Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[satan]

So I saw this tweet:

https://archive.fo/hPgV4

What's your opinion on the inclusion of transgender dwarves? I'm mildly worried about what it might entail, like negative thoughts from dysphoria and sexual reassignment surgery leading to deadly infections.

[voliol]

Hoo boy, here we go again. Discussions with this kind of topic tend to go out out of hand, in the end being riddled with transphobia and the like. Before getting locked. Oh well.

I think it is the same dilemma as when topics like detailed slavery and sexism is discussed; should features that primarily exist to make some dwarves’ (and humans’, and goblins’) lives horrible be added for realism, even though they fulfill an unclear role gameplay-wise? With slavery and sexism you could also separate from related factors (having a population, having sexes), and have only clearly ”evil” civs (i.e. goblins, elves) endulge in them, but dysphoria for transgender people sadly tends to be inevitable, even if they are brought up in dwarven civs.

As DF has a historical setting, I think it’s worth noting that the modern definition of transgender people and dysphoria is relatively new. Historically, societies would deal with this by having a third gender (though those may also have other causes), or not at all. It is a difficult case, as the records are in all likelyhood incomplete. It is similar to how we don’t know of horribly many homosexual historic people from societies where homosexuality was shunned.

Well, if the Tarn brothers believe they have come up with a solution that works somewhat, it should be fine.

[PlumpHelmetMan]

EDIT: Removed

[Shonai_Dweller]

Ignore the troll. He's posting this in every forum for whatever reason. Thread gone in 3...2...1.....

[GoblinCookie]

Ignore the troll. He's posting this in every forum for whatever reason. Thread gone in 3...2...1.....

It might be the OP is just interested in the topic for whatever reason. 

The short answer is that there are no transgender dwarves because there basically cannot be.  That is so because there *is* no gender in Present DF and by that I mean not that there aren't physically male and female but that there is no corresponding performance of gender.  If a male dwarf were to be transgender, the society provides absolutely no means to be so because there is no female gender to transition to.  Since the female dwarf does everything the male dwarf does, there is nothing the transgender male dwarf can do in order to be transgender.  Adding it in at the moment would be anachronism, a pointer to non-existent gender mechanics and a game like dwarf fortress does not benefit from constantly reminding it's players that it is incomplete.

This is directly related to an actual conflict that exists between (some) Radical Feminists and transgender.  If your aim is actually to abolish gender to make both sexes equal, you end up with a situation akin to Dwarf Fortress.  This as described above eliminates the transgender, which is why the two groups do not get along. 

[Shonai_Dweller]

Ignore the troll. He's posting this in every forum for whatever reason. Thread gone in 3...2...1.....

It might be the OP is just interested in the topic for whatever reason. 

What does "sexual reassignment surgery" have to do with this fantasy game which the troll op doesn't play?

[Blastbeard]

Ignore the troll. He's posting this in every forum for whatever reason. Thread gone in 3...2...1.....

It might be the OP is just interested in the topic for whatever reason. 

What does "sexual reassignment surgery" have to do with this fantasy game which the troll op doesn't play?

Well, there's always magic. You can define a gender for transformations, but there's no reliable way to just make the target switch genders. Fixing that could make casting Level 3 Eroticism a reality, but that's dipping too far into Magical Realm territory for my taste. On the other hand, it would be an effective deterrent, because I'm not going anywhere near a wizard that is willing to use genderbending as a form of offensive magic.

On a more serious note, I don't see a point to including something like this anytime soon. There's an entire arc's worth of features that would need to be added just to make transgender dwarves relevant, and there are objectively more important things that need to be done. Siege engines come to mind, and I'd like to see boats some time before my hair starts turning grey.

[ZM5]

I think dismissing people over their concerns about this as "trolls" or "transphobic" or whatever else is rather immature, given how much of a contentious issue the entire thing is in general. Browbeating people into silence very easily backfires.

Ignore the troll. He's posting this in every forum for whatever reason. Thread gone in 3...2...1.....

It might be the OP is just interested in the topic for whatever reason. 

What does "sexual reassignment surgery" have to do with this fantasy game which the troll op doesn't play?

Well, there's always magic. You can define a gender for transformations, but there's no reliable way to just make the target switch genders. Fixing that could make casting Level 3 Eroticism a reality, but that's dipping too far into Magical Realm territory for my taste. On the other hand, it would be an effective deterrent, because I'm not going anywhere near a wizard that is willing to use genderbending as a form of offensive magic.

On a more serious note, I don't see a point to including something like this anytime soon. There's an entire arc's worth of features that would need to be added just to make transgender dwarves relevant, and there are objectively more important things that need to be done. Siege engines come to mind, and I'd like to see boats some time before my hair starts turning grey.

The bit about genderbending magic highly reminded of the shadmage story. Combined with aging/de-aging magic it would be a highly effective and disturbing deterrent, yeah.

I personally don't see the point of adding it either. I don't think it makes any sense within the setting, given that:
-only gender "role", if you can even call it that, is mothers looking after the child until its old enough to walk, at which point it essentially becomes the responsibility of the community
-no sex differences aside from "females give birth, males do not" and "males have geldables and beards, females do not" are really simulated
-no gender norms in terms of clothing, jobs performed or the like are simulated

With that in mind, it also doesn't really provide any story generation fuel unless discrimination were to be added - and if it were to be added in the game's current state, then any discrimination would purely be on pragmatic grounds.
In a civ with a healthy amount of citizens it doesn't really matter if you breed or not, ergo there's no reason for people to care what you are - however in a civ that is dangerously low on population and in danger of going extinct, it'd be a pressing issue to have people breed to replenish the numbers lest they go extinct, ergo it'd be rather understandable to discriminate against anyone who isn't "doing their part" for whatever reason (which applies to anyone that does not want to have children, period - less understandable in cases of people who are sterile or had the reproductive organs damaged, of course).

I too very much would like to see stuff like boats, magic, myths, multi-tile creatures or a proper economy done first before anything like this - though, if it does end up getting added then the most I would expect is mod tokens to edit it out, same as what we have with the orientation tokens.

[MachoNacho]

This is a trollpost, stop giving serious answers.

[Azerty]

I could see religious motives, i.e. some deities would require their priests to act as the other gender (for exemple a female deity asking her male priests to beheave as females) and some specifically devout individuals would identify with their deity's gender.

[GoblinCookie]

What does "sexual reassignment surgery" have to do with this fantasy game which the troll op doesn't play?

That is a logical part of the theme but yes it does read as a potential dig at transgender people.  But yes the motive of the OP does seem to be transphobic, but as a topic is an interesting topic in itself regardless of the OPs exact motives.  As long as everyone stays civil, the troll has not won. 

Well, there's always magic. You can define a gender for transformations, but there's no reliable way to just make the target switch genders. Fixing that could make casting Level 3 Eroticism a reality, but that's dipping too far into Magical Realm territory for my taste. On the other hand, it would be an effective deterrent, because I'm not going anywhere near a wizard that is willing to use genderbending as a form of offensive magic.

On a more serious note, I don't see a point to including something like this anytime soon. There's an entire arc's worth of features that would need to be added just to make transgender dwarves relevant, and there are objectively more important things that need to be done. Siege engines come to mind, and I'd like to see boats some time before my hair starts turning grey.

There isn't going to be magic in all Dwarf Fortress worlds. 

In theory with powerful enough mind-control magic you could force a character to switch not only physical sex but gender as well.  Oh and also you could use the same magic to 'fix' transgender people or to make people transgender that were not to begin with. 

The magic to change sex could be used to manipulate transgender dwarves into doing some conspirator's bidding in much the same way that necromancers can use the promise of eternal life to get people who fear death. 

I could see religious motives, i.e. some deities would require their priests to act as the other gender (for exemple a female deity asking her male priests to beheave as females) and some specifically devout individuals would identify with their deity's gender.

I think there are gods in India who religions are of that kind of persuasion.  I think a specific Greco-Roman deity, called Cybele I think was that as well.

In a civ with a healthy amount of citizens it doesn't really matter if you breed or not, ergo there's no reason for people to care what you are - however in a civ that is dangerously low on population and in danger of going extinct, it'd be a pressing issue to have people breed to replenish the numbers lest they go extinct, ergo it'd be rather understandable to discriminate against anyone who isn't "doing their part" for whatever reason (which applies to anyone that does not want to have children, period - less understandable in cases of people who are sterile or had the reproductive organs damaged, of course).

Actually that is not going to be the case.  The potential rate of reproduction for creatures is far larger than the number of creatures that they do in fact breed.  For instance a couple can in effect produce 20-30 babies in a lifetime but pretty much no couples ever do nor ever have in history.  That means that is still no requirement for all members of our dangerously low population society to breed, they can equally well use the nonbreeding members of the society to augment the ability of those who do reproduce to realize a greater proportion of their 'capacity' by doing work to support them. 

So discriminating against non-breeding members does not make sense even in a near-extinction situation.  Those breeding can just have a few more babies to make up for it and the non-breeding members can help support those babies.

[Atarlost]

Actually that is not going to be the case.  The potential rate of reproduction for creatures is far larger than the number of creatures that they do in fact breed.  For instance a couple can in effect produce 20-30 babies in a lifetime but pretty much no couples ever do nor ever have in history.  That means that is still no requirement for all members of our dangerously low population society to breed, they can equally well use the nonbreeding members of the society to augment the ability of those who do reproduce to realize a greater proportion of their 'capacity' by doing work to support them. 

So discriminating against non-breeding members does not make sense even in a near-extinction situation.  Those breeding can just have a few more babies to make up for it and the non-breeding members can help support those babies.

Three problems with that.  First, inbreeding.  If people are refusing to pass on their genes the genetic diversity of the population drops.  If it's a small population to start with you wind up with a population of morons with Hapsburg chins.  Second, infant mortality.  Historically couples did produce many babies, or rather many corpses.  Not 30, but you're ignoring declining fertility with age, later menarche in less calorie rich societies, and increased health hazards for young mothers to get that number.  Third, there's an additional limit based on the ability of parents to raise children. 

[GoblinCookie]

Three problems with that.  First, inbreeding.  If people are refusing to pass on their genes the genetic diversity of the population drops.  If it's a small population to start with you wind up with a population of morons with Hapsburg chins.  Second, infant mortality.  Historically couples did produce many babies, or rather many corpses.  Not 30, but you're ignoring declining fertility with age, later menarche in less calorie rich societies, and increased health hazards for young mothers to get that number.  Third, there's an additional limit based on the ability of parents to raise children.

For inbreeding purposes what matters is how closely related the couples are, not what proportion of the total population reproduces.  Having a low rate of overall reproduction encourages immigration, so having fewer babies helps prevent inbreeding by making space for outsiders to move in to produce unrelated spouses for the next generation to reproduce with.  Any benefits at preventing inbreeding by having a negligably higher proportion of the groups original (unrelated?) members reproduce are offset by how a high rate of natural population increase discourages outside immigration. 

Historically no more than half of children (at maximum) died in infancy on average.  When you consider how many children it is physically possible for a couple to produce from puberty to menopause, which is something between 20 and 30 for humans, even if half of them die you still have a massive rate of population growth, since 10-15 is still way more than is needed to replace the existing population.  Given we are talking about dwarves who age at precisely half the human rate, the number is actually double that so a dwarf couple would produce about 60 children at maximum (a lot depends upon when dwarf menopause happens, if indeed it does). 

Most of the other factors you mention are entirely economic ones (infant mortality is also semi-economic).  The more individuals do not expend their own resources reproducing themselves, the more economic surplus is available to allow those individuals that do reproduce to realise a greater proportion of their total reproductive capacity.  The 'ability of parents to raise children' is an economic factor, the more work others do the less the parents have to do so they have a greater capacity to raise more children.