Reply To: Sexism in Rules?

[Rhoderic]

Jonathan Gingerich wrote:

I am a bit bemused to the reactions here. Priestly and Lambshead are arguing that even though tabletop wargamers are overwhelmingly male, rules writers should still use gender neutral language. Whether their premise is correct or not, their conclusion should certainly be supported. Then they make the point that such writing should not be clumsy. Their analogy, that changing the gender of pronouns ever sentence is as unsettling as a player suddenly changing sex, can be construed as insensitive to King, who is intersex and has changed gender. On the other hand, it’s also a reach. I would guess that if Delany left the table for a soda and returned as David, it would rather unsettle strangers. And responding with vulgarities is neither constructive nor proportionate.

Well… they didn’t write that tabletop wargamers are “overwhelmingly male”, they wrote “practically all male” and no one should “pretend” otherwise. That is at best a disastrously clumsy choice of words. They have their own experiences of miniatures gaming, and taking their description of the community at face value (how else can I take it?) I can only presume they’ve very rarely come across female gamers in their social circles. Other gamers have other experiences, not least female gamers themselves. Priestley’s and Lambshead’s choice of words renders female gamers invisible, and might very well drive some people away from the hobby. Even “overwhelmingly male” would have been an improvement, if only a small one. I’m not saying the community isn’t male by a large majority – it is – but there’s no need for hyperbole. In fact, with a sensitive and serious topic like this, hyperbole is best given a wide berth.

I also think some of the reactions here aren’t to Priestley and Lambshead directly, but to some of their more balls-out defenders, who incidentally may be people whose “help” the pair may not even find welcome.