Everything else aside, the article by Variety is disgusting and GameSpot should be ashamed of citing them. Variety intentionally misgenders Elliot several times throughout the article. Nothing they say can be trusted.
You're both using the word gender as if it's interchangeable with parts of anatomy. It's not. Yes, there are only so many ways to order X and Y chromosomes, and you can point those out under a microscope. X and Y chromosomes are real, they are not human constructs. Gender IS a human construct. That will continue to be my argument no matter how you try to twist it.
If you continue to refuse to acknowledge that gender is a human construct in your responses, then we can make no progress towards understanding, and I will stop responding. In the end, I just don't care that much about whether or not you agree with me.
@naryanrobinson: I don't think you understand the statement you quoted or maybe you meant to quote something else, because it sounds like you agree with me despite your false equivalence.
First and foremost, legs, penises and vaginas are all real. They are not human constructs. We could potentially argue over the names of these body parts, but never their existence. You can also include things like gravity in this argument. Despite not being able to see or touch it, we can't deny that SOMETHING keeps us from floating away when we jump. Gravity is also undeniably real. If we tried to argue that legs or gravity do not exist, we'd be in the realms of "Birds aren't real" memes.
However, gender IS a human construct. Gender (male and female) is something that only exists because humans have tried to categorize people. When I say gender isn't real, I mean that you can't see it or touch it like you can a leg. You can't feel it like you can gravity. You might see behaviors commonly associated with a specific gender or you might touch anatomy commonly associated with a specific gender. You might identify as a certain gender based on your understanding of the gender construct. You might even accurately assume another person's gender identity, but gender itself cannot be seen or touched because it only exists on paper. It's a human construct.
When you try to extend my argument, as if saying "legs do not exist" would be a comparable argument, you make a false equivalence. Legs are not a human construct.
@stickemup: I don't think there is anything wrong with refusing to tolerate intolerance. There is a difference in not believing the same thing as somebody, and actively saying things to negate another person's lived experience.
Let's use your statement as an example, "Gender is an absolute fact." This is objectively and undeniably false. For one, gender isn't even a real thing. It's a human construct. We made it up. Penises and vaginas are real, gender is not. People are sometimes born with the anatomy of two sexes, or their body produces hormones that are atypical for the gender assigned to them based on their anatomy. What are these people's genders, and who decides that? Gender (which is different than anatomy) is very much a spectrum.
So your comment, "Gender is an absolute fact." attempts to erase the lived experience of others. You deny the reality that others live. Your words are intolerant. If you were present in my life, I would not tolerate those words. If you were important to me, I would spend time explaining my feelings on the topic and hope you come around. If you were not important to me, then I might simply stop associating with you.
If you actually want to be tolerant, then a better way to express your sentiment might be, "I don't understand non-binary gender, but I respect the perspective of those who experience it."
@sabredj: While I suspect we generally agree on the topic, I think it's important to realize and acknowledge that if a company wants to survive, they MUST make more money each year. That's not optional. Their employees need raises, and their expenses go up. Unfortunately that money often ends up in the wrong hands, but it's good to acknowledge reality. All businesses must make more money each year, or they are doomed to fail.
Peddle your gatekeeping elsewhere, I'm not interested. Your comment has nothing to do with my initial statement. Flight simulator should have been in a separate category altogether from the other tactics and strategy games.
This is such an unfortunate grouping. How the hell is Flight Simulator the winner in a category that is otherwise comparing 4x games and tactical strategy games? Absolutely ridiculous.
I like how they talk about never being P2W in genre that has never had a P2W problem to begin with. It's a MOBA, no shit it's not P2W, otherwise your game would fail miserably.
Omegatron_'s comments