Viewpoint Do you use the LGTBQ Friendly sub genre? Why or why not?

[rae2nerdy]

It also depends on if your doing 1x1 or groups. I feel like 1x1s the lack of the sub genre is a more relevant thing. Because in my experience relationships are a central focus in 1x1s so people use the sub genre as a filtering system to help them find partners who are looking for similar relationships.

But at the same time not everyone is organized to the same degree so the lack of the LGBTQ tag on a search thread doesn’t mean the person won’t welcome those kinds of characters. But it is a more likely answer than it would be for groups.

Plus just as someone who is busy I feel like if a thread isn’t tagged properly I’m just not going to see it. So for the 1x1 roleplayers out here who are open to LGBTQ characters but don’t use the sub genre you might consider it from a advertising perspective. You can always add in the platonic tab if you aren’t interested in LGBTQ romance and explain the specifics in the thread itself.

 

[Spookkat]

rae2nerdy

Well we didn’t get far admittedly cuz the first thing they said was do you want to do a romance roleplay? I asked if my character could be aro/ace and they stormed off in a huff after telling me how their religion didn’t tolerate homosexuality.

But that was sort of the point I tried to make. Like aro/ace aren’t homosexual they’re chaste. They don’t date anyone because it’s not their preference. ( I would have explained how that could work out romantically if they stuck around) but their main take away was the characters had to be straight Christians because anything else was against their religion. Which I mean fine for your characters but don’t tell me what my character’s religion is thanks. Or their sexuality for that matter. Especially when the sexuality I chose doesn’t go against “Christian values” it’s the sexual preference version of taking a vow of chastity.

Sorry, I was just lurking here but what you said about ace/aros isn't true at all. They are not chaste, because chaste is a choice, not a sexuality.

Asexual = Lack of sexual attraction. That's all it means. You can still feel romantic attraction unless you're also aromantic. You can still have sex, and even enjoy it if you're ace, or you could be sex repulsed and not want to partake in it at all. It all depends on the person because everyone is different.

Aromantic = Lack of romantic attraction. They can still feel sexual attraction (unless they're ace too), and can still feel platonic feelings like how you feel to a close friend or family member. They can also want to partake in relationships or sexual behavior if the person wishes.

Sorry for the nitpick, but misinformation about ace/aros is waaay too common.

Source: Am ace.

 

[rae2nerdy]

rae2nerdy



Sorry, I was just lurking here but what you said about ace/aros isn't true at all. They are not chaste, because chaste is a choice, not a sexuality.

Asexual = Lack of sexual attraction. That's all it means. You can still feel romantic attraction unless you're also aromantic. You can still have sex, and even enjoy it if you're ace, or you could be sex repulsed and not want to partake in it at all. It all depends on the person because everyone is different.

Aromantic = Lack of romantic attraction. They can still feel sexual attraction (unless they're ace too), and can still feel platonic feelings like how you feel to a close friend or family member. They can also want to partake in relationships or sexual behavior if the person wishes.

Sorry for the nitpick, but misinformation about ace/aros is waaay too common.

Source: Am ace.

I am also aro/ace. I was however talking to someone who literally thought the entire LGBTQ+ community were homosexuals. When your dealing with that level of narrow-mindedness you have to meet them at the level of understanding they have. And since chastity is a very universal religious concept I used that to explain asexuality. Because they literally thought I was lying OR somehow broken as a person when I tried to explain it further.

I was merely reiterating my conversation with that one individual person. I was not attempting to insinuate that aro/ace individuals are the same as chaste individuals. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Spookkat]

rae2nerdy
Ah okay I must have misunderstood.

 

[rae2nerdy]

rae2nerdy
Ah okay I must have misunderstood.

Nah It's fine I wasn't very clear on that point so good catch. I definitely know how frustrating it can be to have the conversation for the Nth time about how Aro/Ace doesn't mean your an unfeeling robot incapable of love and affection.

 

[Cosmo]

I do not. Mostly because I keep tags simple when I do make them and I feel like treating people in the OOC respectfully is just common sense and doesn't need to be advertised. Putting up a sign that says 'Hey, I am not a jerk who will mock you for your race, religion or sexual identity!' to get customers isn't really necessary. So, instead I just treat people like people instead of throwing up special signs.

 

[OverconfidentMagi]

Absolutely not.

The only place I can see it being used is on a romance-centered RP, where it's relevant to the actual story being told. Since I don't care for romance / character drama RPs and do not run them, I will probably never use the tag myself. IMO, the tag should only be there if LGBT themes are a focus of the story. Gay characters can exist in any setting and story, but that does not mean them being gay is a focus of the story. Dumbledore being declared gay does not mean Harry Potter suddenly gets moved to the LGBT book section.

An RP not having the LGBT tag does not mean an LGBT character is unwelcome, let alone that an LGBT player is unwelcome. This is the internet, you are mostly anonymous, and no one gives a rat's ass about your irl sexuality.

 

[Gowi]

I personally find the tag kind of superfluous. I always presume a RP I GM is obviously queer-friendly, as it'd be oddly discriminatory for me to turn away characters for something so intrinsically them. I don't use it, because I don't find it a useful descriptor.

 

[jones573]

Hey mikaluvkitties !

As a queer woman who writes mostly queer characters, I personally LOVE the 'LGTBQ Friendly' sub genre tag and I def pay attention to it when browsing interest checks (group or 1x1, though I usually prefer group RPs), and have used it as a filter as well. I haven't been keeping track but I would say that seeing that listed makes me twice as likely to take the time to click through and read the actual interest check?

I interpret the use of that tag to mean that 'this GM is fine/supportive of characters who aren't cis or straight, and expects anyone who joins to be okay with that, too' and that any further related details will follow in the body of the interest check- Like that the RP isn't necessarily romance centric, or that queer characters in the RP should expect to face challenges that mirror real-world homophobia, or what-have-you.

Like you, I interpret that tag mostly as an indication that I am welcome in the affiliated RP, and that making characters that reflect my experiences and those of the people I know and love will not be an issue. Which is important to me, because I am really not interested in writing with someone who would make that into an issue.

If I see an interest check that lists 'M/F only' I stop reading tbh, and I've even decided not to message someone about a possible RP because I wasn't able to find anything in their interest check or profile about being LGTBQ friendly, or saw that other interested writers had made posts that indicated they were only interested in M/F pairings. The subgenre tag eliminates that worry for me- It makes it so people who aren't comfortable with LGTBQ characters know they should avoid this particular RP, instead of making it my responsibility to try and avoid such people, if that makes sense?

I'm pretty lucky that my sexuality is supported by my family and friends, and I've never felt unsafe because I'm out. But the need to hide is still something I'm aware of- I don't talk about who I date with people at work, my sister and her wife don't hold hands when we visit my parents' small town, I always go to the bathroom with my trans/gnc friends if we aren't in a dedicated, queer friendly space. A lot of people have it worse, and I can't imagine putting up with daily bigotry in real life, only to come to a space where you want to be creative and have fun and have to put up with that AGAIN. So I think that the sub genre tag is a great way to make sure people feel safe and welcome, without having to do their own research to figure out if that's going to be the case.

I haven't had the chance to read through everyone's replies on this thread super closely but I think a few people touched on this and I TOTALLY agree that 'LGTBQ Friendly' isn't really a useful 'genre' (or sub genre, in this case), in the way that 'historical fiction' or 'modern fantasy' are, and it's a shame that there isn't a better way to say 'Hey! This has characters that aren't straight and/or cis!'. But I think it makes sense for 'genres' in rps to reflect what we see in entertainment media, and until the wider industry starts including those characters as a default, we're kinda stuck with it as a 'genre'? Which is def sucky, because there is media that is specifically about queer issues, and there is media that makes use of queer issues in the larger plot or character development, and then there is media that has characters that happen to be queer and sometimes I'm more interested in one than the other and I do wish there was a better way to distinguish these things! But such is life, I suppose

I'm also seeing a trend of 'Of course LGTBQ+ characters are acceptable, why wouldn't they be' as a reason people don't use the subgenre tag and.... Y'all are so sweet. I am giving you hugs through the internet, because it's great that you think this is a non-issue. BUT SADLY.

It isn't a non-issue. I have been told that I can't use queer characters, and have also had it very heavily implied. I've been told my character can be a bi woman, so long as she only expresses interest in male characters. I've been asked to leave an RP (in which there had been no romance and sexuality had never come up) when I mentioned in ooc that my sister was marrying a woman. Most of this happened on other sites (heavy implications that I should only use straight characters has happened here), and I imagine many other queer RPers have experienced similar things, or are dreading they day they do. There's only so much time and energy in a day a single person can devote to having to justify their own existence, and it shouldn't be something to worry about when somebody comes here to have fun.

So if you haven't been using the tag because you just don't personally see why it's necessary, I would encourage you to take some time to reconsider- It shows queer people that you've got their back, which means a lot more than you might think.


(And at least in my case, greatly increases the chances I will read your interest check!)

 

[Bi0S]

I'm new, so my attitude about it is also new, but I just made a search thread and purposely didn't click the LGBTQ Friendly sub-genre. Despite it being so, and even stating so, I presumed the genre's were what the RP is about and not what is allowed.

My search thread is looking for adventure, romance, magic, etc. The role play will focus on those things, that's what it's about. Characters can be LGBTQ+ but it's not going to be a focus. I'm not looking for a roleplay based on LGBTQ+ themes. If it's not going to focus on something, I feel like there's no need to put it as a sub-genre.

Bottom line for me is I personally feel like the tag is pointless unless you are looking for that to play a major role.

From my standpoint, I don't give two craps and for me it just falls under 'romance', because why else would that ever be important? If you're doing a roleplay that's platonic then someone's sexual preferences or their physical/mental attributes aren't relevant. I can see it being used for people who are looking specifically to have LGBTQ+ characters though, which makes sense. You want to be able to find something you jive with and feel free to create at whim. But for me, it's just a non-issue.

Focusing on it is sort of like me asking what your preferences of a sandwich is. I'm sure it'll affect the RP in some way, but since I don't plan to dive into the intricacies of that in the roleplay as a constant theme, meh... But that's just me.

 

[Crayons]

It’s a sub genre akin to romance or platonic. These are pretty distinct divides in 1x1 roleplays. As you have people who don’t do romance at all , people who only do romance if it’s heterosexual, and people who are open to any variation.

Which is why the LGBTQ Friendly sub genre was created. To show that the person is open to pairings that are LGBTQ in their search. The alternative is to use the MxM tag as a sub genre but that’s more exclusionary. As it only talks about one kind of LGBTQ pairing.

Given that not everyone feels that way, judging by the other replies, I will continue to use it in any interest checks I make. If I were to do a romance I'd be open to all pairing options, not that I really seek out romance as a genre. I'd like anyone in my RPs to feel as though they can have whatever kind of pairings/romance/sexualities etc. they want to and it will be accepted.

 

[Bi0S]

Given that not everyone feels that way, judging by the other replies, I will continue to use it in any interest checks I make. If I were to do a romance I'd be open to all pairing options, not that I really seek out romance as a genre. I'd like anyone in my RPs to feel as though they can have whatever kind of pairings/romance/sexualities etc. they want to and it will be accepted.

That makes sense to me.

I think it can act as two things since, from what I'm reading through these posts, there seems to be two main standpoints being taken. People who see it as a sub-genre only, and people who see it as an inclusivity notification.

There doesn't currently appear to be a better way to filter it. I think either way, using it or not, is fine. You're most likely going to find like minded individuals that way anywho and that'll make finding a partner easier. And that's ultimately what we're looking for in the end.

 

[Idea]

I'm also seeing a trend of 'Of course LGTBQ+ characters are acceptable, why wouldn't they be' as a reason people don't use the subgenre tag and.... Y'all are so sweet. I am giving you hugs through the internet, because it's great that you think this is a non-issue. BUT SADLY.

It isn't a non-issue. I have been told that I can't use queer characters, and have also had it very heavily implied.

First:

Spoiler

Second:

Considering even just the sample found in this thread, I do think it stands to reason to suggest that being accepting of such characters is the default. Nobody is saying that there aren't places which wouldn't accept LGBT characters, but those of us stating that we don't use the tag because we find it redundant are doing so from the standpoint of it being the default position, and expressing what is expected to begin with is redundant. It'd be like a sign asking for a bowl of soup with a little flag that reads "there are no flies in this soup, chef's guarantee".

Not having the "lgbt friendly" tag does not imply that one isn't "lgbt friendly", not in the slightest bit. Using the previous analogy, this would be like expecting any soup that doesn't have the little flag to have flies in it. Now all this said, if you just don't wanna take that risk (infinitesimally small though it may be) of someone not accepting LGBT characters that's entirely acceptable and understandable too, but it doesn't make it significantly more relevant to employ the tag or not. If anything, the opposite is true- one who isn't friendly with LGBT characters should outright make that clear from the getgo.

 

[Delinquent]

This is the internet, you are mostly anonymous, and no one gives a rat's ass about your irl sexuality.

What internet have you been using, and how do I download it?

I feel like it's a bit redundant when most RPs ask about a character's sexuality.

I'd argue that an rp isn't necessary lgbt-friendly just because you can play a gay character. For starters, plenty of roleplays will let you play an lgbt+ character, but only as long your characters' sexuality/gender identity is limited to the most passing of mentions. Secondly, I've seen plenty of roleplays that, whilst letting people play gay characters, had an issue with dealing with openly gay players.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Given that not everyone feels that way, judging by the other replies, I will continue to use it in any interest checks I make. If I were to do a romance I'd be open to all pairing options, not that I really seek out romance as a genre. I'd like anyone in my RPs to feel as though they can have whatever kind of pairings/romance/sexualities etc. they want to and it will be accepted.

That’s exactly what I said though? That the LGBTQ+ sub genre is meant to indicate your open to LGBTQ characters. It isn’t inherently a romantic in nature. It would depend on what you pair it with in terms of other sub genres/tags on what it means specifically.

Ex.
LGBTQ Friendly + M/M would mean your looking for only gay romance.
LGBTQ Friendly + F/F would mean your looking for only lesbian romance
LGBTQ Friendly + Romance would mean your open to any romance pairing
LGBTQ Friendly + Platonic would mean your open to platonic relationships and LGBTQ Friendly characters

I mean no one else is mentioning their other sub genre/tags but I don’t necessarily think that means they are only putting the LGBTQ Friendly sub genre and nothing else.

 

[Crayons]

I feel like LGBTQ as a theme and LGBTQ Friendly, are two very different things, and maybe there should be two different tags to reflect that.

 

[Ayama]

I feel like LGBTQ as a theme and LGBTQ Friendly, are two very different things, and maybe there should be two different tags to reflect that.

I completely agree. I haven't, as yet, made or joined any RPs where LQBTQ+ was a main theme of the story, however most of the RPs I join and all of the RPs I make have the tag because I want LGBTQ+ characters/issues/romances to be included as an option.

 

[Idea]

I feel like LGBTQ as a theme and LGBTQ Friendly, are two very different things, and maybe there should be two different tags to reflect that.

Suggestion: Just the theme.

As was already brought up for multiple people, most people who don't use the tag are still LGBT friendly, just taking it as the default- and those who assume it needs to be specified do use the tag, therefore not really contradicting the idea that being lgbt friendly is indeed the default. However, the tag is still important in terms of signaling roleplays which may have a special focus on lgbt themes, relationships and the like. So rather than having a redundant tag and a tag that is actually meaningful, just havig one tag that is actually meaningful and forgoing the other one makes a lot more sense.

 

[Ayama]

Suggestion: Just the theme.

As was already brought up for multiple people, most people who don't use the tag are still LGBT friendly, just taking it as the default- and those who assume it needs to be specified do use the tag, therefore not really contradicting the idea that being lgbt friendly is indeed the default. However, the tag is still important in terms of signaling roleplays which may have a special focus on lgbt themes, relationships and the like. So rather than having a redundant tag and a tag that is actually meaningful, just havig one tag that is actually meaningful and forgoing the other one makes a lot more sense.

As I think was mentioned by a previous poster, while members of the LGBTQ+ community no doubt appreciate that many in this thread believe LGBTQ+ issues to be such a non-issue that it's a given that players/characters who are part of the community are welcome in any RP, the reality is that nothing in the site rules specifically outline that, discrimination against the community is still rampant both online and off and, based on the site rules, creators are absolutely entitled to refuse or remove from their RPs characters who are part of that community. As such, you might be doing a disservice to potential players in your RPs by not clearly indicating that their characters will be welcome.

But since there is a lot of confusion on whether the tag reflects this, or whether it indicates a focus of the story on these kinds of characters/romances/issues, I do agree that two separate tags would be preferable, for clarity's sake. My hope is that, eventually, not being able to discriminate against players or characters on any basis will be part of the site rules, obviating the need for the first tag entirely. I just don't think we're there yet.

 

[ashwynne]

My hope is that, eventually, not being able to discriminate against players or characters on any basis will be part of the site rules, obviating the need for the first tag entirely. I just don't think we're there yet.

The problem with this is that it would enable people to justify shunting really awful characters into roleplays where they don't fit. Taking away the ability to discriminate against bad characters and roleplayers who are obviously going to kill the RP if they're present, which is just as big a problem. The ability to deny characters is sort of integral to a good RP in the first place... and then you'd also have people posting one-liners in multi-para RP's etc. that can't be kicked as that would fall under "not discriminating on any basis."

It's more complicated than it seems at first blush, I'm not sure if there's a single "good" solution.

Honestly, splitting the current sub-genre into two: LGBTQ Themed & LGBTQ Character Friendly might be the better option. Those two things seem to be what most people interpret the "Friendly" part to mean so this would then appeal to everyone. If you're making an RP and want to be clear that all types of characters are accepted you use the 'Character Friendly' tag. If it's specifically LGBTQ themed then you use that one.

Granted, 'LGBTQ Character Friendly' is a bit of a mouthful so a shorter version would probably be ideal (I just can't think of one right now).

 

[Idea]

As I think was mentioned by a previous poster, while members of the LGBTQ+ community no doubt appreciate that many in this thread believe LGBTQ+ issues to be such a non-issue that it's a given that players/characters who are part of the community are welcome in any RP, the reality is that nothing in the site rules specifically outline that, discrimination against the community is still rampant both online and off and, based on the site rules, creators are absolutely entitled to refuse or remove from their RPs characters who are part of that community. As such, you might be doing a disservice to potential players in your RPs by not clearly indicating that their characters will be welcome.

But since there is a lot of confusion on whether the tag reflects this, or whether it indicates a focus of the story on these kinds of characters/romances/issues, I do agree that two separate tags would be preferable, for clarity's sake. My hope is that, eventually, not being able to discriminate against players or characters on any basis will be part of the site rules, obviating the need for the first tag entirely. I just don't think we're there yet.

Wow, wow, wow hold your horses there, there's a bit to unpack.

First, yes, someone did say that and I did already respond to them. To reinterate the points I made then, this "discrimination" is hardly rampart, at least on RPN. It is absurd to make such a claim on the very thread that has yet to show, through a variety of responses, even a single person who outright wants to reject lgbt characters from their roleplays. Yes, those people do exist, but they are not the expected, they are not the default, in fact they are a very small group. When one states that you are welcome by default that is not because people are being forced to welcome you, that is because people just do so out of their own volition.

You know what does do a disservice to LGBT players? Potentially missing out on tons of great RPs because of a misconception. As already repeatetly stated, the idea that not having the tag in the roleplay indicates that the roleplay isn't LGBT friendly is plain wrong in the vast majority of the cases, at least going by the sample shown so far, again not because there aren't roleplays out there that aren't LGBT friendly, but because even among roleplays that don't use the tag they are a minority by a long shot. Long story short, the tag reduces rather than increases the number of roleplays an LGBT roleplayer has access to (though it can make them feel safer in their choice).

Still, let's say you are super worried still, and ignoring that with this being the default, it falls on the person not accepting of LGBT characters to state that. You could ask, or if you don't wanna go through that work, then filtering for RPs which have the LGBT as a focus should work just as well. Yeah, you'll get less RPs out of it, but you'd be getting less RPs under any model which requires tags.

Now, beyond this I want to adress something you stated "not being able to discriminate against players or characters on any basis will be part of the site rules, obviating the need for the first tag entirely. I just don't think we're there yet". What discrimination exactly? I hope I am misinterpreting this, but it sounds like you're saying that not allowing a certain type of characters in your roleplay, whatever that type may be, is discrimination? Like, even with players that's a bit of a grey area. People have preferences on who and what they wanted to work with and what they are comfortable with working with. In a roleplay one is making, which others are free to join or not join within previously set conditions, that is not discrimation, roleplay is a hobby not a business.

 

[Ayama]

The problem with this is that it would enable people to justify shunting really awful characters into roleplays where they don't fit. Taking away the ability to discriminate against bad characters and roleplayers who are obviously going to kill the RP if they're present, which is just as big a problem. The ability to deny characters is sort of integral to a good RP in the first place... and then you'd also have people posting one-liners in multi-para RP's etc. that can't be kicked as that would fall under "not discriminating on any basis."

It's more complicated than it seems at first blush, I'm not sure if there's a single "good" solution.

Honestly, splitting the current sub-genre into two: LGBTQ Themed & LGBTQ Character Friendly might be the better option. Those two things seem to be what most people interpret the "Friendly" part to mean so this would then appeal to everyone. If you're making an RP and want to be clear that all types of characters are accepted you use the 'Character Friendly' tag. If it's specifically LGBTQ themed then you use that one.

Granted, 'LGBTQ Character Friendly' is a bit of a mouthful so a shorter version would probably be ideal (I just can't think of one right now).

I like those tags and see no issues with them ^^

And when I said 'no discrimination on any basis', I was too broad. I meant the same kind you see in, for instance, employment applications (gender, age, sexuality, religion, military/veteran/disabled status, ethnicity, etc.- just didn't want to write out the whole mouthful xD ). I certainly did not mean you wouldn't be able to remove or refuse people from your roleplay whose attitude and/or posts and/or characters were a problem- I definitely agree that that would not be a good thing and I'm sorry for the confusion.

 

[Dede]

As I think was mentioned by a previous poster, while members of the LGBTQ+ community no doubt appreciate that many in this thread believe LGBTQ+ issues to be such a non-issue that it's a given that players/characters who are part of the community are welcome in any RP, the reality is that nothing in the site rules specifically outline that, discrimination against the community is still rampant both online and off and, based on the site rules, creators are absolutely entitled to refuse or remove from their RPs characters who are part of that community. As such, you might be doing a disservice to potential players in your RPs by not clearly indicating that their characters will be welcome.

But since there is a lot of confusion on whether the tag reflects this, or whether it indicates a focus of the story on these kinds of characters/romances/issues, I do agree that two separate tags would be preferable, for clarity's sake. My hope is that, eventually, not being able to discriminate against players or characters on any basis will be part of the site rules, obviating the need for the first tag entirely. I just don't think we're there yet.

By this strange logic, and in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we have a "friendly" tag for every marginalised group under the sun? Or at the very least those represented here at RPN? I don't suppose racism is any less "rampant" or going anywhere any time soon -- so where are "ethnic minority friendly" tags? Why aren't they being rolled out?

I happen to think that such tags might actually accentuate the problem. For example, prospective roleplayers might worry if, in the absence of the tag, they would or would not be welcome here or there. By applying such filters to their search, they will have disqualified many other roleplays which are, by default, friendly to everyone. I guess my position is that RPN should not arbitrarily rely on the personal preferences of its members to weed out discrimination. Such matters should be clearly laid out in the terms and conditions (if they're not already), and not left to chance.

Also, discriminating against characters and against players are two very different things. They should not be conflated. One exists in a fictional realm, the other in reality. For example, I would definitely not let Barry the Hedgehog into my human roleplay, but I assure you this speaks nothing to my anthropocentrism. And it certainly does not mean I am not fond of hedgehogs, or even of Barrys... should one or the other happen to be following this thread!

 

[Ayama]

Wow, wow, wow hold your horses there, there's a bit to unpack.

First, yes, someone did say that and I did already respond to them. To reinterate the points I made then, this "discrimination" is hardly rampart, at least on RPN. It is absurd to make such a claim on the very thread that has yet to show, through a variety of responses, even a single person who outright wants to reject lgbt characters from their roleplays. Yes, those people do exist, but they are not the expected, they are not the default, in fact they are a very small group. When one states that you are welcome by default that is not because people are being forced to welcome you, that is because people just do so out of their own volition.

You know what does do a disservice to LGBT players? Potentially missing out on tons of great RPs because of a misconception. As already repeatetly stated, the idea that not having the tag in the roleplay indicates that the roleplay isn't LGBT friendly is plain wrong in the vast majority of the cases, at least going by the sample shown so far, again not because there aren't roleplays out there that aren't LGBT friendly, but because even among roleplays that don't use the tag they are a minority by a long shot. Long story short, the tag reduces rather than increases the number of roleplays an LGBT roleplayer has access to (though it can make them feel safer in their choice).

Still, let's say you are super worried still, and ignoring that with this being the default, it falls on the person not accepting of LGBT characters to state that. You could ask, or if you don't wanna go through that work, then filtering for RPs which have the LGBT as a focus should work just as well. Yeah, you'll get less RPs out of it, but you'd be getting less RPs under any model which requires tags.

Now, beyond this I want to adress something you stated "not being able to discriminate against players or characters on any basis will be part of the site rules, obviating the need for the first tag entirely. I just don't think we're there yet". What discrimination exactly? I hope I am misinterpreting this, but it sounds like you're saying that not allowing a certain type of characters in your roleplay, whatever that type may be, is discrimination? Like, even with players that's a bit of a grey area. People have preferences on who and what they wanted to work with and what they are comfortable with working with. In a roleplay one is making, which others are free to join or not join within previously set conditions, that is not discrimation, roleplay is a hobby not a business.

When I said discrimination is rampant, I meant the world/internet at large- not specifically RPN xD And while this thread doesn't have players who would be opposed to LGBTQ+ players or characters in their RPs, it does have stories about those players/characters being rejected or made to feel uncomfortable/unwelcome for that reason. I also don't think it's reasonable to expect people who are or are at least made to feel like the minority and 'not the norm' everywhere else to come here and suddenly think 'I am considered normal and accepted everywhere' when they get on here.

Don't get me wrong- like the others who have expressed this view in the thread, I reiterate that it's great that you guys think this is such a non-issue that it shouldn't even have to be specified that threads are LGBTQ+-friendly on here. But I also can't help but notice that many of the people who have said this don't seem to be a part of the community (or at least have not mentioned that they are)? And if that's the case it seems a little, I don't know, presumptuous maybe? Not speaking for anybody else, but the feeling I get from that is kind of like you're saying "Why are you getting upset over something that isn't even an issue?". And if you aren't actually part of that community that does get discriminated against and does have to deal with said issue, maybe this should be modified to specify that this isn't an issue for you specifically and others on here who feel the same way- not that it isn't an issue period, because it is.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in stating that RPs out there without the tag are probably, for the most part, totally fine with LGBTQ+ characters. I'm saying that the tag seems to have been invented specifically for people to signal their acceptance and welcome to members/characters of a community that still gets discriminated against all over the internet and all over the world and, to those people, often coming to a place that clearly displays its allied status is a relief and a breath of fresh air- a change of pace from having to be on your guard or watching what you say or how you act. And until such a time as that discrimination no longer occurs, I don't think you can overstress the importance of having those places available to the LGBTQ+ community- whether it's at work, in bars, or on hobby sites like this one.

Again I reiterate that, while I don't believe you should be allowed to discriminate against players, RP creators should definitely have authority over what kind of content and characters they want in their RPs. That's what makes the tag so useful, because it allows for two layers of discrimination (here used in the original sense of 'telling things apart', not in the pejorative sense). RPs with the tag indicate their openness at the outset. RPs without it can potentially still be open to it, but then it's up to interested players to find out more on that front. So again, I would encourage anyone who is open to those characters to use the tag in their RPs to help make the community feel welcome, but I think the issue for many is the confusion on 'open to it' vs. 'making it a focus of the story', and many are reluctant to use it in the first sense because they feel it will be misinterpreted as the second one, hence the need for two distinct tags.

 

[Ayama]

By this strange logic, and in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we have a "friendly" tag for every marginalised group under the sun? Or at the very least those represented here at RPN? I don't suppose racism is any less "rampant" or going anywhere any time soon -- so where are "ethnic minority friendly" tags? Why aren't they being rolled out?

I happen to think that such tags might actually accentuate the problem. For example, prospective roleplayers might worry if, in the absence of the tag, they would or would not be welcome here or there. By applying such filters to their search, they will have disqualified many other roleplays which are, by default, friendly to everyone. I guess my position is that RPN should not arbitrarily rely on the personal preferences of its members to weed out discrimination. Such matters should be clearly laid out in the terms and conditions (if they're not already), and not left to chance.

Also, discriminating against characters and against players are two very different things. They should not be conflated. One exists in a fictional realm, the other in reality. For example, I would definitely not let Barry the Hedgehog into my human roleplay, but I assure you this speaks nothing to my anthropocentrism. And it certainly does not mean I am not fond of hedgehogs, or even of Barrys... should I happen to meet one or the other in the real world!

You make an excellent point! This kind of thing is always a double-edged sword. I think maybe it's a reflection of RL-differences in an online setting? As in, when meeting someone, you will usually be able to tell if they are from an ethnic minority, but not necessarily whether or not they are cis-gendered or straight. Which doesn't really apply for an RPing community, because you can make character profiles that include virtually everything about them. I agree that these matters should be laid out in the terms in conditions, making the distinction clear between player-based discrimination and character/content-based preferences. (And that example you used was absolutely golden! xD )