Breaking Down Tired Homophobic Talking Points (Class is in Session)

Story Discussion
1

Introduction
I’m Initiative. I’ve played vidja games since the original NES, I’m gay, and I’m formally educated as well as experienced in both dramatic structure/storytelling (my first career) AND LGBTQ history/sociological discourse. (because life makes us not ignore it)

Identity nor education alone doesn’t make me correct. One does not need to have a degree to speak eloquently, insightfully, and accurately about collective history or their personal experiences of discrimination as a marginalized person as valid measures. And if you dont have experience, you just have to read and listen to people who have actually do. I know that you think you can speak without doing the minimum and believe you have meaningful things to say…but you don’t, lol.

This is a breakdown of the chauvinist talking points that are trotted out every single time ONLY when anything not-straight is presented to the gaming masses.

Power, be it institutional, social, or resources, is the heart of all discrimination, so:
it actually doesn’t matter how many friends you have of a particular identity.
it actually doesn’t matter how many friends you have of a particular identity.
it actually doesn’t matter how many friends you have of a particular identity.

It’s completely irrelevant. -isms are not defined by your proximity, comfort, or wants. They’re defined by systematic power and how that impacts the material conditions.

Faux Story-Telling Concerns

1) “Shoehorned”, “Pandering”, and “Exploitative”.

Here’s thing- you’re full of it. No, no, really- you already told me.

Your lame OW concern: “God they’re just giving the gays 2 characters to pander/make money/deflect from their other scandals”.

Real World LGBTQ concern: “God, they’re making money off us, but it’s actually at our expense, and they’re using my identity to materially harm others.” (this is called Pinkwashing)

So, already, your concern is about what YOU want regarding queer presence. You’ve already told me what you want is more important. See, because real concern of exploitation is “How does this harm X group, and what can we do about it?”. End of story. Who among you crying “ermahgerd, it’s forced!” is out here actually trying to impact LGBTQ youth homelessness and poverty? Ending workplace discrimination in the states you can still legally be fired for being not-straight? Anything that impacts the material conditions of Q r folks, who’s lack of equitable access is related to identity?

Nunya. This is how we all know you’re full of it, who only cares about what they want over the actual relevant/marginalized group.

Because here’s the deal…I’m not being materially harmed by this. I’m actually being listened too, which is, ultimately, what angers you. As you’ve explicitly stated: your concerns are things OTHER than well-being of LGBTQ people here. So, really, who cares what you want? (there are concerns for queer folks, but those are our discussions to have, so relax.

2) “They didn’t give us clues leading up to it!”

So you want your entitlement to others identity delivered exclusively through your simple limited shallow understanding of what you think gayness looks like appeased? You mean like…you want to be…pandered to? Lolol. Aside from the fact that there was an image from 2+ years ago aka, a “clue” (which many a dude-bros have committed some astounding mental backflips to keep questioning it), your want of “clues” is really an admittance that youre only able to see gayness as a specific behavior set that need be delivered to you within your limited scope of understanding. Because the concept that a gay person can simply live their lives in front of you this whole time without exhibiting “clues”- well that is clearly just to much for your brain to handle. It’s also the homophobic practice of “straight-assuming”, that all characters are as you see them (as yourself) and if they’re not, you need your handheld to get over it.

Congratulations. You’ve just discovered Jack is one of those people, going about living their life and never having to spell it out to you (which itself brings up issues regarding assimilation, passing privilege, etc).

3) It should only come up if it’s relevant to the plot

Ready?

It did.

-Character development via their past experience is an integral part of audiences understanding how characters move through the plot, ergo relevant.

-When a straight character is a relationship, the straightness itself is never addressed. It just is. Gay relationships are allowed to just be.

-Again, the non-gay folks dictating when and where querness appears

-You only see sexuality then as a plot device aka an object for your wants. See No. 2

You cry you want to know before hand/from the beginning (lol what writer spills all the beans on page 1?), but then cry “Why are you bringing this up, it’s not relevant”, then cry “well that’s pandering.”

Mmm, yes, look at all that space in that gridlock of contradiction there is for a gay characters to exist where they see fit. Where exactly is it acceptable for you to decide where I am allowed to tell stories stories with a character that just also happens to be gay? That’s a rhetorical question. I’m not actually interested in your failure to be discursively literate on the issue.

OW: this is a team shooter, no story mode and minimal lore

Players: ok, well then write some

OW: writes short, yet meaningful stories focused on character development

Players: "GOD, YOURE MAKING IT UP!"

Like, stop it.

Ironically, all 3 of these trash arguments were used for Legend of Korra as well, because a bunch of man-children who don’t know how to read human behavior missed every clue/story point that addressed it starting in episode 1 of season 3 (arguably sooner). Which just another point as how we know your “concern for the story” trolling is a lie you tell yourself: Even when it is present, the same garbage still comes up and you do nothing about it.

False Equivalences

Specifically about that garbage post the other day comparing Jaina Proudmoore, a not gay character who’s had 15+ years to develop, with her conflict/change having nothing to do with sexual identity in a story driven game…to a character in a non-story driven game, so the OP could talk about everything except homophobic, repeating the same uselessness cited above.

You have to falsely equivocate because you can’t make the argument without it…because there is no real argument.

REAL examples of exploitation of LGBTQ community for you to pretend you care about and then do absolutely nothing.

-JK Rowling: Claims it for a character, then actively refuses to touch it in any canon material, even when it would be relevant. She erases it when it’s time to really put her money where her mouth is.

-Burger King & Doritos: putting rainbow bags/wrappers on their product when absolutely no one asked for that, did nothing for the struggle, and did not use that money to support those harmed by homophobia.

-Representing a marginalized identity in game and thinking it makes you liberal, but your company is so racist it drives a man nearly to suicide. (It happened on one team, it’s definitely going on in others). These issues should be connected at all times when spoken about.

Conclusions

OW is still problematic in its expressions of identity, specifically in framing representation/diversity in an isolated fashion, and as assimilation to straight-hegemonic expectations (eg Homonationalism). Representation is important, but for anyone who has ever worked with a white-majority NGO, “Diversity™” is often used to tokenize someone to shield the organization from its nonsense without distributing real power. It’s a start, but diversity alone is not freedom.

I will not be reading the replies. Your ignorant “rebuttals” are really not worth my time, as I’ve heard the same garbage my whole life (YoU’Re PrObAbLy NoT eVeN a GaMeR, which unsurprisingly is the same trash argument men throw at women in gaming, because the venn diagram of men who demand performance/tribute by women and are homophobes is actually a perfect circle.) I’m not inviting you into a conversation with me so you can have your feelings validated, as if you think you’re entitled my time beyond what I’m willing to give to hear you drone on as if you actually know everything, without doing anything. Though I do look forward to your expected reaction of mass reporting and crying. Soldiers gay. I hope youre mad about it.

p.s. For those of you who got this all (I know you qts are)- I’m cute and available.

Forum Mod Edit: This post has been edited by a moderator due to language. Blizzard Support - Forum Code of Conduct

20 Likes
2

That poor dead horse

3 Likes
3

The crowd that is upset won’t care man, they are ALWAYS going to use it’s “forced” as an out because we all know what demographic they want everything to be.

4 Likes
4

While many of your points are accurate, there are points which are wrong.

The most critical point being, you need to financially support a cause to actually support it.

This more of half truth and quite situational.
There is a societal aspect you are not considering and that is influence of a brand, product or person.

There is a saying and I am paraphrasing here - “Influence it self is more valuable than gold.”

A normal indiviidual who has no influence and says that support a cause but do not actually give time, effort, or money is simply posturing. They are actually not helping in any manner or form.

While a celebrity, or brand that has a large following actually supports a cause even a simple statement or message or act goes a very long way.

Why?

Because their actions influence societies perceptions and alters their fans acceptance. “If X person says it is OK, then it must be OK”

For example if Justin Beiber in his Prime all of a sudden started saying he is going Vegetarian because it is healthy. It is quite likely many girls would follow him and his advice.

He didn’t need to pay lobbyists to provide more healthier school lunches in schools, or pay an organization to get more healthier food to kids. Simple action ended up resulting in a chain reaction.

So even though Burger King did not donate proceeds, the influence it holds did provide “acceptance” toward the LGBTQ community by showing there is nothing wrong in doing so.

So in society there are 3 pillars.

  • Money
  • Time
  • Influence.

Is the moral of the story.

3 Likes
5

Correct. Though, I often do this sort of thing IRL as well knowing it won’t impact those who need to hear it, rather to educate those who do care but maybe dont have the arguments/responses down yet, ya know what I mean?

And yes, we do know :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
6

Soldier:76 is not a real person; it is a character in a game. That game asks us, on some level, to role-play the characters, to personalize them to our own fantasies. When the story is altered after players have already allowed their own personal choices and preferences to shape a character, it feels like an act of literary violence, like someone is literally trying to change our mind. On one level, this has nothing to do with sexuality; it’s the same flavor of anger directed at George Lucas with the Star Wars prequels in all their retcon midichlorian glory.

Not all “homophobia” is bigoted. “Homophobia” in the bigoted or closeted sense is often indistinguishable from the reactions of men who have been sexually abused by other men. The most conservative official estimate says that at least 1 in 6 men will be sexually abused by the time they turn 18. Some of that abuse comes from men, some from women. You want more diverse perspectives, less bigotry, more inclusion, less hate? Then learn to be generous enough to forgive the dysfunction of the abused.

Regardless of your message, mission, or intention, it is not your (or anyone’s) job to label “homophobia” and direct abuse at its alleged perpetrators. You don’t know what “homophobic” people have been through or what they’re going through; whatever that may be, you’re not improving anything for anyone. Even if they’re closeted, as the typical snide accusation goes, it isn’t your job or your business to out them. Outing someone can and often does lead to actual IRL death.

It’s perfectly OK to disagree with the late story changes made to Soldier:76’s canon, both from literary and emotional perspectives.

4 Likes
7

Kinda sad that disagreeing with the WAY they are doing it gets you labelled as homophobic.

6 Likes
8

To be fair, no matter how Blizzard does it people are going to disagree with it. Blizzard can’t win this because people don’t want to see their favorite heroes “turning gay”.

1 Like
10

May I ask why you disagree with Soldier’s sexual preferences?

1 Like
12

Prejudiced people will never go away. We used to have racism as the acceptable thing to think, now it’s dehumanizing people with words like homophobe. No proof required as usual, they just know they’re right.

13

It’s two friends talking to each other about their personal lives and how it has affected them. How is that out of the blue? Honestly, if Michael Chu never tweeted about it we would still be left not knowing if he was gay or not. If they replaced Vincent with Victoria I doubt everyone would be this upset too.

4 Likes
14

Out of the blue as in 3 years AFTER launch we get this, there was no hints before hand about anything.
It doesn’t help we have such LITTLE LORE though which is probably the main problem as we don’t know anything about most the heroes backstories.

I did like the way Tracer’s was done however.
It was themed around the comic/event in a touching way.
It was fine and made sense.

15

If you take out the gay Soldier paragraph in the Bastet comic, there’s quite a lot of new information in there. I think most people didn’t read the comic and they’re just focused on this. Lots of good character development for both Ana and Soldier (but of course, Ana got overshadowed because people like to freak out about gay people instead).

Also there was a picture of Soldier with his arm wrapped around Vincent in the winter comic so there was kind of a hint.

2 Likes
16

So basically you wrote this just to get a power rush. I feel bad for the dead horse you’ve just beaten

1 Like
17

I’ll rebuttal all your talking points in one move.

No,

U

1 Like
18

So OP, what are your thoughts on people who thought the whole story was just a published piece of bad fan fiction? Am I a bigot to you because I thought the writing itself was bad?

19

I do not think Soldier should be gay at all, whatsoever.

20

Could you elaborate why they would be a better “fit” and less out of the blue?
I don’t want to put words into your mouth but the way you left that statement leads me to believe you think those heroes possess stereotypical “gay” attributes whereas Soldier 76 doesn’t. Please correct me if I’m wrong

21

It’s the “Impossible Standards” tactic. A form of Control by creating the illusion of acceptance and righteousness when the goal is to limit or censor.

We see this a lot in other forms. “Intelligence Tests” for voting, for instance. The “reasoning” is that only informed people should be allowed to vote. In practice, the tests are drawn up to be confusing, targeting marginalized groups. This is where stuff like “Grammar” tests purposefully cause groups of people to fail because it targets their dialect as wrong.

Abortion Clinics have the same issues. Laws stated that clinics MUST have access to an operating surgeon at a local Hospital (when there are only Christian hospitals within the county), forcing clinics to close. This “reasoning” is that this is for women’s safety. The reality is that you don’t need a surgeon to prescribe a pill.

So we see the pattern here. “I only want gay fiction when it’s done RIGHT!”, and it’ll never be right. The reality is that they prefer not to see any gay fiction at all.

4 Likes
22

While many of your points are accurate, there are points which are wrong.

The most critical point being, you need to financially support a cause to actually support it.

This more of half truth and quite situational.
There is a societal aspect you are not considering and that is influence of a brand, product or person.

There is a saying and I am paraphrasing here - “Influence it self is more valuable than gold.”

A normal indiviidual who has no influence and says that support a cause but do not actually give time, effort, or money is simply posturing. They are actually not helping in any manner or form.

While a celebrity, or brand that has a large following actually supports a cause even a simple statement or message or act goes a very long way.

Why?

Because their actions influence societies perceptions and alters their fans acceptance. “If X person says it is OK, then it must be OK”

For example if Justin Beiber in his Prime all of a sudden started saying he is going Vegetarian because it is healthy. It is quite likely many girls would follow him and his advice.

He didn’t need to pay lobbyists to provide more healthier school lunches in schools, or pay an organization to get more healthier food to kids. Simple action ended up resulting in a chain reaction.

So even though Burger King did not donate proceeds, the influence it holds did provide “acceptance” toward the LGBTQ community by showing there is nothing wrong in doing so.

So in society there are 3 pillars.

  • Money
  • Time
  • Influence.

Is the moral of the story.

Me: “telling gay people how liberation works is implying you know better than those impacted regarding what they need, thus dictating power in the dynamic towards those who are marginalized”

You: “Let me explain to you gays how this ACTUALLY works. Wrappers on burgers (literal garbage) is actually meaningful because I think that’s what it means to support gay people and what changes societies ails: Burger wrappers. You said pinkwashing and public proximity is not how it works at all. However, I ignored it and didn’t reflect on my power analysis and how that impacts peoples material conditions so let me keep explaining q liberation to you.”

Offering your unwarranted/unasked for mansplaining to an actually gay person involved in this work with a clearly more developed politic on this and dynamics of social power?

Some acceptance. Your understanding of acceptance is garbage.

If you say you support something, you have the resources, then USE that communities symbolism to acquire more resources, and then DON’T materially support those who are inhibited from accessing said support, that’s the literal definition of exploitation you just called good. Which, irony, was the thing y’all PRETEND to care about.

You just proved my point: why those things are so shallow/useless. You offer 0 material change, but then thinks that good enough. It’s not good enough. Your analysis is shallow self entitlement. It’s also ignorant because it says that COMPANIES are what change social impact instead of the people who organize (often endangering their lives) around those issues- which prompts someone/something to do something. Your entire response is you citing the branches, thinking they’re the roots.

You just want to be comfortable in the most base line way so you can say you support a thing, than actively undermine it in your interpersonal interactions. You don’t get cookies for the minimum. You’re not actually as supportive of it as you pat yourself on the back for. The only people who determine what is or is not support are those in the position of being harmed. Thats it. End of story.

2 Likes