"Gay" as a trait

[cultist]

Tynan probably has his own opinions and beliefs, noone needs to speak  on his behalf. But, I believe you ALL have put him in an awkward position as a Dev. I think you guys need to take a step back and realize the Gay trait was a good intention, but poorly implemented. Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now? Get the OP? Now please stop with the Anti-LGBT and Pro-LGBT crap on a video game suggestion.

The days where you could reasonably separate video games from the rest of the world/human existence are long gone. Video games are no longer just for children, they are for everyone. With adult players come adult issues, morals and ethics (and indeed politics) and the content of games becomes a much more complex issue than "is this bad for the children?"
The infancy of video games is long gone. People can deny that all they want, but it's not going to matter. It's part of our culture now and not just a fringe commercial product to entertain toddlers.

[RickyMartini]

Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now?

As a fellow biologist, I have to disagree, homosexuality is frequently described as a (biological) trait, the reason being that sexual behaviors are called traits too. That's why common biology textbooks refer to homosexuality as a trait. But obviously it's semantics, sorry, just wanted to point that out, I had to.

[cultist]

As a fellow biologist, I have to disagree, homosexuality is frequently described as a (biological) trait, the reason being that sexual behaviors are called traits too. That's why common biology textbooks refer to homosexuality as a trait. But obviously it's semantics, sorry, just wanted to point that out, I had to.

[LouisTBR]

Ok, there is 7 pages here on a topic that affects basically nothing. Surely this isn't a suggestion that will benefit the game, but a general debate about homosexuality.

[milon]

That's technically true.

But it's still basically centered around whether or not Gay should exist as a Trait, so I'm going to let this continue.

Let's try to keep on that topic.  Anything else should get its own thread in an appropriate subforum.

[Zombra]

But, I believe you ALL have put him in an awkward position as a Dev.

I disagree.  I don't see anyone asking Tynan to make a statement as to whether he supports gay rights or whatnot.  Gays and transgenders are already in the game, so he clearly has no problem with representing their very existence (and despite some fairly transparent bigotry, no one is asking him to remove them).  All that's really being asked for here is a more sensible way of formatting sexual orientation on the character sheet.  I don't really get why that's controversial.  Whether he thinks it's a good use of his time is of course up to him.

As for whether sexuality is a "trait" or not, of course it's a trait if we're speaking English.  That doesn't mean that it should be a capital-t Trait in the "Traits" section of the character sheet.  There's a difference between an English word and a game term, and anyone who wants to argue semantics needs to take that on board immediately, immediately, immediately.  Gender is a trait too, but it would be weird if all characters were female unless they had the special "Male" Trait.  See the difference?

[charkesd]

Ingame 2% of the population means you just have someone who basically cant get married

But having the percentage higher (then real life) is the only way this isnt true, other then gay people willing to marry straight people and straight people willing to marry gay people. But if this is the case why even make the distinction?

So whats the answer? Make a crap load of people gay, or accept that it just means you probably have a person who cant marry?

Once again we dont have to figure out this shit for him just eat whatever is given to you and say ty

[Zombra]

Ingame 2% of the population means you just have someone who basically cant get married

But having the percentage higher (then real life) is the only way this isnt true, other then gay people willing to marry straight people and straight people willing to marry gay people. But if this is the case why even make the distinction?

So whats the answer? Make a crap load of people gay, or accept that it just means you probably have a person who cant marry?

Interesting observation, but honestly is this a problem that demands a solution?  The mood boost for marriage is substantial, to say the least - but there are already plenty of characters who don't get married, in my experience.  The occasional colonist who will have a harder time getting that bonus is hardly going to change the face of the game.  It's strange at best to suggest the idea of artificially inflating the gay population to induce a greater incidence of marriage.

Once again we dont have to figure out this shit for him just eat whatever is given to you and say ty

Good point.  In that light, I move that the Suggestions forum be shut down permanently and all existing threads deleted.   

[cultist]

Ok, there is 7 pages here on a topic that affects basically nothing. Surely this isn't a suggestion that will benefit the game, but a general debate about homosexuality.

Whether or not anything in the game changes is up to Tynan. All we can do is discuss the subject. So... yeah. This thread has been de-railed and nuked by mods at least once, but what did you expect? It's a hot-button topic and fertile soil for trolls. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. We just need the mods to keep a sharp eye on the thread and a twitchy finger on the flamethrower.

[des]

Being gay isn't a trait, a trait describes your personality and who you are. Gay is not a personality. You cannot say (when describing someone's personality) "Oh he is Stubborn Irrational and Straight". Nor can you say "Oh he is Hardworking, Too Smart and Gay". Get it now?

As a fellow biologist, I have to disagree, homosexuality is frequently described as a (biological) trait, the reason being that sexual behaviors are called traits too. That's why common biology textbooks refer to homosexuality as a trait. But obviously it's semantics, sorry, just wanted to point that out, I had to.

I meant VVV

As for whether sexuality is a "trait" or not, of course it's a trait if we're speaking English.  That doesn't mean that it should be a capital-t Trait in the "Traits" section of the character sheet.  There's a difference between an English word and a game term, and anyone who wants to argue semantics needs to take that on board immediately, immediately, immediately.  Gender is a trait too, but it would be weird if all characters were female unless they had the special "Male" Trait.  See the difference?

[TheWoodElf]

I understand whole-heartedly where you are coming from and I agree more so with the other comments that include listing all sexual orientations and possibly changing the terminology

[Travinsky]

I understand whole-heartedly where you are coming from and I agree more so with the other comments that include listing all sexual orientations and possibly changing the terminology

The problem is there is going to be a infinite number of groups that want to be recognized. I'd rather that the development team spent more time adding new features and leave it to the modders to add bisexuals, asexuals, demisexuals, pansexuals etc. etc.

It seems to me that adding a new sections on the character profile is completely arbitrary, you are still listing it as a trait and honestly I think it does serve to have in the trait section. Just as I alter the working schedule of a Night Owl so that he is awake during the night, I tend to group two gay characters together to increase the chance of them having a relationship (And for that sweet, sweet mood boost).

In a colony with twelve people, having one that is gay does make that something unique about him and I honestly would be surprised if none of you have ever heard some bloke on TV being described as "the gay one".

Honestly, I think this topic has barely managed to stay focused on the original suggestion and has veered into some very shaky territories so I certainly wouldn't begrudge this topic being locked. This isn't the Sims, its RimWorld, we don't need all this contentious, sensitive content being added because some people want to feel personally recognized and affirmed by the developers. Leave it as it is, and wait for the modders to add it to the game.

[Zombra]

The problem is there is going to be a infinite number of groups that want to be recognized.

... No, not really.  There are no floodgates waiting to burst with thousands of special interest groups demanding to overhaul the game again and again.  There aren't legions of foot fetishists and BDSM queens lurking just offscreen, waiting for Tynan to show a moment of weakness so they can spam the forums demanding recognition.  This thread is a request to, one time, format the character sheet so that sexuality is a basic, integral attribute, like gender or age.  Once that formatting change is made, any sexuality should be easily accommodated.

In a colony with twelve people, having one that is gay does make that something unique about him and I honestly would be surprised if none of you have ever heard some bloke on TV being described as "the gay one".

There's also the "token black guy" or "the token female" on TV shows.  That doesn't make it good practice or somehow not insulting to use this kind of labeling.  You'll notice that Rimworld features two genders and a variety of skin colors without making them into crazy quirks.  Would it be a good idea for "Black Guy" to be a special Trait?

Honestly, I think this topic has barely managed to stay focused on the original suggestion and has veered into some very shaky territories so I certainly wouldn't begrudge this topic being locked. This isn't the Sims, its RimWorld, we don't need all this contentious, sensitive content being added because some people want to feel personally recognized and affirmed by the developers.

I still don't understand how indexing sexuality in a more organized way equates to "adding contentious content".  Gays and transgenders are already in the game.  It doesn't get more contentious than that.

[Travinsky]

I'd like to suggest that "gay" be removed as a listed trait. There should still be colonists who feel same-sex attractions, but we're in the year 5500, I'd like to hope that in the next 3500 years, society as a whole moves beyond gay/straight and male/female.

By the way, are multiple relationships possible ingame?

Pansexual polyamory in 5500!

This is the original topic. We have clearly strayed from it. I'm saying the Gay Trait serves a function, you are requesting something completely different.

I think its time this topic was locked and perhaps you create a new topic requesting a more fleshed out character sheet.

[Zombra]

There's a difference between the "original topic" and the "original post".  The topic is '"Gay" as a trait', i.e. how sexuality should be represented in the game.  The OP advocated imposing pansexuality on every character (which I think would be rather boring).  Much of the following discussion is in response to that, and as we began with the question of whether sexuality should be represented, it is natural to proceed to discuss how it should be represented.  Many of us, the OP included, seem to agree that the current representation isn't ideal.

I agree that the Gay Trait serves a function - but I disagree with the implication that the implementation is the best possible.  Integrating sexuality as an inherent characteristic would not only be more respectful, it would easily allow for other permutations than the two we have now ("Gay" or "not-Gay"), as I outlined here and here.  It would serve the same function that the Trait serves now, and it would be a better implementation for a number of reasons.  I honestly don't see how anyone can be opposed to a better indexing system.

I don't think a new thread is necessary; I think the topic has been well explored here and I'm sure that Tynan is aware of the ideas that have surfaced.  No real reason to lock this one, either.