Jump to content
270soft Forum

Women* Game Jam Canada e-mail


Recommended Posts

I recently received an e-mail from an organization organizing an event for women in the gaming industry asking to support the event.

Women had an asterisk next to it.

The asterisk at bottom read

"*The organizers of Women Game Jam Canada would like to acknowledge that "female", "woman" or "girl" is not an accurate description for many people. We use * to specifically and intentionally include cis and trans women, as well as non-binary, agender, intersex people."

What do you think - is this a parody or not? If not, should people always use an * when they use the words 'woman' or 'man', with an explanation at the bottom such as above?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm late to this post, but as someone on this forum who identifies as Nonbinary and uses They/Them pronouns (as well as someone who works with LGBTQ) causes I just wanted to chime in with a few stray

I’m saying that I try not to be a jerk about these kinds of things.     I’m not sure that this post/thread is necessary, especially when to my knowledge there aren’t any women here, much less a

C'mon man, really? We're better than this.

15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I recently received an e-mail from an organization organizing an event for women in the gaming industry asking to support the event.

Women had an asterisk next to it.

The asterisk at bottom read

"*The organizers of Women Game Jam Canada would like to acknowledge that "female", "woman" or "girl" is not an accurate description for many people. We use * to specifically and intentionally include cis and trans women, as well as non-binary, agender, intersex people."

What do you think - is this a parody or not? If not, should people always use an * when they use the words 'woman' or 'man', with an explanation at the bottom such as above?

I think it is sincere. I get a lot of emails with such statements at work. 
 

I wouldn’t worry about having to put a *. Some people will and some won’t. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think it is sincere. I get a lot of emails with such statements at work

I find it interesting that they're worried about excluding non-binary, and so on, people, when the whole point of the event is to exclude a large % of people. An odd psychology to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I find it interesting that they're worried about excluding non-binary, and so on, people, when the whole point of the event is to exclude a large % of people. An odd psychology to me.

It makes sense to me. They’re defining what they mean by women. It’s an event for women. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

'Non-binary' or 'agender' = woman?

Depends. The whole thing is a spectrum now. They really should just change the name of the event and organization. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

Depends. The whole thing is a spectrum now. They really should just change the name of the event and organization. 

Sounds like what you're saying is we should abandon the terms 'woman' and 'man'. Wow!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Sounds like what you're saying is we should abandon the terms 'woman' and 'man'. Wow!

How are you construing this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Are you saying events shouldn't use the term 'woman' because it might exclude some non-binary or agender people?

I’m saying that if they are including non-binary and agender then they should change the title to something other than Women, since that is specific to those that identify as women. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I’m saying that if they are including non-binary and agender then they should change the title to something other than Women, since that is specific to those that identify as women. 
 

Ah, I follow you now. Thanks for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I recently received an e-mail from an organization organizing an event for women in the gaming industry asking to support the event.

Women had an asterisk next to it.

The asterisk at bottom read

"*The organizers of Women Game Jam Canada would like to acknowledge that "female", "woman" or "girl" is not an accurate description for many people. We use * to specifically and intentionally include cis and trans women, as well as non-binary, agender, intersex people."

What do you think - is this a parody or not? If not, should people always use an * when they use the words 'woman' or 'man', with an explanation at the bottom such as above?

I’ve found that generally speaking, if something is important to a generally ignored or abused minority, and it actually doesn’t hurt me at all to give them what they want, then I just give them what they want.

Like...it’s not hurting me or anybody else, and they say it will help them, so why wouldn’t I?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I’ve found that generally speaking, if something is important to a generally ignored or abused minority, and it actually doesn’t hurt me at all to give them what they want, then I just give them what they want.

Like...it’s not hurting me or anybody else, and they say it will help them, so why wouldn’t I?

To be clear, are you saying people should use those sorts of disclaimers typically?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

To be clear, are you saying people should use those sorts of disclaimers typically?

It doesn't sound like he is saying anything like that. Sounds like he is saying that he will respect that group's wishes if he is interacting with that group. I think that is what most tolerant people outside their community do. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

It doesn't sound like he is saying anything like that. Sounds like he is saying that he will respect that group's wishes if he is interacting with that group. I think that is what most tolerant people outside their community do. 

 

Then what does that have to do with the post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Then what does that have to do with the post?

I'm responding to your response to his statement. 

I might be misunderstanding you, but are you trying to pigeon-hole a response in which we must state that people 100% should use those disclaimers? I think it is a little more case-by-case then that. I wouldn't have to make any disclaimers to you or this forum, but if I was aware that 10% or more of the forum was trans, non-binary, etc., etc., etc., then it would probably be the nice, respectful thing to do. It hurts no one to make such disclaimers and it risks hurting someone by not having such disclaimers. 

I've never made such disclaimers personally, but I would if I were organizing something that is "for Women" or "for Men."  I would strongly urge others to do the same, but I think requiring it will just make intolerant people more hostile, possibly more offensive towards non-traditional gender identifiers (or whatever the proper term is for that group), and less likely to evolve on the issue. I think is anyone forgets the disclaimer, then they aren't really at fault. It is still kind of a new social adaptions for most people. 

Overall, I just don't see what the problem or concern with such disclaimers. It's a minor things but probably important to some people that they are shown some sort of respect and acknowledgment that they exist. I think refusing disclaimers is just a sign of someone being an asshole. Forgetting to put a disclaimer is okay, or not putting one in until someone requests it is okay. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vcczar said:

are you trying to pigeon-hole a response in which we must state that people 100% should use those disclaimers

No, I'm asking him what his view is.

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

I just don't see what the problem or concern with such disclaimers

I'm interested in the tension between the desire to avoid excluding and the whole purpose of an event which is to exclude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, admin_270 said:

I recently received an e-mail from an organization organizing an event for women in the gaming industry asking to support the event.

Women had an asterisk next to it.

The asterisk at bottom read

"*The organizers of Women Game Jam Canada would like to acknowledge that "female", "woman" or "girl" is not an accurate description for many people. We use * to specifically and intentionally include cis and trans women, as well as non-binary, agender, intersex people."

What do you think - is this a parody or not? If not, should people always use an * when they use the words 'woman' or 'man', with an explanation at the bottom such as above?

This whole gender nonsense thing has become a parody of itself. I seem to remember a day when people with penises used one bathroom and those with vaginas used a different one, and there was no confusion and everyone "felt safe". We live in upside-down bizarro society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, I'm asking him what his view is.

I'm interested in the tension between the desire to avoid excluding and the whole purpose of an event which is to exclude.

Yeah. They should just include everyone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

To be clear, are you saying people should use those sorts of disclaimers typically?

I’m saying that I try not to be a jerk about these kinds of things.  
 

I’m not sure that this post/thread is necessary, especially when to my knowledge there aren’t any women here, much less anyone who is non-binary, etc.

Do I walk around saying “they” about people I’m reasonably confident are a “he” or a she”?  No.  Do I have any objection to referring to someone as “they” if they ask me to?  No.  
 

We can all learn to be more tolerant.  It doesn’t mean we have to completely change our lives or even our speech patterns 100% of the time.  But if a group wants to have a more inclusive definition of “women”, and it literally doesn’t impact me or you or any of us at all, then I don’t see the problem here.

As for them being more inclusive for women but not inclusive for men — I don’t care.  Women are allowed to have things too.  Especially when they face so much harassment in the gaming community, I’m sure that many of them probably appreciate having an event where they hopefully won’t have to worry about that.

I’ve only been sexually harassed once in my life, and it was by a gamer who assumed I was a woman (because I was playing a female character in the game).  Physically, I was perfectly safe — this guy had no idea where I was in real life or (obviously) my real name.  But mentally, it was so disturbing that I still think about it 15 years later.  Now, imagine having that experience almost every single time you played a game — especially if you dared to actually use your microphone.

Women can have an event that doesn’t include us.  Event organizers can include folks who are often ignored or abused.  These don’t hurt us at all, while possibly helping humanity at large.  There isn’t a problem here.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, servo75 said:

This whole gender nonsense thing has become a parody of itself. I seem to remember a day when people with penises used one bathroom and those with vaginas used a different one, and there was no confusion and everyone "felt safe". We live in upside-down bizarro society.

C'mon man, really? We're better than this.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, servo75 said:

This whole gender nonsense thing has become a parody of itself.

I think there's a bit of nonsense there myself. I also know some (a lot?) of it isn't new in some sense. For example, in Ancient Rome, there was a cult of (largely?) biological men who castrated themselves and dressed in women's clothing (the galli). There are various examples like this through various cultures.

One difference is that we now have mass media unlike existed at any time in history, and compulsory extended schooling, so the debate plays out in front of many more people than it would typically in history.

My view is that an event like this doesn't need an asterisk. If I had an asterisk, in this context it would say "If you consider yourself a woman, consider yourself invited," since that seems to be the point of the organizers - no need to get into the weeds on the specific variations on this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

100% agree.

Interested to know your view about biological males who consider themselves females competing in female sports.

I don't really have one.  The only sport I particularly pay attention to is football, which is currently a male dominated sport.  

There's going to be details to work out as we become more aware and understanding in general, as a society.  I don't care for example about the bathroom controversy in general, but do understand why some parents might object to a classmate  who is biologically male undressing in their middle school daughter's locker room.  There are compromises I think that can be made to address everyone's most urgent concerns, even if they are not immediately perfect answers for everyone.

But for something like this, an event where everyone is presumably remaining fully clothed, it's not even worth the discussion.  Let them asterisk what they want to asterisk, and include who they want to include.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As you can imagine my position here is conservative. What I hate the most is professors might grade you down when you're not using ''gender appropriate language'' in your paper which only can be reproduced by using complex sentence structures with ''*'', ''/'', ''-'' and large ''I''s in German sentences. Every noun also has two forms here. Lehrer means a male (school) teacher, Lehrerin means a female (school) teacher. The sane standard is to use the male form which includes all people and was used in this way for centuries. You can imagine how sentences look like when written ''correct''. It's a also an impudence towards foreigners who struggle to learn our language anyway.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...