Types of Banning/Discrimination

[AndyZ]

A particular issue that I've been trying to understand of late is why it's acceptable to block one particular type of people from participating in something, but not another.

For example, many people consider it acceptable to only allow people of a certain Lady/Liege/Lord tag into their games, but do not consider it acceptable for a Christian bakery not to make cakes for gay weddings.

I have difficulty in understanding why these would be different.

Some of the answers I've been given so far:

• That Christians do not believe in gay marriage, and while Christians shouldn't turn away homosexuals out of hand, one cannot expect them to make a wedding cake for a wedding that they don't believe in

There's a degree of logic there, but that would completely 180 the response, where the Christian denial would be acceptable and the game denial would be unacceptable.

• Setting an arbitrary bar by whether or not other business/games already exist or can be created.

In other words, you shouldn't be able to stop a black person from entering your bar unless said black person can start up their own bar.  This also doesn't fit the experience test, and if someone actually said that there's another place for other people, it would be very offensive.

• Sexual preference

One of the minor reasons that's been given, I don't figure by anyone here but that sometimes arises, is that not everyone is bisexual.  We may not be attracted to a particular type of race, sex or whatever, but those players can still make characters which fit those characteristics that turn us on.

For example, I'm attracted to elves and not orcs, but an orc roleplaying an elf could still turn me on, and I'd consider it bad to ban someone from my game just because she's not an orc.

For those new to the discussion, Valthazar has listed off a bunch of reasons that appear common to him for focusing on particular types of players, which can be found here: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=214003.msg10516551#msg10516551

There are also RL places which discriminate and are allowed to do so.  For example, http://www.pawomenwork.org/ requires you to be a woman to sign up.  I've heard of golf courses that only allow men.

By contrast, I've heard of gay bars that openly focus on homosexual clientele but allow people in regardless of sexual orientation.  You don't have to "prove" yourself just to walk in the door.  I have far less issue with the places that say "we welcome everyone but we really want X" as opposed to the places that say "We only want X, and you're not allowed in otherwise."

By the same token, I don't consider it discrimination if you want all the CHARACTERS to be of a particular type.  Hollywood protagonists aside, there were darn few Caucasians in Feudal Japan, and I totally get that everyone has to play an Asian in that game even if they're not Asian in real life.

However, I don't see a lot of difference between the different types of discrimination, and I don't really understand why it's acceptable for a game but not acceptable for a store.  I could accept it being either acceptable for both or unacceptable for both, but there's obviously a distinction which others see and I do not see.  I would appreciate if someone can explain it to me.

This is not me being angry at anyone or trying to make people feel bad.  This is because I've tried to figure this out for months and I feel like a complete moron because everyone but me seems to very easily get it.[/list]

[Cycle]

Let's compare the following:

• A person puts up an employment ad saying "Help Wanted, Women Only"
• A person puts up a RP ad saying "Seeking female writer for F/m"

Now, the two ads may appear to be similar, but they are not.  Why?  Because of context.  I will elaborate.

For some people, a RP--particularly a sexually themed RP--can be very personal, and even intimate.  Thus, they may not feel comfortable sharing a personal or intimate experience with another person of a particular gender.  Similarly, there are people who enjoy the notion that what they write is arousing to their partner, and thus they may feel less comfortable arousing someone of a specific gender.  There is also the corollary that some people are aroused by what their partners write and may feel more comfortable being aroused by someone of a specific gender.  Yes, writers are not their characters and it is important to be able to draw a distinction between RL and RP.  But for some people, a RP is more than a sterile bubble where two fictional beings interact without relevance to or potential impact on their creators.

To help further highlight the difference consider what you are willing to share/tell/do with your employer, versus what you are willing to share/tell/do with your RP partner(s).  I suspect that you are far more willing to discuss personal and intimate issues with an RP partner than you would with your employer.  Does this help illustrate the difference?

The context is different.  A RP is more personal, and the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.  This is why I believe people should be allowed to be selective in their RP partners.  And that is also why I don't think people should be labeled as banning or discriminating for putting up (polite) ads seeking writers of a specific gender.

In fact, lest anyone reads this thread and feels they may have done something wrong, I do not believe you have:

From: Valerian on August 03, 2009, 11:40:19 AM

If a [member] asks for only "real [insert gender]", but seems otherwise mature, well-behaved, and capable of writing several good sentences in a row, his insistence on "real [insert gender]" isn't going to get him kicked out on his backside.

[Kuroneko]

One thing you've you've left out the very real and by no means minor reasons you've been given in the other thread of comfort and perceived levels of safety when it comces to gender preference in RP partners. Some people have had bad experiences with a particular gender and do not feel safe or comfortable writing an RP with them. Others feel more comfortable writing with individuals that share similar RLexperiences. These are real and legitimate issues that can't be ignored simply because you don't understand them. When it comes right down to it, you don't really have to. Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

When you think about it, in addition to everything that's already been said on this in the other threads, playing with one gender over another could just as easily be a kink, like any other. If you can make a game where your kink is highlighted, why can't another person make a game where theirs is featured? Because you don't like it or your think it's wrong?  That's not the culture of E. I personally have no desire to write tentacle RP, but I support your right to run a game that includes it ;).

[Valthazar]

Just to preface again, I'm keeping my personal thoughts out of this debate.  My personal opinion is that everyone should write with whomever they want - it makes no difference to me.

One thing you've you've left out the very real and by no means minor reasons you've been given in the other thread of comfort and perceived levels of safety when it comces to gender preference in RP partners. Some people have had bad experiences with a particular gender and do not feel safe or comfortable writing an RP with them.

But since this is a debate thread, I don't see how "perceived comfort" based on prior experience serves as an adequate justification for only writing with one gender.  If someone made the assertion that they only want to write with Caucasian writers/roleplayers because in their experience, Black or Hispanic writers/roleplayers have a tendency to "rush the plot" and exhibit predatory behavior - all of us would be quick to point out their bias.

So from a debate perspective, why is this different for gender preference?

[Kuroneko]

My personal opinion is also that everyone should write with whomever they want.

I'm not talking about trivial experiences like 'rushing the plot,' or a perception of behavior amongst a particular group of people.  My point about safety and comfort is that people often have very valid reasons based on prior RL experiences (which often includes trauma and abuse) for not wanting to associate with a particular gender, either in RL or online, and that labeling those preferences as 'wrong' simply because someone doesn't understand them or see how they apply to the situation doesn't make them any less real or valid for the individual that has had those experiences. That's all.

[Cycle]

If someone made the assertion that they only want to write with Caucasian writers/roleplayers because in their experience, Black or Hispanic writers/roleplayers have a tendency to "rush the plot" and exhibit predatory behavior - all of us would be quick to point out their bias.

Would we?

I wouldn't.

I'd respect that person's decision.  Things happened in their past that I cannot know.  Perhaps something truly vile did happen to them.  Who am I to judge?  Who am I to mandate how they should RP and who they should RP with?

[lilhobbit37]

I've been reading since the other thread, and didn't want to join the debate because of the venue it was in. I'll try to put some of my thoughts down here.

I do understand Andy's point and here is some of the things I'd like to add to it.

It was mentioned a number of times in the previous thread that people don't think it would ever be socially acceptable on E to create race bans based on players. So that comparing race and gender were two very different things.

However, I understand Andy's confusion on this because say Person A was raped by a black man. Does this mean all black men are bad? Not in the least. However, would she want to enter into a sexual scenerio with someone black? No.

But if she were to start a group game and clearly put in the header "No black players", people would be offended and upset. Now it is a comfort/safety issue for her. There is perfectly legitimate reasons why she may feel this way.

But it wouldn't be considered acceptable.

So the idea that for the same reasons (past bad experiences, comfort/safety issues) it is perfectly acceptable to instead make that "No male players" or "No male/liege players" or "Cis-females only" or "Females only".

Cycle, you seem to keep making it seem different by saying instead of ban, its about inclusion. And yes, that sounds a lot nicer: "Females please apply" sounds better than "No males need apply". But they do mean the same thing if it is a non-negotiable that only females are allowed. The ban is simply an implied ban instead of a stated one.

One thing I did notice was that the last thread started out focusing on group games, and somewhere along the way began to focus on solo threads. I do feel there is a large difference between group games and solo threads. A solo rp is more along the lines of a "date" so to speak, where as a group game is more along the "boys/girls night out" type of feel. So while it may be an annoyance to have many solo threads with gender restrictions, it doesn't have nearly the same feel as group threads which restrict.

One of the things that many people have mentioned but flit over is the liege community. There are many who have set A parts but are set B mentally. And every time something is restricted for either set A or set B, it leaves group C trying to figure out whether they fit into the set required. Do parts matter most? Does mentality matter most? Is it fair to say "I only am comfortable with females, so even though I will never see inside your pants, you have a penis, so I don't want you to write a female character." to a MtF? It isn't her fault she may have the wrong dangly bit between her legs, yet now she is restricted from it simply due to that part.

Some people make restricting by gender seem clean and easy.

My points are trying to show that there is not a simple easy answer for this.

I do not and would not think less of anyone who does restrict gender, and everything I am saying is my opinion. Those who do ask for those restrictions are well within the rules and regulations as they stand, so there is no reason for guilt or worry. But it doesn't hurt to think of things from a view outside your own either.

[blue bunny sparkle]

However, I don't see a lot of difference between the different types of discrimination, and I don't really understand why it's acceptable for a game but not acceptable for a store.  I could accept it being either acceptable for both or unacceptable for both, but there's obviously a distinction which others see and I do not see.  I would appreciate if someone can explain it to me.

I think this is a good question to try and understand. Why can’t everyone be treated equally? Why can’t everyone be wanted in the same ways (In the bakery or on a writing website)? Why all these distinctions? What is the difference Andy is searching for?

I had to think hard about this. To do that, I had to take this whole thing down to the simplest terms, which is where I think best. And this is where it brought me.

Judgment says: You are WRONG.
Judgment says something is wrong with you. And you need to change.

Preference says: I PREFER.
Preference says I like this a lot. This is what I’m drawn to.


A business that denies services based on certain criteria like sex, race, etc. is a JUDGMENT upon a type of person or group of people.

A person requesting a RP with a specific type of person or theme is a personal PREFERENCE.

That’s a huge difference to me. But can the two overlap? Unfortunately yes. Though in my experience here at E., the people having a preference for a certain type of role-play partner are not judging the people they chose not to play with, they just want to write what they like. Preference doesn’t have to lead to judgment.

One more example.
In my past, I was in an abusive relationship. For the following year after I got out of it, I was a shell shocked and nervous wreck. If I had been on E. at the time, I would have PREFERRED to write with women or female leaning genders only. But at the same time, I did not JUDGE all men according to what I had gone through. I knew there were good guys out there. But had I been forced to write with men at that time, I would have chosen not to write at all.

In my stories, now I will write with anyone of any of the sexes. Preferences can change and I hope judgments can change as well.

[Iniquitous]

I am surprised that this discussion is still going on, especially since it seems rather easy to understand.

Let’s see if I can tackle this.

I want to run a lesbian group game. I’ve tried to run other lesbian group games but it has always failed, I have gotten hurt, other group members have gotten hurt, I have been mistreated, other group members have been mistreated. So, I set up the group game idea and make it gender specific so that the things that have happened in the past do not happen again.

Am I wrong for doing so? No.

Let’s make this a little more straightforward.

A female decides she wants to make a lesbian only game. She decides to restrict to female only writers. Why would she do this?

1. Because lesbian sex is a huge turn on for a lot of men and there are males out there that would want to make a lesbian character so they could have fap material.

2. Because she feels more comfortable running a game where everyone in the group is female - perhaps she has past experience with males writing as female that make her, or other group members, uncomfortable.

3. Personal preference.

Those are the three biggest reasons I can see for gender specific group games. I am sure that there are many, many more that can be brought up. The point that seems to be avoided is the fact that this is the decision of the GM and she doesn’t really have to explain why. We are all adults here, we should be able to accept that there are going to be times that we are not going to fit into what someone else wants.

Would you really want to force your way in knowing that the GM and the members of the game do not want you there? The game would die and everyone would lose out. Do you really feel a need to needle and press for an answer to something like this? I mean, it almost comes across as you are digging in hard for someone to finally throw their hands up and say “alright! Fine! You are being discriminated against just because you have a penis!” when, quite honestly, I suspect it is nothing more than “hey, we’d feel a lot more comfortable if this was just females”

No one has the right to disregard someone else’s comfort level and no one should keep pushing for an answer when it has been said more than once, more than twice, more than thrice, that it is not discriminatory but rather a preference - a comfort factor.

You do not have to like it, you can rant and rave that because you have a penis you cannot join this group game - but it still boils down to the fact that the creator of the group game has decided she wants the game to be female writer only and has her reasons for doing so.

Would you want your personal preferences and comfort level ignored/questioned/put under fire just because someone else refuses to accept that you have the right to choose who you want to write with/how you spend your time on this site? The way I view this is asking for the group members to be female writers only is no different than me saying I prefer writers who can match my post length or post speed. It is what I am comfortable with and a personal preference. That isn’t that hard to understand.

[Cold Heritage]

I am surprised that this discussion is still going on, especially since it seems rather easy to understand.

4 threads across 4 forums and 336 posts on this subject, by my estimate.

[VioletPanda]

    I have to admit I am somewhat guilty of this- due to an incident when I was younger, I have a very difficult time roleplaying with a male partner when I am playing a female. Because I don't want anyone to feel left out, I just play as a male. I prefer it that way anyway.
 
   

[kylie]

      Serious cynicism plus critique alert.  Not as if it's likely to change anything, but I'm very mixed on this.  And not a little frustrated over the long haul with it all. It's a mixed up world, so you get mixed up and frustrated people.  Except for the most conventional people...  Who can go on being smug about just how normal and mature and civil (and probably even "popular!") they are, seemingly forever.  At least until conventions really change, for some generation or other.

      "Personal preference" can be anything.  It can be logical or illogical.  The claimed evidence can be based on fact or not, and it's often enough not really available in detail, in context, or even offered up for communal analysis at all.  It can be consistently applied or not.  And it can be as much a one-sided guess as anything else.  It's arguably even more slippery a term than say, sexual orientation which is at least something that starts with an idea of a (or an at least purportedly) definable, empirical group to work with.  Preference has one thing going for it, I suppose:  It's honest or vague enough to hint: "Yeah, sometimes I'm just a hunch too." 

      But because we take sexuality to be an essentially "personal" question of consent and also - in no small part - because E seems to have adopted a culture of "Whoever starts thread, basically rules it [including closing it down whenever they want regardless of whatever's happening in the meantime]," well it sure gets a whole lot of mileage.  The saying goes: "We wouldn't want anyone to be uncomfortable, now."  Except for all the people who get ruled out from the get go, or who get interrupted, or who the owner changes conditions on halfway through.

     It might seem obvious that well, writing anything creative and/or sexual (especially both) is "supposed to be" a sort of luxury and a matter of intimacy and exclusive experiences.  Whereas getting a job or doing business more or less in public is "on the face of it" more a matter of survival and convenience.  And business is well even, circulation of currency and things that you know governments tend to have a greater interest in many more people very regularly doing at least a modicum of -- rather than fewer people entering at all.  Which leads to different outcomes, of course.  I might go so far as to suggest that if oh say, imagine the U.S. government could take a penny transaction tax for every story posting on E, then there would be rather more official interest in having oh, more Lieges participate with a wider range of people.  (Can't tell you how many Lieges have reported primarily feeling it's easier and safer for reception mainly to play only with with other Lieges.  But anyone could check at least the public postings, if they really cared to count.) 

         But then we could consider that well, governments have also long been interested in setting standards that serve certain groups and classes more than others.  And one way they have done that is to also encourage certain sexual mores.  The very notion that "personal" and "business" spheres have different value -- that we must work for a living and pay taxes to sustain the society, but whether or not "our individual things" are guaranteed partners or indeed, any time at all under the sun in our busy days?  Well that's not a matter of any public interest at all.  Except that those "individual things" that lead to umm, polyamory or abortion or feminization or snuff or male submission or a long list of things are in fact ALSO quite shunned and sometimes very politically snubbed in public life and certain arenas of government policy too.  Oh but that doesn't have anything to do with what's going on in this discussion.  And maybe in some ten or twenty or hundred years of education and stop and start "progress," this will all be resolved.  And as the economists say, in the long run, maybe we'll all be dead first.

        I'm actually very happy to celebrate what people enjoy writing and being.  Except when it's fallacies about gatekeeping being for one purpose when you can look closely and find reasons to suspect it's actually for others.  Or when you look closely at the language chosen, and the purposes are rather apparently buying into things that in my opinion kind of shoot many of us in the back or at least, in the foot.  I'm not going to trot out examples now because no matter how logical they might be, someone's surely going to get offended at the notion that there's anything even potentially socially discriminatory about "preference."  (Even when it often becomes the preference of so many that it's practically a majority convention we are talking about?  Really now.)  Please, go read some Bordieu though -- well, if you ever get curious.  Wouldn't want to force anything now.

[rou]

Quoting my previous post and then elaborating on it. Probably makes so much more sense in this context.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I have totally not read the entire updated thread and such but I was browsing and a thought just came to mind.

Race and gender and sexuality and etc are not the same. At least, that is my belief. Because each of these categories has a differing history of discrimination, the resulting present is different as well. I believe it would be very foolish to regard race issues and gender issues with an identical mindset.

So, that being said? A girl's night out is fine. A race night out seems a little more preposterous (to me, but hey, I'm white). Why? Because they're different. Among other things, I believe that race has a big history of social exclusion, whereas the big idea of sexism isn't so much that its a taboo to talk to someone of a different gender (disregarding some archaic proprieties), but regarding that gender as having specific roles that must be fulfilled.

So, I mean, it's okay for a group of guys to want to have a guys' night. Less okay if they want to have a "white" night, because I don't think there's really much reason for that, much to be gained. If guys want to make a men only business because they think women are inadequate to do the job? NOT OKAY.

So, I don't know. There's a lot of whitewashing on E. If a group of non-white players wanted to create a non-white group so they wouldn't have to deal with unintentionally racist portrayals, I think maybe I'd be a little bit wary about it but not really hold it against them. Because nonwhites are typically the ones with the short stick. If white people wanted to make a white-only group, I'd say that's not okay. Because again, I don't see what there really is to gain, and whites aren't the victim in the same way that nonwhites are (even if, yes, being white at this point can be an exasperating experience).

And that's different from gender, because I think men and women and nonbinaries should be able to have their own little groups as they please, since that's not the heart of the gender taboo and I think there's a lot that makes the experience different.

I have no clue if I've made any sense.

My point is, race / gender / sexuality / religion / etc issues are not inherently the same, even though they all deal with heaps of discrimination. Therefore, they are not to be handled the same way and what might be okay in one category could be very wrong in another.

It's hard to give examples and analogies because everything varies. But lets say you know two individual victims of abuse. Their experiences were different, and therefore their triggers would be different. One of them would get upset watching scenes of violence in a movie, while the other is extremely sensitive to derogatory language in any context, even if it is not directed at them (or maybe anyone): idiot, bitch, slut, whore.

Therefore, the way you would accommodate these wounds differs depending on who you're interacting with.

That's what I mean by things being different. The experiences that someone goes through as a woman differ from what someone might experience as a black person, and those aren't necessarily representative of what its like to be trans*. So it doesn't make sense to me to treat those issues in the same way, with the same mindset. It's nonsensical to talk about gender and go around and say, "Well, would this be okay if we replaced 'man' and 'woman' with 'gay' and 'straight'?" It's an entirely different question, a different topic.

I used an abuse example because, to me, I think the internal wounds was an important part of the equation. A lot of the discussion of what's okay to do and what's not doesn't and shouldn't exist in a vacuum that's ignorant of history. How you treat a person or a group has a lot to do with what they have experienced in the past.

Girl's nights out and guy's nights out both exist. As a woman, the image of a group of friends sitting around the living room drinking beer and playing video games, taking a night to hang out without being distracted by their girlfriends -- that's not offensive to me, and I hardly think it's oppressive.

I can understand a group of nonwhite people wanting to hang out only with nonwhite people once in a while because they don't want to deal with the natural, unintentional racism (or just ignorance) that can come with a white person. White people don't always realize that some of the shit they say is offensive or why, even if they mean the best. I can totally understand wanting a bit of respite from that, the same way I might want to just hang out with my lady friends without having to hear an offhand sandwich joke or be told that I should dress up more often.

So, if a group who has been discriminated against wants to have time away from that discrimination, I think that makes a lot of sense. It's wanting a little bit of relief from being expected to "deal with it." It's not always effective, it's not always the best option, and it's not always without consequences.

The difference of issues comes into play, I think, regarding the details of how its done and whether the reverse is "okay", or not too offensive. I think guys can hang out exclusively with other guys if they feel like from time to time because that's not inherently insulting to women. A guy can still be a dick about why he doesn't want to hang out with women for whatever purpose, but not that the exclusivity in itself is inherently harmful. But I don't think a "white night" is anything less that very bad judgment at best. Why? Because race relations are different from gender relations. And not everyone will agree on what is and is not okay, but my real point here is that those things are still different depending on what you're talking about, be it gender, sexuality, race, etc.

[consortium11]

4 threads across 4 forums and 336 posts on this subject, by my estimate.

Far more than that... the burst a couple of months back followed by this is just the most recent time this topic's come up. As I think I said previously, it's something that bubbles under the surface for a few months, comes to a head briefly and then bubbles again.



Anyway, the usual disclaimers that should be applied whenever this topic comes up:

1) Choosing who can take part in a game on the basis of their tag and gender icon is basically the same as choosing who can take part in a game on the basis of the gender of their avatar picture. While I (strongly) suspect that the tag/icons are far more accurate to how people see themselves then the avatar it has long been made clear that anyone can have whatever gender tag/icon they want for whatever reason they want. As far as I know most of the people who are using tags/icons that don't match their jangly bits are people who are either in the process of or have transitioned and consider themselves what they've transitioned to rather than a liege but there's no requirement for that to be the case.

2) Not so much a disclaimer as a question... on that note I always wonder about the status of trans and Lieges in this topic. How would those who run games with either a "[insert gender] only" or "no [insert gender]" feel about the above mentioned circumstances where someone was born with a certain set of jangly bits (which would exclude them from the story) but consider themselves another gender (which would allow them in the game)? Would they be allowed? Likewise, much of the discussion seems to be looking at this on the basis of Lord vs Lady and suggesting reasons why people think that way (be it comfort, security, they think it makes for a better experience etc etc) which rather leaves Lieges outside the party. On that note I've seen far more "[insert gender] only" then "No [insert gender]" requests when such things come up and the ones who suffer in such circumstance is generally Lieges; "Ladies only" and "no Lords" both exclude Lords but Lieges also get blocked by the first. Do people just forget about them and think that saying "[insert gender] only" sounds nicer than "No [insert gender]"?

3) As I understand it E's official position is that not writing with a certain gender isn't a matter of comfort but is instead an exclusion which we tolerate (I'm not sure if that's associated with E's policy of accepting "bigots" in the hope of reforming them/widening their world view). That said not being willing to write cross-gender (as in writing with a man playing a woman not writing a man wearing a dress or a woman wearing trousers) is one of the warning signs they look for that someone has difficulties separating IC and OOC.

[Cycle]

Actually, lilhobbit, the problem I have with the words "ban" and "prejudice," is that they are implicitly hostile.  A less incendiary way to gather information on this topic would be to ask:  "Why do people put up ads seeking stories with specific gender writers?"  By employing the words "ban," "prejudice" and "bigot" one is essentially stating:  "I think people who seek stories with a specific gender writers are bad people.  Now, explain to me why you are not bad." 



Here's the thing.  It isn't all about one person--particularly not one person who happens to read an ad they do not like.  Let's play it out.

Scenario 1:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story, but is not gender G.  Odds are, B will not then apply to join the game.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on. 

Scenario 2:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story.  B is not gender G.  B applies to join the game. 

A then rejects B's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on.

See how the result does not change if we mandate that people must remove gender preferences from the headings of their game ads?  It still won't force A to write with B.

Scenario 3:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  B through Z are interested in the story.  B through Z are not gender G.  B through Z apply to join the game. 

A then rejects B through Z's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, everyone moves on. 
 
B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z were all put through the extra step of applying for a game that was not created for them.  A was put to the extra step of denying the applications of B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z.

See how in this sense, stating a gender preference in an ad can actually be a polite thing to do?  It saves the poster time and wasted effort, and it saves all other E members time and wasted effort.

Scenario 4:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  They are interested in the story. 

B, C, D, F, H I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P are not gender G. 

Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are gender G.

C, X, Y, and Z apply to join the game.  B does not apply, feeling excluded or "banned." 

A then rejects C and Z's application, and opts to play with X and Y.  Everyone moves on. 

Compare Scenarios 3 and 4 and you can see how focusing on just B makes us myopic.  If we mandated that people cannot state gender preferences in their ads, we get Scenario 3.  If we do not impose such a rule, then we have Scenario 4.  E allows people to select their RPs based on the other writer's gender.  Putting up an ad that clearly specifies one's gender preferences (if any) saves everyone time and wasted effort:  D through P didn't have to write an application; A only needed to respond to four applications.  This likely leads to more satisfying RP experiences for everyone as a whole.

Now, some people may respond saying:  "yes, but A shouldn't want to write only with gender G writers, and that A is a bigot/prejudiced because A feels that way."

Maybe.  But you can't force people to RP in the way you want.  If they don't feel comfortable RPing with someone of a specific gender because of their past (e.g., having been abused or worse), we need to respect that.  If it is because they get their "rocks off knowing that she's enjoying it too," then that should be allowed too.

The point I have been trying to make repeatedly is this:  your feelings are not the only ones that matter. 

You may not like the fact that someone else has a preference for certain kinds of RPs, whether it is gender or tentacles.  But you don't get to tell them what to do.  Respect their choices, even when you disagree with them.  And don't try to shame them into doing what you want by labeling them bigots or prejudiced.  You don't know anywhere near enough about their past to pass judgment.

[Cold Heritage]

Far more than that... the burst a couple of months back followed by this is just the most recent time this topic's come up. As I think I said previously, it's something that bubbles under the surface for a few months, comes to a head briefly and then bubbles again.

My apologies for being unclear. I was counting specifically AndyZ's topics.

[Lrrr]

4 threads across 4 forums and 336 posts on this subject, by my estimate.

Just curious if you included the Animate Quill threads and posts in those totals or not.

[AndyZ]

Not feeling overly great today but I've been trying to wrap my brain around this while I lie in bed, so I wanted to try to get some posts down.  If I misunderstand someone, please know that you can correct me without concern for my feelings and that I'm not trying to straw man your argument.

Let's compare the following:

• A person puts up an employment ad saying "Help Wanted, Women Only"
• A person puts up a RP ad saying "Seeking female writer for F/m"

Now, the two ads may appear to be similar, but they are not.  Why?  Because of context.  I will elaborate.

For some people, a RP--particularly a sexually themed RP--can be very personal, and even intimate.  Thus, they may not feel comfortable sharing a personal or intimate experience with another person of a particular gender.  Similarly, there are people who enjoy the notion that what they write is arousing to their partner, and thus they may feel less comfortable arousing someone of a specific gender.  There is also the corollary that some people are aroused by what their partners write and may feel more comfortable being aroused by someone of a specific gender.  Yes, writers are not their characters and it is important to be able to draw a distinction between RL and RP.  But for some people, a RP is more than a sterile bubble where two fictional beings interact without relevance to or potential impact on their creators.

To help further highlight the difference consider what you are willing to share/tell/do with your employer, versus what you are willing to share/tell/do with your RP partner(s).  I suspect that you are far more willing to discuss personal and intimate issues with an RP partner than you would with your employer.  Does this help illustrate the difference?

The context is different.  A RP is more personal, and the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.  This is why I believe people should be allowed to be selective in their RP partners.  And that is also why I don't think people should be labeled as banning or discriminating for putting up (polite) ads seeking writers of a specific gender.

In fact, lest anyone reads this thread and feels they may have done something wrong, I do not believe you have:

From: Valerian on August 03, 2009, 11:40:19 AM

I believe what you're saying is that it's a personal thing, that comfort kicks in and that the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.

Now, why is that different for stores and businesses?

I can see why it's different for just an employee, but should the owner of a store be legally allowed to make such decisions in the way that creators of game threads on Elliquiy are?

I could very well argue that the source of livelihood for a person who started up and runs a store goes well beyond personal comfort, and that someone who honestly doesn't want to work with women is going to have an even worse time of it than someone who is in a game with people.

I think it would help if you went into further detail about why it's unacceptable for stores, so that we can compare and contrast for games.

One thing you've you've left out the very real and by no means minor reasons you've been given in the other thread of comfort and perceived levels of safety when it comces to gender preference in RP partners. Some people have had bad experiences with a particular gender and do not feel safe or comfortable writing an RP with them. Others feel more comfortable writing with individuals that share similar RLexperiences. These are real and legitimate issues that can't be ignored simply because you don't understand them. When it comes right down to it, you don't really have to. Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

When you think about it, in addition to everything that's already been said on this in the other threads, playing with one gender over another could just as easily be a kink, like any other. If you can make a game where your kink is highlighted, why can't another person make a game where theirs is featured? Because you don't like it or your think it's wrong?  That's not the culture of E. I personally have no desire to write tentacle RP, but I support your right to run a game that includes it ;).

You obviously share the opinion that people should be allowed to deny whoever they want from games.  Let's try a few other questions.

Let's say that a heterosexual male has been raped by a homosexual male.  This is something that happens, but it's far from indicative of all homosexual men.  However, this hypothetical person develops an aversion to homosexual males as a result.  He owns a business but doesn't feel comfortable having them there, because he spends 80 hours a week at the store and won't always have other people around.

Should this hypothetical store owner be allowed to deny homosexual men from employment simply because of his bad experience?  An inordinate number of people would say no, but you may disagree.  I request your answer.

In regards to this question, specifically asked and repeated:

Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be 'morally wrong' or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as 'banning,' and 'discrimination' to accept that they have a different opinion? - which is same the question Cycle asked you in the other thread, but never got answered.

To use different terms would imply that the two are actually different.

I have an RL friend with arachnophobia and she doesn't feel comfortable when people use the English word for what arachnophobia means a fear of.  When people discuss homophobia or islamophobia, it's been explained to me that these are different because people are involved, which is the difference.  It is reasonable to expect all members of any species except humans to act more or less the same, because humans are sentient.  It would appear that you disagree with that particular reason of why, because you state a particular aversion for a type of human.

Would we?

I wouldn't.

I'd respect that person's decision.  Things happened in their past that I cannot know.  Perhaps something truly vile did happen to them.  Who am I to judge?  Who am I to mandate how they should RP and who they should RP with?

I think you can see where I was going with the race thing from before, then.

Valthazar does a fantastic job of laying out the points that I fail to make properly.

LilHobbit, I have nothing to add to your post beyond that you also seem to understand where I'm going.

I think this is a good question to try and understand. Why can’t everyone be treated equally? Why can’t everyone be wanted in the same ways (In the bakery or on a writing website)? Why all these distinctions? What is the difference Andy is searching for?

I had to think hard about this. To do that, I had to take this whole thing down to the simplest terms, which is where I think best. And this is where it brought me.

Judgment says: You are WRONG.
Judgment says something is wrong with you. And you need to change.

Preference says: I PREFER.
Preference says I like this a lot. This is what I’m drawn to.


A business that denies services based on certain criteria like sex, race, etc. is a JUDGMENT upon a type of person or group of people.

A person requesting a RP with a specific type of person or theme is a personal PREFERENCE.

That’s a huge difference to me. But can the two overlap? Unfortunately yes. Though in my experience here at E., the people having a preference for a certain type of role-play partner are not judging the people they chose not to play with, they just want to write what they like. Preference doesn’t have to lead to judgment.

One more example.
In my past, I was in an abusive relationship. For the following year after I got out of it, I was a shell shocked and nervous wreck. If I had been on E. at the time, I would have PREFERRED to write with women or female leaning genders only. But at the same time, I did not JUDGE all men according to what I had gone through. I knew there were good guys out there. But had I been forced to write with men at that time, I would have chosen not to write at all.

In my stories, now I will write with anyone of any of the sexes. Preferences can change and I hope judgments can change as well.

First I want to say thank you for coming forward with such a difficult personal experience.  It's not easy, but it helps people understand.

So would you say that the difference is purely internal to the person doing the blocking, and therefore cannot be externally judged by others?

For example, if someone is deciding for a secretary, he can prefer to have the one who's cuter because he'll have to look at her all the time, but he can't decide not to hire one because he disagrees with her about something not work related?

I am surprised that this discussion is still going on, especially since it seems rather easy to understand.

Let’s see if I can tackle this.

I want to run a lesbian group game. I’ve tried to run other lesbian group games but it has always failed, I have gotten hurt, other group members have gotten hurt, I have been mistreated, other group members have been mistreated. So, I set up the group game idea and make it gender specific so that the things that have happened in the past do not happen again.

Am I wrong for doing so? No.

Let’s make this a little more straightforward.

A female decides she wants to make a lesbian only game. She decides to restrict to female only writers. Why would she do this?

1. Because lesbian sex is a huge turn on for a lot of men and there are males out there that would want to make a lesbian character so they could have fap material.

2. Because she feels more comfortable running a game where everyone in the group is female - perhaps she has past experience with males writing as female that make her, or other group members, uncomfortable.

3. Personal preference.

Those are the three biggest reasons I can see for gender specific group games. I am sure that there are many, many more that can be brought up. The point that seems to be avoided is the fact that this is the decision of the GM and she doesn’t really have to explain why. We are all adults here, we should be able to accept that there are going to be times that we are not going to fit into what someone else wants.

Would you really want to force your way in knowing that the GM and the members of the game do not want you there? The game would die and everyone would lose out. Do you really feel a need to needle and press for an answer to something like this? I mean, it almost comes across as you are digging in hard for someone to finally throw their hands up and say “alright! Fine! You are being discriminated against just because you have a penis!” when, quite honestly, I suspect it is nothing more than “hey, we’d feel a lot more comfortable if this was just females”

No one has the right to disregard someone else’s comfort level and no one should keep pushing for an answer when it has been said more than once, more than twice, more than thrice, that it is not discriminatory but rather a preference - a comfort factor.

You do not have to like it, you can rant and rave that because you have a penis you cannot join this group game - but it still boils down to the fact that the creator of the group game has decided she wants the game to be female writer only and has her reasons for doing so.

Would you want your personal preferences and comfort level ignored/questioned/put under fire just because someone else refuses to accept that you have the right to choose who you want to write with/how you spend your time on this site? The way I view this is asking for the group members to be female writers only is no different than me saying I prefer writers who can match my post length or post speed. It is what I am comfortable with and a personal preference. That isn’t that hard to understand.

Okay, now where is the line where it becomes unacceptable to judge?  Why is it different for businesses, if you consider it to be?

I understand WHY people have these viewpoints, but not why some are considered acceptable and others are not.

    I have to admit I am somewhat guilty of this- due to an incident when I was younger, I have a very difficult time roleplaying with a male partner when I am playing a female. Because I don't want anyone to feel left out, I just play as a male. I prefer it that way anyway.
 
   

Thank you also for coming forward with the difficult story ^_^ As someone who's actually gone through it, you seem to agree that it really is the same thing.  Am I correct?

      Serious cynicism plus critique alert.  Not as if it's likely to change anything, but I'm very mixed on this.  And not a little frustrated over the long haul with it all. It's a mixed up world, so you get mixed up and frustrated people.  Except for the most conventional people...  Who can go on being smug about just how normal and mature and civil (and probably even "popular!") they are, seemingly forever.  At least until conventions really change, for some generation or other.

      "Personal preference" can be anything.  It can be logical or illogical.  The claimed evidence can be based on fact or not, and it's often enough not really available in detail, in context, or even offered up for communal analysis at all.  It can be consistently applied or not.  And it can be as much a one-sided guess as anything else.  It's arguably even more slippery a term than say, sexual orientation which is at least something that starts with an idea of a (or an at least purportedly) definable, empirical group to work with.  Preference has one thing going for it, I suppose:  It's honest or vague enough to hint: "Yeah, sometimes I'm just a hunch too." 

      But because we take sexuality to be an essentially "personal" question of consent and also - in no small part - because E seems to have adopted a culture of "Whoever starts thread, basically rules it [including closing it down whenever they want regardless of whatever's happening in the meantime]," well it sure gets a whole lot of mileage.  The saying goes: "We wouldn't want anyone to be uncomfortable, now."  Except for all the people who get ruled out from the get go, or who get interrupted, or who the owner changes conditions on halfway through.

     It might seem obvious that well, writing anything creative and/or sexual (especially both) is "supposed to be" a sort of luxury and a matter of intimacy and exclusive experiences.  Whereas getting a job or doing business more or less in public is "on the face of it" more a matter of survival and convenience.  And business is well even, circulation of currency and things that you know governments tend to have a greater interest in many more people very regularly doing at least a modicum of -- rather than fewer people entering at all.  Which leads to different outcomes, of course.  I might go so far as to suggest that if oh say, imagine the U.S. government could take a penny transaction tax for every story posting on E, then there would be rather more official interest in having oh, more Lieges participate with a wider range of people.  (Can't tell you how many Lieges have reported primarily feeling it's easier and safer for reception mainly to play only with with other Lieges.  But anyone could check at least the public postings, if they really cared to count.) 

         But then we could consider that well, governments have also long been interested in setting standards that serve certain groups and classes more than others.  And one way they have done that is to also encourage certain sexual mores.  The very notion that "personal" and "business" spheres have different value -- that we must work for a living and pay taxes to sustain the society, but whether or not "our individual things" are guaranteed partners or indeed, any time at all under the sun in our busy days?  Well that's not a matter of any public interest at all.  Except that those "individual things" that lead to umm, polyamory or abortion or feminization or snuff or male submission or a long list of things are in fact ALSO quite shunned and sometimes very politically snubbed in public life and certain arenas of government policy too.  Oh but that doesn't have anything to do with what's going on in this discussion.  And maybe in some ten or twenty or hundred years of education and stop and start "progress," this will all be resolved.  And as the economists say, in the long run, maybe we'll all be dead first.

        I'm actually very happy to celebrate what people enjoy writing and being.  Except when it's fallacies about gatekeeping being for one purpose when you can look closely and find reasons to suspect it's actually for others.  Or when you look closely at the language chosen, and the purposes are rather apparently buying into things that in my opinion kind of shoot many of us in the back or at least, in the foot.  I'm not going to trot out examples now because no matter how logical they might be, someone's surely going to get offended at the notion that there's anything even potentially socially discriminatory about "preference."  (Even when it often becomes the preference of so many that it's practically a majority convention we are talking about?  Really now.)  Please, go read some Bordieu though -- well, if you ever get curious.  Wouldn't want to force anything now.

I've never actually read Bordieu.  However, it seems to be that you agree that there's no real difference.  Am I correct?

Quoting my previous post and then elaborating on it. Probably makes so much more sense in this context.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I have totally not read the entire updated thread and such but I was browsing and a thought just came to mind.

Race and gender and sexuality and etc are not the same. At least, that is my belief. Because each of these categories has a differing history of discrimination, the resulting present is different as well. I believe it would be very foolish to regard race issues and gender issues with an identical mindset.

So, that being said? A girl's night out is fine. A race night out seems a little more preposterous (to me, but hey, I'm white). Why? Because they're different. Among other things, I believe that race has a big history of social exclusion, whereas the big idea of sexism isn't so much that its a taboo to talk to someone of a different gender (disregarding some archaic proprieties), but regarding that gender as having specific roles that must be fulfilled.

So, I mean, it's okay for a group of guys to want to have a guys' night. Less okay if they want to have a "white" night, because I don't think there's really much reason for that, much to be gained. If guys want to make a men only business because they think women are inadequate to do the job? NOT OKAY.

So, I don't know. There's a lot of whitewashing on E. If a group of non-white players wanted to create a non-white group so they wouldn't have to deal with unintentionally racist portrayals, I think maybe I'd be a little bit wary about it but not really hold it against them. Because nonwhites are typically the ones with the short stick. If white people wanted to make a white-only group, I'd say that's not okay. Because again, I don't see what there really is to gain, and whites aren't the victim in the same way that nonwhites are (even if, yes, being white at this point can be an exasperating experience).

And that's different from gender, because I think men and women and nonbinaries should be able to have their own little groups as they please, since that's not the heart of the gender taboo and I think there's a lot that makes the experience different.

I have no clue if I've made any sense.

My point is, race / gender / sexuality / religion / etc issues are not inherently the same, even though they all deal with heaps of discrimination. Therefore, they are not to be handled the same way and what might be okay in one category could be very wrong in another.

It's hard to give examples and analogies because everything varies. But lets say you know two individual victims of abuse. Their experiences were different, and therefore their triggers would be different. One of them would get upset watching scenes of violence in a movie, while the other is extremely sensitive to derogatory language in any context, even if it is not directed at them (or maybe anyone): idiot, bitch, slut, whore.

Therefore, the way you would accommodate these wounds differs depending on who you're interacting with.

That's what I mean by things being different. The experiences that someone goes through as a woman differ from what someone might experience as a black person, and those aren't necessarily representative of what its like to be trans*. So it doesn't make sense to me to treat those issues in the same way, with the same mindset. It's nonsensical to talk about gender and go around and say, "Well, would this be okay if we replaced 'man' and 'woman' with 'gay' and 'straight'?" It's an entirely different question, a different topic.

I used an abuse example because, to me, I think the internal wounds was an important part of the equation. A lot of the discussion of what's okay to do and what's not doesn't and shouldn't exist in a vacuum that's ignorant of history. How you treat a person or a group has a lot to do with what they have experienced in the past.

Girl's nights out and guy's nights out both exist. As a woman, the image of a group of friends sitting around the living room drinking beer and playing video games, taking a night to hang out without being distracted by their girlfriends -- that's not offensive to me, and I hardly think it's oppressive.

I can understand a group of nonwhite people wanting to hang out only with nonwhite people once in a while because they don't want to deal with the natural, unintentional racism (or just ignorance) that can come with a white person. White people don't always realize that some of the shit they say is offensive or why, even if they mean the best. I can totally understand wanting a bit of respite from that, the same way I might want to just hang out with my lady friends without having to hear an offhand sandwich joke or be told that I should dress up more often.

So, if a group who has been discriminated against wants to have time away from that discrimination, I think that makes a lot of sense. It's wanting a little bit of relief from being expected to "deal with it." It's not always effective, it's not always the best option, and it's not always without consequences.

The difference of issues comes into play, I think, regarding the details of how its done and whether the reverse is "okay", or not too offensive. I think guys can hang out exclusively with other guys if they feel like from time to time because that's not inherently insulting to women. A guy can still be a dick about why he doesn't want to hang out with women for whatever purpose, but not that the exclusivity in itself is inherently harmful. But I don't think a "white night" is anything less that very bad judgment at best. Why? Because race relations are different from gender relations. And not everyone will agree on what is and is not okay, but my real point here is that those things are still different depending on what you're talking about, be it gender, sexuality, race, etc.

First I want to thank you for going into greater detail in an attempt to explain to me.

I don't always get things which are obvious to others.  Sometimes it's because there really is no difference, and sometimes it's just that the difference is so obvious that people never bothered to state it.

I will say with regards to unintentional racism that I have stuff like that happen all the time where I do something dumb but where race isn't involved.  If I do so, I want people to let me know, whether it's racial or not.  Just a personal note for anyone I accidentally offend along the way.

From that perspective, it doesn't really matter if race is involved or not.  Is a guy who only hires blondes better than a guy who only hires white people?  Isn't the very definition of equality that we treat everyone the same?

There are certainly some contextual differences in that a black man is going to be offended by different words than a lesbian would, but we can take those into consideration when we make judgment.

You mention that not everyone will agree on what is and isn't okay, and that certainly seems to be true, but I do feel as though we should have some degree of trying to treat everyone the same with regard to what we can and can't do, in context.

If anyone else wants to open up on this aspect of things, they're welcome to do so.

3) As I understand it E's official position is that not writing with a certain gender isn't a matter of comfort but is instead an exclusion which we tolerate (I'm not sure if that's associated with E's policy of accepting "bigots" in the hope of reforming them/widening their world view). That said not being willing to write cross-gender (as in writing with a man playing a woman not writing a man wearing a dress or a woman wearing trousers) is one of the warning signs they look for that someone has difficulties separating IC and OOC.

I accept the intellectual consistency here, if this is how things are set up.

Actually, lilhobbit, the problem I have with the words "ban" and "prejudice," is that they are implicitly hostile.  A less incendiary way to gather information on this topic would be to ask:  "Why do people put up ads seeking stories with specific gender writers?"  By employing the words "ban," "prejudice" and "bigot" one is essentially stating:  "I think people who seek stories with a specific gender writers are bad people.  Now, explain to me why you are not bad." 



Here's the thing.  It isn't all about one person--particularly not one person who happens to read an ad they do not like.  Let's play it out.

Scenario 1:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story, but is not gender G.  Odds are, B will not then apply to join the game.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on. 

Scenario 2:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B reads the post.  B is interested in the story.  B is not gender G.  B applies to join the game. 

A then rejects B's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, A and B move on.

See how the result does not change if we mandate that people must remove gender preferences from the headings of their game ads?  It still won't force A to write with B.

Scenario 3:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad does not state any preference for gender.

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  B through Z are interested in the story.  B through Z are not gender G.  B through Z apply to join the game. 

A then rejects B through Z's application.  B may feel excluded or "banned," but regardless, everyone moves on. 
 
B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z were all put through the extra step of applying for a game that was not created for them.  A was put to the extra step of denying the applications of B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z.

See how in this sense, stating a gender preference in an ad can actually be a polite thing to do?  It saves the poster time and wasted effort, and it saves all other E members time and wasted effort.

Scenario 4:

A wants to play a game with gender G writers only.  A puts up an ad seeking a game (group or individual), and the ad states:  "gender G writers only."

B, C, D, F, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z read the post.  They are interested in the story. 

B, C, D, F, H I, J, K, L, M, N, O, and P are not gender G. 

Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are gender G.

C, X, Y, and Z apply to join the game.  B does not apply, feeling excluded or "banned." 

A then rejects C and Z's application, and opts to play with X and Y.  Everyone moves on. 

Compare Scenarios 3 and 4 and you can see how focusing on just B makes us myopic.  If we mandated that people cannot state gender preferences in their ads, we get Scenario 3.  If we do not impose such a rule, then we have Scenario 4.  E allows people to select their RPs based on the other writer's gender.  Putting up an ad that clearly specifies one's gender preferences (if any) saves everyone time and wasted effort:  D through P didn't have to write an application; A only needed to respond to four applications.  This likely leads to more satisfying RP experiences for everyone as a whole.

Now, some people may respond saying:  "yes, but A shouldn't want to write only with gender G writers, and that A is a bigot/prejudiced because A feels that way."

Maybe.  But you can't force people to RP in the way you want.  If they don't feel comfortable RPing with someone of a specific gender because of their past (e.g., having been abused or worse), we need to respect that.  If it is because they get their "rocks off knowing that she's enjoying it too," then that should be allowed too.

The point I have been trying to make repeatedly is this:  your feelings are not the only ones that matter. 

You may not like the fact that someone else has a preference for certain kinds of RPs, whether it is gender or tentacles.  But you don't get to tell them what to do.  Respect their choices, even when you disagree with them.  And don't try to shame them into doing what you want by labeling them bigots or prejudiced.  You don't know anywhere near enough about their past to pass judgment.

I'm not fully convinced it's the words.  For example, "block" seems to come off just as bad, even though it's far less clear.

I will affirm that if we allow people to seek only a specific gender, it is far preferable to have them clearly say so.  For example, I'm not going to waste my time trying to get a job at Hooters.

Beyond that, I think I'd only be repeating myself from elsewhere.

[Cycle]

AndyZ,

There are two points you continue to not address:

1.  Will you agree that your feelings are not the only ones that matter?

2.  Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be "morally wrong" or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as "banning," and "discrimination" to accept that they have a different opinion?

You statement quoted below does not answer the second question.

In regards to this question, specifically asked and repeated:

To use different terms would imply that the two are actually different.

Now, with respect to some of your comments:

I believe what you're saying is that it's a personal thing, that comfort kicks in and that the preferences of both parties deserve equal weight.

Now, why is that different for stores and businesses?

First, we agree that the employment example you raised earlier is no longer valid and now are turning to a new example?

Second, it is more than simple comfort. There are personal, private, intimate issues involved for some RPs.  Are you the sort of person that openly shares such things with everyone?  More importantly, are you insisting that everyone shares on the same level you do?

You want to compare stores with RPs.  Answer this question please: if you are a store owner, are you willing to share/tell/do the same things with your customers as you are with a RP partner writing a sexually themed story here on E? 

If the answer is no, then I think you see the difference between a store and a RP.

Let's say that a heterosexual male has been raped by a homosexual male.  This is something that happens, but it's far from indicative of all homosexual men.  However, this hypothetical person develops an aversion to homosexual males as a result.  He owns a business but doesn't feel comfortable having them there, because he spends 80 hours a week at the store and won't always have other people around.

Should this hypothetical store owner be allowed to deny homosexual men from employment simply because of his bad experience?

Invalid example, as a customer-store owner relationship is different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

I think you can see where I was going with the race thing from before, then.

No, I do not.  I explained how your employment example based on "the race thing" is invalid.

I understand WHY people have these viewpoints, but not why some are considered acceptable and others are not.

You do not see the difference between buying a loaf of bread and writing a NC sexual scene?  You do not see the difference between hiring a new intern and writing a D/s spanking scene?

I'm not fully convinced it's the words.  For example, "block" seems to come off just as bad, even though it's far less clear.

This gets to the heart of the disconnect.  AndyZ, you view things one way.  You do not seem to be able to see things the way others do.  When I, and others, try to explain how we see it, you simply repeat how you see it and state your view is correct.

Until you can accept that others are going to have their own views--views which, even if you cannot understand, you should respect--I doubt you will ever find an adequate resolution to this issue.  You will simply see things the way you do, and there will be those of us who disagree with you.

[AndyZ]

AndyZ,

There are two points you continue to not address:

1.  Will you agree that your feelings are not the only ones that matter?

Yes.

2.  Can you accept the possibility that other people feel differently than you, and rather than judging them to be "morally wrong" or labeling their behavior with negative terms such as "banning," and "discrimination" to accept that they have a different opinion?

You statement quoted below does not answer the second question.

verb (used with object), banned, banning.
1.
to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict:
to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
2.
Archaic.
to pronounce an ecclesiastical curse upon.
to curse; execrate.

I assure you that I'm using the first version of the word and not the second.

Naturally I accept that people have a different opinion.  What puzzles me is why we consider some types of banning bad and not others.

You may rest assured that I'm not attempting to deliberately choose words to convey some sort of pejorative.  For example, if I say that someone is gay, all I'm saying is that they're homosexual, not attempting to relay any sort of insult.

Now, with respect to some of your comments:

First, we agree that the employment example you raised earlier is no longer valid and now are turning to a new example?

Second, it is more than simple comfort. There are personal, private, intimate issues involved for some RPs.  Are you the sort of person that openly shares such things with everyone?  More importantly, are you insisting that everyone shares on the same level you do?

You want to compare stores with RPs.  Answer this question please: if you are a store owner, are you willing to share/tell/do the same things with your customers as you are with a RP partner writing a sexually themed story here on E? 

If the answer is no, then I think you see the difference between a store and a RP.

I've actually gotten to roleplay with a boss of mine before, as well as coworkers.

From my perspective, the concept of friendship extends to the workplace as much as it does to roleplaying.  It makes as much sense to say "I can't roleplay with X because he's Y," as it does to say, "I can't work with X because of Y (where neither X nor Y are directly related to the job)" or "I can't be friends with X because of Y."

Now, I will grant you that there's a degree of stigma for RP.  So I can grant the concept that someone might not be comfortable bringing up RP to begin with, but if you already know that the person RPs, it may change your perspective.

Invalid example, as a customer-store owner relationship is different from a sexually themed RP writing relationship.

No, I do not.  I explained how your employment example based on "the race thing" is invalid.

You do not see the difference between buying a loaf of bread and writing a NC sexual scene?  You do not see the difference between hiring a new intern and writing a D/s spanking scene?

This gets to the heart of the disconnect.  AndyZ, you view things one way.  You do not seem to be able to see things the way others do.  When I, and others, try to explain how we see it, you simply repeat how you see it and state your view is correct.

Until you can accept that others are going to have their own views--views which, even if you cannot understand, you should respect--I doubt you will ever find an adequate resolution to this issue.  You will simply see things the way you do, and there will be those of us who disagree with you.

The only real difference I can see is the aforementioned stigma.  There's definitely a stigma on roleplayers, probably especially sexual roleplayers.

People keep in the dark about stuff, and it creates a closet all its own.  I can understand the idea of "I don't want someone to know I'm a sexual roleplayer, so I'm going to keep that secret."

If through mind reading, divination, or accidental eavesdropping, I learn that my boss is a sexual roleplayer, sure, let's start up a game.

I would put that up around on the idea of "We're all going to a Football game.  Do you want to join us?"  After all, there's no stigma on liking football games.

Now, if you found out that your boss was already here on Elliquiy and s/he wanted to start up a game with you, would you have a problem with it?

[Cycle]

Now, I will grant you that there's a degree of stigma for RP.  So I can grant the concept that someone might not be comfortable bringing up RP to begin with, but if you already know that the person RPs, it may change your perspective.

The only real difference I can see is the aforementioned stigma.  There's definitely a stigma on roleplayers, probably especially sexual roleplayers.

Well, I don't think stigma is the issue for most people when it comes to their partner preferences.  Here, on E, everyone knows everyone else is likely to be engaged in some form of adult RPing.  Rather, there is a level of intimacy possible through an RP.  A closer connection to the other writer, that may have tinges of sexual energy.  I described this in my first post in this thread and it seems you don't feel this at all.

Now, if you found out that your boss was already here on Elliquiy and s/he wanted to start up a game with you, would you have a problem with it?

I would decline the request politely.  There are things I would not wish to share with a co-worker, yes.

I think we've found your answer.  You seem to have a different view of RPing than some/most people who list a gender preference for their writing partners.

You don't feel the intimacy that some do.  And you are more willing to discuss sexual issues in certain situations than others: e.g., with an employer.

But as you are not passing judgment on others, nor insisting that they must conform with your view on how they conduct their RPs, then really, I have nothing more to add.

[Iniquitous]

Attempt #2

I am not on here charging for my writing services - thus, I can (and do) allow my preferences to reign supreme. I am not, under any circumstances, going to write with someone if I am not comfortable and feel safe with them. Nor will I write a story I am not comfortable with.

If I owned a business, my personal preferences do not get to come into play. There are laws in place that make sure that my personal preferences do not get in the way of fair practice. Because I am charging the population at large, I have to follow those laws - no matter what my personal preferences are.

There in is the difference Andy. Writing on elliquiy is not a business. It is not a job. It is a recreation for each person's enjoyment. Your enjoyment does not trump my enjoyment. My enjoyment does not trump someone else's enjoyment. Again, we are all adults and should be able to accept that we will not be everyone's cup of tea.

As for using negative words - when you use the word ban instead of something like preference you are putting a negative spin on the situation. This is not negative. This simply is a matter of preference - and there is nothing negative about having a preference.

[AndyZ]

Well, I don't think stigma is the issue for most people when it comes to their partner preferences.  Here, on E, everyone knows everyone else is likely to be engaged in some for adult RPing.  Rather, there is a level of intimacy possible through an RP.  A closer connection to the other writer, that may have tinges of sexual energy.  I described this in my first post in this thread and it seems you don't feel this at all.

I would decline the request politely.  There are things I would not wish to share with a co-worker, yes.

I think we've found your answer.  You seem to have a different view of RPing than some/most people who list a gender preference for their writing partners.

You don't feel the intimacy that some do.  And you are more willing to discuss sexual issues in certain situations than others: e.g., with an employer.

But as you are not passing judgment on others, nor insisting that they must conform with your view on how they conduct their RPs, then really, I have nothing more to add.

I think we have that set ^_^ Thanks for putting up with me.

Attempt #2

I am not on here charging for my writing services - thus, I can (and do) allow my preferences to reign supreme. I am not, under any circumstances, going to write with someone if I am not comfortable and feel safe with them. Nor will I write a story I am not comfortable with.

If I owned a business, my personal preferences do not get to come into play. There are laws in place that make sure that my personal preferences do not get in the way of fair practice. Because I am charging the population at large, I have to follow those laws - no matter what my personal preferences are.

There in is the difference Andy. Writing on elliquiy is not a business. It is not a job. It is a recreation for each person's enjoyment. Your enjoyment does not trump my enjoyment. My enjoyment does not trump someone else's enjoyment. Again, we are all adults and should be able to accept that we will not be everyone's cup of tea.

As for using negative words - when you use the word ban instead of something like preference you are putting a negative spin on the situation. This is not negative. This simply is a matter of preference - and there is nothing negative about having a preference.

I do not consider "Because there are laws/rules" to be an acceptable reason.  It's not the only reason you gave, but just putting that out there.

So, from your perspective, the difference is commerce?  For example, where prostitution is legal and recognized, a prostitute would not be allowed to deny service based on age, sex, race, and so on?  However, it becomes acceptable so long as no money is exchanging hands, such that you would consider it perfectly acceptable to throw a party and only allow a certain type of person to participate?

[Oniya]

People already throw parties and only allow certain types of people to participate.  If I throw a party, I invite a select group of people that I have chosen for a particular reason:  Maybe I'm marathoning cheesy movies, and I invite 'people who like cheesy movies'.  Maybe I'm doing a 'stitch-n-bitch' and I invite 'people who stitch (and/or bitch)'.  Maybe I'm doing a trip to the Renaissance Faire and I invite 'people who like Renaissance Faires'.  Maybe I'm throwing a party for my daughter and I invite 'friends of my daughter'. 

I do not invite the whole neighborhood, and if someone shows up who I am not comfortable with having at the party, I do not let them in.

[rou]

From that perspective, it doesn't really matter if race is involved or not.  Is a guy who only hires blondes better than a guy who only hires white people?  Isn't the very definition of equality that we treat everyone the same?

Last I was aware, people of varying hair colors were not systematically and catastrophically discriminated against (barring maybe like, the holocaust?) But that being said, such superficial discrimination is a no-no unless there's a specific reason. (Like, I don't know, you own a blonde-kink strip club? Or you're auditioning for the role of a blonde in a film?)

In cases of businesses that hire minorities, they do so to help compensate for the disadvantages those people face for being a minority.