The Gaming Den

Is it transsexualism if you can become the opposite sex? Not much point in simply believing you're the opposite sex if you can just wear a belt or cast a spell to make it reality.
But yeah, having your character inflicted with any sort of sexual shit is super weird and a red flag in a random group. Maybe you can get into it with a trusted group you have more experience with, but if the GM says I'm a necrophiliac now and we aren't playing Heroes of Horror, I'm walking.

Yeah this is pretty fucking awful and wrong on so so many levels. Even a "we don't know what the fuck we're talking about and we're going to intentionally make people uncomfortable by stealing some shit from a 1970s psychology textbook from Goodwill" would be better than nothing, but that's still not saying much.

BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF

You having a fun time there, ISP?

infected slut princess wrote:BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT

Dude, what are your values?

I'd love to be able to remove my dysphoria by casting break enchantment, but thanks for reminding me why I have ISP on ignore.

infected slut princess wrote:https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/camp ... lDisorders

So far as medieval societies went, I can't imagine them being terribly accepting of Crossdressers. Ars Magica in particular, has it as a suggestion for the Major Flaw, Dark Secret.

If one can simple wear a belt of gender change, I don't any reasonable GM would even make this an issue. The SRD was written when, in 2000? It's a product of its time.

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:The SRD was written when, in 2000? It's a product of its time.

Thats the ogl sanity rules from unearthed arcana. Written in 2004.

Krusk wrote:

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:The SRD was written when, in 2000? It's a product of its time.

Thats the ogl sanity rules from unearthed arcana. Written in 2004.

I'm pretty sure this was an obviously incorrect thing to say in 2004 in that the DSM IV published in 2000 had moved on from the DSM III use of the term "transexualism" to "Gender Identity Disorder" but it also does not surprise me at all that people writing a D&D book in 2004 about extremely sensitive issues would just use a 1987 book because being "of their time" for gaming communities usually means being WAY the fuck behind on basic accounting to all minority and disadvantaged communities.

But also, in 2004 psychiatrists were still saying that all trans people were suffering from a mental disorder, so while this entry is particularly bad, it is true that also everyone fucking sucked in 2004.

Did not mean to come across as defending the content. Was mostly making sure it was clear that the hyperlink srd folks didn't randomly write their own sanity rules and then try to slip them into people's 3.5 games by pretending it was WoTC content.

Now, they still have it up, and no one is forcing them to do that. They could easily put a "Hey we include everything but that one section of that one book" or something and it would probably be better. Even grossness of the topic aside, the rules also aren't good.

Yes ISP a RPG source published in 2004 was bad. Let's not beat around the bush here we all know what you're about. Can we cut to the part where you start ranting about the Skeletal Jaguar Warriors or better yet the part where you get owned and slink off back into whatever festering warrens you inhabit when you're not trolling the Den.

Krusk wrote:Did not mean to come across as defending the content. Was mostly making sure it was clear that the hyperlink srd folks didn't randomly write their own sanity rules and then try to slip them into people's 3.5 games by pretending it was WoTC content.

Now, they still have it up, and no one is forcing them to do that. They could easily put a "Hey we include everything but that one section of that one book" or something and it would probably be better. Even grossness of the topic aside, the rules also aren't good.

Yeah, I wasn't really trying to say you were defending the rules. And yeah the SRD is just publishing the SRD stuff from the rules in 2003 or whatever and the book published in 2004. They could definitely just put up a notice that is like "in our estimation, the part of the SRD on sanity rules is bad rules and also really messed up on a social level because RPG writers in 2004 were not good at this. Please just ignore them" or alternatively, the notice and delete the rules.

Probably no one will ever care! San rules usually suck anyway!

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:So far as medieval societies went, I can't imagine them being terribly accepting of Crossdressers.

Possibly, but you had a lot of ideas about gender in various medieval societies, no reason why they'd have to be.

Thaluikhain wrote:Possibly, but you had a lot of ideas about gender in various medieval societies, no reason why they'd have to be.

There was at least one reason, Deuteronomy 22:5. 'A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.'

infected slut princess wrote:BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF
BIGOT
EDUCATE YOURSELF

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
The OP got reported for trolling. I disagree, but the above quoted definitely qualifies as trolling. ISP, quit that shit.
[/TGFBS]

Depends on what you mean by medieval society, and crossdressers.

There's a 13th century French romance novel titled Le Roman de Silence, in which an assigned-female-at-birth person "lives as a man in order to inherit their father’s land. As they grow, they are raised as a knight and constantly praised as the 'best man in England.'” There's, at one point, an extended debate between Nature and Nurture, as actual characters, because Nature "made Silence more beautiful than 'a thousand of the most beautiful girls,' yet no one recognizes them as female" and feels like it was a waste (cuz... there are totally no men fucking a super beautiful night. No, not at all...). Reason, also a personified character, sides with Nurture, saying that Silence was raised as a man, and thus is a man. And then there's some stuff about how as a man Silence would be inept in bed, and... I'm surprised a French author knew so little about how incredibly good queer sex is.

In the real world, there was Eleanor (nee John) Reykener, a medieval sex worker who was assigned male at birth, but lived as a woman. Eleanor was arrested for prostitution at one point, and the court was very confused. The records switch back and forth between pronouns, and even the exact crime is ambiguous, as only men were charged with sodomy, and only women were charged with prostitution.

....this actually sorta makes the court slightly more progressive than some modern courts, which would simply say "well, you're a man, so it's sodomy, but you were posing as a woman, so it's also prostitution. Congrats, two crimes for the act of one!"

The norse had pretty much no issue with queerness* with even their gods being pretty fluid and queer. Sure, there's the pretty well known "Loki got fucked by a horse" myth, but Odin also practiced seiðr which was seen as a woman's form of magic, which he learned from Freya--now, granted, Loki mocks him for this in the edda where Loki insults all the gods, and as an insult, it implied the target of the insult was a bottom, but... the fact that the chief god of Norse myth practiced it implies that while you could insult a man this way, it was probably more akin to the modern use of "cocksucker" as an insult, even amongst people who have zero issue with people sucking cocks regardless of genders involved.

While it would be errant to say that eunuchs were exactly the same as trans women, it is perhaps telling that they occupied similar social spaces. As a trans feminine person, I do see something of a reflection in the fact that eunuchs could achieve a great deal of trust from others, and yet still draw criticism--whether and individual eunuch saw themselves as apart from cis men and women, society certainly treated them that way. Also, it's probably quite telling that in modern society orchiectomies are more common among trans women than penectomies, and while there are a lot of reasons for this, some of which (capitalism) wouldn't have existed in quite the same way, it's very likely that some reasons remained the same (such as sex work)

So, really, it's pretty much Christians that have the issue with queerness, then and now.

*well, they were cool with queerness, but given the demands of their environment and raiding, they did expect people to have children regardless

Deuteronomy 22:5. 'A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.'

The Prophet of Islam was a cross-dresser (Sahih al-Bukhari 2442). He also had mental problems. Whether his cross-dressing was BECAUSE OF or IN SPITE OF his mental problems is something you scholars of TGDMB will have to figure out. Perhaps with the SRD as a helpful reference, you can gain a deeper understanding of the life of the messenger of Allah.

You have to really torture that Arabic to turn a sentence about lying with his wife under her blankets to one about wearing her garments. More importantly, why the fuck is that presented as some kind of gotcha to begin with. This is chick tract level nonsense.

Black leaf, no!

RIP me

I will avenge my father.

Whatever wrote:You have to really torture that Arabic to turn a sentence about lying with his wife [under her blankets to one about wearing her garments. More importantly, why the fuck is that presented as some kind of gotcha to begin with. This is chick tract level nonsense.

Thank you Great Islamic Scholar Whatever. Very cool.

Oh right, I have to add people back to my ignore list now.

Love the reminder that the only good thing ISP ever posted was their name. Maybe if they focused more on the SP part of that name instead of the I they'd be better.