Petition: Right to Dictate Your Own Species

[nymphies]

Tricey, Cats are a realistic species, they're living and breathing. What we are talking about is not. We're not talking about changing the makeup of a species physically. Just a rule, or a mental aspect. You mentioned kiamaras have spots and makoatls having the bubble things. The problem is this has nothing to do with their physical appearance which your trying to imply. It has to do with the species rule and honestly it's not at hard to just remove a rule.

Thank you so much Abel, I fully agree with you there.

[muteani]

I don't think animals' usual orientation should matter because these adopts aren't usual
they are almost always given some sort of human-esque intelligence level, much beyond the comprehension level of any house cat
normalcy is not relevant in these adopts because compared to natural animals, they aren't normal

and even so, all animals are capable of being queer

[broker]

I'd like to point out that there is a big majority of adoptable species that have "mental" aspects the owner wishes for the community to abide by. As an example of that, Paint-Tailed Pythons are intelligent, Iᴛᴀᴋɪ Fɪsʜ have the temperament of a cat, Creodine's are territorial.

Just because it's not a "physical" change doesn't make it anymore excusable.

To quote my previous post,



If this has caused hurt in the past among chickensmoothie, wouldn't we as members of the same community be aware of these offended feelings? As an owner of two adoption center that previously had this rule, I never once have received a complaint from the community about this sexuality orientation. As a previous artist of jellybean dragon adopts, I once was able to decide the sexuality of the designs I put out for adoption, out of the dozens of forms I've received, I've never had a complaint from the participants. The only disagreement I've had about my actions in claiming the right to decide my virtual adoptables sexuality has come from the staff of said adoptable agency. And now from chickensmoothie moderators.

I think that's saying alot against the claim that the chickensmoothie community is "obviously" offended by this right.



Not to exclude the possibility that by my actions I managed to upset someone, but if this was such an uproar in the past in the least I would've received a hurt post, or a private message concerning their feelings about my decisions.

Let me get one thing straight before continuing.



"homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."



By calling Chomp "homophobic" you're insinuating that Chomp is intentionally being bias against homosexual people and has a dislike for them, which are both outrageous and simply insulting claims. "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual people" are two extremely different ways of looking at it, and I hope you mind in the future not to be so frank with her or anyone supporting her petition. Moving on.



Put yourselves in our shoes, a person makes a strictly gay species that you love. But you cannot/will not RP/own a gay character. In your own words, move on, right? Wrong.



I know what it's like to find a gay species that I would've been interested in being apart of, but I moved on. The thought of making an issue out of it never crossed my mind. Which brings question to if the chickensmoothie moderators were really doing it for the good of the chickensmoothie community, or if their own opinions and feelings towards users against homosexuality played a role in it.

And to quote Tricey, "Why can't Chomp do whatever they want with their species?" "If a species can be exclusive in some aspects, it should be possible for it to be exclusive in every aspect."

[mawsoleum]

Okay, but wanting a species to be intelligent is not the same as wanting a species to be entirely straight. Intelligence and sexuality aren't comparable, because in species intelligence tends to be shared and is not a choice. People can be "less intelligent", just as most are less intelligent than Bill Gates, but the majority of people still have a basic level of intelligence shared by humankind. Sexuality is different. It's not a choice either, but it varies in species. Humans have the intelligence to understand love, but their love can be different. Mind and heart are very different.

As for your examples, you are one person. I know many people who have gotten complaints, as well as many people who have complained. However, many people keep silent and go with it, so you never hear their voices. You can't decide if it's "okay" with the community based on the experiences you have had. The reactions to this topic alone should be enough to prove to you that many people dislike set sexualities.

By making entirely straight species you are leaving out a massive part of chickensmoothie, and essentially saying that queer people's sexuality isn't normal. As such I believe this rule is set for the good of the CS community, without it there would be a lot of hurt feelings and upset people. It's insulting, really, to want an all straight species. There are really only two reasons you'd want one, a) To exclude queer people because homosexuality/etc makes you uncomfortable (again with suggesting they're not normal), or b) To promote a "natural" species that breeds in a "natural" way (e.g. a cis girl and cis boy). B is another issue entirely, because it's extremely cissexist since two females or two males can have children together.

Either way, it's unfair and unkind. I'd say more on the matter but I have to get to class.

[nymphies]

Not to exclude the possibility that by my actions I managed to upset someone, but if this was such an uproar in the past in the least I would've received a hurt post, or a private message concerning their feelings about my decisions.

Obviously something was wrong with it if someone decided to report your topics.

[Lierre]

I agree with Koiley and Foreign and everyone else on that side. There have been many adopts that I've wanted to try out for but because of the dictations of sexuality, I just can't be a part of a community that restricts my rights. Sure they may think that their rights are be restricted by not being able to keep the species heterosexual because they've never had to deal with not being able to fit in sexuality wise. Overall this whole issue is just very cissexist and homophobic. Like, even in some cases heterosexuals wouldn't be able to biologically reproduce. Like a trans man and his cis girlfriend wouldn't be able to have biological children. It's still a hetrosexual relationship though.

Another great point I loved is Vintage's....

I just wanted to put my bit in- I agree with Koiley and Foreign 100%, except for one thing.
I believe that the right to 'dictate' sexuality shouldn't be enforced as a rule, BUT I'm going to use WMEs as an example. They are a great, thriving species that are entirely accepting of homosexual relationships within the species, but at the same time they are allowed more than one partner and breeding is mxf. I, as a gay person myself, have no problem with this at all. As long as my characters are allowed to be LGBT+, breeding could really matter less to me. Just my opinion c:

I too have no problem with species that are really focused on genetics to only allow mxf pairs to breed! These species are more realistic and is more like a breeding sim than anything else. Meanwhile, something like Kiamaras, which are humanized in rps, art, feelings, etc, wouldn't make sense to not allow gay characters in it.
You can't compare some things while ignoring the rest.

[Shian]

Species can have all kinds of traits and I have to say, I'm siding with that artists on this one that they can set their own traits and their own world. This includes mental traits.
I think that adoptable rules should mimic the current RP rules. Just as you wouldn't force someone to RP a certain sexuality, you should not force an artist to have your sexuality listed just because you don't feel included.

I don't feel I could RP as a heterosexual character because I wouldn't know how to act "properly". That's part of the fun of RP for some and a bane for others. I'm sure there's people who would struggle to RP as a homosexual character. Sometimes RP is trying to act in a different manner than you normally would act. For those that have trouble with it, they shouldn't be forced to RP a certain way. Art is no different since that's what the argument is, yes? You can't RP your character this way. As a GM, you have to guess what each character will do, in essence you are a part of the RP someone else creates because it is still within the world set by the artist. It is their species, their world. Setting restrictions on characters helps to keep the characters within the boundaries of that world. If they don't want creatures to fly, then that creature does not fly.

Setting restrictions and guidelines is part of the fun of world building and the fun of creation and yes, setting some metal aspects may be necessary. If the artist makes war like creatures to fit the world they've made, complaining that you can't make a peaceful creature is just rude to the world builder. If you want to have a peaceful character, don't join the adoptable in a war-torn world if that is what the artist has made.

If a species is made with small, round teeth and said to be strictly omnivorous and peace loving, you would expect your RP base to be able to run with that.
Someone who builds one of these creatures with larger, pointed teeth now has tales of hunts and bragging about large prey being taken down because they want to RP a creature that loves glory and strafe, uses the argument that they should be allowed to do so because they don't agree with the vegetarian POV.

I think in this case people are just trying to make an issue that shouldn't even be an issue because we're dragging real world politics into a fake world. Would you really expect someone to take the above species and demand it be changed because it's offensive to people who aren't vegetarian? It's a way of life for this species and this trait supports that way of life. It's a slap in the face of the artist that has created this species to be a certain way so that it fits the world that is made.
Sexuality is also a way of life and by the same token, trying to force someone else to feel the same way you do is equally ignorant whether homo or hetero sexual.

While I sympathize greatly with trying to put some of yourself into a character, sometimes you just need to be a little more flexible, step back and realize that it's someone else's creation, these are fake pets and does not reflect the real world. If you really are an RPer, try RPing within the guidelines that are set by the artist. If you feel they are too restrictive then find a new world (species) with more flexible guidelines.
____________________________________

As for the other matter, the real matter is that artists are currently not protected and are told to go elsewhere if they want to create enforceable rules for their species. There is literally nothing stopping a person from making a straight character for a homosexual only adoptable and it's not mentioned anywhere in the rules of the oekaki.

CS's main focus is pet adopting. While art theft is taken as a very serious matter, I find it odd that defacing someone else's art by changing the species' traits is totally okay.

[abel.]

Let me get one thing straight before continuing.

"homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."

By calling Chomp "homophobic" you're insinuating that Chomp is intentionally being bias against homosexual people and has a dislike for them, which are both outrageous and simply insulting claims. "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual people" are two extremely different ways of looking at it, and I hope you mind in the future not to be so frank with her or anyone supporting her petition. Moving on.

I'll reiterate, you don't get to decide what is and what is not homophobic. You can pick up any dictionary and say this is this, but when you have lived our lives, you will know what is homophobic, and this petition is the definition of homophobic.

We know exactly what this petition would do, and it would limit LGBTQ+ expression/persons because some people just can't find it within themselves to be tolerant, and feel the need to inflict their beliefs upon everyone else.

I'm curious to know why you feel that controlling the sexuality is important. Would it physically hurt you to know that a character within your species is not straight? Would you become distraught knowing that they are not straight? If you answer yes, you probably shouldn't be running a species, because you obviously don't understand tolerance.

[Autumn Rain]

@Shian, It's fine to say that a creature tends toward one behavior or attitude, but it is something else entirely to say all creatures must adhere to your way of thinking, no exceptions. Then it never really belongs to someone else, just to you.

[plum]

Species can have all kinds of traits and I have to say, I'm siding with that artists on this one that they can set their own traits and their own world. This includes mental traits.
I think that adoptable rules should mimic the current RP rules. Just as you wouldn't force someone to RP a certain sexuality, you should not force an artist to have your sexuality listed just because you don't feel included.

I'll reply to the rest of your post after school, but you realize that most of the people posting on this thread are artists, not just those supporting the 'petition'? This isn't an artist versus adopter situation.