Quote from: jhkim;1096269I'm not sure what you're trying to say, then. As a descriptive statement, the majority of people are not LGBT. Currently in the U.S., about 5% of the population self-identify as LGBT.

Does that mean we're in agreement? Or is there some other point that you're trying to make?

So do you think we should prescriptively put 5% of LGBT content in all entertainment? Even things that have nothing to overtly do with such identities and topics? How much should people that don't identify with other people's identifications be forced to consume those things for the purposes of pretending it's cultural normal when it isn't? How much investment does one have to prove to those people that demand such representations, out of balance of those actual numbers, are we required to consume in order to not be labeled "bigotted" or "racist" or any other "ist"?

I ask because it doesn't seem to work in reverse. Nor does it seem to work in *reality*. Nor does the notion of representation in consumer entertainment and non-entertainment actually resemble these numbers - quite the contrary, those SJW's demand the conflation of the minority to the same status of the majority *by* numerical representation, not actual per-capita numbers by threat of retaliation. Nor do the actual definitions of any "isms" seem to apply universally outside of the idiotic addendas of "power-dynamics" which has literally no bearing in reality. Why is that? Why indeed?

To what are we owed for our self-inflicted problems by others that *don't care*? What does this reality look like on the other side?

Because I feel safe saying I can speak for people that have some modicum of self-confidence, and self-reliance, with little self-loathing as part of my view: things look pretty great on my side. What purpose does it serve to cater to those with such narcissistic and nihilist views? Why not join us over here - where we can mutually pursue "Happiness" without having to give a shit what each other is doing?

 "Happiness" doesn't require making other people miserable for not liking you.

Edit: this is especially true in RPGs. It always has been. It's makebelieve with dice and pencils. You can, and always have, been able to play it any way you want. A game company is under no obligation to cater at their own expense to anyone other than whatever will sustain their desired economic goals. Which *COULD* be for those niche populations... but that's not really the issue, is it?

TL/DR - Stop playing dumb. It suits none of us.

Quote from: jhkim;1096269I'm not sure what you're trying to say, then. As a descriptive statement, the majority of people are not LGBT. Currently in the U.S., about 5% of the population self-identify as LGBT.

Does that mean we're in agreement? Or is there some other point that you're trying to make?

Quote from: tenbones;1096272So do you think we should prescriptively put 5% of LGBT content in all entertainment? Even things that have nothing to overtly do with such identities and topics? How much should people that don't identify with other people's identifications be forced to consume those things for the purposes of pretending it's cultural normal when it isn't?

OK, that doesn't seem to be at all what we were discussing before - but fine. Personally, I'd say we shouldn't prescriptively have any percentage. A skewed percentage is a possible signal that people might have wrongly biased attitudes, but it's not a prescription. That goes just as much for people who complain if it's 50% as for people who complain if it's 1%. Art isn't engineering, after all.

Quote from: tenbones;1096272Because I feel safe saying I can speak for people that have some modicum of self-confidence, and self-reliance, with little self-loathing as part of my view: things look pretty great on my side. What purpose does it serve to cater to those with such narcissistic and nihilist views? Why not join us over here - where we can mutually pursue "Happiness" without having to give a shit what each other is doing?

 "Happiness" doesn't require making other people miserable for not liking you.

I'm all about mutually pursuing happiness. Maybe you're happy and feel like things are great, but I feel like this forum has a lot of people who have a lot of anger and dissatisfaction. Just look at the main topic of this thread. It's created with the intent of complaints about the Virgins & Vixens game. Overwhelmingly, I think that posters here aren't interested in playing this game - and many are only discussing to criticize and deride it. That seems like the negativity that you're talking about.

Pundit has always been invested in his supposed war against the Swine, and my reaction has always been that there should be different sorts of games that different people can enjoy.

Quote from: jhkim;1096359OK, that doesn't seem to be at all what we were discussing before - but fine. Personally, I'd say we shouldn't prescriptively have any percentage. A skewed percentage is a possible signal that people might have wrongly biased attitudes, but it's not a prescription. That goes just as much for people who complain if it's 50% as for people who complain if it's 1%. Art isn't engineering, after all.

But that's precisely how this bogus issue and concern about "representation" has become the signal for calling people "racists" has infiltrated pretty much all entertainment and the arts. We're talking about it right now in RPG's, it exists in Card games. It's rampant in video-games. Genre publishing *demands it* (can confirm - wife is an editor). TOR just put out a blog lamenting that the Bene Gesserit show has no females creatives on the team and that it's an outrage. A publisher of books is outraged about an entirely different artform is not using a specific gender to represent a make-believe fictional construct in their medium that was created by a man. Yeah... who is operating from a bias?

And while you may be actually pretending to believe that this isn't "by prescription" - I'm going to say you're being obtuse to the reality that 1) Qualified people are losing jobs by merely questioning these things. 2) Legislators are implementing rules to enforce these things, despite the realities that those people might not naturally choose or even want those jobs, at the expense of qualified people that do. And it's being done based on criteria that has *nothing* to do with those jobs..

So c'mon man. This isn't a new topic around here. Why are you pretending that it's not a thing? If you're going to be intellectually honest - I *CHALLENGE* you to go to TBP and post any kind of devil's advocacy to this reality and watch how hard and fast you get banned. Go up to the forums of WotC and tell them you don't need "diversity" clauses in their games... and watch the reaction. You already know this is true. This is precisely why I think you're dishonest.

Quote from: jhkim;1096359I'm all about mutually pursuing happiness. Maybe you're happy and feel like things are great, but I feel like this forum has a lot of people who have a lot of anger and dissatisfaction.

Do you naturally "play dumb" as a rhetorical method? I think that's *better* than actually being dumb... but as a matter of discourse, it's boring and if I'm going to be a little uncharitable - it's a little insulting to yourself and me (and anyone reading this). Okay okay... I'll play along... "Gee jhkim, WHY do you think on a forum that exists *specifically* with the notion that Free Speech is the North Star of discourse here, where 70%+ of the active posters here are *banned* for speaking their minds at TBP, where some of us have been posters for *decades* that there might not be some hint of dissatisfaction at the asshattery in our industry and the culture at large?"

Gee Gee Oh-Em-Gee? I wonder. Now, *I* am not angry. But it does get irritating to have to play pretend-stupid in order to talk about what's obvious and what isn't-that-should-be-and-is to anyone that's isn't actually stupid. And I'm finding myself fighting to not lay that on you... yet... here I am. So I'm going to keep pretending that you're just pretending.

Quote from: jhkim;1096359Just look at the main topic of this thread. It's created with the intent of complaints about the Virgins & Vixens game. Overwhelmingly, I think that posters here aren't interested in playing this game - and many are only discussing to criticize and deride it. That seems like the negativity that you're talking about.

And it's come to this, why? (and don't get me wrong, I don't like talking about politics in my gaming ad-nauseum either) but these are the rules, so these are the rules. But let's play a different game! Let's *pretend* that none of their political shit you're worried about in the main forum (as it relates to gaming) didn't exist in our pop-culture. Okay? Do you think we'd not be arguing about and shitting on it, defending it and having heated discussions about it anyhow? Do we not do that with whatever game of the month exists? Are they not doing that with Pathfinder 2e? Did they not do it with D&D4e? Hell - people have started threads and bickered about D&D 6e and it doesn't even exist.

People are free to criticize and deride shit all they want. It's the quality of the criticism in context that matters. Everything else falls to the wayside. That's how discourse goes. At least here you can have that.

Quote from: jhkim;1096359Pundit has always been invested in his supposed war against the Swine, and my reaction has always been that there should be different sorts of games that different people can enjoy.

That's right. But you commit the pathological post-modernist error of pretending that all-games are equal with that statement. You make no qualifiers on it. I want GOOD games for everyone. Not all games are written and designed to even be GOOD games. FATAL isn't a good game. Making a game like "The Watch" with its flimsy conceits is not a good game to make - since it's trying to push the allegory of its politics over the game itself. If people like playing those games - that still doesn't make them "GOOD". It means those people like them for other reasons - which where we can have discourse. But the reality is, those people don't really want to do that. Nobody is saying you can't make those games. No one here is saying you can't play those games. No one is saying you're a piece of shit of enjoying them.

Except for people that do make those games, and do play those games, DO say those things towards people that don't engage with those games. They seem to do those things. Odd isn't it? That's *why* the war exists. That's *why* many of us ended up here. Words are violence, you're a racist/migynist/bigot/fartist etc. That's not our lingo... that's what we get labeled with because we don't like their weirdo politics sufficiently to bend a knee.

...but you knew this. And frankly... that's why SJW's are liars. If not overtly to others, then at minimum to themselves.

One of the questions I have surrounding the whole inclusiveness thing is the LGBT definition itself. I have seen LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQI and other configurations. Which one is the most woke? Which one is the best? What is included in the umbrella term Queer, Queer+ and words like that? Necrophilia? Zoophilia? Pedophilia?

Back in my Swedish school days when we learned English queer used to mean odd and strange. It was also used in American movies as a curse word when calling someone gay. But these days...it's an umbrella term. But for what exactly?

And another thing, what is genderfluid, exactly? Sounds like a fence-sitter, shilly-shally, ditherer (yes, I googled synonyms). Someone like this:

"I saw myself sitting in the crotch of this fig tree, starving to death, just because I couldn't make up my mind which of the figs I would choose. I wanted each and every one of them, but choosing one meant losing all the rest, and, as I sat there, unable to decide, the figs began to wrinkle and go black, and, one by one, they plopped to the ground at my feet."
  - Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar

Quote from: GIMME SOME SUGAR;1096365One of the questions I have surrounding the whole inclusiveness thing is the LGBT definition itself. I have seen LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQ+, LGBTQI and other configurations. Which one is the most woke? Which one is the best? What is included in the umbrella term Queer, Queer+ and words like that? Necrophilia? Zoophilia? Pedophilia?

Back in my Swedish school days when we learned English queer used to mean odd and strange. It was also used in American movies as a curse word when calling someone gay. But these days...it's an umbrella term. But for what exactly?

And another thing, what is genderfluid, exactly? Sounds like a fence-sitter, shilly-shally, ditherer (yes, I googled synonyms). Someone like this:

"I saw myself sitting in the crotch of this fig tree, starving to death, just because I couldn't make up my mind which of the figs I would choose. I wanted each and every one of them, but choosing one meant losing all the rest, and, as I sat there, unable to decide, the figs began to wrinkle and go black, and, one by one, they plopped to the ground at my feet."
  - Sylvia Plath, The Bell Jar

The longest one I've heard of is "LGBTTQQIAAP" (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual; yes I had to look that up). Hilariously, it's been criticized both internally and externally for being confusing as well as leaving certain groups out. Who those groups are I'm not sure, but I've seen insanely exhaustive lists of them around before. First one that comes to mind that I've seen mentioned, which is not included above is "two-spirit" (I don't know what that means but I'm sure someone here must). I think "genderfluid" is supposed to be "I am whatever I feel like being at this given moment: The Gender" so I guess not far off from what you described but honestly I don't know, that's just what it sounds like to me.

Either way, I don't remember ever conducting a sexuality quiz prior to letting someone game in my groups. Nor has anyone felt the need to identify that to me in such a setting. Nor would I care for them to.

Quote from: jhkimOK, that doesn't seem to be at all what we were discussing before - but fine. Personally, I'd say we shouldn't prescriptively have any percentage. A skewed percentage is a possible signal that people might have wrongly biased attitudes, but it's not a prescription. That goes just as much for people who complain if it's 50% as for people who complain if it's 1%. Art isn't engineering, after all.

Quote from: tenbones;1096361So c'mon man. This isn't a new topic around here. Why are you pretending that it's not a thing? If you're going to be intellectually honest - I *CHALLENGE* you to go to TBP and post any kind of devil's advocacy to this reality and watch how hard and fast you get banned. Go up to the forums of WotC and tell them you don't need "diversity" clauses in their games... and watch the reaction. You already know this is true. This is precisely why I think you're dishonest.

tenbones -This is fucking bullshit. You asked me a question, and I gave you *my* answer, which represents what *I* think.

There are tons of people out there with different opinions than mine. Just because I gave my answer doesn't mean that I am dishonest and pretending that other people don't answer differently. To me, it seems like you're jumping about topics wildly. I haven't said shit about rpgnet, so what the hell would my getting banned there show?

I post what I actually think, and right now I think that you're engaged in asshattery over my doing that. So, no, I'm not going to post devil's advocacy either here or in TBP. If you want to know what I think I'll tell you.

Quote from: tenbones;1096361Do you naturally "play dumb" as a rhetorical method? I think that's *better* than actually being dumb... but as a matter of discourse, it's boring and if I'm going to be a little uncharitable - it's a little insulting to yourself and me (and anyone reading this). Okay okay... I'll play along... "Gee jhkim, WHY do you think on a forum that exists *specifically* with the notion that Free Speech is the North Star of discourse here, where 70%+ of the active posters here are *banned* for speaking their minds at TBP, where some of us have been posters for *decades* that there might not be some hint of dissatisfaction at the asshattery in our industry and the culture at large?"

Gee Gee Oh-Em-Gee? I wonder. Now, *I* am not angry. But it does get irritating to have to play pretend-stupid in order to talk about what's obvious and what isn't-that-should-be-and-is to anyone that's isn't actually stupid.

Fuck you, tenbones. This is *your* bullshit. You claimed that you were happy and satisfied, and thus that I should come and join your side -- and then you claim that I'm "playing dumb" by pointing out that your side seems dissatisfied and angry? That's your own dumbness that you're responding to.


(Re: The Watch)

Quote from: tenbones;1096361Except for people that do make those games, and do play those games, DO say those things towards people that don't engage with those games. They seem to do those things. Odd isn't it? That's *why* the war exists. That's *why* many of us ended up here. Words are violence, you're a racist/migynist/bigot/fartist etc. That's not our lingo... that's what we get labeled with because we don't like their weirdo politics sufficiently to bend a knee.

...but you knew this. And frankly... that's why SJW's are liars. If not overtly to others, then at minimum to themselves.

Years ago, when I was active on The Forge, I was known among other things for being the one to defend traditional RPGs, because I thought they were positive and functional. And people would rage about how I couldn't do that, because of the assholes on the other side who would deride and attack Forgite games. Regardless of which side you're on - for any conflict, there will be assholes both on the other side, and on your own side. Someone else always started it, because there's always some asshole previously.

Some wars are worth fighting, but this RPG spat isn't one of those for me. I'm happy to jump back and forth between playing D&D or Savage Worlds and playing Bluebeard's Bride or other games.

Because the self-loathing of some people becomes gravity for their egos. They come to identify with those things. The worst cases are they identify with those things almost exclusively.

These are the people that start wanting to enforce control by changing the terms of words - they can means the exact same thing, but they want to pretend it doesn't. This is how "invalid" became "disabled". Idiot, Imbecile and Moron were medical terms that have existed since start of the 20th century. They came to called "Mental Retardation" an umbrella term around 60's. But these terms changed post-60's by activist groups not wanting any term to be used to signify what everyone already accepted it meant. And of course people used a pejorative to anyone and anything.

The goalpost keeps moving for the purposes of soothing people's emotions. Carlin did a bit about it - observing we keep changing these terms to longer more technical sounding terms that mean the same thing. It applies to these other concepts. It's whack-a-mole with sounds.

And it's because fake moralists want to pretend they're protecting people from ideas and abuse, when in reality it's about control. You can say - "Don't say moron, idiot, imbecile, mongoloid, retard etc. you have to call them Daffodils."

Well okay. That doesn't change you from being dumb fucking Daffodil.

It's not about inclusion. It's about forcing people not like them to accept them as *they* demand it, with the tacit threat of "or else".

Quote from: jhkim;1096371tenbones -This is fucking bullshit. You asked me a question, and I gave you *my* answer, which represents what *I* think.

Yeah, it's a dumb question, phrased as if you don't already know the answer. But whatever.

Quote from: jhkim;1096371There are tons of people out there with different opinions than mine. Just because I gave my answer doesn't mean that I am dishonest and pretending that other people don't answer differently. To me, it seems like you're jumping about topics wildly. I haven't said shit about rpgnet, so what the hell would my getting banned there show?

Well I was trying to give you some credit. That's why I kept saying - I feel you're pretending. No I'm not jumping around. We're talking about claims about this hobby and industry being accused by SJWS of being non-inclusive. You're actually telling me that by me asking you to make such counter-claims on the biggest SJW RPG website on the internet just to see their reactions - IN ORDER to back up my claims that it's the SJW's themseves are the problem (I honestly can't fucking believe I'm *actually*, literally spelling this out for you)... that it's not germane? Sweet Jesus I'm guilty of giving you *way* too much credit.

Quote from: jhkim;1096371I post what I actually think, and right now I think that you're engaged in asshattery over my doing that. So, no, I'm not going to post devil's advocacy either here or in TBP. If you want to know what I think I'll tell you.

Well the only reason I can gather is that you *don't* really want to acknowledge what nearly everyone here already knows: The intolerant ones in the RPG hobby and industry are the SJW's. I'm not telling you to leave. I'm not telling you to "shut the fuck up" - I too am doing *exactly* what you're doing. I'm posting what I think. /shrug. If I didn't care to do it - I wouldn't post. But as I said, repeatedly, I was giving you credit that you were actually looking at the bigger picture and clearly you're not. So either you're being obtuse, or pretending - or you're actually so compartmentalized in your thoughts that they don't link together rationally. I honestly don't know what else to say.

Quote from: jhkim;1096371Fuck you, tenbones. This is *your* bullshit. You claimed that you were happy and satisfied, and thus that I should come and join your side -- and then you claim that I'm "playing dumb" by pointing out that your side seems dissatisfied and angry? That's your own dumbness that you're responding to.

Nope. Not my bullshit. I'm doing quite well. I'm just talking with you (and everyone else) on one of my more active forums. I make no claims about YOU being happy. I have no idea if you are. I do claim you're "playing dumb" because your questions are *completely* ignoring the context of the entire thread. You're asking questions as if you have zero idea about the temperature of the water we're all sitting in, within the proverbial tub. You're raising weak defenses, by repeating this "dumb routine" when by OVERT EXAMPLE you can prove this to yourself (since YOU are the one questioning it) - by going over to the local SJW stronghold and say something as simple as "I don't think we need diversity clauses in D&D" and you'll see your own question answered. So either your question is poorly reasoned or you're beind willfully ignorant, despite me and others answering it over and over across many threads, me providing linked examples of only the TINIEST fraction of the actual larger problem IN ACTION, becomes a BLARING airhorn that:

1) Either you're actually dumber than I gave you credit for
2) Lying to yourself to such a degree that you must blank out whenever an upsetting reality confronts you.
3) Pretending you're ignorant and discussing in bad faith.

The only dumber response I could not forsee you pulling is what you actually pulled and said "I posted my opinion! waahh." Which conveniently doesn't really answer any of my three claims. None of them being kind to those of us actually having the discussion. It says a lot more about you, than me. I'm engaged. You are not. "My side" is anyone that wants to game and have fun. That may/may not include you. I'm okay with dumbasses gaming with me, as long as they don't ruin the game.

Quote from: jhkim;1096371(Re: The Watch)

Years ago, when I was active on The Forge, I was known among other things for being the one to defend traditional RPGs, because I thought they were positive and functional. And people would rage about how I couldn't do that, because of the assholes on the other side who would deride and attack Forgite games. Regardless of which side you're on - for any conflict, there will be assholes both on the other side, and on your own side. Someone else always started it, because there's always some asshole previously.

Some wars are worth fighting, but this RPG spat isn't one of those for me. I'm happy to jump back and forth between playing D&D or Savage Worlds and playing Bluebeard's Bride or other games.

So... do you think the problem is what? There is no problem? WHO are the people playing Forge games back then, now? Are they the ones here, discussing things? Are they the ones outraged and forming internet mobs to shut people down? Or is that happening by people here? You're dancing around the obvious. It's *no one here* no matter how *rabid* you think any of the regular posters are here that advocate for the very thing that is causing this issue and making these claims about RPG's... and if you're willing indulge any amount of reason and rationality - to entertainment pop-culture writ-large. That's why the umbrella term of SJW exists.

You know... all the shit I already pointed out. Which you oddly seem to think aren't related. And look! I'm still happily posting!

Edit: I wanted to add something about your last paragraph... It's a STRIKING example of the glaring lack of self-awarness within the pathological post-modernist paradigm. You raise both sides - Forgist, Non-Forgists. You make no qualifications on the validity/invalidity of their claims, or the quality of their perspectives, instead you boil it down to the simplistic "There are Assholes on All Sides" and then there is "My Side". This is *the classic* pathological inability for Post-Modernism's inability to differentiate qualities of state with self-awareness of one's own position within the criticism itself.  By making two claims in opposition to one another - and using a reductionist view of "there's assholes on all sides" without making *any* other valuation of them it renders the entire claim pointless.

"Devil Worshippers and Buddhists all have assholes among their memberships. Oh well! It's all the same! Religion! so weird!"

Engage jhkim. Engage.

The Bell Jar is a rather good book. Great insight into nervous breakdown and a smothering, numbing, anxiety.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1096369First one that comes to mind that I've seen mentioned, which is not included above is "two-spirit" (I don't know what that means but I'm sure someone here must).

I think "genderfluid" is supposed to be "I am whatever I feel like being at this given moment: The Gender" so I guess not far off from what you described but honestly I don't know, that's just what it sounds like to me.

1: Could be new-speak for Therians. People who believe their spirit is really some other thing. An animal, a person, a rock, a videogame character (no I am not making that last one up), and so on. Theres been some weird drift in the Therian community over the decades. And it was weird to begin with. Sometimes its essentially reincarnation. Other times its more like channelling, and other times its whatever someone wants the term to mean.

2: Sounds about right. Though in the past it referred to online RPs where a character could change genders. Like how it is depicted in a few sci-fi media which probably inspired it. Outside of RP characters seems to mean "Im in whatever camp I feel like (or suits my agenda) this current s/m/h-dd/mm/yy." Or whatever someone wants the term to mean.

The changing of meaning is key.

Ron Edwards & his cabal went at this on BP way back and Pundit challenged it.

Whenever I see posters trying to redefine what words mean, I know it's some Leftist, Deconstructionist propaganda. "What is system, really?" "What is agency, really?" "What does a GM do, really?"

They don't want to join the hobby. They want to redefine what it is to even know what a tabletop rpg is. The rpg has to fit *their* definition, or, it's a *bad game*.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1096403The Bell Jar is a rather good book. Great insight into nervous breakdown and a smothering, numbing, anxiety.

I have to trust your review. I must confess I haven't read it. I just found the great quote online. I have anxiety myself and can actually get panic attacks reading about other people's panic attacks and anxiety. So, I will save Plath for a very bright and sunny day in my life, lol.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1096369The longest one I've heard of is "LGBTTQQIAAP" (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual; yes I had to look that up). Hilariously, it's been criticized both internally and externally for being confusing as well as leaving certain groups out. Who those groups are I'm not sure, but I've seen insanely exhaustive lists of them around before. First one that comes to mind that I've seen mentioned, which is not included above is "two-spirit" (I don't know what that means but I'm sure someone here must). I think "genderfluid" is supposed to be "I am whatever I feel like being at this given moment: The Gender" so I guess not far off from what you described but honestly I don't know, that's just what it sounds like to me.

Either way, I don't remember ever conducting a sexuality quiz prior to letting someone game in my groups. Nor has anyone felt the need to identify that to me in such a setting. Nor would I care for them to.

The Two-Spirit theme is ripped from Native Americans hands: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/oct/11/two-spirit-people-north-america

It really just seems to mean that a person is a tomboy or a feminine man. On the weirder and weirder letter combinations out there I also read that they seem to eat their own in the LGBTQ+Windows10 community, especially people that identify as bisexuals, because bi signals only two genders and that is BAD. Pansexual seems to be the safest, most inclusive sexual identity one can have in these movements. I'm more pancake-sexual myself.

If you control the language, you control the narrative. Change the meanings of words, then attack those who use the old definitions, and use the warped language to push your agenda.

Carlin did nail America's worship of soft language, and how we unfortunately go along with this farce.

[video=youtube;h67k9eEw9AY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY[/youtube]

Quote from: tenbones;1096361But that's precisely how this bogus issue and concern about "representation" has become the signal for calling people "racists" has infiltrated pretty much all entertainment and the arts. We're talking about it right now in RPG's, it exists in Card games. It's rampant in video-games. Genre publishing *demands it* (can confirm - wife is an editor). TOR just put out a blog lamenting that the Bene Gesserit show has no females creatives on the team and that it's an outrage. A publisher of books is outraged about an entirely different artform is not using a specific gender to represent a make-believe fictional construct in their medium that was created by a man. Yeah... who is operating from a bias?

And while you may be actually pretending to believe that this isn't "by prescription" - I'm going to say you're being obtuse to the reality that 1) Qualified people are losing jobs by merely questioning these things. 2) Legislators are implementing rules to enforce these things, despite the realities that those people might not naturally choose or even want those jobs, at the expense of qualified people that do. And it's being done based on criteria that has *nothing* to do with those jobs..

Here are some more examples of the quota systems in action or pressure is be brought to have implemented.

https://hornet.com/stories/lgbt-representation-in-film
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-22/-inclusion-riders-make-inroads-a-year-after-star-turn-on-oscars
https://creativediversitynetwork.com/diamond/
https://www.glaad.org/sri/2018/vitorusso
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2018/lgbt-culture-and-progression