Discuss the Inclusion of a Gay Character

[Suttree]

I'm also a blood donor, and as such I know that the homosexual act is medically dangerous.

 

 

I refer specifically to

anal penetration

, as I suspect you know quite well.

 

Here we go with the need for education on this topic highlighted to the extreme. This is solely "the homosexual act" and a health issue only for the gay community in what way? I mean really sometimes I take growing up in California for granted but this is 2011, is their really this much ignorance and misperception out there still?

 

I'm saying that it wasn't an intended part of the story, and whether you want to call RJ man-lubbin'-phobic or not, its his freakin' story, and it should remain true to him without adding in pacification for the masses (or not so masses, whatever).

 

I guess we are going to keep having to bring this up since people aren't reading the entire thread. BS is remaining true, RJ said there are male gay characters in his story, he has just not been in their head yet.

[SethBaker]

Actually, I'm not reacting to YOU at all. I don't even know who you are, and you seem to have registered just for this discussion. So I'll thank you to leave off with the "stay on topic" forum etiquette crap. The question of why a gay male character ought to be included, and why, IS the topic. I maintain that Sanderson's primary motivation was political correctness and pandering to a certain segment of his fan base. You obviously disagree, but my position is exactly on-topic.

 

There are many, many, many "realities of the human condition" that are not included in these books. Sanderson decided that this one needed to be included. That decision is subject to perfectly reasonable, non-bigoted criticism as being untimely and not in accordance with the original author's vision. Deal.

 

Wrong. Robert Jordan explicitly said that there are homosexuals in the Wheel of Time. The fact that he didn't go into details previously does not negate that fact. Harriet, Maria, and Brandon (probably in that order) are the best people to ask what's in accordance with RJ's vision, and they're on-board with this.

 

I agree with the previous poster who pointed out earlier that nobody made these complaints when we were talking about any other group. Brandon's making a conscious choice to make the Wheel of Time more inclusive - yes. It's in keeping with RJ's larger vision. And it's you that's going to have to deal.

[Suttree]

The only new thing I've learned in this thread is that Sanderson is a Mormon. This disappoints me. I've always pictured Mormons as the crazy cousins of normal Christians (atheist myself).

 

and the thread is deteriorating pretty quickly. I really want to believe this is sarcasm but something tells me it's not.

[randsc]

Actually, I'm not reacting to YOU at all. I don't even know who you are, and you seem to have registered just for this discussion. So I'll thank you to leave off with the "stay on topic" forum etiquette crap. The question of why a gay male character ought to be included, and why, IS the topic. I maintain that Sanderson's primary motivation was political correctness and pandering to a certain segment of his fan base. You obviously disagree, but my position is exactly on-topic.

 

There are many, many, many "realities of the human condition" that are not included in these books. Sanderson decided that this one needed to be included. That decision is subject to perfectly reasonable, non-bigoted criticism as being untimely and not in accordance with the original author's vision. Deal.

 

Wrong. Robert Jordan explicitly said that there are homosexuals in the Wheel of Time. The fact that he didn't go into details previously does not negate that fact. Harriet, Maria, and Brandon (probably in that order) are the best people to ask what's in accordance with RJ's vision, and they're on-board with this.

 

I agree with the previous poster who pointed out earlier that nobody made these complaints when we were talking about any other group. Brandon's making a conscious choice to make the Wheel of Time more inclusive - yes. It's in keeping with RJ's larger vision. And it's you that's going to have to deal.

 

 

Like what "other group"? Are there in fact advocates for the disabled badgering the author to include that, "aspect of the human condition?" Are there people complaining about how the descriptions of the original inhabitants of Seanchan are insulting to indiginous peoples? What other group is agitating for the inclusion of their particular issue?

 

Bottom line is, as long as the reference is short enough to not detract from the rest of the story, I don't really care. I sincerely hope Sanderson does not listen to Terez's "You want to be careful not to make it too throw-away" line, because unless it is necessary to the story, NO new subplot should be introduced at this point.

 

People aren't upset by the inclusion of male homosexuality in the book. They are upset by the idiotic suggestion that if they see that inclusion at this late date as forced, they must be bigots.

[Suttree]

That decision is subject to perfectly reasonable, non-bigoted criticism as being untimely and not in accordance with the original author's vision. Deal.

 

Come on Randsc, I know you are thorough enough to have read RJ's quote on the issue and BS reasoning in thinking why it should be added. Do you really think Harriet would allow an inclusion of something like this if it wasn't inline with RJ's original vision? In fact this is exactly part of the author's world, the only thing BS is doing is adding a few details.

[Nightstrike]

RJ's blog 6 October 2005 "AND ONE MORE TIME"

I have gay and Lesbian characters in my books, but the only time it has really come into the open is with the Aes Sedai because I haven’t been inside the heads of any other characters who are either gay or bi. For the most part, in this world such things are taken as a matter of course. Remember, Cadsuane is surprised that Shalon and Ailil were so hot to hide that they had been sharing a bed even knowing how prim and proper Cairhienin are on the surface. Well, for many it is just on the surface.

[randsc]

That decision is subject to perfectly reasonable, non-bigoted criticism as being untimely and not in accordance with the original author's vision. Deal.

 

Come on Randsc, I know you are thorough enough to have read RJ's quote on the issue and BS reasoning in thinking why it should be added. Do you really think Harriet would allow an inclusion of something like this if it wasn't inline with RJ's original vision? In fact this is exactly part of the author's world, the only thing BS is doing is adding a few details.

 

I think there is enough question that one could hold that position without being a bigot or homophobe, which is my point. That doesn't happen to be my objection. As I have stated several times in this thread, a brief mention of male homosexuality in the final book doesn't bother me, but I find that inclusion to be gratuitous and most likely motivated by desire to appease a segment of the readership, rather than as something that has real relevence to the plot.

 

And I find the, "but there are other things that aren't relevent to the plot" argument to be silly. Of course there are. Does that mean we should want more of them?

 

So bottom line, for me, is this. I'm not bothered by the inclusion, but I don't see it as a triumph of any sort. I oppose political correctness always, on principle, so I will criticize the PC rationale for including this. And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

[Nightstrike]

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

I can't speak for others, but I ignored some comment that had already been "dealt with" (and I couldn't add anything further to it anyway).

[SethBaker]

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

I can't speak for others, but I ignored some comment that had already been "dealt with" (and I couldn't add anything further to it anyway).

 

Agreed completely.

 

As for the "no plot purpose" argument, that's a literary technique called "creating a somewhat believable world." You include description that doesn't have a plot purpose to add to the depth and authenticity of the world. This addition serves that end. Even if Brandon is just "appeasing" those dastardly gays, they're a significant group and a few lines out of a several million word series is a pretty small bone that he's throwing them.

 

Where you're biased is that you're assuming that heterosexuality is the default, and that any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. You're beginning with the presumption that "they" are an outsider group and that your own orientation deserves the treatment it gets while theirs does not.

[Suttree]

As I have stated several times in this thread, a brief mention of male homosexuality in the final book doesn't bother me, but I find that inclusion to be gratuitous and most likely motivated by desire to appease a segment of the readership, rather than as something that has real relevence to the plot.

 

And I find the, "but there are other things that aren't relevent to the plot" argument to be silly. Of course there are. Does that mean we should want more of them?

 

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

 

As to your first point I'm not sure how anyone can make that decision until we see in what context it shows up in ToM.

 

Agree completely with the last two points above, especially the second if that was indeed what is happening. How you can be certain exactly who is making a conscious decision to do that however? Seems as if there a number of conclusions being drawn without all the evidence.

[randsc]

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

I can't speak for others, but I ignored some comment that had already been "dealt with" (and I couldn't add anything further to it anyway).

 

Agreed completely.

 

As for the "no plot purpose" argument, that's a literary technique called "creating a somewhat believable world." You include description that doesn't have a plot purpose to add to the depth and authenticity of the world. This addition serves that end. Even if Brandon is just "appeasing" those dastardly gays, they're a significant group and a few lines out of a several million word series is a pretty small bone that he's throwing them.

 

Where you're biased is that you're assuming that heterosexuality is the default, and that any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. You're beginning with the presumption that "they" are an outsider group and that your own orientation deserves the treatment it gets while theirs does not.

 

I don't assume any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. I assume THIS inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. Actually, not even homosexuals. It is to placate those who have criticised the series for not specifically-enough referencing male homosexuality, whether those critics are themselves homosexual or not.

 

This assumption is not the result of bias. It is the result of my reading of twitter conversation, and knowledge of Sanderson's very real concern with being seen as politically correct. He is one of the very few people I have heard use the term "politically correct" in a non-ironic fashion.

 

By the way, you have no idea what my sexual orientation is.

[SethBaker]

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

I can't speak for others, but I ignored some comment that had already been "dealt with" (and I couldn't add anything further to it anyway).

 

Agreed completely.

 

As for the "no plot purpose" argument, that's a literary technique called "creating a somewhat believable world." You include description that doesn't have a plot purpose to add to the depth and authenticity of the world. This addition serves that end. Even if Brandon is just "appeasing" those dastardly gays, they're a significant group and a few lines out of a several million word series is a pretty small bone that he's throwing them.

 

Where you're biased is that you're assuming that heterosexuality is the default, and that any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. You're beginning with the presumption that "they" are an outsider group and that your own orientation deserves the treatment it gets while theirs does not.

 

I don't assume any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. I assume THIS inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. Actually, not even homosexuals. It is to placate those who have criticised the series for not specifically-enough referencing male homosexuality, whether those critics are themselves homosexual or not.

 

This assumption is not the result of bias. It is the result of my reading of twitter conversation, and knowledge of Sanderson's very real concern with being seen as politically correct. He is one of the very few people I have heard use the term "politically correct" in a non-ironic fashion.

 

By the way, you have no idea what my sexual orientation is.

 

Well? What is it then?

[randsc]

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

I can't speak for others, but I ignored some comment that had already been "dealt with" (and I couldn't add anything further to it anyway).

 

Agreed completely.

 

As for the "no plot purpose" argument, that's a literary technique called "creating a somewhat believable world." You include description that doesn't have a plot purpose to add to the depth and authenticity of the world. This addition serves that end. Even if Brandon is just "appeasing" those dastardly gays, they're a significant group and a few lines out of a several million word series is a pretty small bone that he's throwing them.

 

Where you're biased is that you're assuming that heterosexuality is the default, and that any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. You're beginning with the presumption that "they" are an outsider group and that your own orientation deserves the treatment it gets while theirs does not.

 

I don't assume any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. I assume THIS inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. Actually, not even homosexuals. It is to placate those who have criticised the series for not specifically-enough referencing male homosexuality, whether those critics are themselves homosexual or not.

 

This assumption is not the result of bias. It is the result of my reading of twitter conversation, and knowledge of Sanderson's very real concern with being seen as politically correct. He is one of the very few people I have heard use the term "politically correct" in a non-ironic fashion.

 

By the way, you have no idea what my sexual orientation is.

 

Well? What is it then?

 

 

Why do you need to know? It has no bearing on the quality of my ideas, or the validity of my arguments. Does it? Because it seems so me that an answer of "yes" would be pretty damned biased...

[SethBaker]

And I loathe hypocrites, so people who complain about alleged "homophobes" while ignoring outright religious bigotry get no respect from me.

I can't speak for others, but I ignored some comment that had already been "dealt with" (and I couldn't add anything further to it anyway).

 

Agreed completely.

 

As for the "no plot purpose" argument, that's a literary technique called "creating a somewhat believable world." You include description that doesn't have a plot purpose to add to the depth and authenticity of the world. This addition serves that end. Even if Brandon is just "appeasing" those dastardly gays, they're a significant group and a few lines out of a several million word series is a pretty small bone that he's throwing them.

 

Where you're biased is that you're assuming that heterosexuality is the default, and that any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. You're beginning with the presumption that "they" are an outsider group and that your own orientation deserves the treatment it gets while theirs does not.

 

I don't assume any inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. I assume THIS inclusion of homosexuality is to placate homosexuals. Actually, not even homosexuals. It is to placate those who have criticised the series for not specifically-enough referencing male homosexuality, whether those critics are themselves homosexual or not.

 

This assumption is not the result of bias. It is the result of my reading of twitter conversation, and knowledge of Sanderson's very real concern with being seen as politically correct. He is one of the very few people I have heard use the term "politically correct" in a non-ironic fashion.

 

By the way, you have no idea what my sexual orientation is.

 

Well? What is it then?

 

 

Why do you need to know? It has no bearing on the quality of my ideas, or the validity of my arguments. Does it? Because it seems so me that an answer of "yes" would be pretty damned biased...

 

Because it seems like you're trying to get me to infer that you're personally invested in this based on your own sexuality, without coming out (no pun intended) and saying so.

[Glip]

Not ignoring Gora, but since he/she didn't actually address the point I was making riffing off their comment there's no point in responding. Hint: I twisted nothing. I was pointing out that "This gay character issue has no other relevance" could just as easily have been "This straight character issue has no relevance" in myriad situations in the books, yet it's the gay one that gets people up in arms. Huh, odd how that works.

 

I think this whole discussion calls for a poll wether or not the inclusion of same-sex attraction in a character's POV will influence the quality of the story. (Male same-sex attraction that is, for we have seen female same-sex attraction in the Wheel of Time and IIRC there haven't been these discussions, compared to this thread that is)

 

Even that shows people getting insanely worked up over very little. Sanderson said he already included a gay male in ToM. Did anyone notice it? Did it influence the quality of the story? Was the story ruined? This is really just much ado about nothing (well, I guess more much ado about being squicked by the idea of the implication that buttsex might happen somewhere in the WoTverse at some point in time between people who are not a male and a female and how it would be PC-pandering). Has Sanderson even hinted that it would come up again in AMoL?

 

The only point I was trying to make actually was that this whole debate seems to spiral down to a yes/no discussion of people's own viewpoints. "Well, I see it this way" vs "Well, I see it that way"

 

Whereas in other threads I see people at least trying to get the other's viewpoint, this thread, as far as I'm concerned, could boil down to a simple poll.

 

My point of view for anyone interested: I wouldn't mind seeing through the eyes of someone attracted to the same sex (male or female) since I know the focus has to be all about the story in AMoL. Even if the romance should become more explicit I trust the author enough to have it either a) further the plot b) broaden the WOT world view c) broaden a characters motives d) resolve an issue important enough for such an attraction to be written into the book. Remember: A ton of plotlines have to be resolved in AMoL so useless information will eventually be edited out and I don't think Mr. Sanderson is going to offer valuable page-space just to be politically correct. The editors won't stand for it and I think the fans won't either.

[randsc]

No, what I am trying to do is get you to recognize the rather large assumptions you made in your post accussing me of making assumptions. Seeing the irony yet? Anyway, since we know you are DEEPLY concerned with staying on topic, why don't we return to the topic?

 

Now, as it happens, I am not "personally invested" in this topic at all, irrespective of my sexuality. I did not, for example, run out and join an internet forum for the express purpose of opining on this one topic.

 

What I am is a long-time reader of this series, and like many am a bit concerned with the hand-off, so to speak, between Jordan and Sanderson. I am also a person who believes that political correctness is a pernicious form of censorship. And I am a person who believes that cheap and ill-founded accusations of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc are both insulting to the victims of real homophobia, racism and sexism, and constitute an attempt to stiffle debate and the free exchange of ideas by declaring certain topics verbotten.

 

This topic would be much advanced if people would consider the possibility that some readers might oppose the introduction of an explicitly gay character at this point in the story for reasons other than homophobia.

[Nightstrike]

After reading the RJ quote I cited in the previous page - what's the big deal? I don't get it.

[randsc]

After reading the RJ quote I cited in the previous page - what's the big deal? I don't get it.

 

I had already read it. So what?

 

Let me turn this around for you. If Jordan already had gay characters, why is it so important that they be called out as such - what's the big deal?

 

Obviously, for some people, it is a big deal.

 

What's a big deal for me is the suggestion that there could be no possible motivation for disliking the addition other than homophobia. Why is that suggestion a big deal for me? Because there is already an adequate amount of stupid in the world, the suggestion that all critics of this move are homophobes is stupid, and we don't want the stupid to reach a critical mass.

[Nightstrike]

It's certainly not a big deal, either way, for me. I'm a heterosexual, and I'm not particularly involved any other way in this issue. It doesn't change much for me, personally. Though it might perhaps have been a little odd if no particular gay person ever figured somewhere in the story - ever.

[SethBaker]

Now, as it happens, I am not "personally invested" in this topic at all, irrespective of my sexuality. I did not, for example, run out and join an internet forum for the express purpose of opining on this one topic.

 

You know, if you took 2 seconds to check my regdate, you'd realize I didn't either. I was going to let it go, since it's off topic, but since you keep raising it as if to attack my motivations, I feel compelled to point out that I registered about 2 weeks before this thread came out.

 

As for the rest of your post, yes, there are reasons other than homophobia to oppose inclusion of homosexuality in something. Your argument about PC being a form of censorship was EXACTLY the argument I made, up until I read RJ's post on topic. Specifically, the line that it's generally accepted in Randland without much controversy. In light of that, any time that a gay character is on-screen, it would seem completely artificial for that character to remain "in." With all this noticing of low-cut necklines and finely-turned calves, if we have a gay character that's also a POV character (or even one who is not who decides to flirt once on camera), it HAS to be mentioned. Not to be PC; to be consistent.

 

The other reason I asked about your sexuality is because my argument is very different if you're a supporter of homosexual equality who opposes this based on something like opposition to political correctness.

 

If you're a heterosexual that thinks that homosexuality is revolting, I'm going to argue with you differently than if you're a homosexual (or a heterosexual that's completely accepting of homosexuality) that raises an argument like you just did. That's why it's relevant to the ongoing discussion. And I asked because you raised the topic but didn't say for sure one way or the other.

[mcbernier]

there are degrees of homophobia ranging from that awkward feeling to full-on hate. Again, it's the connotations of the word that make people defensive about it, but it's still pretty prevalent among hetero men, and it's something that I don't really think is insurmountable.

 

I've never liked the term "homophobia" or "homophobe," which has always struck me as trying to sound like some sort of clinical diagnosis of mental health (or lack thereof). The wikipedia definition mentioned earlier seems pretty good, but who is to decide what an "irrational fear" is in this case?

We examine the logic of it. If homosexuality bothers you...is there a logical reason for it? If not, then it's irrational. But 'aversion' is much easier to define.

 

Ah, and that's part of why I suggested that it is problematic to include "irrational" in the definition. Who decides what is "irrational"? There is no agreed upon definition of "rationality." There is no way to agree upon what counts (and what does not) as a "logical reason."

You say that as if there is no point in debating the relative logic of various positions. There are many widely-agreed-upon methods for examining the strength of arguments. Have you ever studied formal logic?

 

I've taught logic, so I do have some understanding of it. I actually had a blind student once, and boy, let me tell you, that was a challenge! Very rewarding, though.

 

Yes, there are many ways to examine the strength of arguments. But what we're talking about goes far beyond mere argument analysis. The term "rational" (or "irrational") is not typically included as a term of formal logic. In logic we have terms like valid, sound, fallacy, "existential quantifier," and so on. Rationality, however, is a judgment we make with respect to a person's belief, or beliefs; sometimes we refer to a person's actions or desires or feelings, and even a person can be said to be rational or irrational. Unlike the terms in formal logic--which mainly refer to the objective structure of definitions and propositions, etc.--rationality is a value judgment of a different sort. Part of why this can be tricky is that rationality seems to depend upon the structure of one's beliefs: for example, it may be rational for me to believe that God exists (based on my own experiences and things I am committed to believing) while it may not be rational for you (based on your experiences and beliefs). So rationality is more a term that belongs to epistemology, not formal logic.

 

There is a lot more to be said about these issues. Too much. So I'll just be quick about it. (1) Showing that a person is "irrational" can be quite difficult, since this is a loaded term. And I don't think that a person can be said to be irrational simply because he or she doesn't have a fully positive reaction (either in terms of their beliefs or feelings), or even a somewhat negative reaction, to the gay community. (2) Even if you can show that a person is "irrational," this doesn't necessarily imply that he or she is therefore immoral. And (3) when we have a morally charged term, like "homophobe," we cannot assume that "irrationality" implies immorality, since this could in fact be begging the question. So I stand by my previous analysis. Your broad use of the term "homophobe" in fact seems to include people that we cannot say are irrational, as well as those who could be irrational, but are not acting immorally.

 

No, we haven't. Homophobia means that you have a fear of homosexuality, or a strong aversion to it. There is a difference between homophobia and homophobic acts, and we should be clear on that difference rather than trying to redefine words because we don't like their connotations.

 

I hope you are not suggesting I am trying to redefine a word because I don't like the connotations. If so, then I ask you please to consider what I have been trying to say. In fact, I have not tried to redefine any words. My point has been the scope of the word: to whom does "homophobe" apply? Who is included in this group? In other words, I am less worried about the definition than I am about how the word is used. Specifically, your use of the word to cover the vast majority of heterosexual males (as you claimed), as belonging to the same group of people that hate gay people, only differing from such haters by degree, not kind. Should we lump gay people in with child molesters, or with those who commit acts of bestiality, necrophilia, or incest, and say they only differ by a matter of degree, not kind? (obviously not)

 

Anyway, I think I've said enough. It's been nice talking with you. I hope I've given you something to consider (and I don't mean this in a condescending way).

[randsc]

Seth Baker,

 

What my motivations are for making certain arguments makes no difference to the quality of the arguments. 2+2=4 even if the mathemetician is a Nazi.

 

I will amend my statement, based on your reg date, to something like, "I was not, for example, inspired to meaningfully participate in the forum for the very first time by the opportunity to opine on this one topic."

 

Now that said, I find you POV-consistency argument to be a lot more interesting than your casual assumption of bias. I still don't agree, but at least that is a position that is neither insulting to other posters nor intellectually lazy.

 

I think you will find, if you recall the various descriptions of necklines, etc., that there are many POV characters who never do make such observations. Also, those who do make such observations are usually major POV characters who get lots of screen time, not minor characters whose POVs tend to be tightly constructed to serve a particular purpose in the narrative. So I don't think it would be out of place at all for a realtively minor character who happened to be gay to fail to make any observations of another character's appearance.

[yoniy0]

I said so before and I'll say it again. You guys are posting faster than I can follow (after all, I have other business to attend to from time to time). So please, everyone, make no assumptions on what is condoned by Luckers and us mods before you've checked with us. Feel free to report any post you feel is offensive (there's a little 'report' button under the poster's name).

 

Another request. The language being used in the last couple of pages gets wilder than what I'm comfortable with. If we can't have this discussion in a dignified manner, we won't have it at all.

 

Lastly, @randsc:

(a) As I said before I don't believe those remarks regarding the Mormon were anything more than an ill-advised attempt at humor, which is why it still stands.

(b) I don't consider what Terez said about heterosexual males bigoted. I'm one myself, so I feel free applying my judgement in this issue.

© I didn't mean to leave you with the impression that I consider homophobia the only reason for objecting to the inclusion of a new homosexual character; it's just your assertion that the character will be introduced (BTW we don't know that it's a new character) because it's homosexual rather than that detail being used in this (otherwise needed) character's story to some end that I find objectionable.

 

Finally, I fully understand worries regarding Brandon's not being RJ. Still, it is what it is, and he's doing his best to finish the series in a good fashion. I'm personally grateful, even if he isn't just doing it out of the goodness of his heart. Is there really a need to judge him before you read the book? I can't understand that choice, although it remains legitimate.

 

Also, let's please try not to repeat ourselves as much, okay?

[SethBaker]

Seth Baker,

 

What my motivations are for making certain arguments makes no difference to the quality of the arguments. 2+2=4 even if the mathemetician is a Nazi.

 

I will amend my statement, based on your reg date, to something like, "I was not, for example, inspired to meaningfully participate in the forum for the very first time by the opportunity to opine on this one topic."

 

Now that said, I find you POV-consistency argument to be a lot more interesting than your casual assumption of bias. I still don't agree, but at least that is a position that is neither insulting to other posters nor intellectually lazy.

 

I think you will find, if you recall the various descriptions of necklines, etc., that there are many POV characters who never do make such observations. Also, those who do make such observations are usually major POV characters who get lots of screen time, not minor characters whose POVs tend to be tightly constructed to serve a particular purpose in the narrative. So I don't think it would be out of place at all for a realtively minor character who happened to be gay to fail to make any observations of another character's appearance.

 

No, but your motivations for arguments are important in crafting a response. You can type the same words, but if you're holding different axioms to support your argument, my response has to be different. And to be fair, it seems like a large number (I hesitate to say majority, even though I'm inclined to) of people opposing this addition are doing so because of their "revulsion" towards homosexual behavior, not because of a principled opposition to political correctness in all of its forms.

 

I haven't contributed in other aspects on this forum since I find the WOT theorization is better on Theoryland (where I am a member), and the general discussion is better on Tar Valon (where I am also a member). But I can't resist a good controversy, and Terez pointed this out to me on Twitter, so I decided to come by.

 

As for the rest, but it would also not be inconsistent for it to pop up. And, while I'm not a homosexual, I can tell you that an authentic description of my thoughts in a general situation would include a lot of me noticing potential sexual partners. Without having been in a gay man's shoes, I tend to presume that he might think like me. Regardless of that, it doesn't reek of political correctness, in light of RJ's quote, if it comes out in passing. In fact, while I understand your complaint about it getting thrown in during the last book, my response is that it's long overdue, given the social structure of the world RJ created, and leaving it out for the last book won't fix that problem. It will make it worse.

[Suttree]

Regardless of that, it doesn't reek of political correctness, in light of RJ's quote, if it comes out in passing. In fact, while I understand your complaint about it getting thrown in during the last book, my response is that it's long overdue, given the social structure of the world RJ created, and leaving it out for the last book won't fix that problem. It will make it worse.

 

This is essentially what the issue comes down to and why BS, Harriet and the rest of Team Jordan are correct in rectifying the matter.