Penny Arcade / PAX gender controversy catch all.

RoG:

There's a degree of self-identification issue, and some degree of need to be identified and vetted, IMO. I actually don't care what pronoun anyone uses for me anymore because I no longer care what gender or sexuality they view me; but there was a time when that mattered to me. I needed to be validated.

I think the self-examination and internalization of gender discrimination lends to a need to be validated and recognized, if only because it suggests that the space is safe - you're signifying a non-hostility stance. To that end, calling myself "cismale" is fine with me. Like I said, I don't care one way or the other, but if it makes other people more comfortable with me, that's what I'm going with. They're seeking validation, and I'm okay with giving it. I have to ask, then, why would you mind being called cismale or identifying as such in specific instances wherein it's important?

EDIT:

The reason I ask is that I neither identify myself currently as straight nor male. I'm married. That takes all that self-identification completely out of the question. It matters to ME not that I'm male or that I'm straight, or whatever anyone else is. It's no longer a material point. To ME.

But I get that it does matter to other people, so I maintain appearances so that they can classify me better. It's for them, not for me. If they change what they find more comfortable, I'll change my presentation; because it's not for me to begin with, it's for them. I'm not changing who I am by wearing a skirt. I'm just continuing to adhere to changeable social contracts.

I guess the first thing I'd like to say is that Mike Krahulik (alongside Jerry Holkins) is a highly-accomplished creative person who in his career has achieved a lot of remarkable things against fairly difficult odds. In the words of Aubrey 'Drizzy Drake' Graham, Krahulik is a person who legitimately 'started from the middle now his whole team f*ckin here.' As an artist of sorts I personally find this tremendously respectable, and for similar reasons I find the idea that PA should be run like a traditional company (of which Robert Khoo should be the CEO/MBA-wielding super overlord of all things proximal to success) to be kind of repugnant.

Twitter is a thing that exists, and Krahulik chooses to use it as a way of actually being a human to whom you can talk rather than sequestering himself behind the PR equivalent of Minas Tirith (which, again, the artist in me finds super respectable). I believe the natural universe is a messy, ugly, terrifying place, and everyone who lives here (Krahulik especially) is the product of that messy terrifying ugliness; I resent the notion that it would somehow actually be a positive thing for him to sit behind the curtain drawing comics while other people project the illusion of Penny Arcade as some Orwellian monolith of consumer satisfaction. Would people feel more comfortable attending PAX if he simply didn't say what he believed when prompted, or that he become impossible to prompt? I think that when you live in the world, revelling in the absurdity of human belief and interaction is the only good way to stay sane.

So regarding the PAX Panel: It's important to note that Krahulik is an integral part of PA but not actually the entire company, and certainly isn't the guy responsible for approving individual panel submissions at one of the company's two (!) enormous fan expos. If that panel is indeed a screwup (I think probably it is) what this means is that Krahulik is not the one who screwed up. He is, however, the guy who has to protect his employees because good companies, IMO, should be reticent to throw people under the bus. Thus with respect to the question about the panel his initial response A) Was unapologetic, because it's Mike Krahulik and B) protected whoever it was that actually decided to let that panel exist. It's also worth noting that the people tweeting Krahulik about that panel probably targeted him not because they thought he would actually help rectify the situation (it should have been obvious to everyone that he, of all people, would not) but instead because they knew it was likely to trigger an internet sh*tstorm. This is to say that they did not actually act in good faith towards guaranteeing the PAX they ostensibly want to exist; rather, they exploited Krahulik's decision to be available via twitter in order to construct a harmful narrative about PAX, which I suspect is an unethical thing to do.

And that, generally, is a problem with the kind of internet movements we discuss on this forum every week: Sometimes people resort too quickly to punishing the wicked rather than expanding the flock. Why should we complain about how long it took Krahulik to revise his stance on gender issues so long as we know he has, in fact, made some effort to revise it? Why is the narrative about PA all about how they continually screw up and 'never learn' when, in fact, there is ample evidence that they do learn from this stuff (even if that evidence is expressed through actual communication rather than a mountain of PR obfuscation and a few patronizing acts of contrition)? This event is not 'another example' of anything except Krahulik being insensitive, which is not something he can fix; the things about which he is insensitive vary but in general have not repeated, which IMO is a positive sign.

The dickwolves fiasco was what first led me into reading about feminist theory; I read a whole lot about it, and I suspect someone explained some of it to Krahulik. This one is probably going to lead me into transgender theory, which I will admit to finding somewhat intimidating. Were it not for the visibility of PA and the earnestness with which its creators approach social issues I for one would have been much worse off. I feel I am sharing a little bit of these journeys with Mike and Jerry, and that's why it pains me to watch the internet call them terrible people; put bluntly, if they are terrible than so am I. Is it a good decision to give up on those guys, who are progressing slowly under intense public scrutiny, when the real problem is all the people who are not considering these issues in any capacity while remaining comfortably in private? The way to change people's social behaviour is to invite and reward the behaviours you want rather than attempting to punish behaviours you don't want. This is especially true of groups who inhabit the cultural minority because, being ostracized themselves, they do not have the ability to ostracize members of the mainstream. It is impossible for us to 'vote with our wallets' and leave PA out in the cold because they are the whale and we are the barnacles; disengaging completely with PAX serves no purpose except making PAX more comfortable for the other guys. They want you to have ownership of PAX no matter how difficult their behaviour sometimes makes it, and indeed taking ownership of PAX is the best way to affect change. Walking away is not an act of protest, it's a retreat.

Ultimately I am hopeful and actually rather confident that the movement is going to win this battle, as feminism won the dickwolves one; I'm worried, however, that it will be a sore winner.

RolandofGilead wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Fullbright games cancels their appearance at PAX because of this.

http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013...

WTF?
...
This all started from the description of a panel and someone got upset because an educational game about female masturbation only included vaginas...

As is made explicit clear in that link this started quite some time back, and has continued as a stream of background noise. The press release sites several examples of problems prior to your alleged time frame.

RolandofGilead wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Fullbright games cancels their appearance at PAX because of this.

http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013...

WTF?

ClockworkHouse wrote:

I think I'll buy a copy of Gone Home when it's released.

WTF?
Does everyone on this site have their heads up their asshole?

bombsfall wrote:

*RESPECT* for Fullbright.

You are banned from P&C for the rest of June. Post again and I'll be locking your account. You can deliver your opinions without acting like an asshole.

Great write-up at Garden of Forking Thoughts.

Amy wrote:

Dear reader, let me (as a trans woman) assure you of something. No trans person is under any sort of delusion about the physical structure of our bodies. Every trans person is acutely aware of every tiny infinitesimal way our bodies differ from a typical (or at least stereotypical) cis person's body. Many of us know more about biology as it pertains to sex and gender than most medical professionals do. Every one of us knows exactly what you mean and why you think it when you say "I think women have vaginas I think you call a person with a vagina a woman". We've all heard it before; we've heard it all before.

This, Krahulik's boorish insistence that he understands trans people and biology and his opinion is clearly obviously right, not what trans people have been saying, gives lie to any idea that this is an apology or improvement. "You're not really a woman," he's saying, "but I guess I can treat you like one."

The other issue is the position itself that Krahulik advocates. It's both fundamentally flawed and deeply, materially problematic.

The flaws are basic but understandable. Biological essentialists point to biology without understanding it. Point to any biological dimorphism and I'll show you where it's wrong. Hormones are easily manipulable. Secondary sex characteristics are also easy to change. Primary sex characteristics - genitals - are somewhat more difficult and expensive, but very much possible to change. The rest of the reproductive system - gonads and the uterus - aren't, but they're not relevant to gender. Genes can't be changed but they aren't expressed deterministically.

And when it comes down to it - none of these things contribute to gender in any way whatsoever. You can't ascertain a person's hormone levels without a blood test. Secondary sex characteristics vary wildly in humans. Primary sex characteristics remain hidden most of the time and somewhere around one in two thousand babies is born with ambiguous genitalia (one possible physical expression of an intersex condition). No one would say a cis man who had been castrated or a cis woman who'd had a hysterectomy and/or oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries) were not a man and a woman respectively. The human genome is an amazing thing but what about XXY men (Klinefelter's syndrome), XY cis women (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - it's an amazing thing), XX/XY mosaicism (both sets of chromosomes in different cells) or any other of a host of intersex atypical karyotypes?

RoughneckGeek:

I want to ask you the same question I posed to Roland. Why is it important what Krahulik thinks, and what does it mean anyway to "think of someone as a man" while "treating her as a woman?" I really don't know the implications of either of those because I don't have your gender socialization - mine appears to be radically different.

Why is it offensive to differentiate between cis and trans women? I mean, just having that terminology in the first place means that it's important to differentiate between them, just as the Eskimos have a bunch of different terms for snow. To them, it's important to differentiate. How do we know that Krahulik isn't simply saying that, but in his own terminology?

LarryC wrote:

RoughneckGeek:

I want to ask you the same question I posed to Roland. Why is it important what Krahulik thinks, and what does it mean anyway to "think of someone as a man" while "treating her as a woman?" I really don't know the implications of either of those because I don't have your gender socialization - mine appears to be radically different.

Why is it offensive to differentiate between cis and trans women? I mean, just having that terminology in the first place means that it's important to differentiate between them, just as the Eskimos have a bunch of different terms for snow. To them, it's important to differentiate. How do we know that Krahulik isn't simply saying that, but in his own terminology?

Things are important because people deem them to be important. Krahulik both contributes to and leads a subculture which feeds into culture as a whole. This has been made plain both in previous posts and media articles on the subject. His kneejerk reaction to kneejerk criticism (emphasis on jerk for both) plainly exposed a world view and acceptance of social constructs which harm others. Those were far more worthy of a contrary critique than the initial thing which set things off in the first place. His history provided an even greater impetus for people to respond.

My reaction? Krahulik's reactions provide a great opportunity to discuss these things and shine a light on something we don't often consciously consider regarding other people. I'm glad to see the people who are taking advantage of it in a constructive way.

RoughneckGeek:

Caveat: I am not a trans person. I am not an American so I haven't been exposed to all of the toxic stuff about that there. I haven't even been exposed to the toxic stuff where I am even though I know some people have had to leave their families here, which means a hell of a lot locally. I was friends with a some of the committee people of Babaylan, one of the most active student bodies for LGBT rights locally. We were cool. TLDR - I don't have emotional or cultural background. Bear with me.

I've been reviewing cwgabriel's content on Twitter and it didn't strike me that his speech was hateful. He was certainly getting a lot of flak that he didn't think he deserved, which pushed his buttons, at which point it seemed that he tweeted a bunch of things just to be spiteful - and he knew what to say.

He was defending a female masturbation game that featured only vaginas, when some trans folk pointed out that it wasn't inclusive. "Only women have vaginas" to me read "Only cis women have vaginas," which is just a factual statement - well, most of the time. I would say "vast majority" if it weren't such a cliche around here.

Between the obvious hostility he got and the way he's an innate jerk, well, I wouldn't think that he was hateful because he wanted to hate. He's just firing back. I don't know that it's useful to antagonize that because that just feedbacks on itself. In a way, he's repeating the incident because he was being baited, just as 4xis.black mentions above.

We've been successful in some ways locally to get people like that to turn around, but antagonizing them isn't the way to go that. Neither is "being polite" or "not saying anything." In fact, if I read Mike right, one of the ways to silence his jerkiness is to just ignore him when you know he's just trying to push buttons. This means everyone, of course. Difficult, but one of the benefits of a small community is that you can easily track who's trolling and get to them.

Then, when he uses offensive terminology by mistake, approach Sophie or Khoo and ask them to tell Mike - and then tweet Mike that maybe he's saying something he may not have wanted to mean (vs telling him he's a bigot or that he ought to die).

I dunno. Folks like Mike are difficult to handle, but direct antagonism seems to me will only get you exactly what you don't want - Mike saying transphobic things on purpose and normalizing that for his followers.

Let me be perfectly clear here, since I seem to be falling into yet another cultural stumbling block I have no idea about.

I don't care one whit about Gabe's feelings. He could be feeling super-awful and depressed. Don't care. Can't care less. Don't give a rat's ass.

I'm approaching this purely from a results-oriented standpoint. What I mean is that antagonizing Mike like this will only get the results we've seen so far. If that's our goal, then bravo, it's working. Keep going. It's kind like how all the trolls managed to do was make Anita super famous and net her a ton of cash. If that was their goal, it was very well done.

My goal isn't to change Mike. As far as I'm concerned, he's a lost cause. It's for Penny Arcade's other institutions to make a separation from him and his behavior before I give them money again.

Edit: and aside from the initial reactions, I'm seeing people trying to politely engage other higher ups at PA, and, when rebuffed, removing attendance or financial support. These seem like the MOST effective ways of punishing bad behavior of a corporate figurehead

LarryC wrote:

Let me be perfectly clear here, since I seem to be falling into yet another cultural stumbling block I have no idea about.

I don't care one whit about Gabe's feelings. He could be feeling super-awful and depressed. Don't care. Can't care less. Don't give a rat's ass.

I'm approaching this purely from a results-oriented standpoint. What I mean is that antagonizing Mike like this will only get the results we've seen so far. If that's our goal, then bravo, it's working. Keep going. It's kind like how all the trolls managed to do was make Anita super famous and net her a ton of cash. If that was their goal, it was very well done.

This seems overly reductive. There's not one single response to this incident. See Tanglebone's post for one example. I don't think a single person in this thread is antagonizing Mike, so I'm kind of curious who you are talking to.

Anita also got famous (and received money to produce a product) because her goals and product were things that people liked. She was NOT a result of something similar to the Streisand Effect.

Just for clarity's sake, what we did wasn't based on one panel quote or one dickwolves crack, it was based on years of dismissive, insensitive remarks that hit us the wrong way and felt like the antithesis of what PAX was supposed to be about. Of what our little four dude company is about. What's right for us (not attending) may not be the right choice for others, but we were in a position where we felt like it's what we wanted to do.

Thanks so much for the support earlier in the thread.

LarryC wrote:

In this case, I don't think that that's an effective tactic. Punishment is good for small children and animals, maybe severe pain training that rewires nerves could make something happen. Here? I only see Mike doubling down yet again - over and over, and taking his followers with him. At best, they eventually form a splinter group of gamers who are extremely antagonistic to LGBT folks. I think you've observed this happen before in other spheres. Win?

"Politeness" isn't the goal, let me be clear. Don't care about being polite. It only matters so long as it gets results. If it's obviously not getting results, then screw that. What we do know for certain is that antagonizing Mike directly just drives him further into behavior we don't like - so maybe not do that?

Given the posts between your last post and this one, I really have to ask why you felt the need to say this again. Do you think Tanglebones's post contains examples of antagonizing Mike?

In this case, I don't think that that's an effective tactic. Punishment is good for small children and animals, maybe severe pain training that rewires nerves could make something happen. Here? I only see Mike doubling down yet again - over and over, and taking his followers with him. At best, they eventually form a splinter group of gamers who are extremely antagonistic to LGBT folks. I think you've observed this happen before in other spheres. Win?

"Politeness" isn't the goal, let me be clear. Don't care about being polite. It only matters so long as it gets results. If it's obviously not getting results, then screw that. What we do know for certain is that antagonizing Mike directly just drives him further into behavior we don't like - so maybe not do that?

SixteenBlue:

I see a lot of hate-flavored speech here surrounding Mike. Not his behavior. Mike. Himself. The tenor is not to change his behavior to the one we want, but a lot more of the typical punishment and vengeance culture I feel so much around here.

"I'm done with him."
"Punish him."
He doesn't deseve..."

So he doesn't respond to "polite" engagements. Clearly that's at least neutral. If it's instigating more bad stuff (as Hyp suggests) then that's not the way to go either. He seems to listen to Sophie. That's a point of attack. Why discuss punishment instead of behavior altering strategy?

Good on you, Kite!

LarryC wrote:

SixteenBlue:

"He's a lost cause."

That tells me that Tanglebones is aiming at Mike himself, and not distinguishing the person from the behavior.

Aiming WHAT at Mike? That sounds like to me he's actually leaving Mike alone because, well, he's a lost cause.

SixteenBlue:

"He's a lost cause."

That tells me that Tanglebones is aiming at Mike himself, and not distinguishing the person from the behavior.

Kite:

I can totally support that. If the intention is purely narcissistic (What's right for us, our problems, our strategies - nothing to do with you), then that's fantastic. If it's punitive as others believe, I don't know whether that's going to have the effect you want. At least, that's how I see it.

Ah, you very badly misread me. What I'm saying is that I'm not interested in changing Mike. I'm not investing my efforts in changing him, because he's set enough in his ways that changing them is a waste of effort relative to communicating with the putative adults in the rest of the organization.

Tanglebones:

Thank you for the clarification! My mistake.

It still seems to me that you're equating Mike with his behavior, and not distinguishing them. People do change. People change all the time - but only when they want to. The secret is not to punish them to change, but to show them that changing is for their direct, palpable profit.

Withdrawing support doesn't ensure that Mike will change (it'll probably be seen as hostile), but adding support conditional to certain helpful things could be very effective.

bombsfall wrote:

Got that Fetish For Dialogue.

Dialogue with strangers isn't always productive. However, creating an environment where transphobia carries a social price IS effective. One of the best and most neglected ways that allies can be allies to to make environments where it is extremely socially uncomfortable to be -phobic. You're right- the actual jerk with an audience might not care and parts of that audience are going to think they're super cool. But a lot of other people are going to get the distinct impression that this is not a great place to be.

Yup. It also provides support for people within the PAX organization who want change, but need ammunition against the threat of firing or another hateful rant.

LarryC wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
LarryC wrote:

SixteenBlue:

"He's a lost cause."

That tells me that Tanglebones is aiming at Mike himself, and not distinguishing the person from the behavior.

Aiming WHAT at Mike? That sounds like to me he's actually leaving Mike alone because, well, he's a lost cause.

He's right here. Perhaps he can clarify. From what I can tell, people saying that people are "lost causes" around here generally involves a lot of snarky, snide, mean-spirited humor of the type Mike himself aims at targets he thinks are appropriate. But I could be mistaken. Let's wait for the clarification.

So, back to my original point, I haven't seen anyone in this thread actually making any snarky, snide, mean-spirited jokes at Mike. I haven't seen any GWJ-ers antagonize him. I especially haven't seen Tanglebones do that, since he's the example we're using. So you're painting with a very broad brush when you describe how "we" are responding.

Different milieu. Different culture. I was not referencing that at all. I don't expect Mike to change just because I share my ideas. I expect him to respond to economic or cultural pressure.

I don't think it should be neglected to make phobism and phobic behavior socially unacceptable, but here again, we come to the difference of people vs. behavior. What I saw in Twitter was people telling Mike that he's a bigot. That's not the same activity. That's casting the stone at the sinner, with only a tangential relation to what activity was done - note the emphasis on "he's done this before." The emphasis is on Mike, not his words nor his actions.

"Mike, that was not cool. It hurts my friends."

That's more along the lines I would have wanted to see. It's not about being polite. It's about giving the guy a way out. To save face. Preferably along the route you chose. Sun Tzu said that it's dangerous not to leave your enemy a way to retreat. It's the same here. When you attack Mike and not his behavior, you're not giving him a way out.

On a private citizen level, I get where you are coming from Larry - and largely agree. The issue here is that Krahulik is the spokesman for what has become a gamer movement, with a large charity and convention circuit involved. He should be expected to edit his responses at a higher level as such. He isn't just a regular guy - he is a representative of his company and that is what makes his speech and responses so controversial.

You're giving me the equivalent of a college course as a rebuttal. I can't possibly counter that without spending 4 years in what would be to you, foreign history studies. If that's that, then I suppose I'll be bowing out of that tangent for now.

SallyNasty:

We back to 4xis.black's commentary then. What we're getting is raw Mike Krahulik. Unedited. Unabridged. His own self, with no oversight nor PR intervention. I believe that this is part of what makes PA so resonant and so powerful in its community. It's not crafted.

In a way, it's a unique opportunity to strike at the heart of that community and then change its model for the better. I can't say it'll be easy, but it's a fantastic opportunity to strike a blow. Then again, what do I know?

LarryC wrote:

You're giving me the equivalent of a college course as a rebuttal. I can't possibly counter that without spending 4 years in what would be to you, foreign history studies. If that's that, then I suppose I'll be bowing out of that tangent for now.

SallyNasty:

We back to 4xis.black's commentary then. What we're getting is raw Mike Krahulik. Unedited. Unabridged. His own self, with no oversight nor PR intervention. I believe that this is part of what makes PA so resonant and so powerful. It's not crafted.

In a way, it's a unique opportunity to strike at the heart of that community and then change it's model for the better. I can't say it'll be easy, but it's a fantastic opportunity to strike a blow. Then again, what do I know?

I agree it is what it makes PA so resonant and powerful, and that is a good point. The problem is that free speech isn't freedom from responsibility. Krahulik has gotten internet rich and famous as a result of his unrepentant stances/views - but he needs to be careful that those same stances/views aren't his and his organization's downfall. I think the problem most people have with him right now is that PA has positioned themselves as "the good guys" who fight "the bullies" but as Krahulik has grown in fame - he has slowly turned into a bully.

bombsfall:

My cultural outlook makes me think differently, and I even look at the events that happen around your country differently. Whenever I see positive change, it's about people who are leaders and pillars who used to think one way, but then are won over to say something else, not necessarily because they've changed their opinion, but because it became appropos to do so. Like I said, don't care about politeness. Don't care about feelings. Manipulate the conversation so that the guy has to agree with you or else appear like he's the monster.

Calling him a monster from the get-go gives him a lot less room to agree with you, and humiliates him when he finally does, and so creates additional resistance. It'd go a lot more smoothly if there was less of that snark and gloat. Anytime someone changes their tune, forget everything else. He's now your bosom friend, and everything's like he always agreed with you, as you'll insinuate he did (and force him to agree with that as well).

Broadly, I'd say that calling the redefinition of marriage "marriage equality" was the winning master stroke. It makes everyone want to agree from the get-go so long as they're not incredibly invested otherwise. Even those who are could be changed once personal stakes are slanted the other way. That was brilliant.

Calling people homophobes? I think that's just hardening those guys and making them double down. That's my impression of that.

SallyNasty:

He's always been a bully. He just never had an opportunity. I don't like bullying, and I stop it where I can. This is part of why I don't like joining in "pile ons" here even when I agree strongly. If my views are already being expressed, I don't want to even post a +1 to maybe make the guy (generic term I call all people "guys") feel a little teeny bit pressured. That's how much I stand against bullying.

Of course, I also do the physical stuff and the "stand with solidarity" stuff. It's really, really effective.

As you said, the PA guys treasure their self-view as "the good guys." That's a weapon. It's a very potent weapon. That can be used.

That's not a cultural outlook, LarryC. That's history. It already happened.

Same events, different interpretation. The way I see bombsfall is saying, it's the "you're a homophobe" speech that's doing the work, whereas I think that it's the "we're fighting for The American Way" that's doing the heavy lifting.

I think I can contribute to that environment more by telling Mike that he's totally cool, but that his words were not, and that I'm sure he didn't mean to indirectly cause a teenager to commit suicide. Like serious, no snark, for reals.

"Mike, I know you didn't mean to be a bad guy, but that idiom contributes to suicides. Just FYI. Keep being cool."

How is this worse than telling Mike that he's a bigot?

I'll parse that in a different way, same content.

"Mike, you're a bigot. You said mean things. You ought to have said X. Do what I say."

Floor ceded. Exiting as well.