Print

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

[Thisfox]

They get a bigger mood penalty from wearing the opposite gender's clothing however than they do for wearing the ungendered base clothing. 

How awful.

Better: the game could continue with no repurcussions for wearing a dress and/or trousers if any dwarf feels like wearing a dress and/or trousers, or wearing high heeled shoes, or thongs (means a VERY different item of clothing for us Aussies anyhow) or whatever. I'm lucky enough to be able to wear clothing made for men when I feel like it (pockets! Yay!) or clothing made for women here in the real world. Ideal. Why program unneccessary gender-based behaviours for clothing when the game works fine without them? I find it hard to understand why people would ever want to try to gender clothing. Not like how you dress has anything to do with peoples sex/gender/cisness/transness anyway. There are better things to repair than something that ain't broke in the first place.

[brewer bob]

There's also the thing that a dress isn't a gendered piece of clothing universally, and it being gendered (where it's seen as such) is a relatively new thing.

If we're going with the DF technology cutoff of 1400, a dress wasn't gendered at that point (in the West), afaik.

[Eric Blank]

It is an entirely cultural concept, yes. Making gendered behavioral/clothing choices a default is a bad idea, it should, if at all, depend on the culture an individual comes from and their personal regard for its traditions and values, and their personality.

[Cathar]

Agree with bob that dress and robes were not gendered in middle ages. However trousers were.
Dresses were preffered in general, because they were easier to make without machinery, and trousers were used mostly for horseriders. Professions that would not have to ride horses (priests, farmers etc.) would typically not wear trousers.

As a sidenote, it is still technically forbidden in France for a woman to wear trousers, due to an old napoleonic law that fell out of application but was never technically abroged. When they had to ride a horse, women would have to do so in a robe, and so were taught a special horseriding method ("à la cavalière") with both legs on the same side of the horse. You even had special saddles for women due to that.

As for the suggestion I do believe it is a massive waste of time and I'm more interested for an option to opt out from gender politics discussions in my fantasy simulation.

[brewer bob]

However trousers were.

In western culture yes, but not in all cultures (Persians, Scythians, etc. other Iranian people wore trousers regardless of their gender).

As a sidenote, it is still technically forbidden in France for a woman to wear trousers, due to an old napoleonic law that fell out of application but was never technically abroged.

I think I read about this at some point, but I thought the law was overturned?

[Cathar]

I think I read about this at some point, but I thought the law was overturned?

Well, yes and no, it's neutralized but still in the book if I remember my middle school classes correctly. But then again the amount of legacy code in the book is overwhelming.

Both french empires took gender norms pretty seriously among other trivias to obsess about.

[Starver]

As a sidenote, it is still technically forbidden in France for a woman to wear trousers, due to an old napoleonic law that fell out of application but was never technically abroged.

...until 10 years ago!

(Ninjaed, but not quite so thoroughly ninjaed as to make it not worth leaving in...)

When they had to ride a horse, women would have to do so in a robe, and so were taught a special horseriding method ("à la cavalière") with both legs on the same side of the horse. You even had special saddles for women due to that.

"Sidesaddle" is the English for that. (I assume, as I know that this fits your description perfectly, for those that ride in a dress (Fr: robe), so I'm assuming you're more knowledgable about your version by way of being a Francophone... Something at the back of my mind agrees with that, based on other things we might been in the same thread about, in times past, but that bit of my mind might also be grossly mistaken!) As in "you ride sidesaddle" (style) and "you sit on a sidesaddle" (object). But maybe a more equestrian person would be able to elaborate further. (Or correct me!)

As for the suggestion I do believe it is a massive waste of time and I'm more interested for an option to opt out from gender politics discussions in my fantasy simulation.

I just can't get out of my head the possibility that if it went procedural (i.e. how the RNG dealt specifically with your current world's attitudes and expectations), you could end up with gender-norms being that males wear only left socks and yet females wear only right ones. And "I hear they cover both their feet!" being a potentially scurilous rumour (in-universe) about a certain individual's full on and deliberate non-conformity.

[brewer bob]

I just can't get out of my head the possibility that if it went procedural (i.e. how the RNG dealt specifically with your current world's attitudes and expectations), you could end up with gender-norms being that males wear only left socks and yet females wear only right ones. And "I hear they cover both their feet!" being a potentially scurilous rumour (in-universe) about a certain individual's full on and deliberate non-conformity.

"Have you heard where the ELVES wear their socks? They cover *that* part...," said Urist and pointed at the other dwarf's (also Urist) groin.

[elsathehobo]

I had drafted up my own thoughts about implementing non-binary sexes in dwarf fortress, and found this post while searching to make sure I wasn't making a dupe suggestion. Here are my suggestions for expanding the [MALE]/[FEMALE] system:

The following tokens would affect whether a creature would display as male/female/no-gender, as in the description pronouns and the male/female symbol next to the name:
[SHOW_FEMALE]/[SHOW_MALE]/[SHOW_NOGENDER]
If these tags are missing, then default behavior could either automatically choose based on a caste only having CAN_SIRE or CAN_BIRTH/LAYS_EGGS, or default to SHOW_NOGENDER

The following tokens would affect reproduction:
[CAN_SIRE] for male behavior
[CAN_BIRTH] for female behavior (and preexisting [LAYS_EGGS] )
[CAN_SELF_BIRTH: days:years] or [CAN_SELF_EGGS:days:years] would allow a creature to give birth/lay eggs without a father involved, plus how often they try to do it
All reproduction tags would be combine-able, so [CAN_SIRE][LAYS_EGGS] for hermaphroditic snails, or [CAN_BIRTH][CAN_SELF_BIRTH:0:10] for a female caste that's capable of parthenogenesis every 10 years.

Also a new [WOMB] bodypart token that could be interchangeable/combine-able with [GELDABLE] to damage a creature's ability to give birth/lay eggs (and possibly allow spays)

The preexisting MALE/FEMALE tokens would just be shorthand for [SHOW_MALE][CAN_SIRE] and [SHOW_FEMALE][CAN_BIRTH]

I didn't see anyone mention seahorses in this thread, but IRL female seahorses lay their eggs inside male seahorses and then the male seahorse gives birth to them, so with this system female seahorses would be more accurately represented as [SHOW_FEMALE][CAN_SIRE] and males would be [SHOW_MALE][CAN_BIRTH]
This would (super minor detail) also allow mules to be both male and female without allowing them to breed, by just giving each caste [SHOW_MALE]/[SHOW_FEMALE] without including the [CAN_BIRTH]/[CAN_SIRE] tokens

There's probably some other things to consider like fish that change sex when they get older, but I feel like this would be a "basic" way to expand sex without getting too complicated. Also this doesn't touch social gender because, like other people in this thread have said, that's a completely different beast related to culture and stuff like that. Though the ORIENTATION token could also be modified to take a caste name instead of male/female

[Laterigrade]

I just can't get out of my head the possibility that if it went procedural (i.e. how the RNG dealt specifically with your current world's attitudes and expectations), you could end up with gender-norms being that males wear only left socks and yet females wear only right ones. And "I hear they cover both their feet!" being a potentially scurilous rumour (in-universe) about a certain individual's full on and deliberate non-conformity.

The idea of generating gender norms and then having certain members of societies deliberately defy the norms is pretty interesting, tangentially. Making rules and then making part of the system break them.

[Eric Blank]

I did want to mention that technically, the female seahorse is the one giving birth, she's just laying her eggs into the pouch of the male. To my knowledge the male isn't secreting any food or nutrients to the eggs, theyre developing on the yolk provided by the female. They're just being sheltered by the male.

A more accurate simulation might be for the female to lay eggs into the male's inventory, where he will then carry them until they hatch. This could also be used to simulate parasites like wasps that lay their eggs on/in a particular host, but in the seahorses' case its the host's intention to carry the eggs, like with some sort of "WILL_SHELTER_EGGS" tag, while in parasitic species the victim can attempt to dislodge them/wash them off if the eggs are external and its not paralyzed, or a doctor could remove deadly chestbursters from unfortunate dwarves. So a setup where a female/CAN_BIRTH lays eggs, they get an additional [EGG_LAYER_TARGET_CREATURE:(creature_ID):(CASTE_ID)] or EGG_LAYER_TARGET_CLASS:(class)] tag, and a TARGETED_EGG_INTERNAL/EXTERNAL flag. Pregnant egg layers with these tags will then seek out a valid target and lay their eggs on/in them, or lay eggs on themselves like how wolf spiders carry their eggs on their backs. The eggs end up in the creature's inventory, and as long as they stay in its inventory they're considered to be incubated properly. If the creature doesn't have a [WILL_SHELTER_EGGS] flag then it will attempt to remove them/a doctor will remove them. If plants could be targeted, then giant wood boring insects or giant moths/butterflies could seek out a plant of an appropriate species to lay their eggs on. Could go even farther to say, give creatures like giant cave spiders the ability to make a cocoon out of their silk and lay their eggs in that, or birds/reptiles can make a nest out of branches/dirt, placing it in appropriate areas like on a target plant or tree, which counts as a natural nest box. Such cocoons/nests could be encountered in the wild/made by wildlife in-game, and then provide natural sources of eggs and tameable hatchlings if the player dares steal them.

But then, whether or not the hatchlings eat whatever their host is, can be simulated some other way. Maybe they attack the host? Destroy tree tiles? I dunno.