OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES

Posts

Solitayre
Circumstance penalty for being the bard.
18257
It's okay for people to be disagree, and it's okay for people to be wrong. People on both sides of this argument will be wrong about things! That's why discussions need to happen. I think it'd be great for both sides to come together in a mutually beneficial understanding. The goal isn't for one side to adhere completely to what the other says but to come to understandings. Sometimes that means letting go of preconceptions.

What's not okay is to dismiss this topic out of hand or to act like bigotry is a morally superior position.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=alterego
You claim this role is significant because you seem to think people are just empty vessels that media fills with all kinds of biases that leads them to treat others poorly. We, however, are more fond of the idea that people are more capable of telling right from wrong that you give them credit for, and are 100% free to make their own choices, even if we don't agree 100% with said choices. That's what "freedom" means to us.

From the cradle to the grave, we're all influenced by what we perceive and we build our perception out of that. Going to some logical extreme and saying "empty vessels" is going too far, but to say that "freedom" equals being able to efficiently separate yourself from all manner of outside stimuli to base your own independent opinion on is rather foolish.

A freedom to "not be offended" is a fallacy because that's the same as saying you have the right to not emote at any given time. Emotion is independent and to be independent is to be free.
AE, you fail to take into consideration that our ideals of right and wrong are skewed by the fact that we are nurtured to believe in the wrong rights and the right wrongs. It is a sad fact that most girls look into the mirror and see faults because that is what media teaches them to see. It teaches them that they have to look like x model in order to be considered pretty (never mind that the model in question doesn't look like she is represented).

It's the same skewing that happens when the girls' aisle in a toystore is filled with pink 'sexy' dolls and cuddly toys and the boys' is blue and full of trucks and sports equipment. And in the case that there is something sporty in the girls' section, it's pink and flowery, and in the case that there's a doll in the boys' section, it's got rippling muscles and guns and 'manly' things added.

It's thrown in our faces all through our lives until it becomes a habit to think 'pink is girl, blue is boy' and to shy away from association with the opposite. An example. I bought my niece an omni-gender clothing set - a well-made camo jacket, pants and tee-shirt. It was clearly not boys or girls wear - using dull reds and yellows in the design. It was cute as hell. My sister never let her wear it once. I got reamed out for buying her 'boy's clothes' and told my more than four people that I should have bought her a cute dress instead. I got the clothes so she could run around and get dirty without worrying about messing up the 'pretty' clothes she has.

The idea of male is this, female is that is so deeply ingrained in people that a 2 year old was not allowed to dress in certain clothes because people might think she was male. This is the pure and simple of it - people are influenced every day of their lives and it skews their ideals of right and wrong, good and bad, boy and girl, completely.

Fact.
I don't think any of that refutes what I said. I already acknowledged there are problems. We're in agreement on that. The thing is, what exactly is the problem? How big it really is? And what's an adequate solution to it? ...Usually, discussions about pink toys on the internet come down to: "The 'pink aisle' must be abolished!" Well, congratulations! Not only that's not the right problem, nor the adequate solution. But you're just as authoritative as the people who won't let children wear and play with what they want.

I too want to foster a society where undue outside influences can no longer stump a person's development. But I want to achieve this towards discussion, education, respect. etc. By introducing more options, not by tearing down the ones that already exist. By encouraging people to be assertive, and exercise their autonomy. By pursuing their own happiness in life against all odds. But no, apparently it is foolish to think this way. It is impossible to escape society's "programming" or whatever. I don't know anymore.

You know, most of the time we're happy with just offering a counter-argument and leaving it at that. We're have my own experiences -or own 'facts'- to rely on, and we're confident on that. Even if we're not too smart when examining our own feelings or expressing our ideas. We know this can be done. We'll keep threading along, and helping where we can, regardless.
I'm not saying to abolish pink completely, but if we got rid of the colour coding of areas and put it all in one place where kids can just look regardless of gender, it'd be better (I just realised that sounded a lot like something else that was all about colour coding. Let the kids ride any part of the bus people. Yes, it is just like that.)

Get rid of the pink and blue aisles. Put the toys in the same aisle and let the kids choose for themselves. Make it less about boy and girl and more about child.

If a girl wants to pick up a muscle car toy, fucking let her. If a boy wants to pick up a doll, don't make it so that his first and only choice is Mr Musclehead. Give them the choice by exposing them to everything without colour coding it for 'convenience'.

So I guess I am saying get rid of the pink and blue as default choices. There's a whole fucking rainbow out there that doesn't consist of 'default boy/girl' shit. If they, after being exposed to red, yellow, green, brown, orange, etc still want something pink or blue, fine, but don't make those the only fucking choices.


And getting rid of pink/blue aisles in toy stores is a very good way to do this. Instead of sorting toys by girl/boy, sort the toys by type (where type isn't male/female) or size or cost or anything else.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
As an aside (and hopefully a comedic anecdote that doesn't come back to haunt me), to be fair, everyone goes black and brooding during their teen years anyway.
author=Liberty
Get rid of the pink and blue aisles. Put the toys in the same aisle and let the kids choose for themselves. Make it less about boy and girl and more about child.
I think that might turn into a brutal war zone. What with most kids carrying a certain degree of (seemingly pre-programmed) loathing for the opposite gender during their earlier years. Not that it's a bad idea, no. I'm actually all for it. But it'll take some time before such a thing will start becoming effective. Probably after a new generation of non-prejudiced children pops up.

author=Corfaisus
As an aside (and hopefully a comedic anecdote that doesn't come back to haunt me), to be fair, everyone goes black and brooding during their teen years anyway.
Not all. Some follow the way of the rainbow :)
author=karins_soulkeeper
Probably after a new generation of non-prejudiced children pops up.


Alright but here's the thing: we are that next generation, if you're in the millenial age group! And children are not magically popping out of the womb with radical ideas. Society shapes they way people think. If we don't make the decision to shift how things go, then our kids sure as hell won't be any different from us.

Incidentally, this ties back to the original topic, which is why representation of trans folks (especially trans women) is extremely important. By continuing to erase trans people, we continue to brush trans issues under the rug and basically co-sign the violence committed against them. Having trans people be Visible and Talked About in video games and other media is really important, because yeah it does start to normalize non-cis genders.

Like, hey, if we get a lot of great non-binary representation, maybe they'll come a day when folks see me and say "oh yeah, I know what you're talking about, I saw that in x, y, and z!" rather than literally telling me I am crazy for being not cis.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
There's an important lesson to be learned here.

BizarreMonkey
I'll never change. "Me" is better than your opinion, dummy!
1625
author=Corfaisus
As an aside (and hopefully a comedic anecdote that doesn't come back to haunt me), to be fair, everyone goes black and brooding during their teen years anyway.
Since my 20s are my teenage years since I'm Peter pan or something, I can confirm this virtually always happens.

author=karins_soulkeeper
Not all. Some follow the way of the rainbow :)
This is what I actually did during my teen years.

Now I'm having that phase instead.

Also, Emmych, if we're the new radicals, and we're growing up to be such, then the ill-minded archaic ideals of the past are going to die out eventually anyway, don'tchu think?

So long as we keep the internet free and uncensored, unmoderated, kids will grow like you and I have.

The transition is definitely gradual, but it is happening, America recently allowed gay marriage nationwide, that's HUGE! Don't get me wrong, we have had to fight for it, but that's the thing, we are!

It's happening, everywhere, I myself am an activist helping to fight for said virtues! I donate 48 dollars to the Avaaz foundation a month, I've been in protestant rallies, I've signed so many petitions that I can't count how many now.

The brilliance of the internet is that we are made aware of what rights we have, and we can use said rights to change not just our generation, knowing our rights can... change the world!

In fact, the world is changing, fossil fuels are slowly but surely dying out as renewable energy becomes the new fad, despicably my country is one of the few countries zealous enough in it's corporate investors to still be hooked on goal... but not for long!

Many banks have shut down interest in coal mining projects, deeming them "economically unsustainable".

Fellows likes Avaaz and myself have helped spread that truth. Commonwealth recently after some struggling, saw the light of a new age, and decided to side with us, ANZ and more are next.

Don't underestimate the power of people. It's a force beyond reckoning!

author=alterego
I don't think any of that refutes what I said. I already acknowledged there are problems. We're in agreement on that. The thing is, what exactly is the problem? How big it really is? And what's an adequate solution to it? ...Usually, discussions about pink toys on the internet come down to: "The 'pink aisle' must be abolished!" Well, congratulations! Not only that's not the right problem, nor the adequate solution. But you're just as authoritative as the people who won't let children wear and play with what they want.
Merging the two seems to have worked well for target, and while little things like this are yes, not the bigger issue, they are an impetus behind combating it. Each inch that is trodden for a morally equal and tolerant society means a better chance at a brighter future for the next generation. The more we discard bigotry, and the more we all become level-headed as human beings, the better off our children's experiences growing up will be.

Target did not restrict anything by merging the two isles into one, they only made some bigots get very angry and use entitlement in an attempt to change their mind on the matter.

We, however, are more fond of the idea that people are more capable of telling right from wrong that you give them credit for, and are 100% free to make their own choices, even if we don't agree 100% with said choices. That's what "freedom" means to us.
Right and wrong are entirely subjective, some people still don't seem to get that. But rest assured, the world will always have bigots, we just have to move forward regardless of the bigots, and show them they aren't going to change much.

I think the "freedom to not be offended" is honestly dumb. Not because it isn't a cool ideology, but because it blatantly defies human nature. I say be tolerant if you can, and ignore and be humble around the intolerant, that way they just look like an asshole.
author=BM
Also, Emmych, if we're the new radicals, and we're growing up to be such, then the ill-minded archaic ideals of the past are going to die out eventually anyway, don'tchu think?


Because other people were working before us. There were folks doing activism before we were born, and because those people were working, our generation was able to grow up to be less shitty.

My point is that change doesn't come out of nowhere, it takes people working hard to make change. Sitting around and saying "aw yeah our generation is BETTER" is pointless and only serves to maintain the status quo. Not only that, it's also really insulting to the people that came before us who had to live through and fight against pretty awful stuff.
BizarreMonkey
I'll never change. "Me" is better than your opinion, dummy!
1625
author=emmych
author=BM
Also, Emmych, if we're the new radicals, and we're growing up to be such, then the ill-minded archaic ideals of the past are going to die out eventually anyway, don'tchu think?
Because other people were working before us. There were folks doing activism before we were born, and because those people were working, our generation was able to grow up to be less shitty.

My point is that change doesn't come out of nowhere, it takes people working hard to make change. Sitting around and saying "aw yeah our generation is BETTER" is pointless and only serves to maintain the status quo. Not only that, it's also really insulting to the people that came before us who had to live through and fight against pretty awful stuff.
Yeah, I'm not saying we should feign ignorance on the matter, I'm saying take heart, as several are already fighting for what is good, myself included.

Not... physically fighting, I'm an activist, not an assassin.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
author=Wetmat
Even 'cuz, for reasons and purposes, you're pretty much the reason i have been avoiding this thread, because i can't distinguish your discourse from people who would death threaten me, among other things, so i guess this says volumes about your contribution to the topic.

wowwwwwwwwwwww.

I haven't threatened you with death and wasn't planning on it. How is that in and of itself not an incredibly meaningful distinction? I don't think I should get a trophy for simply not being a malignantly awful person, but surely you must at least recognize the distinction.

author=wetmat
So, if you feel that a femhype article is comparable to a fox news article, you have place no here. You've missed the point, and you're not contributing to anything; only, mayhap, to the constrution of an unsafe place for people like me who want to be taken seriously, and feel secure while doing so.

I was staff on this forum practically since before you were born. Seriously I have been here since 2008. That's seven years now, and that's just RMN, not even gam mak in general. Speaking as a crotchety old person, if I don't belong here, I have no idea where I do belong. I think there's room here for everyone. But if anyone's gonna go, it sure as hell ain't me. I'm practically part of the architecture.

author=WetMattos
Take my advice. Grab your things, and retire yourself from this thread. It'll do both of us good.

no u :P

The truly ironic thing is that you and Max are basically two sides to the same depressingly droll coin.

Max has a history of showing up, derailing and shutting down discussions like these. From what I can tell, it gives him some false sense of superiority. There's no point in trying engage with him. You'd be better off arguing with a brick wall.

this is bullshit.

Of course F_G you may believe whatever you wish but as far as I'm concerned, attempting to engage the other side is the entire reason I'm here. I am asking the question "why does this matter?" and looking for any answer but "of course it does you Philistine stop silencing me!" or "read my gender studies curriculum!". You know, like, a meaningful answer.

Here's another way to look at it. I am here to challenge you. It's not vitriolic and it's not abusive. It is a challenge to your presumptions. It is a challenge to the unproven presumption that someone calling a fictional character on the internet a tranny actually matters or means something beyond itself.

Go play any first person shooter on xbox live and you will be, or so I'm told, assaulted with 14 year old rear births screaming 'nigger' and 'cocksucker' and 'bitch' and 'slut' and 'whore' and 'faggot' and 'kike' and so on and so forth. This does not point towards the fact that in the western world we live in a 'racist heterosexist capitalist patriarchy' or whatever. It points towards nothing but the undeniable truth of John Gabriel's greater internet fuckwad theory.



People are dicks, people are toxic, they always have been, they always will be, grow up, toughen up, and get over it. Now speaking from personal experience, not getting upset by toxic behavior can be really, really hard when that toxic behavior is directed at you personally. There is thread after thread after thread on this website where I personally lose my shit HARD in response to bullying and abuse.

But seeking offense from comments made about (fake) people who have a demographic variable or two in common with you? That's just asking for unnecessary pain.

This is not me shutting down the conversation, and I'm sick of that accusation. This is me participating in the conversation. The invitation I am giving is not one to shut the fuck up. The invitation I am giving is an invitation to endeavor to prove me wrong.

The current discourse on oppression understand that most of the violence happens in conceptual level,

Violence cannot happen on a conceptual level. That is not a real thing. You are misappropriating the concept of violence. You are perverting the definition of violence. There is no such thing as 'conceptual violence'. That is an academic construct created by the radical social justice left, not a real thing that mainstream scholars recognize as legitimate.

1)Max, please fuck off and try to be more productive (and positive). You have some shitty opinions, my friends have shitty opinions, and no one is going to convince the other to change their mind, so I suggest a bit of a paradigm change on how you go about these things. Oh, and some Robert Greene.

Shocking thought Zieg, telling someone to 'fuck off' isn't really very productive (or positive).

Also, my opinions are not shitty, they are great.

I apologize if people who genuinely wanted to participate felt I would jump on them for failure to properly kowtow to my expectations.

You don't get to decide whether my desire to participate is genuine, you know. If I wanted to not 'participate', I wouldn't post. I'm going to try to minimize my bickering with you because I don't want to derail the thread further, but I had to say that much.

Pink vs. Blue Et Al

AE, you fail to take into consideration that our ideals of right and wrong are skewed by the fact that we are nurtured to believe in the wrong rights and the right wrongs. It is a sad fact that most girls look into the mirror and see faults because that is what media teaches them to see. It teaches them that they have to look like x model in order to be considered pretty (never mind that the model in question doesn't look like she is represented).


It's the same skewing that happens when the girls' aisle in a toystore is filled with pink 'sexy' dolls and cuddly toys and the boys' is blue and full of trucks and sports equipment. And in the case that there is something sporty in the girls' section, it's pink and flowery, and in the case that there's a doll in the boys' section, it's got rippling muscles and guns and 'manly' things added.

It's thrown in our faces all through our lives until it becomes a habit to think 'pink is girl, blue is boy' and to shy away from association with the opposite. An example. I bought my niece an omni-gender clothing set - a well-made camo jacket, pants and tee-shirt. It was clearly not boys or girls wear - using dull reds and yellows in the design. It was cute as hell. My sister never let her wear it once. I got reamed out for buying her 'boy's clothes' and told my more than four people that I should have bought her a cute dress instead. I got the clothes so she could run around and get dirty without worrying about messing up the 'pretty' clothes she has.

The idea of male is this, female is that is so deeply ingrained in people that a 2 year old was not allowed to dress in certain clothes because people might think she was male. This is the pure and simple of it - people are influenced every day of their lives and it skews their ideals of right and wrong, good and bad, boy and girl, completely.

Fact.

In my opinion, a (convincing) argument has yet to be made that the mere existence of gender norms is harmful. Dogmatic adherence to gender norms under threat of physical/emotional violence? Yeah, that's bad. I am cautiously hopeful, guardedly optimistic, that at least in the relatively progressive Western World (TM), our generation is the last generation to grow up with that bullshit.

But that doesn't mean that normative gender roles themselves are harmful or toxic.

But stereotypical guy stuff and stereotypical girl stuff should totally be free to exist, and guys should be able to like "boy stuff" and girls to like "girlie stuff" without any fear of reprisals or being called some kind of gender traitor.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
author=Max McGee
But that doesn't mean that normative gender roles themselves are harmful or toxic.


There's no positive gain from them existing, though. They exist purely to box people in to their preassigned roles; that is, they exist to categorize what's "normal" what what isn't.

There's no real rhyme or reason as to why a given object or activity is masculine or feminine. Many popular garments and styles, such as stockings, long hair, and the color pink, have jumped from one side to the other innumerable times over the course of even just Western history--not to say anything of the other thousands of cultures Earth has sustained in the passed. It's all arbitrary, and it's all bereft of meaning.

You could argue that it's society's fault for assigning people value based on their adherence to these nonsensical categorizations, but that'd be narrow-minded and naive. Gender roles in and of themselves serve no purpose, and we would not suffer for their absence. In exchange, people would have one less stick to beat one another with.

Yes, they will find others. No, that is not a counterpoint to "abolish gender roles," because the number of sticks available to people at large is finite. As society progresses and matures, people will eventually run out of sticks.

author=Max McGee
guys should be able to like "boy stuff" and girls to like "girlie stuff" without any fear of reprisals or being called some kind of gender traitor.


This is true. It is also yet another argument in favor of gender role abolition.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
There's no real rhyme or reason as to why a given object or activity is masculine or feminine.

That's not actually true. Some classifications as 'masculine' or 'feminine' are in fact probably arbitrary social constructs. But others I would argue are social constructs derived from the politically unpopular but undeniable fact that human beings have sexual dimorphism. And this sexual dimorphism in humans manifests in ways that are not purely physical.

This is true. It is also yet another argument in favor of gender role abolition.

I don't see how that is so. If lots of guys want to embody the traditional masculine gender role or lots of gals want to be 'traditionally feminine' how is that fact in itself an argument in favor of abolishing those roles? Can you explain?
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
author=Max McGee
But others I would argue are social constructs derived from the politically unpopular but undeniable fact that human beings have sexual dimorphism.


The biological context is the only context in which gender isn't arbitrary, I'd argue.

"Gender roles," as pertains to society, are several levels removed from that "base," though. In broad strokes, I am saying that many, many more things are classified in a gendered way than needs be.

I'll try to explain with an example. It is logical to have masculine and feminine hygiene products for parts that differ between biological sexes. It is illogical to have masculine and feminine soaps or scents--but we have these things because society is under the impression that we ought.

Suppose there's a brand of woodsy, rustic, outdoors-themed scented shampoo. Who "should" use this product? Ideally, anyone who wants to smell woodsy and rustic. However, because this is largely considered a "masculine" scent, women are discouraged from wearing it on peril of societal scorn and harassment. "The outdoors" are a traditionally masculine setting... for some reason. A woman who uses this product will be ostracized for smelling "like a man," because that is considered A Bad Thing For A Woman To Do(tm).

Do you think this should be the case? I doubt it. You probably think it'd be stupid to give a damn about what shampoo someone uses--and you would be correct.

I think it's stupid to label the product as being "masculine" in the first place. We have hundreds of better words to describe such a product--outdoorsy, natural, sylvan, pastoric, verdant, and more. However, society dictates that we have "manly" soaps and "girly" soaps, to spare people the horror of using the "wrong" gender's soap.

It is well known that, say, men tend to (but not always) produce more skin oils than women. In a less backwards society, the unfortunate women that do produce larger than usual quantities of oil would be able to buy appropriate products without being asked if they're lesbians or if they're "trying to be like the guys."

I trust in your ability to extrapolate a larger point from this admittedly winding and very specific example.

author=Max McGee
I don't see how that is so. If lots of guys want to embody the traditional masculine gender role or lots of gals want to be 'traditionally feminine' how is that fact in itself an argument in favor of abolishing those roles? Can you explain?


You singled out the practice of attacking such persons for being "gender traitors," which is a concept that can only exist in a society that demands that you behave in certain ways depending on your chromosomes. Operative word being "demands."
Ratty524
The 524 is for 524 Stone Crabs
12986
author=Max McGee
But if anyone's gonna go, it sure as hell ain't me. I'm practically part of the architecture.

author=Max McGee
Of course F_G you may believe whatever you wish but as far as I'm concerned, attempting to engage the other side is the entire reason I'm here.

author=Max McGee
Also, my opinions are not shitty, they are great.


I adore how you accentuate your delusions with arrogance. It makes everything you say just pure comedy gold.
Zeigfried_McBacon
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
3820
Even 'cuz, for reasons and purposes, you're pretty much the reason i have been avoiding this thread, because i can't distinguish your discourse from people who would death threaten me, among other things, so i guess this says volumes about your contribution to the topic.
wowwwwwwwwwwww.

I haven't threatened you with death and wasn't planning on it. How is that in and of itself not an incredibly meaningful distinction? I don't think I should get a trophy for simply not being a malignantly awful person, but surely you must at least recognize the distinction.

Even I'll admit that this was a bit much, though I can kinda see where some people might make that mistake.

So, if you feel that a femhype article is comparable to a fox news article, you have place no here. You've missed the point, and you're not contributing to anything; only, mayhap, to the constrution of an unsafe place for people like me who want to be taken seriously, and feel secure while doing so.


I was staff on this forum practically since before you were born. Seriously I have been here since 2008. That's seven years now, and that's just RMN, not even gam mak in general. Speaking as a crotchety old person, if I don't belong here, I have no idea where I do belong. I think there's room here for everyone. But if anyone's gonna go, it sure as hell ain't me. I'm practically part of the architecture.


Walls can be broken down, pillars smashed into pieces, and paint faded away. Nothing last forever Max. Not to mention that you probably aren't chained to this place like I am.

author=WetMattos
Take my advice. Grab your things, and retire yourself from this thread. It'll do both of us good.


no u :P

Play nice or people will be sent to their rooms.

People are dicks, people are toxic, they always have been, they always will be, grow up, toughen up, and get over it. Now speaking from personal experience, not getting upset by toxic behavior can be really, really hard when that toxic behavior is directed at you personally. There is thread after thread after thread on this website where I personally lose my shit HARD in response to bullying and abuse.

While I admit to being an enabler in some of that behavior, I've come to the conclusion that you don't deserve an apology from me, and trust me, I've actually been thinking about it too! I've dealt with my share of plenty of shit too (hint, this isn't my first account here). The difference though is that I'm trying to be MORE positive, where as you, as far as I can tell, are pretty much stuck in one mode that can't adapt very well or move on. Hell, I'm willing to bet with all the time you've invested in these post you've made this year, you could have made at least 1 demo for a game. Seriously.

1)Max, please fuck off and try to be more productive (and positive). You have some shitty opinions, my friends have shitty opinions, and no one is going to convince the other to change their mind, so I suggest a bit of a paradigm change on how you go about these things. Oh, and some Robert Greene.


Shocking thought Zieg, telling someone to 'fuck off' isn't really very productive (or positive).

Also, my opinions are not shitty, they are great.

Max, you might want to look at my username, then look at your shorthand, then look at my username again.

Also, there's a good reason why I referred to so many opinions as shit, at least on some level, but it probably flew over your head, arrogance and all.

I apologize if people who genuinely wanted to participate felt I would jump on them for failure to properly kowtow to my expectations.


You don't get to decide whether my desire to participate is genuine, you know. If I wanted to not 'participate', I wouldn't post. I'm going to try to minimize my bickering with you because I don't want to derail the thread further, but I had to say that much.

Pink vs. Blue Et Al

Why do I get the feeling that this isn't totally accurate? Not accusing you of 100% lying here, but clearly there's got to be more to this... ah fuck it, not gonna bother.

I'll leave it at that for now. This topic is so much... yeah... that I'm not gonna bother with my 2 cents on what this thread was supposed to be about.
author=Max
I don't see how that is so. If lots of guys want to embody the traditional masculine gender role or lots of gals want to be 'traditionally feminine' how is that fact in itself an argument in favor of abolishing those roles? Can you explain?

Because it fails to account for the countless people that don't cleanly fit into either slot. There are even plenty of cis people who don't conform to their assigned genders. You hear a lot about masculine women and feminine men being punished for not conforming, even in seemingly harmless ways.

Abolishing gender as we know it doesn't suddenly make the genders that exist right now magically disappear. You could still be a macho, macho man if you wanted, it just wouldn't be assumed that all people with your genital configuration or gender presentation also ID'd as a macho, macho man.

Literally the only thing threatened is cisgender people's privilege to exist while transgender people are marginalized. This shouldn't be a problem for anyone who isn't transphobic.