To adress this point sideways: For a start, let's take this at face value
There's already one part where the game says "screw you" to that: In the order at least, there is, explicitely, gender equality, although it would make sense that, being immersed in a society, magi (and maga!) would at least adhere to some prejudiced notions and stereotypes.
And that's because what matters, first and foremost, is the Gift.
So if a troupe wants the game, or at least the OOH, to also say "screw you" about prejudice for LGBTQI people, it can veeeery easily make the exact same argument: That the order is egalitarian about this, because what really matters is the ability to throw a Ball of Abysmal Flame.
Actually, given the precedent, I can't see how a troupe can't make that argument, but whatever.
Now, going back to society, still taking your point above at face value and being true, the OoH is a separate society, and covenants are more or less isolated from the mundane world, forming themselves separate micro-societies.
IIRC, you've even got hooks for covenants so weird that even the OoH find them strange.
Since proper behaviour and all comes from the powerful, if the magi are egalitarian and accepting, this would wash out on covenfolks, who would, in turn, be more accepting, thus, even without the "refugees from mundane society" argument, a greater number of visible non-conforming people, just because they would be more free to be themselves.
It's not a threat, just a gentle reminder that this is a sensitive topic. I did not ask you to stay out of the thread, I'm asking you to be considerate of everyone.
There are a lot of things here, and even more so if we get more ahistorical, so I'm going to try and go philosophical and be all over the map.
Frts of all, in non-human species the rate of homosexual expression is related to population pressure, so I don't think we can say categorically that it is the same for all human populations through all times. At the same time it certainly existed at all times, whether it was "on display" or not, and cultural acceptance certainly would have had an influence on how much it was on display.
Murder and rape are poor comparisons not simply because they are distasteful for comparisons but also because they are not easily concealed- if I have an illicit affair with someone we both have an incentive to keep it hidden. In most societies if you rape someone they certainly have less motive to keep it hidden, and if you murder someone it is not possible to keep it completely hidden- at best (logistically for the murderer) it becomes a missing person.
That being said we also face the question of being products of our environment in terms of upbringing versus immediate environment- if law enforcement were to suddenly go up in smoke then I expect rape and homicide would rise dramatically. similarly viking "rape and murder" occurred in a war situation with no military discipline to prevent it- this was common through out human history and there are a number of indicators that if we had an undisciplined military in a war type situation it would be the norm today as well.
Upbringing and environment will not make someone more or less gay, transgendered etc. It might however change how they feel about it- certainly feelings of guilt about such an identity are more common in repressive societies where such things are not accepted, but again there is a need to differentiate between not being accepted and not being openly accepted.
Finally AM does not have an official amount that the order is open about what it does, nor is it inherently a liberal social or political force- though it certainly can be. As such I think this leaves a great deal of room to "realistically" play just about any saga you want with regards to these topics. After all in the real world homosexuality also could not be "cured" by going on a pilgrimage, where by AM rules it can be, with a big YSMV sticker on the side.
I think "the play the game how you want" is agreed to and locked in by everyone and now we are just talking philosophy. I see no reason not to discuss philosophy on a game web forum.
I have concerns about accepting the premise that we are born with innate traits so dominating they are not affected by culture (apart from being repressed). I find that concerning for two reason.
The first. There's an implied apology. It may be subconscious, it may have started in a frantic attempt to try to provide a counterpoint to those saying how wrong the behaviour is and persecuting people showing "wrong" behaviours, however, the implied apology is there.
There's this undercurrent saying the behaviour is a bit off, but they can't help themselves, it's just the way they are. I dislike the implied apology, I dislike the consideration the behaviour is wrong, I dislike the feeling justification is required.
All we should ask is; Does the behaviour harm anyone else or themselves to a significant degree? If it doesn't, there doesn't need to be an excuse, there's no need for a justification, there's no need to say "that's just how they are".
Same with the earlier comment about 1 in 60 intersex. The implication is there are so many we can't ignore them. At what number could we ignore them? 1 in 200, 1 in 1000? I don't want or need justification for them to be considered. At the same time, consideration, not agree with everything every time.
The second reason. If we say being LGBTQI+ is innate, it suggests other things can be innate.
Disclaimer/Caveat - I will be asking why other things are not innate. This in no way means I am saying any of my examples are representative of what LGBTQI+ people must or must not think, or that I am suggesting the behaviour of LGTQI+ people is similar to the behaviour exhibited in the example. I am using the principle of scientific method to ask if we accept one concept as a fact, what are the consequences of accepting this item as a fact?
People's religious identity is something that is core to many people's identity. Unless by some miracle Christians are born near Christians, Muslims near Muslims, etc, it seem it's not innate. Why is something also so critical not innate?
The belief one can own a person is in the area of how one relates to other human beings. Once, slavery was a common accepted practice. Now it is anathema, so again, why is something so critical not innate?
I can go less heavy. Ask nearly any "naturally gifted" artist or athlete and they'll tell you of the thousands of hours of practice on top of what might have been a natural inclination. There are not any people innately gifted enough they don't need to practice.
I can also go more heavy and this is probably my biggest dislike as it gets ugly really quickly. Can people be born with an innate preference for maths and science? Are certain ethnic groups innately better swimmers? some groups innately better runners? The moment one accepts "born that way", we are opening the door to some of history's worst ideas.
I think it is likely we are born with certain tendencies, however, I consider culture amplifies or diminishes these tendencies. Amplify and diminish being the key words. Someone with a natural tendency towards heterosexuality is more likely to be straight, however, they may become gay with no malice or repression, same as someone with a natural tendency towards homosexuality is more likely to be gay, however, may be straight with no malice or repression, depending on the culture and family situation. If we don't accept that, how do we explain identical twins with different sexual preferences?
You can argue, or try to understand, but it's a known fact that people can change religion far more easily than they can change their sexual attraction. In fact, there are no known cases where someone changed their sexual attraction, and we have plenty of historical and contemporary examples of people embracing or leaving a religion.
In game, if someone has a Virtue or Flaw, then it becomes part of their Essential Nature, and Hermetic magic cannot change it. As for whether Divine Pilgrimage or Infernal Corruption can do it or not, it best discussed with the troupe. I, for one, would be vehemently against Non-Gender Conforming be bestowed or removed via either way.
I agree with the premise that the level of societal acceptance, or necessity, can modify behavior. Someone can be inherently heterosexual, and situationally homosexual. Examples: modern USA prisons, Spartan and Roman military camps. I see no reason why the opposite wouldnât be true. Homosexuals marrying and having children, while still preferring the same sex, like 1950s USA, also happens.
What is done in the open, doesnât reflect how someone actually feels, or what they actually want. And many act very different privately than they do in public. I think this is met in game by the Dark Secret flaw if secret, or the Gender Non-Conforming flaw if open.
There have been witnesses, speaking out in newspapers, who claim to have had their own sexual attraction changed.
Sure, it is not entirely clear what that means, even in the particular case, and highly unlikely that the particular case says anything about people in general. It does, however, suggest that the world is a little less transparent than what you and other posters make out.
That flaw seems to have been very carefully designed to cover anything from an essentially natural homosexual to a cultural cross-dresser in an identity crisis. There are just so many interesting character concepts, bending every preconception, that the troupe should look at the concrete proposal before deciding.
Not quite canon, but faaaar back, some of the precursor traditions had this magical power.
C. 2250 BC: In the great city of Ur in Sumer; Enheduanna, benevolent high priestess of Inanna (Sumerian goddess of love and war) and daughter of Sargon the Great, brings great prosperity to Sumer over many decades, and have the power to "turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man".
In real history, androgyny was probably in vogue - but in Mythic Europe I could see a tradition perhaps surviving in Ex Miscellanea or as hedges and being able to do this.
I really don't know how true that is. It's an extremely controversial subject that has a very strong One Way of Truth right now that is not allowed to be contradicted. I know a guy who was my brother's secret BF in high school, then later married a man, divorced the man, and is now married to a woman. Was he always bisexual? Is he still gay? I don't know. There's even a term for it, Mixed Orientation Marriages. Some of these are fake or beards, but others are not.
I wish it was that simple, Lee. If I could be attracted to my own gender, I would spend a lot less time trying to figure out women. Except it's not a choice. I have no attraction to men. I can't decide to be gay, and it's not because the society or my family is intolerant.
If that was true, then maybe the Cathars were right to reject sex that can result in children, and then your cosmology has to include ways to include Catharism as a path to enlightenment.
I imagine there's a misunderstanding. I did not intend to suggest there's a choice of moving from straight to gay, or gay to straight. What I was intending to portray is natural tendencies don't always display themselves.
I'm not saying who we are is a choice. I didn't choose to be born a white male in Australia, however that greatly affects who I am and how I see the world and interact with it.
I am saying we are products of our culture and culture affects our outcomes. How and where we are raised will have a huge impact on who we are and what we like. If I had the exact same genes, my outcome would be wildly different if I was born in Russia or South Sudan, for example.
Caveat time again. I am not saying certain activities turn people with a tendency towards being gay straight, or vice versa. I am saying what makes us is complex and certain tendencies won't always show up, as they are just that, tendencies, not absolutes.
Yes, I've heard such tales, and yet there's no SCIENTIFIC evidence of such an event. Some of these people might well have been bi, and therefore can enjoy both sexes, or they are faking it, hoping that "Fake it till you make it" happens to them.
As someone who is part of the LGBTQ+ community, I find it very offensive that people think that one can choose to be attracted to a different gender. Conversion Therapy has done so much harm to so many people, and these arguments allow it to continue.
After all, if sexual attraction can be shifted, the GLBTQ+ community should be going out to sleep with every heterosexual to convert them to be part of the community.
The flaw is carefully crafted because Atlas has listened to people who are part of the community, or allies of it, to make it much better than it used to be, and less offensive.
That, and my argument above, are the reasons why I don't think such a flaw should be allowed to be removed by Divine Pilgrimage, or bestowed by Infernal Corruption.
Absolutely, and I do not think that «one» can either. However I have exactly the same respect for those testimonies that say they cannot change and those who say that they have changed, by choice or otherwise. They all come from real people with real experience. Unilaterally dismissing them is as disrespectful as assuming that they generalise to other people.
And of course SCIENCE is scarce on the topic. If we model the rainbow with exactly seven colours, we could mount one scientific study for each colour and get reliable, propositional knowledge. With the countless and overlapping colours that we see, a scientific study can only cover a fraction of the palette. Maybe it will just take time to cover it, or maybe new colours will appear faster than old colours are described. All I know is that we do not know very much. There is a little understanding in every story that is told, so I'll keep listening.
Yes, they listened to you and to others. There is at least one trope which is quite clearly covered by the flaw, but not so clearly by the «community» of today. That is the character who cross-dresses in order to take on a role or profession not permitted to their own gender. A typical example would be the woman warrior who pretends to be man in order to be a warrior, in spite of being in every way a woman. This concept is clearly covered by the flaw (not conform to the expected behaviour), but I do not see how it is covered by your argument.
The flaw is about non-conformity. It is not another colour to conform to ...
First of all, beliefs are simply strongly held opinions. Opinions change all the time.
as to desire I don't know that it is fixed for life- certainly we begin life with asexual impulses no desire for sex) which changes with puberty, and appears in many people to return with advanced age. Also if culture can change how someone feels about their impulses then it follows that behavior can also be changed- someone who is ashamed of enjoying a particular type of activity or relationship will struggle against it and presumably seek it out less. Someone who is bi may de-emphasize one gender due to this sort of social influence.
Furthermore I would point out that how someone identifies is not always who they are- someone who is bisexual may have had a poor experience with one gender which causes them to avoid that gender until- potentially- later in life they discover that they do in fact enjoy activities with that gender. What conversion therapy has established quite thoroughly is that a sexual preference which is enjoyed can not be eradicated through aversion therapy. The possibility that a person's range of sexual desires can be 8expanded* remains open and it does happen fairly often, the question being whether this is like developing a palate for certain foods or whether this is discovering something innate that was previously unknown. the fact that there does not seem to be a reliable way to open everyone up to certain experiences tends to suggest the innate-discovery model but I don't kknow that I would consider that conclusive at this point either. For a food based analogy coffee is considered an aquired taste that not everyone acquires, sometimes because a person is simply not open to acquiring it. On the other hand (analogy wise) some food have compounds in them which literally taste differently depending on the genetic makeup of the person eating it.
I agree that there does not need to be an apology for being the way you are, but that does not mean that a reasoned inquiry into why people are the way they are has no value either. If you perceive an apology in these statements, or an implication that these behaviors are wrong then that may come from your perception rather than my intent.
