They create tension, and try to force change faster than society can process it, leading to a lot of crossfire victims, even creating resistance to reasonably paced change.
Quotas tend to result in overrepresentation, regardless of agenda. Only hiring women to leadership positions, or creating a new continent with lots of gay couples. People didn’t sign up for a dinner at Blue Oyster Bar.
No, they refer to body types. Ideally in the future, we may get body type 3, 4, 5 etcetera. Blizzard has the habit of introducing things incrementally to their game. Body type 1 and 2 in Dragonflight, and then in two expansions we get body type 3.
Okay, so I’d hope that you can also emphasize with other people whose sex assigned at birth does not correspond with how they identify as! Because, those mistakes can happen. Sex assigned at birth refers to the passport sex. I think I might’ve misworded it initially. But that’s why this is a new ‘invention’.
No, but does it matter?
I didn’t say so - what my point is, when you refer to XX and XY as the only possible chromosomal variances that determine whether you are male or female, then you end up excluding people with XXY, XXX etc from the equation. Your logic would dictate they are a new sex.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Can you rephrase it somehow?
This is not what’s being taught. Someone’s identity is an important part about them, but not the only thing.
Unfortunately, people on the forums have only judged the LGBTQ+ characters by their identity, not their actions and/or personality. To them, straight/cis counterparts with same actions and/or personality are all fine, but somehow a LGBTQ+ character doing so is not.
There are no quotas. There may be considerations for why a particular group of people should be included. If a piece of media contains humanoids who create romantic relationships, why does there have to be some weird assumption that they only have to be relationships between opposite sexes?
Maybe women were the only ones qualified for such positions? Maybe to have an effective and fair leadership, women should also be involved?
It’s funny, looking at the Black Ariel for a bit. Many against those ‘quotas’ have argued in the past that you should hire based on skill, not someone’s identity. Perhaps… Halle Bailey was simply the best of those who applied?
Tbf, statistically, if you have an industry with 95% men, and you try to have 50% of your Leadership be female, the leaders will be worse mathematically assuming women and men have the exact same skills/qualifications 
So I agree, that Quotas are bad in general, but we still need to encourage women/non-binary people and give everyone the same opportunity without force/tyranny 
No, they do not.
Sure, the question will be why that industry is 95% men. There are multiple positions when we talk about leadership, too. If women and men have the exact same skills and qualifications then, why can’t a woman be a leader of that industry? That woman has worked in exact same ways a male counterpart has.
Yes, they are.
Honestly if everyone just ignored the same handful of posters pushing the hatred over and over the forums would be a better place. But those topics always end up in discussion with the homophobes, transphobes and bigots.
We honestly should all just flag and move on. No point engaging with neanderthal views on sexual preference and identity.
Hans Christian Andersen would be mad if he saw that film…
Wrote a similar story 
Anyway, going with Nerathion’s thought, a female leader may or may not work, but can certainly bring a different vibe to the community.
Depends on the role of the leader. Is it very senior, supportive, managing, motivating…
This is such a nice post. I think it hits the painpoint on the head.
This is actually beginning to bother me about my drakthyr. He doesn’t look strong or fierce. Or feel like he could be dangerous. He looks cute. That’s not what I wanted from a dragon-like race in a game like this, where dragons have been big and stronk. The lack of lore also makes it harder to see past the blandness of him. I wanted him to be big stronk dragon man to protekk and attakk. Instead he looks like a Tumblr profile.
I hate the visage form. It turns me into a lanky, skinny blood elf with a face right out of Twilight. Even with the best attempts to make him badass, I fail because he remains a skinny kid. Dunno why they thought we wanted more blood elves.
I might let lambasted for it but I really think we could use a strong male character like Varian or Thrall again. To lead a faction or travel with or interact with. Sabellian grew on me quite fast for being closest to this, while all others around him seem feeble. And it’s not because I dislike non-strong dudes. It’s because I just like such people, they can radiate safety, competence and strength. It’s inspiring. I do not feel inspired by Kalec or Khadgar. Not at all. And Sabellian’s motives remain unclear.
The rest I’ve talked about on other topics but I agree that it’s lopsided to one end now. We got more inclusion, more tones that aren’t grimdark and a more optimistic world. Cool. But now it’s extreme in that direction. There’ss barely any deep or engrossing stories, no calamities, no substance or seriousness. 
If they want to be inclusive, that means catering to all sort of demographics, without doing it at the cost of others.
I tried out of spite and it doesn’t do anything.
Same thing as earlier with other topics.
Pro-LGBT topic: protected, preserved.
Pro-other topic: reported, removed.
Blizzard has joined the army, it’s crystal clear.
What’s the difference between that and respecting religion?
To many people religion is delusional; but that doesn’t mean we hide those silly rituals and customs in media -or demand them to be hidden.
Unfortunately that seems to have no effect. Those threads stay up and active, and without bigotry being called out, they start to reinforce negative stereotypes or harmful misinformation. Because moderation is ineffective, you cannot just ignore it. Dangerous misinformation is called dangerous because it has very real, dangerous, consequences.
We could however argue about what in particular creates those interests. If women are told from the beginning that this is not something they can do or want to do, is it not possible that the result is that women end up developing interests not involving that?
Statistics are naive in that regard. However, a leadership position may not require past experience in bricklaying. You may have amazing insight on how to lead your workers while being a woman, should you be passed up on that position just because there’s some other man who has worked as a bricklayer for years, but has no idea how to command others?
This is just false. Several of these topics have stayed up for ages, some in the past for months. One recent thread got removed for becoming off-topic, not because of y’know, bigotry or anything of the sort.
I see lots of people arguing with the bigots, I have been guilty of that myself.
They get engagement because people are baited in.
I love the smell of Jordan Peterson in the morning.
Must be frustrating, isn’t it? That despite all the censorship you can’t control what people are thinking.
I love the fact how the left went from “no, we are not doing it, and if you notice then you are a bigot” to “yeah okay, maybe we are, but it’s a good thing”.
Nature always sorts itself out. Enjoy your house of cards coming tumbling down.
I’m not sure I agree with this, at least when we talk about interests and more specifically profession interests. Because again - how can we be sure that those tendencies aren’t created artificially to begin with? Women in the past were not allowed to do certain jobs, therefore that field became more dominated by men. That is a change done artificially, despite some women wanting and trying to do that job.
Because the ‘we only need to hire XYZ’ is not really a realistic statement, or feels taken out of context. Unfortunately, in schools it still does happen that teachers tell girls they shouldn’t be engineers. It also happens that female engineers end up being pushed out of the field for being female, despite having the same if not better skills and qualifications than their peers do.
Indeed, other leadership positions that don’t require technical knowledge/education - why can’t they be female? Also, I’d argue that if you have no idea about leadership, you shouldn’t lead bricklayers either, whether you know about bricklaying or not.
Are you saying Blizzard leaves those topics up because they have high engagement, even if the topics actively go against forum rules?
And that’s the problem. (And the part you disagree with, but is my perspective.)
If all such threads would be equally removed, people would on one hand learn it’s pointless to post, on the other find it unnecessary to create balance.
Because my current feeling is that LGBT+ people are appreciated, caressed, loved, while not-such people are canceled, hated, oppressed. By Blizzard. Hence, the battle goes on!
All such threads, but particularly exclusive ones are against the terms. Just delete them without remose, problem solved. (Guilds are a lesser issue. They can collect like minded people. However, in this case, anti-LGBT guilds are also valid!)
This whole problem is created by the moderators, and not passively, but actively (unflagging these, deleting others, selectively). At best, it’s out of fear, as deleting this thread might be considered an anti-LGBT move, in which case, congratulations, tension generated, secret agent to be rewarded for their work.
No, it doesn’t happen in the west anymore, unless you wanna lose your job as a teacher. It may happen between the students if anything, but there are lots of initiatives currently to further encourage women, especially in my uni this is being done, and it’s good. I’m against forcing Quotas by LAW and with GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, not against encouragement. I’m against force, that’s all. If someone has bad marks in math, it’s obvious to tell them this though regardless of gender.