Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Live Now Allows Gender Expression

Posted by Soulskill on from the good-on-you dept.

Last year we discussed news that an Xbox Live gamer was banned for identifying herself as a lesbian on her profile. Microsoft said at the time that nothing sexual in nature could appear in Gamertags or profiles. Now, they seem to have reconsidered their stance, and they've updated their Code of Conduct accordingly. Xbox Live General Manager Marc Whitten wrote: "[The update] will allow our members to more freely express their race, nationality, religion and sexual orientation in Gamertags and profiles. Under our previous policy, some of these expressions of self-identification were not allowed in Gamertags or profiles to prevent the use of these terms as insults or slurs. However we have since heard feedback from our customers that while the spirit of this approach was genuine, it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community. This update also comes hand-in-hand with increased stringency and enforcement to prevent the misuse of these terms."

10 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Gay rights are civil rights. by headkase · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gay rights are the civil rights struggle of our generation. When you have two consenting adults living and loving each other and then telling them they cannot get life insurance on each other to cover their mutual home in case of tragety is bigotry. This "marriage is between a man and a woman" bit is exactly the same as "coloreds don't drink from the white fountain." I don't even happen to be gay and I can still clearly see this.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Gay rights are civil rights. by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just no. The arguments for gay marriage can transfer to polygamous marriage, sure. I don't really have a problem with that. But how in the hell do you extend that to marriage of objects?

    2. Re:Gay rights are civil rights. by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bull crap. They're struggling for nothing then.

      In real life, I barely care about you as human. I don't want you to tell me what you do, or who you do it with. I'm simply not that interested.

      On a video game network, I'm even less interested. Don't tell me you're gay, or straight, or white, or black, or a hairdresser or a hobbit fetishist. I don't care. Either pull out the BFG and start fragging some bad guys, or stick your head in the way of my shots.

      I got enough crap in my own life to worry about. Their gender issues rank about 0.1% on my care-o-meter. The only people I care less about are the ones who hate other people based on stupid crap like this, and them I actively hate.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Gay rights are civil rights. by imidan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You may be a troll, but I think this is sort of important. In a further posting, the OP notes that the real deciding factor is consent. Consent is required for a marriage (and many other legal agreements). This is why, for example, I shouldn't be able to marry the Eiffel Tower: it is impossible for an inanimate object to offer consent. This is also a refutation of the common claim that allowing gay marriage inevitably leads to institutionalized bestiality. That's just a gross-out scare tactic. A dog or cat (or any other kind of animal) is not legally capable of consent, so there is no danger of codifying a relationship with an animal as 'marriage'.

      So, this argument would seem to permit plural marriage. I don't have a problem with that. As long as all the people in a relationship are freely, understandingly consenting to their arrangement, what's the problem with that? Yes, it causes some trouble with things like spousal medical benefits and taxes and other things that are based on single-partner relationships, but I think we can come up with ways to deal with those problems.

      There's kind of an idea in this country that we all know what marriage is, and it's this one particular thing. But is it, really? When we talk about 'protecting the institution of marriage', whose idea of the institution of marriage are we protecting? Many Catholics, for example, would say that there's really no such thing as a divorce; marriage is an eternal bond made before God, and when you swear that oath 'til death do you part, you don't get to change your mind, later. Still, about half of all marriages in the US end in divorce. It seems pretty silly for straight people to beat the 'sanctity of marriage' drum when they can't even get it right, themselves, half the time.

      The real key, in my mind, is to disassociate the legal agreement of marriage with the religious ceremony of marriage. I don't see any special reason why religious marriage should be recognized as a special institution by the government. Civil marriage contracts should be required for legal purposes, and should only be potentially coincidental to religious marriage. Why did we make the Mormons give up plural marriage? Their religion defined it as acceptable, but the majority religion in the US did not. For a country that supposedly separated church and state, we have some pretty suspiciously Christian rules in place.

      p.s. - I realize that many 'plural marriages' today are little more than excuses for disgusting men to have sex with a lot of young girls. That's not really a plural marriage, at all, because informed consent and freedom to dissolve the contract are completely absent from those situations. I absolutely don't support the practice of enslaving young girls and calling it 'marriage'.

    4. Re:Gay rights are civil rights. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful


      I think what he's getting at is what the fuck does someone's orientation matter in an online game? And fairs fair, if everyone had that attitude what would be the big deal?

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    5. Re:Gay rights are civil rights. by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [CITATION_NEEDED]

      I could point you to scholarly dissertations such as these.... but why bother. The evidence is plain as day and so easy to see that even the greatest dolt could not miss it: homosexuality occurs in all naturally heterosexual species. Dogs, cats, mice, birds ... you name it. If it was all some sort of "Satan's sweet whispers to get the weak-hearted to stray from the Holy path" as the Bible-thumping boneheads would have you believe, it would only occur in humans and its prevalence would be orders of magnitude higher amongst the "Heathen non-believers (pick your Heathen religion here)" then the "pious".

    6. Re:Gay rights are civil rights. by jesset77 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Morally, I have no problem with polygomy. But when we're talking about legal contracts that bind financial assets, things can get really complicated really fast.

      Wait, what? So.. legal contracts between more than two people that bind financial aspects are by definition an intractable problem? Er.. don't most corporate charters involve more than two owners or stockholders?

      Many have said "Marriage is a contract", I think I'll buy that. So, why cannot Marriage also be a corporate charter? Your home is a residentially-flavored company. Polygamous households would just have more owners. Single people are sole-proprietorships. You can't marry your toaster in any legally binding sense since the toaster cannot legally participate in a contract.

      There, has that solved all of the slippery-slope foolishness for everybody now? I'm seriously getting sick of all the "you can't do this because of [insert boogeyman here]" arguments. It's time for people to open the god damned closet and realize there is nothing of consequence lurking there, and go the fuck back to bed with their three wives, two husbands and a cardboard cut-out of Elvis.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  2. Exhibitionism? by BoppreH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [...] it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community [...]

    How come? Did gay people avoid joining because they couldn't state that they were gay?

    1. Re:Exhibitionism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [...] it inadvertently excluded a part of our Xbox LIVE community [...]

      How come? Did gay people avoid joining because they couldn't state that they were gay?

      If a guy complained "my wife is making me go shopping for new curtains tomorrow" nobody would blink an eye. On the other hand if a guy said "my boyfriend is making me go shopping for new curtains tomorrow" is that "stating they are gay"? Is that "exhibitionism"?

      I don't think the point is that the majority of normal, reasonable gay people want to interrupt Halo games to discuss the wicked cool anal sex they had last night - I think the point is that they don't want to have to conceal perfectly routine stuff about themselves in case it "gives them away". Also, how can you realistically deal with the annoying 11 year olds shouting "faggot" at people when the official policy is that being a homosexual is something that has to be concealed?

  3. Re:Not even fucking close to race by headkase · · Score: 4, Informative

    They may differ in degree but the core of an ugly person is the same deep down when they enforce their prejudice on others. Might as well cut straight to that core: they have the freedom from religion too, it is for religious reasons that the debate is so heated. Christian morals are being enforced on those that obviously don't share them.

    --
    Shh.