So, having finally found both the community and the rules for Masks, and having calmed down over my initial bluh of a reaction.
Why is transgressing still being used as an appearance option for this? This has made myself and introducing every AW book super uncomfortable to show off to my trans and nonbinary friends. Especially when it was in Urban Shadows and there was the section about playing queer and poc characters. Now that it’s however many iterations on the rules, can it be changed to something that’s less of a gut punch of “you’re breaking rules by existing, trans player” to a more neutral term? It shouldn’t be too hard to control F and replace instances of “transgressing” with a less accusatory option like, “nonconforming” to make the game more welcoming and still showcase that playing a trans or nonbinary character is valid choice.
Hi! There was a similar discussion a while back in the community, which IIRC was pretty interesting. I believe the explanation of those options is that transgressive is not designated for trans characters – a trans woman is a woman, full stop, and is covered by the “woman” option – but for characters who are visibly and explicitly transgressing social norms of gender presentations.
I guess that can be indeed be confusing, and maybe “nonconforming” sends the same message.
I am sure the authors will get back to you soon, in any case 🙂
.
Yeah, I remember the previous conversation about this and Alberto Muti has the right of it. Transgressive does not mean transgender. It means the character is choosing to visibly and explicitly transgress social norms with their appearance, whatever those norms might happen to be.
Now that I’m not from my phone, I could go back and find the previous discussion: https://plus.google.com/u/0/110110374841646652137/posts/6z4ihq9t2Vg
To quote from the authors in that discussion, Transgressing means that the person is intentionally violating gender norms. A transgender person could look male, female, ambiguous, or transgressing. That’s up to them!
I guess Non-conforming could indeed make the same point while being clearer.
Need to find this previous discussion. I had never considered transgressive to mean transgender, but, like, someone who wears meat dresses or a helmet made out of dildos or something. I can’t speak to authorial intent, though, and I also think transgression is relative, to some extent. Like, what if Lady Gaga came from a clan that has worn meat dresses since the 1500s?
Previous discussion in link just above your post ^^
I hate my phone. Sorry! I missed it.
Christopher Hatty Meat dresses and dildo helmets would be something for the costume line, not for the gender presentation line.
Regardless, expression and identity are super closely related, so the “it’s just about looks!” line doesn’t strike me as particularly compelling. It’s still a label with judgmental and hurtful connotations being applied to a group of people, which is consequently presenting an air of exclusion to that group.
I mean, it kind of flew in Apocalypse World because being offensive and making you uncomfortable was part of the point of that game, but in Masks? Masks is a game about exploring and growing into your identity, coping with labels that people put on your character and how you reject or internalize those labels. Having a negative label like “transgressing,” an implicit value judgment, sitting on your sheet as something that you can’t actually reject is surely a bug and not a feature, no?
.
I guess it is on the gender presentation line, but that line says “Ambiguous, Male, Female, Transgressing”. It doesn’t say Cis Male or Cis Female.
If your character presents as a male, circle male. If they present as a female, circle female. If they could be either or neither, circle ambiguous. If they present as something entirely different, circle transgressing. Despite “male” and “female” being genders, I do not believe that “transgressing” here means “transgender”.
It says “look”, not what you are. If my character was a woman (trans or otherwise) who dressed as and presented as a man, I would probably circle male.
OK now that I am at a computer, have coffee, and am looking at actual AW, I kind of apologize for the previous. That first line in AW definitely IMPLIES gender presentation, but I guess I never really read “transgressive” as a means of presenting one’s gender. When trying to understand the word in that context, I think “transgressive” is either nonsensical or literally means “presents your gender or lack thereof in a way that transgresses norms.” Which seems like it invites you to pick another one and then explain how it’s transgressive. Like “I always walk around with my dick in my hand” or something. Maybe I need more coffee.
Also I think “non-conforming” is less extreme than “transgressing.”
I feel that this may be a case where the emotional reaction to the word “transgressive” outweighs the definition and it should be changed to avoid having this discussion a million times. Like, for instance, I’ve eliminated the word “niggardly” from my vocabulary because – while the word itself has no racial bias – it is likely to be interpreted poorly by the people I am communicating with.
I agree with the idea of changing it to nonconforming. My own players had a negative reaction to the Look section and I think I’m just realizing that this was partially why. One of my players is playing a gender-variant character and I think the term nonconforming would both fit better and be less negative than “transgressive.” I agree that the term fit better in Apocalypse World, where everything was dirty, gritty, and brutal. In the comparatively bright, enthusiastic, and vibrant world of Masks, the term might be a tiny little albatross around the neck of anyone playing a nonconforming character.
From the brief survey of my trans gaming friends, they find “nonconforming” to be petulant instead of representative. Three of four thought “transgressive” meant “in your face” instead of “transexual” and one thought it should just be “Trans*”, “in order to save room despite it being an extreme shorthand.”
“Maybe male/female/concealed/alternate?”
Alternative might a good word for it. Plus it removes the question of “Do I have to be trans to be transgressing?”
“Alternative” is much weaker, though. And yes, “transgressive” is indeed “in your face”, rather than trans. You wouldn’t have to be trans to be transgressive, and you could well play a trans character and not be transgressive.
I am also curious on the opinion of Zooey Furiosa , though – my first response was intended to provide some context, since it’s been a matter for discussion before.
“transgressive” as “in your face” works for me but still suggests you also need to pick another one. Like, Transgressive should be a checkbox next to the multiple choice.
I was never saying that transgressing meant or implied transgender, or that you need to be the latter for the former to apply. I said that gender identity and expression/presentation are closely related, not synonymous. Clarity!
I see two issues with transgressing–both of which continue to be issues regardless of the term applying to presentation rather than identity, which again I agree is what it’s doing. As you’ve all said, you don’t have to be trans to present nonbinary, and you don’t have to present nonbinary to be trans. Totally different things.
The first problem is that it carries this undertone of judgment–”You have transgressed / you have committed a transgression” are not kind statements. It’s as though you’re being told that you’re somehow morally violating something if you present in a way that doesn’t fit neatly into a category.
The second is that it has that “in your face” connotation that’s already been brought up. If people want to own their presentation as a means of flying in the face of societal norms, that’s great, regardless of what their presentation actually is, honestly. But having the nonbinary option be the only in-your-face option implies that the only reason to present in a nonbinary fashion is to screw with other people’s expectations or give a finger to their cultural views–instead of allowing it to just be something that you do because you want to or it feels right regardless of how other people feel about it.
Taken together, it’s kind of like: “The only reason to present in that bizarre way is to make other people feel uncomfortable, and that is wrong.“
I’m a cis male, but I like to mix skirts and blouses into my wardrobe, climate permitting. I don’t do this as a middle finger to fashion traditions, or so that people will get uncomfortable or ask me why I do it. I just do it because I like the style. You know? I wouldn’t feel terribly wounded if someone labeled me a transgressor, or approached me with the judge-y sentence from that last paragraph–but then, my gender identity doesn’t have a history of marginalization that would make those words cut deeper, either.
Adam Goldberg If it’s going to be moved down to just state trans. It really shouldn’t be the one with the asterisk, because of the problematic connotations of that attempt at inclusivity, which can be discovered with an easy googling for people more well spoken than myself.
Alberto Muti I’m not super into the idea of being just “alternative” that feels more like it’s my character dresses as a hipster rather than my character presents as genderqueer. The concern here is that we have a system that is emphasizing the gender binary and then provides two outs for ones who aren’t, and of those two, one doesn’t feel appropriate to be a self descriptor. Because of context the line is clearly meant to be a gender presentation option that is intended as open. But, the options, or more accurately lack thereof, turns it into a problematic situation. I am nonbinary, specifically agender, so if I am statting myself, I’m not female, I’m not male, I do not identify with being an androgynine, so, my choice is narrowed down to “transgressive” for how I present myself. This is the same problem my friend has had. Xir quote in regards to looking at this is “if you want to do a spectrum thing then you should have neutral words for everything? “transgressing” doesn’t feel neutral”. And that’s the problem. Is the book already feels like it’s establishing a set of rules for gender that are conforming with the societal pressures that I want to get away from when I’m having a good time with friends.
And my thoughts might have gotten a little jumbled up or repetitive there, and if they did, I’ll try and explain later.
Zooey Furiosa and James Etheridge thank you. Both your posts make perfect sense to me and I agree. I still think “transgressive” could be a ticky box, but I think the “spectrum” needs to be neutral terms that are usefully descriptive. Not sure what words to use though.
Zooey Furiosa I entirely agree with your point. Transgressing is too negative a term for neutral choice. But I have a question. If true transgender options are there, IE someone born as female may present as male would have the option of choosing “Male,” and someone who chooses not to have a gender identity could pick Ambiguous, what is left? Do we need a fourth option? I’m not trying to make a point, but asking an honest question. If we are going purely based on look rather than personal identity or choice of clothing, does Male, Female and Ambiguous cover it?
Camden Jenkins Ambiguous is also an issue because it presents it as a mystery to possibly eventually solve. So, let’s continue to use me as an example: my usual outfit includes a jacket which very prominently displays the genderqueer flag and my pronoun of “they” there isn’t an ambiguity to how I present. I’m quite clearly a nonbinary individual. No mystery involved.
Zooey Furiosa Ah, that would make sense. But, the point must we raised, that what you described was your outfit, not your look. Players can customize their costume to their liking, including displaying the marks of nonbinary that you mentioned. However, you are right. Ambiguous isn’t quite the right word. Would androgynous work for the look, thus allowing the costume or clothing to cover the character’s identification, for binary or otherwise? Or is there an issue with the word androgynous that I’m missing? (And I agree wholeheartedly that the term transgressing needs to go. Every example anyone else has made also falls under the category of costume or clothing. This part of look clearly revolves around gender appearance.)
Camden Jenkins Unless I’m mistaken, an outfit is a major part of a look. Further, the presentation influences that outfit; saying that a female-presenting character might wear dresses regardless of that presentation isn’t true. And using Zooey Furiosa as an example, their patches and stuff on their jacket turns it from just outfit into how they present; as far as turning it from male/female/ambiguous/transgressing to male/female/androgynous or what have you, (though I’d prefer gender neutral in place of androgynous,) the main thing that, from what I understand, transgressing is supposed to do is provide an option in opposition to ambiguous, or androgynous. Transgressing is supposed to be more in your face, while ambiguous is supposed to be more subtle, yes? Seeing how this is presentation, we might want to keep that division, by other names.
Side notes: I’d rather have gender neutral over androgynous because androgynous comes from the latin roots for “penis” and “vagina” mashed together, which means that someone who looks androgynous has bits about their appearance from either sex. Also, I’m the one that Zooey quoted earlier, who they called in for support since they’re tired and having trouble wording things.
Alden Olivia Richardson-Yaw I’m certainly not arguing that an outfit cannot be part of a look or presentation, only that the Look section of the character creation sheet is clearly divided into the physical features of a character and the clothing they wear, beyond anything else. For instance, a male character who enjoys cross-dressing could choose to have their physical features be male, their clothing be dresses or skirts (or whatever women’s clothing they prefer), and an entirely different outfit for their costume. These are the building blocks of making a character. My interpretation is that all of that condenses into the full presentation, aka the Look.
However, I agree that the term androgynous, given it’s Latin entomology, is a poor choice for true gender neutrality. So far, the conversation +Google Plus has had has rejected the terms transgressing, ambiguous, androgynous, and nonconforming.
Would [male/female/neutral/trans] work?
Okay, first off, I am the player in Camden Jenkins’ game who is playing a gender variant character. I also happen to be a trans* woman in real life as well, with a slew of gender variant friends.
In speaking with folks in my personal community (this has come up often), the terms male and female are usually referring to the physical sex of a living creature, so I advise avoiding that. Stick to man and woman if you want to respect the fact that the person is a human (may want to use female/male for the Outsider though, all things considered). Opinions do vary here, but I agree with this logic myself.
I would, if statting myself, mark myself as a woman, not trans, or trans* (I usually use the asterisk myself, to show that I’m not just being lazy, but everyone has their own opinions on this stuff, given the lack of an authority to reference). The fact that I’ve transitioned is clear from my personality, should I desire it to be so.
My vote is [female/male/neutral] for the Outsider, [man/neutral/woman] for others, as many societies have a different term for a third gender which you’d respect if it was practical to do so. In an ideal world, you may want to leave a blank line, not prefaced by other, instead to let the person write what they will instead of putting someone in a box of restrained options, but that’s my 2 cents,.
Ambiguous/transgressing is definitely something that should be described under looks, in my opinion.
OKAY. Took a few days of working around things to finally return to this topic.
So, I disagree with the outsider having a separate designation. You say you’re doing it for humans, but, unless there’s something special about being an evolved ape, I’d assume it’s more personhood that’s involved, and the outsider is clearly a person. I also, don’t think that neutral is a fitting term here. There’s too many different identities within the gender spectrum to use just that one term, especially since it means that they don’t have characteristics of the other two. I would provide an alternative, but, at this hour, all I’m good at is coming up with less than serious suggestions.
((And, as a side note, I have not been being lazy by neglecting to add an asterisk when I’ve used trans and have been purposefully avoiding it, since it has severe problems in its history. And while ostensibly was created for a decent reason has been used to exclude non-cis people by saying that they are not trans enough to identify as trans or transgender. Which is especially important to me, since, as a non-binary individual, I fall under the usual umbrella of it. Besides which, both the terms trans and transgender include everyone who is not cis already.))
Zooey Furiosa Sorry if I offend you with my choices in using the asterisk. I assure you that is not my intent. But again, there is no authority in these matters, so differences in perspective can be great from one person to the next.
The thought in my head was that the options are prefaced by gender, so when reading it aloud, it would be “gender: neutral” but again this is just an opinion in the end.
To expand a bit on my discomfort with male and female terms, I’ll never identify myself as a female, as that to me implies that I can bear a child. Which at this point is not an option for the majority of trans women, myself inclusive, given the lack of a uterus (yes, some things are progressing in this matter, but when I last looked into it, it was still experimental).
I’d never say though that “I am a trans.”, but it’s potentially possible to say that “one is a female.” I say use the terms as interchangeably as possible, in my mind.
The opposing view is that the terms male/female are the scientific designations and carry less implications as to the personality of the person, which would need to be factored in this.
In my mind, language is always evolving, and these are matters of personal preference for myself, and friends of mine who are deeply involved with feminist thoughts.
Though I would concede on using different terms for the Outsider, as your point is a strong one.
I say [man/gender neutral/woman] from my perspective, especially since gender is a social construct, and really a spectrum of options. Three clearly distinct points is a workable solution, and one should just pick the nearest option of those presented.
female doesn’t connote giving birth to children, and neither does a vagina/uterus. identifying as female means you identify as female and nothing more. being able to birth children is just that, regardless of your status as male, female, or otherwise.
anyone can have kids.
ID as what you do, live your life how you do, but please don’t equate “femininity” and “child bearing” because you’re just hurting feminists everywhere. you don’t need to be female to bear children and you don’t have to bear children to be female.
don’t link child birthing to gender identity, that’s weird and gross.
Shishi Clark That’s just how I view it when folks speak of females, I simply don’t think of myself as one. Others are free to think as they will, I’m just explaining my side of it. I will always use woman instead for myself.
And I did not refer to femininity at all.
Shishi Clark I do think we need to identify the boundary between gender identity and biological gender. Gender identity is a aspect of a person’s personality and how they choose to relate to society. Biological gender is the physical reality of your body and is independent of the person’s gender identity.
The main problem from my perspective is that our common language fails to make a distinct between female identity and biologically female without using two word phrases. This becomes even more difficult when you include the fact that there are identities that extend outside the scope of male/female and that there are people who have used current medical technology to modify their biological gender.
And Teresa Nanek is right. Right now, as the topic of gender identity is still quite new in our culture (or at least, the acceptance of it as a topic is new), our culture has yet to come upon an official set of terms in general. She is using the terms man and woman to denote gender identity and male and female to denote biological gender. She’s not linking child birth to gender identity at all, but rather to biological gender.
This is all objective and I doubt that we as a community are going to come to an agreement that makes everyone happy. The closest we can come to is something that is hopefully inclusive enough to not alienate anyone from the get-go.
Getting back to Zooey Furiosa ‘s original point, I will once again point out that this whole topic is based upon the section noted as “Look”, aka appearance. Based purely upon what a character looks like, regardless of their clothing, what does their biological gender appear to be? [Male/female/neutral] still seems like the best option. From there, the person is free to customize it. Perhaps they look neutral and wear a jacket proclaiming their genderqueer identity and their pronoun “they.” Perhaps they appear female, but have customized their appearance to appear strong and dangerous. Male Look, but wears dresses and skirts.
And finally, I agree with Zooey Furiosa . I see zero reason why the Outsider should have any different Look options in the biological gender category than anyone else. If their species has gender appearances similar to humans, pick male, female, or neutral. If they don’t, pick neutral. Done and done.