Non-binary option

[Shart]

There's no reason to lock it, but if people wanted to discuss some of the other topics brought up in here then they should probably create another thread so that this conversation stays on-topic.

First of all, this thread was necro'd. It was created almost one year ago and was inactive for 6 months.

And honestly, at this point what further conversation can there be? I think at this point, it's fairly clear that most people in this forum supports this.
If the mod ended up needing to delete someone's comment, it would be even worse than locking this thread. The tone in this thread is definitely too political for a mere game suggestion.

 

[Alfyna]

Conversations naturally birdwalk -- I've never really understood the fixation some sites have with keeping a thread razor-focused on a topic. But in this case, all the posts that've been made since the original have been tangentially related + have enriched the conversation by introducing multiple talking points. It's been really interesting to watch people come in here and debate their POVs. Everyone's remained fairly cordial and there's been a lot of productive dialogue. Locking a thread imho is a pretty aggressive way to shut down that dialogue. Those who want to engage can click the thread; those who'd rather disengage can step away. All are welcome to do what makes them most comfortable. :)

lol also no idea this thread was necro'd. Shows how much attention I pay to dates. (zero)

 

[LRangerR]

First of all, this thread was necro'd. It was created almost one year ago and was inactive for 6 months.

So? This also isn't the first time the suggestion has come up in the past year. I'd rather have people necro the thread than creating a new one, as was recently discussed here.

And honestly, at this point what further conversation can there be? I think at this point, it's fairly clear that most people in this forum supports this.
If the mod ended up needing to delete someone's comment, it would be even worse than locking this thread. The tone in this thread is definitely too political for a mere game suggestion.

I don't mind. I'd rather have people talk about it than not talk about it all, and ignore it as if it didn't exist. Is there a reason you don't want there to be conversation about this topic?

edit- inserted link

 

[Shart]

So? This also isn't the first time the suggestion has come up in the past year. I'd rather have people necro the thread than creating a new one, as was recently discussed here.

Okay I didn't notice that. Good suggestion. I was just pointing out the rule of this forum. Why would you make rules if you're not gonna enforce it?

I don't mind. I'd rather have people talk about it than not talk about it all, and ignore it as if it didn't exist. Is there a reason you don't want there to be conversation about this topic?

I would love to have conversation about this topic as long as we can have a calm discussion. Some of the replies here have been too emotional.

One of the mods' responsibility is to prevent discussion to be too heated. This is judgement call by the mods, if they think the discussion is still okay, sure, let's leave the thread as it is.
In my view, it is time to lock this. Apparently I'm alone here

 

[Zen_the_Ogre]

Not at all the mods probably should lock necro'd threads just as a courtesy to most users. Or auto archive after 90 days no activity/heavy bumping

 

[LRangerR]

Okay I didn't notice that. Good suggestion. I was just pointing out the rule of this forum. Why would you make rules if you're not gonna enforce it?

As they said in that thread, they're reviewing the necro rule for this and probably a couple other subforums as well currently. What that actually means I have no clue, but that's their bznz (business). For what it's worth though, I've been a part of communities that were heavily moderated (bordering tyrannical (okay, maybe not bordering)), and they are seriously not fun to be a part of. If the mods here feel it's appropriate they'll lock the thread when they're ready to do so. At least the majority of the discourse in this thread has been on topic to the OP.

I would love to have conversation about this topic as long as we can have a calm discussion. Some of the replies here have been too emotional.

One of the mods' responsibility is to prevent discussion to be too heated. This is judgement call by the mods, if they think the discussion is still okay, sure, let's leave the thread as it is.
In my view, it is time to lock this. Apparently I'm alone here

Imo it's okay to be emotional, just as long as you're not outright hostile. The conversation in this thread kinda toes that line, but i think the mods are doing their job well. I think it's important to be able to carry on a debate and keep a level head about something you're passionate about, even when you get frustrated, and I think that that's something that both sides of the current argument (not fight, the other definition) could do with remembering. However, I must point out that it's easy to not understand why the LGBT+ pov gets so upset by this if you've never been seriously discriminated against in your life. Not pointing fingers, just asking for people to try to be more understanding of each other.

 

[Odin]

To the point of bumping an old thread- we're actually talking about adjusting our rule on that to better reflect our moderation practices. If anyone is interested in discussing it further, there's a thread about it in the Forum Feedback section: https://forums.stardewvalley.net/threads/the-rule-on-necroing.6210/
I also just want to remind people that if they feel any messages are breaking forum rules, we encourage you to report it. As for the point of removing messages vs locking- we'd much rather remove a message or two that broke the rules than stop everyone from contributing to a discussion.

 

[Leavo]

After reading this fun and heated discussion, I'm chimming in for a little bit. Personally, I don't mind adding the non-binary option. The more option there is the better it is.

I think what Freizeitfarmer is saying that if this suggestion is implemented, it means that there needs to be inclusion for all groups, not just LGBTQ. The question is to what extent?
This is just an anecdote: I have one really religious christian friend. She gets annoyed whenever a game has a conversation that says "oh, god" or "jesus". In this case, should there be an option to disable such language?

Anyway, this thread has gone way off rail. I think mod should just lock this thread. The arguments for both sides have been presented well imo.
Let's just leave it to CA to make the call whether or not to implement this.

In the game already, everyone has to choose male or female, no one has to choose Christian or Muslim, necessarily excluding other religions, so the slippery slope thought experiment fails here--we don't have to imagine the implications of theoretical inclusions that don't already exist in the game because this one does and is affecting people now. It would be a change, however, that doesn't affect people who already feel represented by male or female. For people who are so accustomed to being represented that they don't notice, or assume that means that everyone else is therefore represented as well as they need to be, I would humbly ask that you make a sincere effort to imagine it from another perspective. If I could only play male characters, it would bother me every time the game reminded me that male is considered the default, and thus the "norm," and everyone else is thus considered "other." If you (the general you) have always been represented as the default, you might think being marginalized as the "other" and playing a character that doesn't represent you would be a non-issue, and for you, it might be because you haven't been marginalized in real life and so have never personally experienced the pain and the unfair and gratuitous diminishment of your person that comes with it. People who have absorbed messages of being the "other" their entire lives are telling you it hurts anew every time they're reminded (and every time their requests to be merely included are written off as "where does it end"), particularly in a game that is beloved for its gentleness and humanity, which is by itself escapism from the cruelty of the real world.

 

[Alfyna]

In the game already, everyone has to choose male or female, no one has to choose Christian or Muslim, necessarily excluding other religions, so the slippery slope thought experiment fails here--we don't have to imagine the implications of theoretical inclusions that don't already exist in the game because this one does and is affecting people now. It would be a change, however, that doesn't affect people who already feel represented by male or female. For people who are so accustomed to being represented that they don't notice, or assume that means that everyone else is therefore represented as well as they need to be, I would humbly ask that you make a sincere effort to imagine it from another perspective. If I could only play male characters, it would bother me every time the game reminded me that male is considered the default, and thus the "norm," and everyone else is thus considered "other." If you (the general you) have always been represented as the default, you might think being marginalized as the "other" and playing a character that doesn't represent you would be a non-issue, and for you, it might be because you haven't been marginalized in real life and so have never personally experienced the pain and the unfair and gratuitous diminishment of your person that comes with it. People who have absorbed messages of being the "other" their entire lives are telling you it hurts anew every time they're reminded (and every time their requests to be merely included are written off as "where does it end"), particularly in a game that is beloved for its gentleness and humanity, which is by itself escapism from the cruelty of the real world.

This knocked the wind out of me. Beautifully, eloquently put.

 

[Cthulhu]

In the game already, everyone has to choose male or female, no one has to choose Christian or Muslim, necessarily excluding other religions, so the slippery slope thought experiment fails here--we don't have to imagine the implications of theoretical inclusions that don't already exist in the game because this one does and is affecting people now. It would be a change, however, that doesn't affect people who already feel represented by male or female. For people who are so accustomed to being represented that they don't notice, or assume that means that everyone else is therefore represented as well as they need to be, I would humbly ask that you make a sincere effort to imagine it from another perspective. If I could only play male characters, it would bother me every time the game reminded me that male is considered the default, and thus the "norm," and everyone else is thus considered "other." If you (the general you) have always been represented as the default, you might think being marginalized as the "other" and playing a character that doesn't represent you would be a non-issue, and for you, it might be because you haven't been marginalized in real life and so have never personally experienced the pain and the unfair and gratuitous diminishment of your person that comes with it. People who have absorbed messages of being the "other" their entire lives are telling you it hurts anew every time they're reminded (and every time their requests to be merely included are written off as "where does it end"), particularly in a game that is beloved for its gentleness and humanity, which is by itself escapism from the cruelty of the real world.

Seconded. This is very well said.

 

[Shart]

In the game already, everyone has to choose male or female, no one has to choose Christian or Muslim, necessarily excluding other religions, so the slippery slope thought experiment fails here--we don't have to imagine the implications of theoretical inclusions that don't already exist in the game because this one does and is affecting people now. It would be a change, however, that doesn't affect people who already feel represented by male or female. For people who are so accustomed to being represented that they don't notice, or assume that means that everyone else is therefore represented as well as they need to be, I would humbly ask that you make a sincere effort to imagine it from another perspective. If I could only play male characters, it would bother me every time the game reminded me that male is considered the default, and thus the "norm," and everyone else is thus considered "other." If you (the general you) have always been represented as the default, you might think being marginalized as the "other" and playing a character that doesn't represent you would be a non-issue, and for you, it might be because you haven't been marginalized in real life and so have never personally experienced the pain and the unfair and gratuitous diminishment of your person that comes with it. People who have absorbed messages of being the "other" their entire lives are telling you it hurts anew every time they're reminded (and every time their requests to be merely included are written off as "where does it end"), particularly in a game that is beloved for its gentleness and humanity, which is by itself escapism from the cruelty of the real world.

At first I thought I was not gonna get too deep into this thread discussion, but I guess I kinda have to now. I was just explaining that person's view and not exactly how I feel. This post is my view and my honest feeling. I'm gonna talk a lot in tangent and not entirely on topic, if mods decide that it's way out of topic feel free to delete this. I don't intend to offend anyone, so I apologize in advance if someone got offended. It's gonna be a long read.

Just a bit of background: I am from Indonesia, a pretty conservative country.

I honestly don't really care about the gender of my character in game. For me it's just a game and I am the type who focus on the gameplay, that's why I'm perfectly fine with this suggestion as it doesn't affect the gameplay. But like a few people including you have said, maybe you can consider that as a privilege for someone who never got discriminated gender wise like me. Fair enough, not much else to be said.

Yeah, you can say that religion don't already exist in the game while gender is already there. The question is, how will people similar to my friend really feel? I can't speak for those people, but I suspect it won't be viewed as nicely if people shout representation but only for a certain group. Remember, people aren't rational, sometimes they complain if they feel unfairly treated.

Now let's talk about the practicality of this suggestion. I really hope if this gets implemented, it's not making a lot of noises.
Just for reference, a few years ago a game named fight of gods was banned here and there was a small ruckus about PUBG almost getting banned too.
Extra: a little laugh and see how ridiculous my country is: https://coconuts.co/jakarta/lifestyle/indonesian-netizens-shocked-doraemon-censorship-tv/
If somehow someway that Stardew adding non-binary option is trending on twitter locally here, there is a small but real possibility that Stardew may get banned here.
I can already see some bureaucrat in IT ministry saying "this game will destroy future generation's morality and does not reflect this nation's value", especially if politicians learn that this game allow same sex marriage which is not viewed favorably here.
Similarly, if this makes the national news in the US, I can already see some news outlet shouting "wokism now plagues gaming industry" or some sh*t.

So are you saying that this suggestion should not be implemented?
No. I would love this to be implemented. I don't think there are many pronouns or Mr/Mrs etc in this game. It should be pretty easy to change a few dialogues here and there. In the changelog it can just mention "Changes in some dialogues".
I, however, don't want this to make too much noise to the extent of twitter trending for the reason I stated above.
Another option is to make this update only in some regions, but it sounds weird to me.

It sounds like you are just making excuses to me.
Well, whatever you'd like to think. Like I said, this is my view. I am being as honest as possible. I'm trying to tell you why it might be more controversial than you think and it's not because those who oppose this suggestion are bigoted. Whether or not you buy my argument is none of my concern and I'm not trying to convince anyone to 'join' me.

Lol. In the previous post you whined about some replies getting too emotional, now you are the one who is emotional
Seriously no. I'm writing this sincerely and honestly hoping to get a good faith discussion. This is my style of writing and not to mention English is not my native tongue which causing me to choose whatever words that comes up to my mind which may be offensive to some.

End words
Realistically speaking, this suggestion if implemented is not gonna cause much, if any, controversy. I think it's fair to say that Stardew is really welcoming LGBT community.
I think I've mentioned all my thoughts on this matter. I hope we can have an open and honest discussion about this instead of doing tribalism stuffs trying to win worthless internet argument. Once again I'd like to apologize if I offended any of you who read this. Sorry for the long post.

 

[Freizeitfarmer]

In the game already, everyone has to choose male or female...

Okay, lets discuss this...

I think just because one doesn't have to choose Christian or Muslim doesnt mean the game represents Muslims or Hindu or whatever! Even more I would say the game is very western in graphic and society living. Some others have already mentioned that there is no representation for Asian specifics/peculiarities. So for representation meaning shouldn't that be considered as well?
If a game only offers a female character - let's say for example Lara Croft - also does not mean I get female or have to change myself more female alike to play this game. I personally know woman who play very "male" games without being more male therefore.
So on one hand you have no representation for some groups, on the other it seems to be no problem to not have all genders represented in some games. So why is especially sexual representation that important and other's aren't in SDV?

But all these are just side notes. My main point is that having options for representing every minority does not help to get inclusive. In my eyes it would be better to have no gender-question in the beging at all than to give more options for each (sexual) minority. Maybe it would help to ask "want get pregnant maybe"/"never want get pregnant" to have the biological issue covered for having babies. But that's much more difficult to understand when starting the game than "male" or "female"! In the sense of gameplay you can read "male"/"female" that way.
BTW: please don't always claim one hasn't marginalized in real life just because one argues against your opinion. Probably many people have get marginalized in one way or the other in life. At least I had several times (even if not sexual).

 

[Cthulhu]

Lots of words...

I would like to say that if nothing else, it's interesting and worthwhile to see somebody raise a point that I'd venture to say most of us never thought of: censorship. How do you balance a desire to be inclusive against the possibility that you might get your game banned in a place like Indonesia? Be it more important to include, say, a non-binary option than it is to be available in a conservative country? How do you even weigh, say, the positive impact Stardew can have, normalizing an awful awful lot of LGBTQ+ life--which could well be a desperately needed touchstone for someone living in repressive countries--vs. excluding non-binaries from having a chance to be appropriately represented? Like, by showing a world where nobody really cares whom you marry, that does a lot to help strengthen accepting attitudes, and can make people more likely to push back against regressive stereotypes and laws. But then you would perhaps have to make a conscious decision to exclude a group, effectively sacrificing their chance to be seen, in favor of taking the low-hanging fruit.

I don't even know how you'd begin to quantify that. But it does bear thinking about.

 

[Leavo]

(Snipping just for space!)

End words
Realistically speaking, this suggestion if implemented is not gonna cause much, if any, controversy. I think it's fair to say that Stardew is really welcoming LGBT community.
I think I've mentioned all my thoughts on this matter. I hope we can have an open and honest discussion about this instead of doing tribalism stuffs trying to win worthless internet argument. Once again I'd like to apologize if I offended any of you who read this. Sorry for the long post.

This is a really thoughtful reply, and I appreciate it, thank you.

 

[Leavo]

Okay, lets discuss this...

I think just because one doesn't have to choose Christian or Muslim doesnt mean the game represents Muslims or Hindu or whatever! Even more I would say the game is very western in graphic and society living. Some others have already mentioned that there is no representation for Asian specifics/peculiarities. So for representation meaning shouldn't that be considered as well?
If a game only offers a female character - let's say for example Lara Croft - also does not mean I get female or have to change myself more female alike to play this game. I personally know woman who play very "male" games without being more male therefore.
So on one hand you have no representation for some groups, on the other it seems to be no problem to not have all genders represented in some games. So why is especially sexual representation that important and other's aren't in SDV?

But all these are just side notes. My main point is that having options for representing every minority does not help to get inclusive. In my eyes it would be better to have no gender-question in the beging at all than to give more options for each sexual minority. Maybe it would help to ask "want get pregnant maybe"/"never want get pregnant" to have the biological issue covered for having babies. But that's much more difficult to understand when starting the game than "male" or "female"! In the sense of gameplay you can read "male"/"female" that way.
BTW: please don't always claim one hasn't marginalized in real life just because one argues against you opinion. Probably many people have get marginalized in one way or the other in life. At least I had several times (even if not sexual).

I did try to choose my words really carefully, partly to avoid the oppression Olympics but also because I genuinely want to be clear that I am not, and am not interested in, attacking anyone personally or calling anyone out. That's why I said "If you (the general you) have always been represented by the default," because I can't know what people have experienced. If you did feel called out by that, though, I would amend slightly what I say to white people when they bristle at the idea that they have white privilege, which I definitely borrowed from someone else: [Default] privilege doesn't mean you haven't had a hard life, just that [default] isn't one of the things that made it harder. In any case, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Peace.

 

[Leavo]

Also, thank you, Alfyna and Cthulhu, your words meant a lot to me.

 

[Shart]

I would like to say that if nothing else, it's interesting and worthwhile to see somebody raise a point that I'd venture to say most of us never thought of: censorship. How do you balance a desire to be inclusive against the possibility that you might get your game banned in a place like Indonesia? Be it more important to include, say, a non-binary option than it is to be available in a conservative country? How do you even weigh, say, the positive impact Stardew can have, normalizing an awful awful lot of LGBTQ+ life--which could well be a desperately needed touchstone for someone living in repressive countries--vs. excluding non-binaries from having a chance to be appropriately represented? Like, by showing a world where nobody really cares whom you marry, that does a lot to help strengthen accepting attitudes, and can make people more likely to push back against regressive stereotypes and laws. But then you would perhaps have to make a conscious decision to exclude a group, effectively sacrificing their chance to be seen, in favor of taking the low-hanging fruit.

I don't even know how you'd begin to quantify that. But it does bear thinking about.

First of all, I need to remind everyone that I'm not an activist or anything like that. I'm just a regular person doing my life. So I don't know how to answer this type of questions.

And I want to be clear that the possibility of banning is pretty much non-existant as long as it's not trending on twitter or national news.
Like politicians in any country, if there's an ongoing issue that is hot topic, they will do their best to get their names out there. This is the only time that getting banned is a real possibility.

I don't think same sex marriage will ever be legalized here in my lifetime. About transgenderism and non-binaries, yeah, let's just say that my knowledge about this topic is in the top 10% in my country and I know pretty much nothing. I know that younger generation is more embracing towards LGBTQ community, but unfortunately it's just too far-fetched to be legalized into law.
People in developing countries are more interested in getting their bread to eat than fighting for LGBT rights. If anything, fighting for LGBT rights might put them into higher risk of being persecuted. And let's be real, a game is not gonna change this social norm.

Sorry I can't give you satisfactory answer, like I said I'm not trained to answer this type of questions.

 

[TheFireNight]

In my country (France), SDV has a big overview on each update in video game press.
It even had an article about SDV board game in the most read journal (20minutes.fr).

I think at this point, it's fairly clear that most people in this forum supports this.

You have to be careful about this kind of conclusions. It is evident that if you go on a politique website about a candidate, you'll find most of positive comment about this candidate for two reasons :
- People who likes the candidate are more likely to go on that candidate website
- Moderation will delete offensive comments against the candidate.

Here, the same applies. LGBTQ people are more likely to search LGBTQ on forum and find this suggestion. They are more likely to post on this thread, and obviously they'll not be against the suggestion.
Moderators deletes comments that they judge too much off topic or offensive, so the negative points of view are less likely to be seen (Wink to Odin, I'm not the only one talking about Lara Croft ). As long as moderators are more on the "pro" side, the "con" side will be underrepresented (even if it is not voluntarily). In my point of view, I think I'm moderate about the suggestion, but I still got deleted posts because of "off topic" when I gave arguments cons.

So yes, in those conditions, it appears obviously that most people are "pros", because "cons" are less likely to post on this thread, and their responses are less likely to stay on the thread.

 

[liquidcat]

We understand this is a sensitive topic for many people, and so we ask everyone to avoid derailing this thread topic. We generally don't lock discussion thread as we believe locking them defeats the purpose of such forums but we would be forced to lock this thread if it was derailed further and we would like to avoid doing that. We hope everyone understands!

 

[iridium quality]

[Original message removed]

Adding a non-binary option would just represent some people in the game. What’s wrong with that? I don’t understand why you are so against representation.