|
On April 08 2012 05:37 TheSubtleArt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:33 JackDT wrote:
Scarlett's play was phenomenal. I'd put her right up there with Feast and Illusion as one of the new foreigner hopes. That she walked into the tournament as a COMPLETE unknown, whereas people had been talking up Illusion for awhile, made the story even more surprising. This was literally her first ever LAN experience and she was going toe to toe with Code S Koreans? Are you kidding me? Rofl wow, foreigner hope? People are seriously jumping the gun here....
Did you watch her game vs Oz? What other new players look as promising? I can only think of a handful.
|
On April 08 2012 05:18 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 05:09 Zaqwe wrote:
No, historically gender always was synonymous with sex, and was commonly used to refer to people.. Historically most of the time humans existed the earth was considered flat as well, so it must be true. Seriously. Here too. I once really disliked him. Sorry :[ but now I finally see he's a great person
You're terrible to have ever disliked Tyler.
|
I'm a statistician. To me, the word "significant" has a very specific, well-defined meaning. To people who don't spent a ton of time calculating p-values, it has a much more colloquial meaning. You could say that this is the "concensus" understanding of what the word means, and I'm fine with that. In most cases, I won't complain. But if you start having a conversation with me about statistics and then insist on your colloquial definition for "significant", I will be completely correct to tell you that you're using the word wrong. If you continue insisting on the general definition, even in the context of a conversation about statistics, you'll just be flaunting willful ignorance.
|
Im really interested to see what she has to say on STOG. She had an amazing first showing on a big tournament and wonder what she thinks of people all of a sudden claiming her to be the next foreigner hope(which i think is a bit early untill a second good run). Also, would love to hear if she is considering joining a team and what team eventually.
ill be tuning in!
|
On April 08 2012 06:02 GeorgeForeman wrote:
I'm a statistician. To me, the word "significant" has a very specific, well-defined meaning. To people who don't spent a ton of time calculating p-values, it has a much more colloquial meaning. You could say that this is the "concensus" understanding of what the word means, and I'm fine with that. In most cases, I won't complain. But if you start having a conversation with me about statistics and then insist on your colloquial definition for "significant", I will be completely correct to tell you that you're using the word wrong. If you continue insisting on the general definition, even in the context of a conversation about statistics, you'll just be flaunting willful ignorance.
Yes exactly. For me the words are synonymous, unless it's in the context of various feminist issues - since that requires more precision. In any case, although this debate isn't really relevant to some of the troll posts a few pages back, those posts actually aren't really interesting anyway, so if something useful can come off it, then people can talk about that by all means.
On April 08 2012 06:23 resilve wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 05:40 obesemk wrote:
Just dont discuss this whole thing on SOTG pls. This thing has gotten too much attention already, imo. I have to agree. For a player who wants to speak through her play, making this this biggest deal in the history of starcraft is unwarranted and almost unfair. It's an interesting and challenging issue to many people, clearly, but I don't see how it is relevant to anything. And on top of that - a deep discussion regarding issues of identity, representation and sexuality is beyond the scopes of SOTG, the panelists, and (most of all) the community.
Why? Nony seems to know. :o
|
On April 08 2012 05:40 obesemk wrote:
Just dont discuss this whole thing on SOTG pls. This thing has gotten too much attention already, imo.
I have to agree.
For a player who wants to speak through her play, making this this biggest deal in the history of starcraft is unwarranted and almost unfair. It's an interesting and challenging issue to many people, clearly, but I don't see how it is relevant to anything.
And on top of that - a deep discussion regarding issues of identity, representation and sexuality is beyond the scopes of SOTG, the panelists, and (most of all) the community.
|
On April 08 2012 06:23 resilve wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 05:40 obesemk wrote:
Just dont discuss this whole thing on SOTG pls. This thing has gotten too much attention already, imo. I have to agree. For a player who wants to speak through her play, making this this biggest deal in the history of starcraft is unwarranted and almost unfair. It's an interesting and challenging issue to many people, clearly, but I don't see how it is relevant to anything. And on top of that - a deep discussion regarding issues of identity, representation and sexuality is beyond the scopes of SOTG, the panelists, and (most of all) the community.
It wouldn't be bad for them to talk about her match vs. Oz, at least. It's not often that we have new faces coming out of nowhere and playing as well as she did. It'd be crazy if she was a guy, too.
They should also give Illusion a shoutout, he went absolute beastmode, and not enough people are talking about it. He's getting scary good, and he's only like 16 or 17.
|
inControl is always saying he thinks Illusion is the next big player, I'm sure he won't miss a chance to talk about his recent success.
|
On April 08 2012 05:18 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:57 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On April 08 2012 03:24 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 02:00 MarcH wrote:On April 08 2012 01:47 aebriol wrote:On April 08 2012 01:41 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 01:14 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 01:09 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 01:06 Lennoxito wrote:
[quote]
one: he's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit.
two: he has no team
three: he's a girl
and four: no one cares about illusion
fixed On April 07 2012 11:44 Gamegene wrote:
[quote]
1. Sex =/= Gender
2. Way to be a dick. actually its equal. sex is physical. gender is psychological Well, while true, it's like racism and racial discrimination - used to be two distinct concepts, but then people started to use one (gender / racism) to refer to both, and voila - confusion. http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf Im still confused as to why this is an issue? So she is transgender so what who really cares?. I have no idea how you can read everything you just responded to and not realize that she cares. She directly asks people to respectfully refer to her as female. Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER flaunt their ignorant views when they know they are disrespectful. Whether or not they are just playing dumb and acting like they don't understand the nuances does not matter when it is clear that they are purposely disrespectful. If they don't understand something then they can humbly ask for explanations. They can also make it a point to not do exactly what has been clearly stated is disrespectful. Not only were they disrespectful to Scarlett, they're disrespectful to everyone else and to the mods. One said we're in denial and the other said mods are petty for banning someone for speaking the truth (when in fact it was not the truth but ignorance and deliberate disrespect). Gamegene is nice enough to give them a hint that can start them on their own research if they really want to but also calls them out on the fact that they're purposely being dicks. Lennoxito contradicts him. I'm nice enough to explain the basic difference in 6 words. And then aebriol swoops down from the Ivory Tower and gives us a study on how academics have increasingly used gender synonymously with sex. However the study isn't relevant because it's over a decade old and it isn't arguing that there aren't nuances when talking about a person like Scarlett or discussing gender issues. It is merely showing how prevalent it was to ignore the possibilities of such nuances whenever possible. In other words, the natural scientists who were using gender synonymously with sex were not denying the existence of the issues that caused gender and sex to be used differently in the first place. Their usage wasn't indicative of their ideology. Some feminists had begun to merge the concepts of gender and sex as both social constructs but again that is not denying the nuances of a person like Scarlett. The whole idea of aebriol linking this study is absurd anyway because he's just trying to point out why some people might be confused but anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the exchanges between Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER and everyone else could see that they're not just confused by the notion that gender and sex are not synonyms. As if the reason why Lennoxito straight up contradicts Gamegene is because a bunch of natural scientists began to prefer to use 'gender' in place of 'sex' just as feminists began to strongly emphasize the difference between the two... Yeah, SOTG thread. Tyler, I have always appreciated your nuanced and moderate views, but gender and sex were synonyms for hundreds of years and never stopped being synonyms in common language. And if the issue is about respect why not respect the views of people who are uncomfortable using gender pronouns they feel are not appropriate? I understand banning people who say things like *fixed* and change a post because clearly they are trolling, but I don't think people should be forced to use certain pronouns. I don't get why people keep making this absurd logical fallacy. "Just because it's been this way for a long time, it therefore should be this way." It's pretty obvious that none of the people attempting to assert that gender and sex are synonymous have read any bit of relevant critical literature, such as writings from Simone de Beauvoir or Judith Butler (admittedly, the latter is a pain to read). Sex is biological, gender is social. Gender roles are obviously apparent - "girly" colors (pink, purple, etc.), "girly" toys (dolls, playhouses, playkitchens), "girly" roles (mother, not physically aggressive, etc.) are not borne of biology. There is nothing about male and female biology that dictates that a person with a penis has to someone shy away from colors of pink and purple and go for colors of blue, red, etc. Sure, this is a modern understanding. That's because people in general were too ignorant to know better in the past. Now, there's the whole issue about language also involved, and it's pretty clear that many aren't reflective enough to understand the complexities of language, when they insist that it's okay for public figures to utter racial or homophobic epithets because "people don't 'intend' to be racist/homophobic/sexist when they do so" etc. But obviously, "intent" isn't worth a load of crap when language and other faculties possess unconscious and subconscious effects. Thought empirically shapes reality: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.htmlNotably, as proven in the above article, feminine/masculine language [i]does[i/] shape reality and social attitudes and abstract things such as moral judgments regardless of intent. The plasticity of the brain and tendency of neurons to lock into certain routes of firing all go to show that what you "intend" doesn't matter when the subconscious assumptions of certain behaviors, like gendered language, continue to condition behavior in certain ways. You should watch a show Hjernevask, or "Brainwash". Particularly episode 1, The Gender Equality Paradox. It turns out that males and females have different interests as soon as they are born. The gender differences are genetic. The videos are all available free on vimeo. Here's a site that links to them. The password on all of them is "hjernevask". http://genusnytt.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/se-hjernevask-avsloja-genusmyterna/
It also puzzles me why people link to video as proof of points. There's a reason why Michael Moore, the (in)famous "documentary" director, is so widely disliked. Films are director driven - they choose what clips to omit, they edit the film as they desire, so any film like this has politically driven elements. There have been complaints that Hjernevask misrepresented the statements that the scientists made. Another problem, is of course, the lack of academic review. Feel free to reference proper academic material, but such a film is problematic.
|
On April 08 2012 04:39 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 04:29 ShinobiX wrote:On April 08 2012 03:24 Zaqwe wrote:On April 08 2012 03:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 02:00 MarcH wrote:On April 08 2012 01:47 aebriol wrote:On April 08 2012 01:41 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 01:14 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 01:09 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 01:06 Lennoxito wrote:
[quote]
one: he's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit.
two: he has no team
three: he's a girl
and four: no one cares about illusion
fixed On April 07 2012 11:44 Gamegene wrote:
[quote]
1. Sex =/= Gender
2. Way to be a dick. actually its equal. sex is physical. gender is psychological Well, while true, it's like racism and racial discrimination - used to be two distinct concepts, but then people started to use one (gender / racism) to refer to both, and voila - confusion. http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf Im still confused as to why this is an issue? So she is transgender so what who really cares?. I have no idea how you can read everything you just responded to and not realize that she cares. She directly asks people to respectfully refer to her as female. Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER flaunt their ignorant views when they know they are disrespectful. Whether or not they are just playing dumb and acting like they don't understand the nuances does not matter when it is clear that they are purposely disrespectful. If they don't understand something then they can humbly ask for explanations. They can also make it a point to not do exactly what has been clearly stated is disrespectful. Not only were they disrespectful to Scarlett, they're disrespectful to everyone else and to the mods. One said we're in denial and the other said mods are petty for banning someone for speaking the truth (when in fact it was not the truth but ignorance and deliberate disrespect). Gamegene is nice enough to give them a hint that can start them on their own research if they really want to but also calls them out on the fact that they're purposely being dicks. Lennoxito contradicts him. I'm nice enough to explain the basic difference in 6 words. And then aebriol swoops down from the Ivory Tower and gives us a study on how academics have increasingly used gender synonymously with sex. However the study isn't relevant because it's over a decade old and it isn't arguing that there aren't nuances when talking about a person like Scarlett or discussing gender issues. It is merely showing how prevalent it was to ignore the possibilities of such nuances whenever possible. In other words, the natural scientists who were using gender synonymously with sex were not denying the existence of the issues that caused gender and sex to be used differently in the first place. Their usage wasn't indicative of their ideology. Some feminists had begun to merge the concepts of gender and sex as both social constructs but again that is not denying the nuances of a person like Scarlett. The whole idea of aebriol linking this study is absurd anyway because he's just trying to point out why some people might be confused but anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the exchanges between Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER and everyone else could see that they're not just confused by the notion that gender and sex are not synonyms. As if the reason why Lennoxito straight up contradicts Gamegene is because a bunch of natural scientists began to prefer to use 'gender' in place of 'sex' just as feminists began to strongly emphasize the difference between the two... Yeah, SOTG thread. Tyler, I have always appreciated your nuanced and moderate views, but gender and sex were synonyms for hundreds of years and never stopped being synonyms in common language. And if the issue is about respect why not respect the views of people who are uncomfortable using gender pronouns they feel are not appropriate? I understand banning people who say things like *fixed* and change a post because clearly they are trolling, but I don't think people should be forced to use certain pronouns. Are you for real? I'm male, if people start referring to me as "Her", eventually I will be offended. If Scarlett wants to be referred to as female, then it's not a choice of taste which pronoun you use, you use the pronoun that is fucking appropriate to her gender. Technically, you are forced to use certain (fitting) pronouns by the rules of social life. And it does not matter one ounce what you want, what you think of the whole matter or if you even accept her choices in life. Of course, you might still make a stand. But don't be surprised if Scarlett doesn't invite you to her MLG Winner celebration party! Go Scarlett! :D Some people may disagree with you about what pronoun is appropriate for someone who is genetically a man. Why is it so important for you to force your views on them? People should just use whatever they think is appropriate and not "correct" those who see it differently. Conflict only arises when one side or the other insists that everyone conform to the same opinion.
Wow, Tyler is right... this is trolling in its purest form. You know exactly what I'm talking about, as an intelligent being you must be aware why Scarlett wants to be referred to as a female person, you have no physical or psychological pain by obliging with her wishes, yet you continue to promote offending people like Scarlett by simply ignoring their life choices...
Because it is your god given right of arrogance to do just that? 
Do you really think if you're standing in front of Scarlett and refer to her as a male that she's going to accept your choice of words, because you feel you have the right to ignore him? Do you actually think that in this matter, your personal belief supercedes that one the person that is the concern of this discussion? Really? Who exactly is imposing what on whom here? You are acting against most social norms in western civilisations and you whine about having my opinion being imposed on you? Is this going to end in one of those pointless freedom of speech discussions? Lmao.
Are you aware that Scarlett might read this shit? 
My god, that would be funny. :D
|
On April 08 2012 06:25 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 06:23 resilve wrote:On April 08 2012 05:40 obesemk wrote:
Just dont discuss this whole thing on SOTG pls. This thing has gotten too much attention already, imo. I have to agree. For a player who wants to speak through her play, making this this biggest deal in the history of starcraft is unwarranted and almost unfair. It's an interesting and challenging issue to many people, clearly, but I don't see how it is relevant to anything. And on top of that - a deep discussion regarding issues of identity, representation and sexuality is beyond the scopes of SOTG, the panelists, and (most of all) the community. It wouldn't be bad for them to talk about her match vs. Oz, at least. It's not often that we have new faces coming out of nowhere and playing as well as she did. It'd be crazy if she was a guy, too. They should also give Illusion a shoutout, he went absolute beastmode, and not enough people are talking about it. He's getting scary good, and he's only like 16 or 17.
Talking about the matches is fine and commendable, and I really think she deserves highlighting. For her play. The same with Illusion.
I do think that Tyler is reflexive and well-read enough to perform a decent analysis of gender issues in gaming, but I dont think the others are capable, or have such a mandate. And I really don't think the community is even close to ready for it.
|
On April 08 2012 06:47 resilve wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 06:25 corpuscle wrote:On April 08 2012 06:23 resilve wrote:On April 08 2012 05:40 obesemk wrote:
Just dont discuss this whole thing on SOTG pls. This thing has gotten too much attention already, imo. I have to agree. For a player who wants to speak through her play, making this this biggest deal in the history of starcraft is unwarranted and almost unfair. It's an interesting and challenging issue to many people, clearly, but I don't see how it is relevant to anything. And on top of that - a deep discussion regarding issues of identity, representation and sexuality is beyond the scopes of SOTG, the panelists, and (most of all) the community. It wouldn't be bad for them to talk about her match vs. Oz, at least. It's not often that we have new faces coming out of nowhere and playing as well as she did. It'd be crazy if she was a guy, too. They should also give Illusion a shoutout, he went absolute beastmode, and not enough people are talking about it. He's getting scary good, and he's only like 16 or 17. Talking about the matches is fine and commendable, and I really think she deserves highlighting. For her play. The same with Illusion. I do think that Tyler is reflexive and well-read enough to perform a decent analysis of gender issues in gaming, but I dont think the others are capable, or have such a mandate. And I really don't think the community is even close to ready for it.
I agree with you completely. It'd just be a shame if they completely ignored her like some people are saying they should, she's one of the biggest stories of IPL4 even if you don't consider her gender.
|
On April 08 2012 05:55 stormchaser wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 05:18 Zandar wrote:On April 08 2012 05:09 Zaqwe wrote:
No, historically gender always was synonymous with sex, and was commonly used to refer to people.. Historically most of the time humans existed the earth was considered flat as well, so it must be true. On April 08 2012 03:17 VictorJones wrote:
You just made me a fan Tyler. <3 Seriously. Here too. I once really disliked him. Sorry :[ but now I finally see he's a great person You're terrible to have ever disliked Tyler.
For the record I came here from WC3(after BW) and one of the first things I read from him was this:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188935¤tpage=2#35
I didn't know Tyler really but for me that was really unwelcoming. But I don't judge people from 1 occasion and I learned to appreciate him after.
Thanks for me calling me terrible for that.
|
Canada13405 Posts
Look, if anyone really wants to try and understand gender and its difference from Sex and the concept of transgendered people I will provide a link to a scholarly article widely regarded in the field of sociology as seminal in the field of gender studies.
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/brines/doinggender.pdf
Its a full sociological article in pdf form. It is cited by thousands of published articles and authors and is extremely influential in sociology. I urge anyone who has a hard time understanding gender as different from physical sex to please read the whole thing through.
I don't think it needs a long discussion on SOTG but I think a short chastisement of people being disrespectful of all players for any of their personal choices should be noted. People need to learn to stop worrying about things that don't affect them in any way. Sometimes, the venom of this community is frustrating.
I am very happen TLs mods kept the issue under control for the most part though.
|
|
|
On April 08 2012 06:55 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 05:55 stormchaser wrote:On April 08 2012 05:18 Zandar wrote:On April 08 2012 05:09 Zaqwe wrote:
No, historically gender always was synonymous with sex, and was commonly used to refer to people.. Historically most of the time humans existed the earth was considered flat as well, so it must be true. On April 08 2012 03:17 VictorJones wrote:
You just made me a fan Tyler. <3 Seriously. Here too. I once really disliked him. Sorry :[ but now I finally see he's a great person You're terrible to have ever disliked Tyler. For the record I came here from WC3(after BW) and one of the first things I read from him was this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=188935¤tpage=2#35I didn't know Tyler really but for me that was really unwelcoming. But I don't judge people from 1 occasion and I learned to appreciate him after. Thanks for me calling me terrible for that.
Gosh you expect him to be welcoming and you judge him for that? And yes you're welcome. You're even worst than I thought 
|
You know, people like to think that we're more 'learned' then the people from the Middle Ages or the Renaissance. Apparently not:
Yet it does appear that the primary motor behind change in Making sex was a political imperative - taken up by scientists - to reassess bodies in order to stabilize and maintain a social order of gender inequality. As political theorists were increasingly invoking a potentially egalitarian language of natural rights in the eighteenth century, 'woman' had to be defined as qualitatively different from men in order that political power would be kept out of women's reach.
The politics of Britain back in the 18th century was one in which rich old white men wanted to keep power from a rising social class of women. So they took the prevailing medical and scientific knowledge and pressured it into establishing a firm difference between men and women when it was generally accepted before then that men and women were merely different physically, that the male body and the female body were merely variants of a single form.
And, well, look at where we are today. We're still trying to use this 18th century man/woman two-sex understanding to keep other people down. Only now it's not necessarily women - it's anyone who tries to move back and forth. When, honestly, under the model that had been accepted for nearly 1500 years it wouldn't have been a hassle. It would have been a person switching from a body with a penis to a body with a vagina and some breasts.
So please, don't argue "We should call Scarlett a 'he' because it's been accepted that Sex = Gender for three hundred years." Try "We should call Scarlett what Scarlett wants to be called, because for 1500 YEARS prior to a bunch of power hungry and very rich British misogynist politicians, anyone else on Earth would understand where she's coming from."
http://0-www.jstor.org.library.uark.edu/stable/3133533
The Century of Sex? Gender, Bodies, and Sexuality in the Long Eighteenth Century
PS: There are plenty of examples of ancient societies using hermaphroditic or homosexual people in their society as honored, helpful members of society. If I'm not mistaken, American Indians would use them as peace keepers during any marital disputes. So yes, ancient cultures also had to confront some of the same ideas that we're confronting today. It's just that the ones who actually rolled with it and said "Well, it's natural, so what do we do?" actually had reasonable, thought out, non-hateful solutions.
|
On April 08 2012 03:24 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2012 03:01 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 02:00 MarcH wrote:On April 08 2012 01:47 aebriol wrote:On April 08 2012 01:41 Liquid`NonY wrote:On April 08 2012 01:14 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 01:09 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 01:06 Lennoxito wrote:On April 08 2012 00:46 Gamegene wrote:On April 08 2012 00:38 Lennoxito wrote:
[quote]
so from now on sotg will invite every guy who is able to beat any korean? people are talking about scarlet, she's interesting. one: she's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit. two: she has no team three: she's a girl and four: no one cares about illusion one: he's transgendered and like it or not that makes people raise their eyebrows a bit. two: he has no team three: he's a girl and four: no one cares about illusion fixed On April 07 2012 11:44 Gamegene wrote:On April 07 2012 11:02 archides wrote:On April 07 2012 06:35 truthbombDROPPER wrote:
Sorry but scarlett quite clearly used to be or still is male
I'm not sure why everyone is in denial
User was banned for this post. You serious? These mods act so petty. Banning people for something that is clearly true. Scarlett himself said he's born a male. People aren't even throwing insults at him, just asking common questions. 1. Sex =/= Gender 2. Way to be a dick. actually its equal. sex is physical. gender is psychological Well, while true, it's like racism and racial discrimination - used to be two distinct concepts, but then people started to use one (gender / racism) to refer to both, and voila - confusion. http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf Im still confused as to why this is an issue? So she is transgender so what who really cares?. I have no idea how you can read everything you just responded to and not realize that she cares. She directly asks people to respectfully refer to her as female. Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER flaunt their ignorant views when they know they are disrespectful. Whether or not they are just playing dumb and acting like they don't understand the nuances does not matter when it is clear that they are purposely disrespectful. If they don't understand something then they can humbly ask for explanations. They can also make it a point to not do exactly what has been clearly stated is disrespectful. Not only were they disrespectful to Scarlett, they're disrespectful to everyone else and to the mods. One said we're in denial and the other said mods are petty for banning someone for speaking the truth (when in fact it was not the truth but ignorance and deliberate disrespect). Gamegene is nice enough to give them a hint that can start them on their own research if they really want to but also calls them out on the fact that they're purposely being dicks. Lennoxito contradicts him. I'm nice enough to explain the basic difference in 6 words. And then aebriol swoops down from the Ivory Tower and gives us a study on how academics have increasingly used gender synonymously with sex. However the study isn't relevant because it's over a decade old and it isn't arguing that there aren't nuances when talking about a person like Scarlett or discussing gender issues. It is merely showing how prevalent it was to ignore the possibilities of such nuances whenever possible. In other words, the natural scientists who were using gender synonymously with sex were not denying the existence of the issues that caused gender and sex to be used differently in the first place. Their usage wasn't indicative of their ideology. Some feminists had begun to merge the concepts of gender and sex as both social constructs but again that is not denying the nuances of a person like Scarlett. The whole idea of aebriol linking this study is absurd anyway because he's just trying to point out why some people might be confused but anyone with an ounce of common sense who has read the exchanges between Lennoxito and truthbombDROPPER and everyone else could see that they're not just confused by the notion that gender and sex are not synonyms. As if the reason why Lennoxito straight up contradicts Gamegene is because a bunch of natural scientists began to prefer to use 'gender' in place of 'sex' just as feminists began to strongly emphasize the difference between the two... Yeah, SOTG thread. Tyler, I have always appreciated your nuanced and moderate views, but gender and sex were synonyms for hundreds of years and never stopped being synonyms in common language. And if the issue is about respect why not respect the views of people who are uncomfortable using gender pronouns they feel are not appropriate? I understand banning people who say things like *fixed* and change a post because clearly they are trolling, but I don't think people should be forced to use certain pronouns.
So I can call you madam from now? (just assuming you're male)
nice...
Also, on a totally unrelated note to the OP as it seems:
SotG rocks! :D
|
Please read the entire thing, as this seems to be actual constructive feedback:
Not to interrupt the incredible debate going on about useless things, but for the next State of the Game, the one after PAX East, I feel like it should be a blowout, with all the hosts:
JP
iNcontrol
Day[9]
Nony
Artosis
But it should also have AS MANY guests as possible, if all possible that would be the best. I personally would rather have more guests on and no webcams then webcams and no guests.
Guests should include:
qxc
IdrA
Destiny
Possibly T-Pain
DJ-Wheat
After listening to almost every single SotG during this "drought" of SotGs, those guests have been the most informative, and have generated conversations with true sustenance.I would prefer to wait an extra week to get as many guests as possible in order to make the coming of SotGs just that much more incredible. If this is not possible, then a standard 5 host show with webcams.
I have three small criticisms, two of which is controllable and one of which is not as controllable. The controllable is directed at JP, which is that JP, can you not remark about the webcams "fucking up", because while it is a pain in the ass, it tends to interrupt the flow of the conversation. The other controllable one is directed when talking about patches, but the flow of the conversation needs to be, as Geoff and Tyler have both said, "organic". This is extremely evident when in EP 54 talking about the HotS Nexus abilities, when iNcontrol is trying to talk about the recall and cannon abilities, and Artosis saying that "well we're not talking about that yet" a couple of times. This is not an insult to Artosis, but just to the conversation in general. A more natural conversation would be better.
The last criticism is when there is an uneventful week in SC2, maybe just not do as long of a SotG, because with JP being the king of awkward moments, there is just a lot of awkward pauses and somewhat "forced" conversations.
I understand I've been very long winded but I feel like this needed to be said.
Huge gigantic fan of SotG, and of all the hosts specifically, and of E-sports in general <3
|
Is SOTG being streamed tomorrow?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1204
453
268
193
150
3693
173
150
EPT
