the other stuff."

40 Comments

Jade Law Senior concept artist, Reloaded Productions

72 291 4.0
Popular Comment
He's entitled to his opinion as is anyone.
Fair enough if the team are so angered over it they dont want to support Mike's business with their own but its really nobodies business to tell him how he should think about anything.

On a side note i probably hate everyone who uses the term "cis" too. Its always used in a negative context towards cis-males. Who have nothing to be sorry for being so. Its a broad term that applies to a group of people that have no control over the fact that they were born a certain way and arguably have nothing else in common as a group.

rabble rabble

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Jade Law on 22nd June 2013 2:44am

Posted:A year ago

#1

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
Popular Comment
Well, clearly they got the publicity they wanted, mission accomplished.

Posted:A year ago

#2

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

925 1,566 1.7
Popular Comment
I actually removed this earlier as I'm fed up with moaning about shit. But let me paraphrase what I read.

"We care so much about 'LGBT issues' that we run for the shadows the moment anyone says "boo" and then we try to milk the press for some coverage based on this piss poor spineless manoeuvering."

I wonder if Brendan Sinclair found this out or was mailshotted...

Posted:A year ago

#3

Robin Clarke Producer, AppyNation Ltd

331 784 2.4
Good for Fullbright for standing up for something they feel strongly about.

Posted:A year ago

#4

Russell Watson Senior Designer, Born Ready Games

86 34 0.4
I say good for Fullbright also, I was a fan of PA for a long time until I noticed a pattern in their views that I disagreed with.

Posted:A year ago

#5

Mark Jessup Creative Director, TinkerHouse Games

4 9 2.3
This was a PR play. Pick a fight with the biggest person in the room and get a rep. They wanted the street cred for being the studio that champions LGBT issues and they took their shot. Oversensitive and/or overly opportunistic are what's mostly operating here. Solely in my opinion, of course.

Posted:A year ago

#6

Jelle Schut Managing Director, Only Network

13 4 0.3
I don't really get people saying they did it for the press. They posted it on their website, the press picked it up. There's no evidence that they reached out to the press to get this publicised. For anyone argueing that the post was mere PR-bait, that's just ignorant. Looking at the initial comments on their site (even before the story broke in the press) they obviously have a lot of people that are interested in the game and not showing up at PAX is something you should explain. Whether you think the PAX guy is entitled to an opinion or not and whether you think they are right in pulling from PAX, or that we overreact to these kind of LGBT-related things, suggesting it was just for press is ignorant. There is nothings that proves it was done for the sake of coverage as some people here suggest.

Posted:A year ago

#7

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
I don't really get people saying they did it for the press. They posted it on their website, the press picked it up.
Yes, because if there's one thing journalist never do, it's journalism. Wait, I meant that to sound sarcastic, but in the video game industry that hits a little too close. Anyways, point is, if a story like this is left out in public, even in a fairly obscure location, it will reach at least one news site, and then all the other news sites will copy it so that the original site doesn't have a "scoop". Even the most idiot PR guy would know that, so it's unreasonable to believe that they would not expect this sort of thing to go viral. If they wanted it to just be a private decision on their part, they would have just quietly canceled their booth, not make a post about how it was because they didn't like the tone of a web cartoonist's twitter feed. If they felt any need to explain, they could have just cited "personal reasons" or something.

Really though there's nothing to this situation that would justify pulling the booth in the first place, so the only reasonable explanation to it is that it's the sort of thing that would give an unknown studio more publicity than any actual "good game" ever would.

Posted:A year ago

#8

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
This whole set of comments (Jade's aside) is such utterly typical, "I'm a straight white male of European descent and I have no idea that this makes me privileged or why others who are not would be complaining" tripe. You may not want to admit it to yourselves or others, with your "I'm really not sexist/genderist/whatever" claims, but you guys are the problem because you have no ability to appreciate your advantages or that others might not be in your position.

Posted:A year ago

#9

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
Nobody made any comments about anybody based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. I don't know what you're talking about.

Posted:A year ago

#10

Sergio Rosa "Somewhat-Creative Director", Domaginarium

65 40 0.6
"This was a PR play. Pick a fight with the biggest person in the room and get a rep. They wanted the street cred for being the studio that champions LGBT issues and they took their shot. Oversensitive and/or overly opportunistic are what's mostly operating here. Solely in my opinion, of course. "

These were my thoughts exactly...

Posted:A year ago

#11

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

925 1,566 1.7
@Curt. No you are the problem. Your standard diatribe about "privilege" sounds like you cut and pasted it from a website. You do not know the personal details of anyone here and you're just whining and generalising about others whining and generalising.

Except we're not whining and generalising, we have some pretty open evidence to interpret here. And it is you putting words into others' mouths. And just to finish, nobody is picking on these guys because they're gay/lesbian/whatever. Personally, I'm picking on them because they claim one thing and do another and act in a thoroughly spineless manner whilst trying to present themselves as being bullying victims to the press.

If fullbright want to "champion" gay rights, gay people better pick some better champions because this lot are shite. If I were gay, I'd be distancing myself from this debacle as much as possible. And ftr, I too think all women have vaginas. If anyone thinks I'm a monster for saying that, I really don't give a toss.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 25th June 2013 8:28am

Posted:A year ago

#12

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,613 1,476 0.9
I think it's quite... shallow to say "This was a PR play", and that's that. It might've got them positive-PR with some, but there'll have been others who have no doubt sided with Mike in all this, and for those people - and the people they talk to - the PR for Gone Home/Fullbright will be negative. There's also an assumption that all this PR is somehow better than showing a game at PAX, which I doubt if only for the reason that rather than people focussing on the game, there's just talk of gender issues.

@ Tim
Really though there's nothing to this situation that would justify pulling the booth in the first place,
http://i.imgur.com/bzVI5Di.png

I think Trans people have every reason to be upset by that comment. Considering Fullbright consists of 4 developers, 2 of whom are women, and 1 of whom is gay, I would guess the gender awareness of the company is pretty high. So, whilst you may think "there's nothing to this situation", I don't think it's asking a lot to realise that some people may feel differently. And what's the first thing people say when there's "serious talk"? Put your money where your mouth is.

@ Paul
If fullbright want to "champion" gay rights, gay people better pick some better champions because this lot are shite
This whole thing is about Trans awareness, not specifically "gay rights". Just sayin'.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 25th June 2013 8:24am

Posted:A year ago

#13

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

925 1,566 1.7
@Morville, you're missing the point here. And it's not about any sort of awareness.

Speaking for myself, what got me rattled was not their decision. If they don't feel comfortable going to an event then fine, don't go. (Even though the reason cited was pathetic, and I've even checked this with some gay acquaintances, so I could say I did, and they all agreed with me.)

No, this has turned bad because they're bascially putting themselves on a pedestal and claiming "we champion gay rights" and then not just don't champion, but run for mommy the moment a bad man shows up. I'm sure the gay community do not want that sort of representation, nor for their sexuality to be used as some kind of excuse to get air time.

EDIT: Just to address your skype pic, I'm sorry but I agree fully with it. That there are about, what 0.0000001%?, who are exceptions to this statement does not make it unreasonable. In fact hounding people for stuff like this embarrasses me. Do we cancel mothers day next because twenty million people will have just lost their mothers on any given year?

Seriously, if we're having to drill down to a level where "women have vaginas" is cause for throwing your toys out of the pram and running to the press about such heinous behaviour, stop instead to consider what a perfect world we all must live in and rejoice.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 25th June 2013 8:46am

Posted:A year ago

#14

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,613 1,476 0.9
Mmmm... Yeah, I see your point. But I approach this differently. To me, they're just doing on a larger scale what savvy consumers do all the time - they don't want their money going to a company where one of the figureheads is against something they believe in, so they're making a stand. Yes, this stand has PR connotations - because it's not a man-on-the-street, but a developer, and they've issued a press release - but the basics are still the same. "No I don't agree with insert-company-here's stand on X-Y-Z, so I am not going to give them money". I don't see them as "championing" or running away from anything.

Posted:A year ago

#15

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

925 1,566 1.7
They claim to be championing in their piece. Their game is basically this, unless I misunderstood. So under that banner, this isn't as innocent as it looks. They put this on the table, and when it went bad they ran.

I'm not proposing to champion any cause in my next title, so if I have a fight with someone, Curt for example, it's not got my cause bolted to it and we're then free to squabble. But once you nail your colours to a mast, you better hold it up in the air and be proud else people will mock you.

Posted:A year ago

#16

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,613 1,476 0.9
They claim to be championing in their piece.
I do not see anything like that in the release. The word "Champion" does not occur. The closest(?) I can find is
We believe that people’s opinions and actions on social issues and business ethics are important.
And I do not regard that as "championing" anything, but rather a statement of their personal and professional philosophy.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Morville O'Driscoll on 25th June 2013 9:14am

Posted:A year ago

#17

Adam Campbell Associate Producer, Miniclip Ltd

1,200 1,017 0.8
Vote with your feet.

Posted:A year ago

#18

Nick McCrea Gentleman, Pocket Starship

214 437 2.0
"I'm a straight white male of European descent and I have no idea that this makes me privileged or why others who are not would be complaining"

Yes, because all privilege is derived from maleness or whiteness. What utterly reductive nonsense.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Nick McCrea on 25th June 2013 9:48am

Posted:A year ago

#19

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
Popular Comment
I think Trans people have every reason to be upset by that comment.
No, they don't. It's a statement of fact. Look up "women" in pretty much any research source and you'll find that it involves female body parts, that's pretty much the core of the definition, like "water is H2O" or "igneous rock comes from a volcano." If someone who does not possess those parts chooses to consider himself a woman, that's her business, but she cannot reasonably impose that view on others. That is not asking for tolerance, that is asking for belief. It's not equivalent to saying "I am a Jew and you are a Christian, so please accept that we believe different things," it is instead equivalent to saying "I am a Jew and you are a Christian, so you have to accept that Christ was not the messiah because that is what I believe, and you are an anti-Semite if you do not agree with me on that."

I have every respect for people who have different beliefs, and if someone else believes that they are of a gender different than what they came built with, then that's fine by me. I will accept them as human beings and treat them as human beings, fully deserving of any rights I would uphold for any non-trans person, but that doesn't have to include believing things that simply are not true. People can choose to get upset over any number of reasons, but not every reason people get upset about something is justifiable. You can't reasonably get upset with people for believing things that are factually true, merely because you personally reject those facts.

Gabe never claimed anything subjectively negative about trans persons, he only claimed things that were objectively true. There is no reasonable basis that making such points of fact should result in "monstering" him. They can be upset about it. They can make a personal choice that they choose not to associate with him over it, fair enough, people make such choices over any number of reasons, but there was no reason to "take a stand" on the issue, to make it a public showdown.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tim Ogul on 25th June 2013 9:55am

Posted:A year ago

#20

Robin Clarke Producer, AppyNation Ltd

331 784 2.4
It's funny how the comments criticising Fullbright are just making me respect them more, and their originators even less.

Posted:A year ago

#21

Wesley Copeland Freelance Video Game Journalist

12 83 6.9
Popular Comment
Oh Paul. I love how you comment with such passion on topical discussions despite us all knowing you're incapable basic human empathy.

Sexism: "There's no such thing. the evidence is a lie!"

Gays: "You say standing up for what they believe in. I say spineless maneuvering."

Posted:A year ago

#22

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

925 1,566 1.7
You're half right Wesley.

I can empathise with people just shutting up and getting on with their lives. What I cannot abide is someone telling me how I should think, and then backing that up with their own prejudices presented as undeniable truths.

I won't bother addressing your first "quote" but as to the second, if what fullbright did is "make a stand" then I think a lot of history needs to be rewritten pronto.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Morville O'Driscoll Blogger & Critic

1,613 1,476 0.9
@ Tim
If someone who does not possess those parts chooses to consider himself a woman, that's her business, but she cannot reasonably impose that view on others.
The free-speech part of me agrees with you. However, the core of the matter is, I think, not that people are trying to impose that view on others, but that they're trying to raise awareness that they themselves perceive the situation differently.

Posted:A year ago

#24

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
The free-speech part of me agrees with you. However, the core of the matter is, I think, not that people are trying to impose that view on others, but that they're trying to raise awareness that they themselves perceive the situation differently.
There's no virtue in trying to raise awareness for your particular viewpoints at the expense of innocent parties. IF they want to raise awareness for their issues, that's fine, but doing so by trying to portray perfectly nice people as bigots should not be considered admirable.

Posted:A year ago

#25

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
I think Trans people have every reason to be upset by that comment.
No, they don't. It's a statement of fact. Look up "women" in pretty much any research source and you'll find that it involves female body parts, that's pretty much the core of the definition, like "water is H2O" or "igneous rock comes from a volcano." If someone who does not possess those parts chooses to consider himself a woman, that's her business, but she cannot reasonably impose that view on others.
The first part of this statement is easily disproven by looking up Woman on Wikipedia, where it says, "Biological factors are not sufficient determinants of which gender a person identifies with."

That's just the start of a whole large area of biology, psychology and sociology of which you are clearly utterly ignorant. There's not much I can do about that in this forum, but honestly, you are right up there with someone who says, "If someone who is black chooses to consider himself the equal of white people, that's his business, but he cannot reasonably impose that view on others." The oly difference between you and a mysogonist or a racist is that you're refusing to acknowledge a difference rather than emphasizing it. It still shows an utter lack of respect for people's differences.

As for cancelling the booth, the argument you guys have against it is the same: you don't appreciate their issues and problems--you deny that they could even exist--and so you are simply incapable of seeing this as a reasonable decision because you can't see their point of view. Maybe if you think about situations where you might do the same thing (a booth at a show sponsored by Gamestop or someone else who's pushing the sale of used games with no money going back to the developer?) you might be able to start to understand. Maybe you won't.

But in the end, it all comes down to, "I refuse to acknowledge that this person has problems that I don't have."

Posted:A year ago

#26

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
The first part of this statement is easily disproven by looking up Woman on Wikipedia, where it says, "Biological factors are not sufficient determinants of which gender a person identifies with."
It says that way in the weeds of the post, long after the initial definition, which is:
A woman /ˈwʊmən/, pl: women /ˈwɪmɨn/ is a female human. The term woman is usually reserved for an adult, with the term girl being the usual term for a female child or adolescent. However, the term woman is also sometimes used to identify a female human, regardless of age, as in phrases such as "Women's rights". Women are typically capable of giving birth, though older women who have gone through menopause and some intersex women cannot.
It's a nonsense addition to the page to try and make everyone happy, but it doesn't mean anything more than if someone added to the "fish" page that a "fish" is something that is "furry, barks, has a good nose, chews bones, and chases cats up trees." If we're just going to start making up definitions for words that suit our own personal imaginations then what is the point of having definitions in the first place?
There's not much I can do about that in this forum, but honestly, you are right up there with someone who says, "If someone who is black chooses to consider himself the equal of white people, that's his business, but he cannot reasonably impose that view on others."
No, it doesn't, because I've been pretty clear that I consider trans people to be equal to non-trans people, but they still are trans people. If we're going to use your analogy, it would be someone who is black claiming that he has white skin. He doesn't, that would be a fact regardless of his opinion on the matter. That doesn't make him any lesser than someone who does, but the term has a fairly set meaning and whether someone fits into a given category or not is not always up to their own personal interpretation, it is a societal contract.

A person who was born a man, and later believes he is a woman, and chooses to identify to others as a woman, then he is every bit the equal of a man that was born as a man and remains so, or a woman that was born a woman and remains so, but at no point is he actually a woman. As they say, "you are entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts."
As for cancelling the booth, the argument you guys have against it is the same: you don't appreciate their issues and problems--you deny that they could even exist--and so you are simply incapable of seeing this as a reasonable decision because you can't see their point of view. Maybe if you think about situations where you might do the same thing (a booth at a show sponsored by Gamestop or someone else who's pushing the sale of used games with no money going back to the developer?) you might be able to start to understand. Maybe you won't.
I can understand them pulling out if they choose to, for whatever reason. Their reasons don't have to make any sense to anyone other than themselves. I cannot understand their personally attacking this good man in the process though.

Posted:A year ago

#27

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Being a "man" or a "woman" is very much a social construct, and sometimes a person's genitals don't match what the social role in which they feel comfortable. (This is often referred to as the gender/sex distinction.) This is proven scientific fact, and so well accepted that even that conservative old institution of British law acknowledges this. (In Britian, your legal classification as male or female does not need to match your genitals. Listen to the Radio 4 Analysis programme Who Decides if I'm a Woman for information about this and a lot more discussion on this in general.)

That you and others won't accept this is pure prejudice.

Referring to a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman as "he", and saying that he's really a man and you won't accept that he's a woman, is both quite inconsiderate and an indication of the prejudice above. I find it hard to think of an exact parallel, but it's not dissimilar to saying that of course all black people are equal, but they are technically dark-skinned, so they ought not complain when you address them as "darkie."

So no, they person they are complaining about is not a "good man," he's a certain type of sexist, pure and simple, as are you and all the people starring your posts. It may be out of some sort of serious prejudice or merely out of ignorance, but either way you two are both attempting to put people in a place in society where you think they should be, rather than letting them be in the place where they would like to be, even though the latter causes no harm to you in any way other than offending your sense of how the world should be ordered.

One thing you might consider is whether you would be having the same strong reaction if the Fullbright Company had pulled out because Steve Gaynor had said, "I prefer the colour blue to the colour red," and they decided that they didn't want to support someone with that preference, because their personal preference was red over blue. I suspect you would have simply said, "well to me that's a bit weird and rather silly, but they're entitled to do what makes them happy," rather than getting all worked up about whether anybody really has the right to prefer red to blue and state their preference to the world so boldly.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 27th June 2013 11:21pm

Posted:A year ago

#28

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
Being a "man" or a "woman" is very much a social construct, and sometimes a person's genitals don't match what the social role in which they feel comfortable.
Choosing to call oneself a man or a woman is a personal belief. Actually being one or the other is a factor of biology. As of yet, we have the technology to significantly mask one's inborn gender, but we still don't have the technology to actually change it completely. If you choose to consider yourself a gender other than what you're born with, and you feel that this is more true to how you feel inside, then that is your right. If you choose to consider yourself a duck, that is also your right. If people you know choose to humor that decision, then that is also their choice. At no point in there does it actually become factually true, however.
Referring to a biologically male person who identifies himself as a woman as "he", and saying that he's really a man and you won't accept that he's a woman, is both quite inconsiderate and an indication of the prejudice above. I find it hard to think of an exact parallel, but it's not dissimilar to saying that of course all black people are equal, but they are technically dark-skinned, so they ought not complain when you address them as "darkie."
I would not be inconsiderate about it. If someone wanted to be treated as a woman I would treat them as a woman, which is to say, exactly like I would treat a man, but that wouldn't actually make it true, it would just make it a polite social agreement. It's polite to treat people how they would like to be treated, whether you believe the same things they believe or not. Only lack of a Y chromosome would make it actually true though. To compare that to making racial slurs is really rather ridiculous.
So no, they person they are complaining about is not a "good man," he's a certain type of sexist, pure and simple, as are you and all the people starring your posts. It may be out of some sort of serious prejudice or merely out of ignorance, but either way you two are both attempting to put people in a place in society where you think they should be, rather than letting them be in the place where they would like to be, even though the latter causes no harm to you in any way other than offending your sense of how the world should be ordered.
I'm not putting anyone in any place in society. I believe everyone should be treated as an equal, regardless of their gender, and regardless of what they believe their gender to be. If they're a person, they are a person. I doubt Gabe is trying to put anyone in a place either. Did you even read his post on the subject before deciding he was an asshole?
One thing you might consider is whether you would be having the same strong reaction if the Fullbright Company had pulled out because Steve Gaynor had said, "I prefer the colour blue to the colour red," and they decided that they didn't want to support someone with that preference, because their personal preference was red over blue. I suspect you would have simply said, "well to me that's a bit weird and rather silly, but they're entitled to do what makes them happy," rather than getting all worked up about whether anybody really has the right to prefer red to blue and state their preference to the world so boldly.
If that had been the case, do you believe that it would paint one of the PAX founders in a negative social light for preferring the color red? Again, my only problem in this situation is that they are trying to frame their decision not as a personal choice on their part, but in reaction to imagined bigotry of someone else.Now, it would be fair to say that if various media outlets had not chosen to humor this outburst with attention, it probably wouldn't have come to my attention either, as I'd never heard of anyone involved on their side prior to this, and likely will never hear of them again.

Posted:A year ago

#29

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Choosing to call oneself a man or a woman is a personal belief. Actually being one or the other is a factor of biology.
In the vast majority of situations, "man" versus "woman" covers a lot more than just a person's genitals. And even there, there are humans that do not fall clearly into either category. You clearly don't want to accept this fact, so I'll leave it at that. But keep in mind your unwillingness to face this reality is, quite precisely, a form of sexism.
As of yet, we have the technology to significantly mask one's inborn gender, but we still don't have the technology to actually change it completely.
I presume you're using the word "gender" in the common usage in these discussions to discuss maleness versus femaleness as a psychological and social phenomenon, rather than something restricted to a certain part (not the whole!) of human biology. (If you're not, you want to be using the word "sex.")

It certainly appears true that we don't have the technology to reliably (or perhaps even at all) change one's inborn gender, which is precisely part of the issue here; some people appear to be born with their gender being effectively female, even though they have male body parts, and vice versa.
I would not be inconsiderate about it. If someone wanted to be treated as a woman I would treat them as a woman...
Yet in this very thread you've been quite the oppsosite. "Really though there's nothing to this situation that would justify pulling the booth in the first place." Remarking about someone who refused to treat another person as you described above, "I cannot understand their personally attacking this good man in the process."

Posted:A year ago

#30

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
In the vast majority of situations, "man" versus "woman" covers a lot more than just a person's genitals.
Only if you're being sexist about it, but please go on, what things can a woman not do that a man can, that don't involve genitals?
Yet in this very thread you've been quite the oppsosite. "Really though there's nothing to this situation that would justify pulling the booth in the first place." Remarking about someone who refused to treat another person as you described above, "I cannot understand their personally attacking this good man in the process."
I don't believe that there's any evidence that Krehulik treated anyone discourteously. Basically, anyone can claim to be anything they want. A five year old can consider herself to be a princess if she wants, that doesn't mean that she's descended from royalty. In these situations, it is typically considered good courtesy to play along, but playing along does not make it factually true. If I met a man who wanted to identify as a woman, it would be common courtesy to play along with that, but it would not change the underlying fact that he was not. It is discourteous to not play along with those feelings, but it is not bigoted, because it is not treating someone differently because of who they are.

Now, if someone were to actively discriminate against a trans-gendered person, for example by refusing them service, refusing them a job they would otherwise have received, calling them an offensive term, like "trany," then that could be considered bigoted behavior, but there is no evidence that this took place. All we do know is that Krehulik expressed the factually true (if unpleasant to accept) reality that a woman has a vagina. That's no grounds for monstering.

Posted:A year ago

#31

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
All we do know is that Krehulik expressed the factually true (if unpleasant to accept) reality that a woman has a vagina.
This is not "factually true" because life just isn't that simple. Your refusal to face the reality of peoples' lives because it doesn't fit with your limited preconceptions of how the world should be is the root of the problem here. That inevitably leads to, "there can't be a problem because these people don't have any difference I'm willing to admit exists." You're basically just shoving these peoples' lives under the carpet.

Posted:A year ago

#32

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
This is not "factually true" because life just isn't that simple.
Of course it is. The term "woman" defines as a human that has a vagina. If you take that away then the term has no meaning at all, and may as well be applied to a house plant. I know that people often say things like "aw, that dog thinks it's people!" but that doesn't mean that it is actually "people."

Now people that don't have vaginas can believe themselves to be women, just as they can believe themselves to be woodland creatures in a human body, or aliens, or whatever else makes them comfortable, and that's their right, but their believing it does not make it so. Other people are free to play along with their beliefs as they see fit, but it still does not make it factually true. The fact of the matter is immutable regardless of perception. The reality of their life is that they are the gender they were born with, the fiction of their life is that they can pretend to be whatever gender makes them most comfortable, but the reality is not subject to their whims.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tim Ogul on 2nd July 2013 12:21am

Posted:A year ago

#33

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Of course it is. The term "woman" defines as a human that has a vagina.
This is basically saying, "the only difference between men and women is that women have a vagina and men have a penis." That you can't accept that this isn't true is a serious, and apparently incurable, misunderstanding of the world. At any rate, there's clearly no point in continuing this conversation. You will never understand the problem because you simply can't consider any point of view other than your own on this matter.

Posted:A year ago

#34

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
This is basically saying, "the only difference between men and women is that women have a vagina and men have a penis."
Yes.

More technically "Men have a Y chromosome while women do not," but this typically manifests most clearly in the difference in genitalia.

I asked before but you did not answer, if you believe this fact is not true, then what do you believe that men are capable of that women are not (and that trans-men would be equally as capable of as naturally born men)? I mean, a man can wear a dress, grow their hair long, wear make-up, all the superficial trappings of traditional femininity, but likewise a woman can wear pants, have short hair, and wear no make-up if she chooses, and this doesn't make her a man. Aside from genitals, I can't think of any reasonable distinction between genders that is not wrapped up in sexism.
You will never understand the problem because you simply can't consider any point of view other than your own on this matter.
I'm beginning to think that this is your problem in this discussion.

Posted:A year ago

#35

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
... if you believe this fact is not true, then what do you believe that men are capable of that women are not...
So you think that if there is nothing that some individual man is capable of doing where we could not also find, in the entire world population, and individual woman capable of doing that same thing, that makes the two sexes equal? That's utter sexism.

If you believe that there really is no difference, I challenge you to spend a month dressing like a woman, and see if that affects your life at all.

Women, in general, clearly have more difficulty (for whatever reason) becoming CEOs of large companies than men do. This is probably mainly cultural, and not biological, making it a clear manifestation of gender difference. Your implied attitude is basically, "there is no problem here."

Posted:A year ago

#36

Tim Ogul Illustrator

335 465 1.4
So you think that if there is nothing that some individual man is capable of doing where we could not also find, in the entire world population, and individual woman capable of doing that same thing, that makes the two sexes equal? That's utter sexism.
You're still not providing examples. If someone is 100% biologically male, what could he do by identifying as a female that he could not do while identifying as a male?
Women, in general, clearly have more difficulty (for whatever reason) becoming CEOs of large companies than men do. This is probably mainly cultural, and not biological, making it a clear manifestation of gender difference. Your implied attitude is basically, "there is no problem here."
So your argument is that men should be able to call themselves women so that they can face more discrimination in the work place? I don't see the advantage in that.

Posted:A year ago

#37

Rui Campos Technical Director for Level Design, Ubisoft Montreal

6 38 6.3
No, they don't. It's a statement of fact. Look up "women" in pretty much any research source and you'll find that it involves female body parts,
I'm going to weigh in on this one. Tim, you are missing the actual point by being too literal. Here let me give you an example: If a man introduces himself to you as "William, you can call me Bill" Then you call him "Billie". He then tells you that he would prefer if you not call him that "Please call me Bill" If you then proceed to continue calling him Billie you are being a disrespectful prick. Arguing with him that "point of fact: Billie is a well known short name for William" does not make you any less of a prick.

That's what is the case here. Penny Arcade demonstrated a lack of respect by doing precisely this. It's just simple manners. The most basic level of empathy and cordiality. Fail.

Posted:A year ago

#38

Rui Campos Technical Director for Level Design, Ubisoft Montreal

6 38 6.3
No, they don't. It's a statement of fact. Look up "women" in pretty much any research source and you'll find that it involves female body parts,
I'm going to weigh in on this one. Tim, you are missing the actual point by being too literal. Here let me give you an example: If a man introduces himself to you as "William, you can call me Bill" Then you call him "Billie". He then tells you that he would prefer if you not call him that "Please call me Bill" If you then proceed to continue calling him Billie you are being a disrespectful prick. Arguing with him that "point of fact: Billie is a well known short name for William" does not make you any less of a prick.

That's what is the case here. Penny Arcade demonstrated a lack of respect by doing precisely this. It's just simple manners. The most basic level of empathy and cordiality. Fail.

Posted:A year ago

#39

Rui Campos Technical Director for Level Design, Ubisoft Montreal

6 38 6.3
No, they don't. It's a statement of fact. Look up "women" in pretty much any research source and you'll find that it involves female body parts,
I'm going to weigh in on this one. Tim, you are missing the actual point by being too literal. Here let me give you an example: If a man introduces himself to you as "William, you can call me Bill" Then you call him "Billie". He then tells you that he would prefer if you not call him that "Please call me Bill" If you then proceed to continue calling him Billie you are being a disrespectful prick. Arguing with him that "point of fact: Billie is a well known short name for William" does not make you any less of a prick.

That's what is the case here. Penny Arcade demonstrated a lack of respect by doing precisely this. It's just simple manners. The most basic level of empathy and cordiality. Fail.

Posted:A year ago

#40

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now