Somehow we got onto the topic of kids and how many everyone in the party had. One guy said he had 5 kids one guy said he had 3 and one guy said he had a newborn.... I replied "no matter how hard my boyfriend and I try I just cant seem to get him pregnant" there was a moment of Absolute silence and then an uproar of laughter. I felt good about that. I used humor to out myself to my group and no one cared.
Best post yet in this topic.
LOL...
I'm a straight guy, I go to a very liberal university and I try to be understanding in regards to other peoples' lifestyles. I don't think sexuality, gay/lesbian/straight, really belongs in game. Generally I don't care about my guild mates sexuality... but if they were having a hard time and needed/wanted someone to talk to I'd be more than willing to take a few minutes and talk to them regardless of their orientation. People always whine about the lack of community in MMOs... I would say that the lack of understanding/acceptance of others is the cause of declining MMO communities and the reason that gay/lesbian guilds are now being formed.
i found this on wikipedia.org Although successful, World of Warcraft has received its share of criticism. One of the most recent of these controversies had to do with Blizzard's treatment of a transgender player when she made a guild for other gay or gay-friendly players this sounds like they dont like gay people. now dont get me wrong i am not partically fond of gay people nor do i promote bein gay is ok, but messin with people on a online game bc they are different is just wrong even if they are gay. i dont see why they couldnt do this bc its just a game and it shouldnt be that big of a deal. maybe this is old idk but i just noticed it.
Has nothing to do with hating gay people. What it does have to do with is one group of people being discrimanatory for guild membership based off of SEX. In this case a guild leader who only takes members who are homosexual. You think only straight people can discriminate? In this case it is the opposite of that and is directly against the EULA for World of Warcraft.
No offense to gay people but they got what they farm...
believe me i don´t care if i hang out with a gay person aslong she/he is polite and know her/his limites evrything is good but most of them PASS the LINE specially for male gay people they over react, i mean they have to learn how to act, theres places where you can go and hang out with gay people, theres your home, i mean come on not MOST of the people dont wanna see 2 MALE gay people having sex, besides gay people are too HORNY they wanna f*ck and get f*cked 24/7 and thats just disgusting so you see if you are a guy no one care if you like men but you guys have to learn how to act in public.
Besides of that, that gay person who make the guild it´s just an idiot, I M STRAIGH but you dont see me making guild for STRAIGHT people only, good you proud of been gay NO ONE CARE keep it to yourself.
anyway the problem is not that they are gay is how you act.
No offense to gay people but they got what they farm... believe me i don´t care if i hang out with a gay person aslong she/he is polite and know her/his limites evrything is good, Besides of that, that gay person who make the guild it´s just an idiot,
On UK television a while back there was a comedy sketch show. It used to have a regular series of jokes based around old fashioned attitudes to women. The punchline was "women know your limits". I find it quite amusing that you use almost the same line in full seriousness.
but most of them PASS the LINE specially for male gay people they over react, i mean they have to learn how to act, theres places where you can go and hang out with gay people, theres your home, i mean come on not MOST of the people dont wanna see 2 MALE gay people having sex
You can see that in an MMO? I don't think any form of sexual activity is appropriate in an area where young children are likely to be present.
I M STRAIGH but you dont see me making guild for STRAIGHT people only, good you proud of been gay NO ONE CARE keep it to yourself.
I think they wanted to make a gay only guild in order to avoid people like you.
besides gay people are too HORNY they wanna f*ck and get f*cked 24/7 and thats just disgusting so you see if you are a guy no one care if you like men but you guys have to learn how to act in public.
Do you remember being a teenager? How you were constantly horny and fancied anything in a skirt? Gay teenagers are pretty similar - except it's trousers rather than a skirt..
anyway the problem is not that they are gay is how you act.
Have you ever known any gay people? Most are quite reserved about their sexuality due to the prejudices they experience.
This subject matter is changing. It went from a guild wanting only gay members to gay bashing. Please stick to the subject.
While I may understand some apoligists in the case of having a WOW guild with a particular sexual preference as a requirement for membership within a World of Warcraft community. I think WOW representatives did the correct thing in banning the guild. No guild regardless of personal feelings in World of Warcraft are to discriminate against Gender,Ethnicity, religion or Sexual preference. In the case of someone wanting only gay members it is discrimination under those rules of the EULA any WOW user agrees to.
As to the gay apolegist/basher thing going on here. Please do it somewhere else. If it continues from either side I will do my best to get this post locked. This is not what these forums are about.
No offense to gay people but they got what they farm... believe me i don´t care if i hang out with a gay person aslong she/he is polite and know her/his limites evrything is good but most of them PASS the LINE specially for male gay people they over react, i mean they have to learn how to act, theres places where you can go and hang out with gay people, theres your home, i mean come on not MOST of the people dont wanna see 2 MALE gay people having sex, besides gay people are too HORNY they wanna f*ck and get f*cked 24/7 and thats just disgusting so you see if you are a guy no one care if you like men but you guys have to learn how to act in public. Besides of that, that gay person who make the guild it´s just an idiot, I M STRAIGH but you dont see me making guild for STRAIGHT people only, good you proud of been gay NO ONE CARE keep it to yourself. anyway the problem is not that they are gay is how you act.
i think this guys jealous.
Yes GUYS like to think about and HAVE sex. gay or straight.
Put 2 guys together who are into it and guess what ensues. yea...... manlovin.
If your into guys and girls, lifes a constant party.
No offense to gay people but they got what they farm... believe me i don´t care if i hang out with a gay person aslong she/he is polite and know her/his limites evrything is good but most of them PASS the LINE specially for male gay people they over react, i mean they have to learn how to act, theres places where you can go and hang out with gay people, theres your home, i mean come on not MOST of the people dont wanna see 2 MALE gay people having sex, besides gay people are too HORNY they wanna f*ck and get f*cked 24/7 and thats just disgusting so you see if you are a guy no one care if you like men but you guys have to learn how to act in public. Besides of that, that gay person who make the guild it´s just an idiot, I M STRAIGH but you dont see me making guild for STRAIGHT people only, good you proud of been gay NO ONE CARE keep it to yourself. anyway the problem is not that they are gay is how you act.
i think this guys jealous.
Yes GUYS like to think about and HAVE sex. gay or straight.
Put 2 guys together who are into it and guess what ensues. yea...... manlovin.
If your into guys and girls, lifes a constant party.
lol
I could care less what sex of the human species you choose.
Just one thing . . . if you are a guy hitting on me . . . it damn well better be to try and get me involved with your girl . . . cuz she likes it like that.
I don't think only gay people play MMOs but I would agree that some do. People use term "gay" not to dis gay people but to express their discomfort like "man that last wipe was gay".
I'm not sure if this was addressed previously (I'm not reading through 7 pages) but transgenderism is NOT the same thing as homosexuality. In Blizzard's defense though, this isn't a problem that is limited to them or MMOs but it's a larger social problem emerging from a European system of gender categorization. It happens everywhere. My own university recently had a problem with a girl who identified as a man. Our dorms are co-ed but have a BOY-Girl-Boy-Girl room configuration. Since she identified as a man, she had to go through the administration about 10 times before they agreed to let her into the male wing of the dorm. Hell, even this post I'm writing is an example of the problem, it's difficult to even TALK about someone who is transgendered because English lacks a gender neutral personal pronoun (you're either a he/she or an it).
The criticism is important for Blizzard to learn from, but the company shouldn't be vilified for it. They're struggling against almost 10,000 years of precedent.
Also from Wiki:
Blizzard garnered criticism for their decision in January 2006 to ban guilds from advertising sexual orientation preferences. The incident occurred after several players were cited for "harassment" after advocating a group for gay-straight alliance [7][8]. Blizzard initially responded by saying their objective was to, ".. promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast." [9]
Blizzard later reversed the decision to issue warnings to players promoting GLBT-friendly guilds. Included in this decision was the announcement that they intend to set up in-game channels intended specifically for guild advertisements, as well as provide "sensitivity training" for their staff after players complained of homophobic language being used openly and without punishment. [10][11]
I don't think only gay people play MMOs but I would agree that some do. People use term "gay" not to dis gay people but to express their discomfort like "man that last wipe was gay".
I'd agree that most people don't think about their use of language, but that doesn't mean their words don't have an effect - i.e. subtly re-inforcing the prejudices of our society.
I'm not sure if this was addressed previously (I'm not reading through 7 pages) but transgenderism is NOT the same thing as homosexuality. In Blizzard's defense though, this isn't a problem that is limited to them or MMOs but it's a larger social problem emerging from a European system of gender categorization. It happens everywhere. My own university recently had a problem with a girl who identified as a man. Our dorms are co-ed but have a BOY-Girl-Boy-Girl room configuration. Since she identified as a man, she had to go through the administration about 10 times before they agreed to let her into the male wing of the dorm. Hell, even this post I'm writing is an example of the problem, it's difficult to even TALK about someone who is transgendered because English lacks a gender neutral personal pronoun (you're either a he/she or an it).
The criticism is important for Blizzard to learn from, but the company shouldn't be vilified for it. They're struggling against almost 10,000 years of precedent.
Also from Wiki:
Blizzard garnered criticism for their decision in January 2006 to ban guilds from advertising sexual orientation preferences. The incident occurred after several players were cited for "harassment" after advocating a group for gay-straight alliance [7][8]. Blizzard initially responded by saying their objective was to, ".. promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast." [9]
Blizzard later reversed the decision to issue warnings to players promoting GLBT-friendly guilds. Included in this decision was the announcement that they intend to set up in-game channels intended specifically for guild advertisements, as well as provide "sensitivity training" for their staff after players complained of homophobic language being used openly and without punishment. [10][11]
Why is this even a issue. I personally do not care about a persons personal belief. I mean, I can say im actually a alien with heightened intelligence. Will a dormatory make substantial accomadations based from that.? The point is simple. Regardless of belief. fact is fact.. If you are born a male you are male, if you are born a female you are female. There really is no such thing as transgenderism except what ones personal belief in it.
As to being homosexual to trangenderism it is still basically the same. You have a person roleplaying a gender he or she isnt based from personal belief. In partnerships you have usually one person who plays"Butch" and the other who plays the submissive. The point is still "its based off of personal belief rather than what it really is.
I'm not sure if this was addressed previously (I'm not reading through 7 pages) but transgenderism is NOT the same thing as homosexuality. In Blizzard's defense though, this isn't a problem that is limited to them or MMOs but it's a larger social problem emerging from a European system of gender categorization. It happens everywhere. My own university recently had a problem with a girl who identified as a man. Our dorms are co-ed but have a BOY-Girl-Boy-Girl room configuration. Since she identified as a man, she had to go through the administration about 10 times before they agreed to let her into the male wing of the dorm. Hell, even this post I'm writing is an example of the problem, it's difficult to even TALK about someone who is transgendered because English lacks a gender neutral personal pronoun (you're either a he/she or an it).
The criticism is important for Blizzard to learn from, but the company shouldn't be vilified for it. They're struggling against almost 10,000 years of precedent.
Also from Wiki:
Blizzard garnered criticism for their decision in January 2006 to ban guilds from advertising sexual orientation preferences. The incident occurred after several players were cited for "harassment" after advocating a group for gay-straight alliance [7][8]. Blizzard initially responded by saying their objective was to, ".. promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast." [9]
Blizzard later reversed the decision to issue warnings to players promoting GLBT-friendly guilds. Included in this decision was the announcement that they intend to set up in-game channels intended specifically for guild advertisements, as well as provide "sensitivity training" for their staff after players complained of homophobic language being used openly and without punishment. [10][11]
Why is this even a issue. I personally do not care about a persons personal belief. I mean, I can say im actually a alien with heightened intelligence. Will a dormatory make substantial accomadations based from that.? The point is simple. Regardless of belief. fact is fact.. If you are born a male you are male, if you are born a female you are female. There really is no such thing as transgenderism except what ones personal belief in it.
As to being homosexual to trangenderism it is still basically the same. You have a person roleplaying a gender he or she isnt based from personal belief. In partnerships you have usually one person who plays"Butch" and the other who plays the submissive. The point is still "its based off of personal belief rather than what it really is.
Guh. I'm going to try to be polite about this because you obviously don't have a background in psychology or biology. Trasgenderism is not the same thing as saying "you're actually an alien". In vitro the human fetus is subjected to a bombardment of chemical hormones that determines a number of different aspects of sex. Genitalia is one of them, as are other hormones that determine sex-based personality tendencies etc. In cases of transgenderism (this is not the same as "pretending" you are a girl or dressing up as one) these chemical hormones do not interact correctly producing what is chemically a "female" but anatomically "male" or vice versa. Currently biologists and psychologists theorize that this change happens in the third trimester of pregnancy. Transgendered individuals recognized that something is wrong almost immediately (usually from the age of 2 or 3) and is something that they do not grow out of (this is not the same as a "phase" that many children go through like dressing up as the opposite sex).
As far as your comment about male/female. You really couldn't be more off. The terms male and female are social categories and do not have any bearing in biology. In biological terms there are actually five sexes (when considering chromosome combinations):
XX
XY
XXX
XYY
and XO
While XY and XX USUALLY produce male and female genitalia respectively this not always the case. There is plenty of documentation of an XX individual being born with a penis and vice versa. As far as the other three, there are no outward signs and it is possible (though not statistically likely) that you are in fact not an XY. The only way of telling is actually getting tested specifically for it (and as far as I know very few medical labs are even equipped to carry out the test).
And NO NO NO. Homosexuality and transgenderism are NOT THE SAME. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and a transgendered individual may be homosexual or not. And as far as you submissive dominant comment again. NO NO NO. I can't stress that enough: NO. All data that has been collected by sociologists suggests the opposite and homosexual couples have as many varying personalities as heterosexual couples. Unfortunately, people such as yourself who are uncomfortable with the idea of sexual diversity like to treat what is nothing more than stereotyping as fact which perpetuates not only discrimination but a complete ignorance of the issue in question. Scholars have been doing careful scientifically valid research on sexual diversity for over half a century and this information is all out there and readily accessible. The problem is, you aren't interested enough to engage with it and are instead using false information to confirm your own biases. The next time you throw garbage like that around make sure its not in the presence of someone with a background in sociology, anthropology, psychology and history. You'll sound like less of an idiot.
This question has been stirring considerable controversy among lesbians, gays, and their supporters and friends, as well as among opponents of gay civil rights. In the debate about the origins of sexual orientation, people have presented a variety of arguments for possible causes, ranging from genetic predisposition to individual choices about lifestyle to environmental factors. People’s views regarding gay civil rights do not necessarily indicate which of these possible causes they believe is the "right" one. The fundamental question remains, however: why are we having this debate in the first place?
Questions about the biological basis of sexual orientation were first raised about a century ago when the British sexual liberators Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter argued that laws against same-sex sexual activities should be dropped because people engaging in such activities were biologically different from those with opposite-sex partners: they called such people "inverts". The use of the word "homosexual" as a noun designating a certain kind of person – rather than an adjective referring to specific activities – dates from that period. However, the creation of this new, presumably biological, typology did nothing to reduce prejudice and bigotry.
Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways, which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. By seeking a definitive basis of such behavior in genetics, we risk oversimplifying our view of behaviors, and ultimately, of our world. And, as amply demonstrated by history, basing civil rights claims on biology is a double-edged sword.
Some argue that a genetic component to sexual orientation will reduce discrimination. Yet, in our society, people are subjected to discrimination on the basis of differences in biology (sex, skin color) and culture (ethnicity, religion); in different jurisdictions, various degrees of legal protection are provided or lacking against both of these types of discrimination. As amply demonstrated by the Civil Rights and women’s movements, focusing on differences in biology can be used to further oppression, not liberation.
Rather than seeking a biology-based defense against discrimination, it would be more productive to try to understand why some people find it useful to attribute genetic causes to behaviors as varied as criminality, alcoholism and sexual orientation.
WHY THIS FIXATION ON A GENETIC COMPONENT FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION?
Attributing sexual orientation to genes appeals to some parts of the lesbian and gay community for the following reasons: First, it counters the argument set forth by bigots who assert that lesbian and gay behaviors are "unnatural," or indeed, "crimes against nature."Second, some lesbians and gays feel guilty about their sexual orientation, but if there is a biological foundation to it, they argue, it is not their "fault".Third, by advancing a biological explanation for their sexual orientation, some gay rights advocates assert that it therefore constitutes an "immutable characteristic," which would afford lesbians and gays more legal protection against discriminatory practices.
But we need to recognize that this focus on what causes individuals to be lesbian or gay arises from homophobia. Theories focusing on the origin of homosexuality, rather than of heterosexuality, imply that because the latter predominates, it is more "natural" or "normal"." Such a homophobic bias perpetuates the assumption that homosexuality represents a "problem" in need of a "solution".
The history of discrimination against other groups, such as people of color or women, makes it clear that a biological basis for distinctness has not prevented racism or sexism. On the contrary, biological arguments have frequently been used to bolster discrimination. American slavery was rationalized on biological grounds, as was extermination of Jews. And so was the exclusion of women from all economically lucrative activities, except the sale of sexual favors to highly placed men.
We are biological organisms and, of course, everything we do has biological components, but the present revival of earlier biodeterminist arguments coincides with a broadening of genetic attributions to a wide range of physiological, psychological, and social characteristics. These include so-called tendencies to develop feared, but common, health conditions such as cancer or diabetes, and often equally feared behaviors, such as excessive alcohol consumption, suicidal tendencies, violence – and physical or psychological attraction to people of the same sex.
The scientific basis for these attributions is exceedingly weak. The claim that genes account for the transmission within families of schizophrenia, bipolar manic depression, and alcoholism have all been contested, and most such reports have eventually been withdrawn.
DO STUDIES SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A GAY GENE?
The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results.
Hamer’s group examined DNA samples from self-identified gay men and other gay male family members. The researchers claim they have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," on the X chromosome, the chromosome men inherit only from their mother and not from their father. They say that most, though not all, gay men within a family share such a marker. (In a more recent study, they conclude that lesbian sisters do not share this marker.) They now hope that by defining this marker more closely, they will be able to identify a "gene for gayness" on the X chromosome.
One of the problems with their approach is that Hamer and his colleagues did not feel it necessary to check whether any of the straight men in these families share the marker in question. If even only a few of them do, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies. More recently, Hamer has tested this out, and the results do not change his interpretation.
But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. The reason Hamer gives for his unusually low estimate is that he wants to work only with "real" gay men, that is, men who have essentially never veered from their preference for men in their sexual fantasies or activities. His definition does not take into account the large population of men who have sexual relations with men, but who do not identify as gay, or men who have had sexual relationships or marriages with women, or have fathered children, but now do identify as gay. If research on sexual orientation does not consider this diversity of sexual identities, the social relevance of this research is limited.
Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality. But none of the results, including Hamer’s, support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.
Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women – though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. All of LeVay’s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay’s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."
WHAT ROLE DO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PLAY?
Arguments for a biological basis of sexual orientation have also been offered, based on questionable studies of twins and other siblings. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, measured sexual orientation in brothers of gay men. They found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers of gay men, about 10% were also gay, a rate often attributed to the general population. The rate of "double" homosexuality for fraternal twins was 22%, and for identical twins, 52%.
The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were found to be roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors play a role, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. In light of these results, it does not seem surprising that an even larger proportion of identical twins would have similar behaviors since the world thinks of them as "the same" and treats them accordingly, and they often share such feelings of sameness.
Homophobia – another clearly environmental factor – may also have affected the study’s results by distorting the sample. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of gay and bisexual men. The study’s participants "were recruited through advertisements placed in gay publications in several Midwest and Southwest cities." Thus all the respondents read gay periodicals and probably were, to some degree, public about their sexuality. In addition, they responded to ads asking them about their brothers. Although the ads asked gay men to "call regardless of the sexual orientation of [their] brother[s]," men with gay brothers might well have been more likely to participate than men with straight brothers, especially if the straight brothers were homophobic or the gay ones were not "out" to their families. Since many people believe that homosexuality is genetic, a straight man who has a gay twin, and especially a gay "identical" twin, might well feel that his own sexual orientation was "suspect," and refuse to participate in the study, finding the subject threatening. Conversely, if identical twins are both gay, they might find the subject interesting and be eager to volunteer for a study.
WILL POTENTIAL MISUSE ARISE IF A GAY GENE IS FOUND?
Both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association have taken the official position that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation would be wrong. Certainly, anti-gay violence and oppression are wrong. So what will researchers like Hamer, LeVay, Bailey and Pillard do if bigots begin to use the idea of a "marker" or "gene" to predict which male fetuses are gay for purposes of terminating such pregnancies, or to subject young boys to "remedial" education, reprogramming or other "therapies"? Hamer has said he will patent the gene, if he finds it, so that it cannot be misused. Is patent law a realistic way to protect against homophobia? (Many people feel that it is immoral to patent human genes, anyway.) What would be the proper use of such a gene? And what is the point of searching for it in the first place?
Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against discrimination arising from their sexual orientation. In fact, the promise of a quick technological fix for the problem of discrimination against homosexuals distracts us from the larger societal issue. Homophobia and discrimination exist, and it is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality will change that. Only social and political remedies will counter discrimination. Biology is not the issue: society at present protects people against discrimination for choices such as religion (including converts), marital status, or political affiliations. Genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections.
The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.
Now using proxy science as a basis to a argument, especially when almost everything you stated above is in theory only. No substantial fact. I would STFU
Um. Dude. I was talking about a biological basis for transgenderism not homosexuality. And I'll quote myself, "Homosexuality and transgenderism are NOT THE SAME." Not once in my post did I say there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Reading comprehension can be your friend.
If your interested, which you won't be but I'll mention it anyway, a good book to pick up that gives an overview of the issue is The riddle of gender : science, activism, and transgender rights by Deborah Rudacille.
i found this on wikipedia.org Although successful, World of Warcraft has received its share of criticism. One of the most recent of these controversies had to do with Blizzard's treatment of a transgender player when she made a guild for other gay or gay-friendly players this sounds like they dont like gay people. now dont get me wrong i am not partically fond of gay people nor do i promote bein gay is ok, but messin with people on a online game bc they are different is just wrong even if they are gay. i dont see why they couldnt do this bc its just a game and it shouldnt be that big of a deal. maybe this is old idk but i just noticed it.
Well by saying you are not 'fond of others being gay, nor do you think it's okay,' it seems to me you are part of the problem. It really shouldn't matter to you one way or the other. I think your post shows a little effort, and that it great, but why do you need the disclaimer?
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
i found this on wikipedia.org Although successful, World of Warcraft has received its share of criticism. One of the most recent of these controversies had to do with Blizzard's treatment of a transgender player when she made a guild for other gay or gay-friendly players this sounds like they dont like gay people. now dont get me wrong i am not partically fond of gay people nor do i promote bein gay is ok, but messin with people on a online game bc they are different is just wrong even if they are gay. i dont see why they couldnt do this bc its just a game and it shouldnt be that big of a deal. maybe this is old idk but i just noticed it.
The thing that bothers me is what does being gay have to do with playing WoW? Why do people even need to know you're gay? I have no fondness for the gay lifestyle either but they do bring some of it on themselves. When is the last time you heard someone announce they were coming out of the closet and then proceeded to tell the whole world they were heterosexual. Yet gay people make a big deal of it. Who cares? Race, sexual persuasion, politics etc. have absolutely no business being ingame period. I agree with Blizzard 100%. If they allow this the next thing you know WoW would have a version of the Ku Klux Klan or the NAACP in the form of guilds. It's a game. Play the game and keep all of that stuff out of it.
I would think a guild of a real life, non-violent, minority would have more in common with the NAACP than the KKK, don't you? What a comparison.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Um. Dude. I was talking about a biological basis for transgenderism not homosexuality. And I'll quote myself, "Homosexuality and transgenderism are NOT THE SAME." Not once in my post did I say there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Reading comprehension can be your friend.
If your interested, which you won't be but I'll mention it anyway, a good book to pick up that gives an overview of the issue is The riddle of gender : science, activism, and transgender rights by Deborah Rudacille.
Well first, they are connected. They are both Sexual Orientation related. Second you did give the idea that genetics is the basis for Sexual Orientation.
I honestly do not care to read pro or against propaganda books from either side. While you think transgender is seperate from homosexuality , it isnt.
Something to know. Genetics determines your SEX not your orientation. A difference. You have confused biological sex and genetics with social gender and sexuality.
In Blizzard's defense, i think they made a very rational decision to ban the gay guild. Imagine this gay guild becomes popular on the server, there will be everlasting mocking/discrimination/raiding from other faction etc because we don't particularly live in a gay loving community. As a result of this, Blizzard will be the victom of players' conflicts, which they should prevent.
On top of that, why the hack would someone make a gay guild like that. this is a game based on war, not romance. If you want to find your gay groupies, then go to a gay bar.
Or church, or the grocery, or school, or work, or online, or the gym, or a sporting event, or the theater, or a park...
Or a regular bar....etc etc....
You can say it does not belong in some games, I can almost wrap my noggin around that one, but your last comment sounds, if not bigoted, at least ignorant.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Um. Dude. I was talking about a biological basis for transgenderism not homosexuality. And I'll quote myself, "Homosexuality and transgenderism are NOT THE SAME." Not once in my post did I say there is a biological basis for homosexuality. Reading comprehension can be your friend.
If your interested, which you won't be but I'll mention it anyway, a good book to pick up that gives an overview of the issue is The riddle of gender : science, activism, and transgender rights by Deborah Rudacille.
Well first, they are connected. They are both Sexual Orientation related. Second you did give the idea that genetics is the basis for Sexual Orientation.
I honestly do not care to read pro or against propaganda books from either side. While you think transgender is seperate from homosexuality , it isnt.
Something to know. Genetics determines your SEX not your orientation. A difference. You have confused biological sex and genetics with social gender and sexuality. I'm getting a headache. Transgenderism has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I said that in my post. I was talking about transgenderism NOT sexual orientation. Secondly, my post had nothing to do with genetics being a basis for sexual orientation, my post had EVERYTHING to do with a biological basis for transgenderism which is NOT sexual orientation. The book I mentioned is not a "propaganda" work its a scholarly textbook designed by an academic that is intended as a balanced analysis of the issue. And for the last effing time transgenderism is NOT a social phenomenon nor does it have ANYTHING to do with homosexuality/heterosexuality.
You're either blatantly ignoring what I'm rsaying or have no idea what either of those terms mean. I also said in my post that the TERMS male and female ARE social TERMS because there are 5 separate chromosome combinations: XX, XY, XXX, XYY and X0. Socially we categorize them into two separate groups which is problematic.
The difference between transgenderism and homosexuality is not debatable. Look them up in a dictionary. They are two DIFFERENT words that describe two DIFFERENT phenomena. I know this, because they are both spelled and pronounced differently. Amazing how that works no?
Now, pretend this is Sesame Street. I'll Wiki it for you. Homosexuality: Homosexuality refers to sexual interaction and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex. Okay got that? Now lets Wiki transgender: Oh look, we get an Oxford definition (you know Oxford, they're kind of bright) "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these"
We move further down the page and we get two psychological terms for transgender: gender dysphoria and gender identity disorder. Does that sound like sexual orientation to you?
But WAIT! Just to be sure! Let's find Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation refers to the direction of an individual's sexuality, normally conceived of as falling into several significant categories based around the sex or gender that the individual finds attractive.
Or there's this quote which, I don't know, is pretty murky in its meaning: (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation
Comments
Normal?
Please do tell, what is normal?
I take it your a flamer,.haha
A normal gay man is one that acts like a man.no one has a problem with a man that acts like a man.
no one likes a man that acts like a fem. no one wants to hang out with a someone like that.its simple man,.fags are gay,.rofl
Best post yet in this topic.
LOL...I'm a straight guy, I go to a very liberal university and I try to be understanding in regards to other peoples' lifestyles. I don't think sexuality, gay/lesbian/straight, really belongs in game. Generally I don't care about my guild mates sexuality... but if they were having a hard time and needed/wanted someone to talk to I'd be more than willing to take a few minutes and talk to them regardless of their orientation. People always whine about the lack of community in MMOs... I would say that the lack of understanding/acceptance of others is the cause of declining MMO communities and the reason that gay/lesbian guilds are now being formed.
No offense to gay people but they got what they farm...
believe me i don´t care if i hang out with a gay person aslong she/he is polite and know her/his limites evrything is good but most of them PASS the LINE specially for male gay people they over react, i mean they have to learn how to act, theres places where you can go and hang out with gay people, theres your home, i mean come on not MOST of the people dont wanna see 2 MALE gay people having sex, besides gay people are too HORNY they wanna f*ck and get f*cked 24/7 and thats just disgusting so you see if you are a guy no one care if you like men but you guys have to learn how to act in public.
Besides of that, that gay person who make the guild it´s just an idiot, I M STRAIGH but you dont see me making guild for STRAIGHT people only, good you proud of been gay NO ONE CARE keep it to yourself.
anyway the problem is not that they are gay is how you act.
You can see that in an MMO? I don't think any form of sexual activity is appropriate in an area where young children are likely to be present.
I think they wanted to make a gay only guild in order to avoid people like you.
Do you remember being a teenager? How you were constantly horny and fancied anything in a skirt? Gay teenagers are pretty similar - except it's trousers rather than a skirt..
Have you ever known any gay people? Most are quite reserved about their sexuality due to the prejudices they experience.
The problem is people like you.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
While I may understand some apoligists in the case of having a WOW guild with a particular sexual preference as a requirement for membership within a World of Warcraft community. I think WOW representatives did the correct thing in banning the guild. No guild regardless of personal feelings in World of Warcraft are to discriminate against Gender,Ethnicity, religion or Sexual preference. In the case of someone wanting only gay members it is discrimination under those rules of the EULA any WOW user agrees to.
As to the gay apolegist/basher thing going on here. Please do it somewhere else. If it continues from either side I will do my best to get this post locked. This is not what these forums are about.
Yes GUYS like to think about and HAVE sex. gay or straight.
Put 2 guys together who are into it and guess what ensues. yea...... manlovin.
If your into guys and girls, lifes a constant party.
Yes GUYS like to think about and HAVE sex. gay or straight.
Put 2 guys together who are into it and guess what ensues. yea...... manlovin.
If your into guys and girls, lifes a constant party.
lol
I could care less what sex of the human species you choose.
Just one thing . . . if you are a guy hitting on me . . . it damn well better be to try and get me involved with your girl . . . cuz she likes it like that.
I don't think only gay people play MMOs but I would agree that some do. People use term "gay" not to dis gay people but to express their discomfort like "man that last wipe was gay".
The criticism is important for Blizzard to learn from, but the company shouldn't be vilified for it. They're struggling against almost 10,000 years of precedent.
Also from Wiki:
Blizzard garnered criticism for their decision in January 2006 to ban guilds from advertising sexual orientation preferences. The incident occurred after several players were cited for "harassment" after advocating a group for gay-straight alliance [7][8]. Blizzard initially responded by saying their objective was to, ".. promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast." [9]
Blizzard later reversed the decision to issue warnings to players promoting GLBT-friendly guilds. Included in this decision was the announcement that they intend to set up in-game channels intended specifically for guild advertisements, as well as provide "sensitivity training" for their staff after players complained of homophobic language being used openly and without punishment. [10][11]
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
As to being homosexual to trangenderism it is still basically the same. You have a person roleplaying a gender he or she isnt based from personal belief. In partnerships you have usually one person who plays"Butch" and the other who plays the submissive. The point is still "its based off of personal belief rather than what it really is.
As to being homosexual to trangenderism it is still basically the same. You have a person roleplaying a gender he or she isnt based from personal belief. In partnerships you have usually one person who plays"Butch" and the other who plays the submissive. The point is still "its based off of personal belief rather than what it really is.
Guh. I'm going to try to be polite about this because you obviously don't have a background in psychology or biology. Trasgenderism is not the same thing as saying "you're actually an alien". In vitro the human fetus is subjected to a bombardment of chemical hormones that determines a number of different aspects of sex. Genitalia is one of them, as are other hormones that determine sex-based personality tendencies etc. In cases of transgenderism (this is not the same as "pretending" you are a girl or dressing up as one) these chemical hormones do not interact correctly producing what is chemically a "female" but anatomically "male" or vice versa. Currently biologists and psychologists theorize that this change happens in the third trimester of pregnancy. Transgendered individuals recognized that something is wrong almost immediately (usually from the age of 2 or 3) and is something that they do not grow out of (this is not the same as a "phase" that many children go through like dressing up as the opposite sex).
As far as your comment about male/female. You really couldn't be more off. The terms male and female are social categories and do not have any bearing in biology. In biological terms there are actually five sexes (when considering chromosome combinations):
XX
XY
XXX
XYY
and XO
While XY and XX USUALLY produce male and female genitalia respectively this not always the case. There is plenty of documentation of an XX individual being born with a penis and vice versa. As far as the other three, there are no outward signs and it is possible (though not statistically likely) that you are in fact not an XY. The only way of telling is actually getting tested specifically for it (and as far as I know very few medical labs are even equipped to carry out the test).
And NO NO NO. Homosexuality and transgenderism are NOT THE SAME. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation and a transgendered individual may be homosexual or not. And as far as you submissive dominant comment again. NO NO NO. I can't stress that enough: NO. All data that has been collected by sociologists suggests the opposite and homosexual couples have as many varying personalities as heterosexual couples. Unfortunately, people such as yourself who are uncomfortable with the idea of sexual diversity like to treat what is nothing more than stereotyping as fact which perpetuates not only discrimination but a complete ignorance of the issue in question. Scholars have been doing careful scientifically valid research on sexual diversity for over half a century and this information is all out there and readily accessible. The problem is, you aren't interested enough to engage with it and are instead using false information to confirm your own biases. The next time you throw garbage like that around make sure its not in the presence of someone with a background in sociology, anthropology, psychology and history. You'll sound like less of an idiot.
There. I kept my cool. Kind of.
DO GENES DETERMINE WHETHER WE ARE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, OR STRAIGHT?
Position Paper by The Council for Responsible Genetics
(also available in .pdf format)
This question has been stirring considerable controversy among lesbians, gays, and their supporters and friends, as well as among opponents of gay civil rights. In the debate about the origins of sexual orientation, people have presented a variety of arguments for possible causes, ranging from genetic predisposition to individual choices about lifestyle to environmental factors. People’s views regarding gay civil rights do not necessarily indicate which of these possible causes they believe is the "right" one. The fundamental question remains, however: why are we having this debate in the first place?
Questions about the biological basis of sexual orientation were first raised about a century ago when the British sexual liberators Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter argued that laws against same-sex sexual activities should be dropped because people engaging in such activities were biologically different from those with opposite-sex partners: they called such people "inverts". The use of the word "homosexual" as a noun designating a certain kind of person – rather than an adjective referring to specific activities – dates from that period. However, the creation of this new, presumably biological, typology did nothing to reduce prejudice and bigotry.
Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways, which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. By seeking a definitive basis of such behavior in genetics, we risk oversimplifying our view of behaviors, and ultimately, of our world. And, as amply demonstrated by history, basing civil rights claims on biology is a double-edged sword.
Some argue that a genetic component to sexual orientation will reduce discrimination. Yet, in our society, people are subjected to discrimination on the basis of differences in biology (sex, skin color) and culture (ethnicity, religion); in different jurisdictions, various degrees of legal protection are provided or lacking against both of these types of discrimination. As amply demonstrated by the Civil Rights and women’s movements, focusing on differences in biology can be used to further oppression, not liberation.
Rather than seeking a biology-based defense against discrimination, it would be more productive to try to understand why some people find it useful to attribute genetic causes to behaviors as varied as criminality, alcoholism and sexual orientation.
WHY THIS FIXATION ON A GENETIC COMPONENT FOR SEXUAL ORIENTATION?
Attributing sexual orientation to genes appeals to some parts of the lesbian and gay community for the following reasons: First, it counters the argument set forth by bigots who assert that lesbian and gay behaviors are "unnatural," or indeed, "crimes against nature." Second, some lesbians and gays feel guilty about their sexual orientation, but if there is a biological foundation to it, they argue, it is not their "fault". Third, by advancing a biological explanation for their sexual orientation, some gay rights advocates assert that it therefore constitutes an "immutable characteristic," which would afford lesbians and gays more legal protection against discriminatory practices.
But we need to recognize that this focus on what causes individuals to be lesbian or gay arises from homophobia. Theories focusing on the origin of homosexuality, rather than of heterosexuality, imply that because the latter predominates, it is more "natural" or "normal"." Such a homophobic bias perpetuates the assumption that homosexuality represents a "problem" in need of a "solution".
The history of discrimination against other groups, such as people of color or women, makes it clear that a biological basis for distinctness has not prevented racism or sexism. On the contrary, biological arguments have frequently been used to bolster discrimination. American slavery was rationalized on biological grounds, as was extermination of Jews. And so was the exclusion of women from all economically lucrative activities, except the sale of sexual favors to highly placed men.
We are biological organisms and, of course, everything we do has biological components, but the present revival of earlier biodeterminist arguments coincides with a broadening of genetic attributions to a wide range of physiological, psychological, and social characteristics. These include so-called tendencies to develop feared, but common, health conditions such as cancer or diabetes, and often equally feared behaviors, such as excessive alcohol consumption, suicidal tendencies, violence – and physical or psychological attraction to people of the same sex.
The scientific basis for these attributions is exceedingly weak. The claim that genes account for the transmission within families of schizophrenia, bipolar manic depression, and alcoholism have all been contested, and most such reports have eventually been withdrawn.
DO STUDIES SUPPORT THE EXISTENCE OF A GAY GENE?
The most frequently cited study was conducted by molecular biologists at the National Institutes of Health under the direction of Dean Hamer. This study is currently under investigation by the federal Office of Research Integrity for possible scientific misconduct, because one of the study collaborators alleges that Hamer suppressed data that would have reduced the statistical significance of the reported results.
Hamer’s group examined DNA samples from self-identified gay men and other gay male family members. The researchers claim they have found a DNA segment, called a "marker," on the X chromosome, the chromosome men inherit only from their mother and not from their father. They say that most, though not all, gay men within a family share such a marker. (In a more recent study, they conclude that lesbian sisters do not share this marker.) They now hope that by defining this marker more closely, they will be able to identify a "gene for gayness" on the X chromosome.
One of the problems with their approach is that Hamer and his colleagues did not feel it necessary to check whether any of the straight men in these families share the marker in question. If even only a few of them do, it calls into question what the gene or the self-identification signifies. More recently, Hamer has tested this out, and the results do not change his interpretation.
But even more significant for Hamer’s studies is the definition of who is gay. Hamer uses the extremely conservative estimate of two percent for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men. Increasing this value to the usually accepted values of five to ten percent reduces or even eliminates the statistical significance of his results. The reason Hamer gives for his unusually low estimate is that he wants to work only with "real" gay men, that is, men who have essentially never veered from their preference for men in their sexual fantasies or activities. His definition does not take into account the large population of men who have sexual relations with men, but who do not identify as gay, or men who have had sexual relationships or marriages with women, or have fathered children, but now do identify as gay. If research on sexual orientation does not consider this diversity of sexual identities, the social relevance of this research is limited.
Hamer’s results remain controversial. An independent study of gay siblings did not reproduce his results, though the Hamer group now reports a second study which supports the role of a gene on the X chromosome in male homosexuality. But none of the results, including Hamer’s, support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.
Another study claiming that there is a connection between homosexuality and biology, by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, claims that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay than in straight men. The size of this structure in gay men, he claims, is more like that seen in heterosexual women – though in fact, he has no evidence regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined. All of LeVay’s observations were made on the brains of cadavers, and his evidence about the sexual orientation and practices of the people in life is entirely circumstantial. Furthermore, the "gay men" all died of AIDS, which is known sometimes to affect brain structures. Another criticism of this study is that in some of LeVay’s "gay" samples, the structure was larger than in the "straight" ones, so that upon inspection, there is no basis for deciding whether a given person in life had been "gay" or "straight."
WHAT ROLE DO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PLAY?
Arguments for a biological basis of sexual orientation have also been offered, based on questionable studies of twins and other siblings. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, researchers at Northwestern University and the Boston University School of Medicine, measured sexual orientation in brothers of gay men. They found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers of gay men, about 10% were also gay, a rate often attributed to the general population. The rate of "double" homosexuality for fraternal twins was 22%, and for identical twins, 52%.
The fact that fraternal twins of gay men were found to be roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers shows that environmental factors play a role, since fraternal twins are no more similar biologically than are other biological brothers. In light of these results, it does not seem surprising that an even larger proportion of identical twins would have similar behaviors since the world thinks of them as "the same" and treats them accordingly, and they often share such feelings of sameness.
Homophobia – another clearly environmental factor – may also have affected the study’s results by distorting the sample. Bailey and Pillard did not study a random sample of gay and bisexual men. The study’s participants "were recruited through advertisements placed in gay publications in several Midwest and Southwest cities." Thus all the respondents read gay periodicals and probably were, to some degree, public about their sexuality. In addition, they responded to ads asking them about their brothers. Although the ads asked gay men to "call regardless of the sexual orientation of [their] brother[s]," men with gay brothers might well have been more likely to participate than men with straight brothers, especially if the straight brothers were homophobic or the gay ones were not "out" to their families. Since many people believe that homosexuality is genetic, a straight man who has a gay twin, and especially a gay "identical" twin, might well feel that his own sexual orientation was "suspect," and refuse to participate in the study, finding the subject threatening. Conversely, if identical twins are both gay, they might find the subject interesting and be eager to volunteer for a study.
WILL POTENTIAL MISUSE ARISE IF A GAY GENE IS FOUND?
Both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association have taken the official position that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation would be wrong. Certainly, anti-gay violence and oppression are wrong. So what will researchers like Hamer, LeVay, Bailey and Pillard do if bigots begin to use the idea of a "marker" or "gene" to predict which male fetuses are gay for purposes of terminating such pregnancies, or to subject young boys to "remedial" education, reprogramming or other "therapies"? Hamer has said he will patent the gene, if he finds it, so that it cannot be misused. Is patent law a realistic way to protect against homophobia? (Many people feel that it is immoral to patent human genes, anyway.) What would be the proper use of such a gene? And what is the point of searching for it in the first place?
Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against discrimination arising from their sexual orientation. In fact, the promise of a quick technological fix for the problem of discrimination against homosexuals distracts us from the larger societal issue. Homophobia and discrimination exist, and it is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality will change that. Only social and political remedies will counter discrimination. Biology is not the issue: society at present protects people against discrimination for choices such as religion (including converts), marital status, or political affiliations. Genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections.
The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that it will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to experience. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual community does not need to have its "deviance" tolerated because its members were born "that way" and "cannot help it." Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian and gay lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, an acceptance of all human beings, and a celebration of diversity, whatever its origins.
Now using proxy science as a basis to a argument, especially when almost everything you stated above is in theory only. No substantial fact. I would STFU
If your interested, which you won't be but I'll mention it anyway, a good book to pick up that gives an overview of the issue is The riddle of gender : science, activism, and transgender rights by Deborah Rudacille.
Its nice when medicine are trying to describe those things
But i rather hear it from a serious source like.....real people living with it.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Tried: WoW, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Everquest, WWII Online, Planetside
Beta: Lotro, Tabula Rasa, WAR.
I would think a guild of a real life, non-violent, minority would have more in common with the NAACP than the KKK, don't you? What a comparison.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Tried: WoW, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Everquest, WWII Online, Planetside
Beta: Lotro, Tabula Rasa, WAR.
I honestly do not care to read pro or against propaganda books from either side. While you think transgender is seperate from homosexuality , it isnt.
Something to know. Genetics determines your SEX not your orientation. A difference. You have confused biological sex and genetics with social gender and sexuality.
Or a regular bar....etc etc....
You can say it does not belong in some games, I can almost wrap my noggin around that one, but your last comment sounds, if not bigoted, at least ignorant.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Tried: WoW, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Everquest, WWII Online, Planetside
Beta: Lotro, Tabula Rasa, WAR.
Played (more than a month): SWG, Second Life, Tabula Rasa, Lineage 2, Everquest 2, EvE, MxO, Ryzom.
Tried: WoW, Shadowbane, Anarchy Online, Everquest, WWII Online, Planetside
Beta: Lotro, Tabula Rasa, WAR.
Then i will check it out.
my gj will go "whats ya reading now them?" and i will reply "nuthing....transgender biology and social patterns"
I honestly do not care to read pro or against propaganda books from either side. While you think transgender is seperate from homosexuality , it isnt.
Something to know. Genetics determines your SEX not your orientation. A difference. You have confused biological sex and genetics with social gender and sexuality. I'm getting a headache. Transgenderism has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I said that in my post. I was talking about transgenderism NOT sexual orientation. Secondly, my post had nothing to do with genetics being a basis for sexual orientation, my post had EVERYTHING to do with a biological basis for transgenderism which is NOT sexual orientation. The book I mentioned is not a "propaganda" work its a scholarly textbook designed by an academic that is intended as a balanced analysis of the issue. And for the last effing time transgenderism is NOT a social phenomenon nor does it have ANYTHING to do with homosexuality/heterosexuality.
You're either blatantly ignoring what I'm rsaying or have no idea what either of those terms mean. I also said in my post that the TERMS male and female ARE social TERMS because there are 5 separate chromosome combinations: XX, XY, XXX, XYY and X0. Socially we categorize them into two separate groups which is problematic.
The difference between transgenderism and homosexuality is not debatable. Look them up in a dictionary. They are two DIFFERENT words that describe two DIFFERENT phenomena. I know this, because they are both spelled and pronounced differently. Amazing how that works no?
Now, pretend this is Sesame Street. I'll Wiki it for you. Homosexuality: Homosexuality refers to sexual interaction and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex. Okay got that? Now lets Wiki transgender: Oh look, we get an Oxford definition (you know Oxford, they're kind of bright) "Of, relating to, or designating a person whose identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional notions of male or female gender, but combines or moves between these"
We move further down the page and we get two psychological terms for transgender: gender dysphoria and gender identity disorder. Does that sound like sexual orientation to you?
But WAIT! Just to be sure! Let's find Sexual Orientation: Sexual orientation refers to the direction of an individual's sexuality, normally conceived of as falling into several significant categories based around the sex or gender that the individual finds attractive.
Still not convinced? Don't worry! Here's another line from the article on transgenderism: Transgender does not imply any specific form of sexual orientation — transgender people may identify as queer, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual or asexual.
Or there's this quote which, I don't know, is pretty murky in its meaning: (Trans-)gender identity is a fundamentally different concept than that of sexual orientation
Lord, it's like trying to herd a cat.