Petition: Right to Dictate Your Own Species

[Caelus]

... Except that again this would give all users of all sexualities the ability to do what they want with their species. Why shouldn't someone be comfortable with what is theirs? Also I like how the community which is supposed to be supportive of others is flinging insults and passive agressiveness.

And the chapter belongs to the artist as much as they want. If they want to hold full rights except to say, roleplay with them, they technically can. The rule itself exists as a denial of artists rights. Plain and simple. And this just isn't abouy what does and doesn't occur in nature. But the majority of animals breed to pass on genes and it has to be with the opposite sex - most species here are closer to animals than humans.

the rule acts as a shield against bullying and erasing lgbtqa people. if a creator cannot handle the consequences of that they should not be running a species.


edit: i also dont see why someone would need to dictate their species' sexuality for any reason but being a homphobe tbh.

I agree with Chomp 100%.

As Chomp as stated in the opening post, this isn't a homophobic/gay right/anything else that falls under this debate, it is simply giving the artist complete rights over a species that they are generously allowing other users to adopt and use. I understand that this is a touchy subject, and I deeply apologize if you are hurt by this, I can reassure you that this wasn't posted with that intention in mind.

why else would someone want to dictate a species' sexuality though?

[plum]

I had a super nice reply typed up, but my phone ate it, so here's the quick version-
'Most species on cs are closer to other animals than humans' argument doesn't really work unless you're making some super strict, super realistic species. Most adoptables on cs are given human traits - from their personalities, tendency to wear accessories, and the way they're rped. They're usually considered pretty human, with community chats often being filled with questions specific to the individual characters.
Also, a lot of the time dating happens before becoming mates and breeding, and marriage is a common thing. Wild animals may court potential mates but most of the time they don't 'date', let alone get 'married'.

(darn kuroo 4 posting before me)

[Kyar]

I've thought about this and I'm a bit confused myself on where this should go.
I guess as someone who hasn't run a species but who has adopted pets from these kinds of things I guess I always just assumed that sexuality/orientation/gender/etc. was more of an aspect/trait to be decided for the individual character and not the species itself.
I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this suggestion since I don't know where to draw the lines between artist rights and user-who-obtains-art's freedoms in terms of character creation. I'd like to hear some more opinions about this so that I can understand it a little better? Lol. Thank you for any help clearing this up for me. :)

Edit:
To clarify a little in case that doesn't make sense - I guess I'm wondering whether it should be up to the creator to decide that "-species- are all afraid of water," or whether an individual user could say "Typically -species- is afraid of water, but -their adopted creature of said species- is an odd case and loves to swim."

[nymphies]

Honestly it seems like making a rule to say "No Homo" (basically), is a shield for homophobia or bullying. I understand someone's beliefs might make them not want to have homosexual relations in their species. Honestly though if you can't handle people wanting a little fruit loop; then why even have a species?

Nobody is forcing anyone to host a species on chicken smoothie. So why not just move a species you'd like to implement that rule off site. On deivantart, or even their very own site. Then you can freely dictate your own rules as you like without having to have them under CS's moderation. It's just that simple.

I think there is a particular line that shouldn't be crossed, and holding a rule such as "No homosexuality characters" in a species, passes that line. I get wanting your species to have realistic breeding; but it seems much more like someone wanting to stop homosexuality in a species because of their beliefs, which you mentioned multiple times that's what it was for you(chomp).

Like Bently mentioned to the bell foxes rule "trying to prevent conflict between users and promote fairness; in other words, upholding the big site rule on respect for other users. The debate over sexuality and someone's right to be anything other than straight is often a firey one, and people take a lot of offense to it if they're told they can't express themselves in such a way."

I really would like to point out I 100% agree with Koiley, and Tater.
Especially with Tater on the tittle change, it deserves to be something more fitting. This is less about dictating your species, and more about wanting to "shut down" LGBTQ in a particular(s) species.

[wickedbvnes]

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:

[muteani]

I just wanted to add some stuff to my previous arguments and hop on to other comments

a user said that they were lgbt+ and didn't mind the rule
the fact of the matter is, not everyone will agree on whether or not this is offensive; for example, I have a friend who is completely fine with being referred to by her friends using slurs, but all of my other friends are EXTREMELY offended by these slurs
just because one person supports it doesn't really have an effect on the fact that a large portion. of people will be highly offended by it

if you really really don't want your species to be lgbt, why not make it a single biological sex species with no gender binary so the individual adopts can love whomever they choose

and saying "if you don't like it don't adopt" isn't a solution; I've been kicked out of restaraunts for going on a date with another girl before and they told us "if you want to eat here, don't be gay"
you're making it sound like it is our fault for being against the adopts, when you are the one with homophobic rules that are purposefully against lgbt people
this is a common oppression tactic seen in the 50's during segregation

as I stated previously, the only tangible issue with lgbt adopts, besides your (arguably homophobic) emotional stance, is breeding
I'm going to quote my past post for this issue, because it isn't really an issue

4;; nurseries aren't actually that big of a problem with a few rule changes

• first off, some people aren't going to want to use nurseries and reproduce with their characters
• if queer couples of a species want to reproduce {{ and you don't want them to}}, that could be a clause where you could say "queer couples are not able to reproduce"; any queer couples who do reproduce without permission would be breaking copyright law by illegally using the designs
• this is also a transphobic point of view that only heterosexual couples can reproduce, since trans/intersex/nonbinary animals can theoretically exist {{ but that's not the point I'm making right now }}

everyone has made this about emotional standpoints, but a large focus needs to be legal reasoning for why they should be able to repossess a character if they break this rule
and there really is no legal reason, so why would CS support a homophobic rule on a site for kids; it would enforce a lesson they are taught every day: being lgbt+ is bad.

that's not the kind of site I want to be on, and I sure as heck would not want children to be on

[Autumn Rain]

imo, instead of telling people "You can just not adopt the species if you don't like its orientation," it can be, "You can just not use Chicken Smoothie forums if you don't like its methods."

[Tricey]

Woah, friends, people!
How are children today taught to bully and hate LGBTs? I've seen quite a lot of things regarding this topic on social media, and I don't recall anything hate related. On CS especially there are very supportive things concerning that topic. You can barely go through the "Popular this Week" section without seeing about "the Pansexual Pelican" or something similar. Bullying is never okay. This coming from someone who is a follower of Christ. Please understand what I mean.

Why can't Chomp do whatever they want with their species? I want to point out my train of thought.
This is a cat based species correct? There are cat people, and there are dog people, right? Dog people may feel excluded from this specie, but that in no way/shape or form excludes them from participating. Yes, it does mean they are not allowed to change it to a dog specie, but the creator envisioned them as cats. Shouldn't we respect their wishes?

If a specie can be exclusive in some aspects, it should be possible for it to be exclusive in every aspect.
Exclusiveness is what makes species special. Kias always have spots, Makoatls always have bubble like thingie markings, and Royal Guardian Cats have adorable dragon companions.

I don't believe anyone of us (no matter which "side") want to exclude anyone.
Cats are (to my knowledge) a straight specie. Why can't RGC be as well?

[Autumn Rain]

^ That is an entirely separate argument and is not applicable to sexual orientation.

It's true that you should not alter the physical state of a species to include something it genetically does not, because it is a specific species for a reason. That is literally messing with the appearance of the creature. However, you CAN alter mental aspects. For the sake of this argument, I will assert that orientation is a mental difference because you cannot SEE orientation. It does not alter the species. It doesn't even necessarily alter the species' biology. It has literally no effect on the creature except that it has a different sexual orientation.

Again, if you want to control the "mental" aspects of your creature, do it elsewhere. Would you control a creature's favorite color, or whether or not it has depression? Would you tell me that it doesn't have an aversion to frogs or a love of music? No.

(Yes, I know sexual orientation is widely considered a biological difference, and not a mental one. However, since you cannot see sexual orientation, I will count it as mental as far as artwork goes.)

[abel.]

I just have to pop in and give my two cents.

As an LGBTQ+ member, I, and many more, feel like this rule would be exclusionary. And Tricey is right,


The LGBT community is very large on CS, and that's why I believe the thread was locked.


there is a large community of LGBTQ+ members, meaning 1st) A species owner would be excluding a large portion of CS members. and 2nd) The species were probably locked because LGBTQ+ persons and moderators who are ally's/members don't tolerate this type of exclusion, or just frankly, mods with common sense. As other have stated, species adopts are a way to release their creativity and a safe haven to put pieces of them selves into a character where they are protected from the hate outside.

I also believe that you, Chomp, as a heterosexual person, don't get to decide what is exclusionary/homophobic. You may feel like this isn't exclusionary, that everyone gets to dictate, not just straight people, but we know, that the moment this rule is put in place, LGBTQ+ intolerant people are going to start abusing this, because we've seen it out in the real world, the exclusion that happens for being anything but straight.

I feel like this rule teaches children on this website denial rather than tolerance. That we should ignore/reject the thought of being LGBTQ+ rather than tolerate/accept their existence.

And sure, other species have their own mandatory rules; Kia's must have spots, JBD's must have two stripes on the tail, and many others, but those are just markings, not how a life is lived. And exclusiveness doesn't make a species special when it excludes a massive group of people.

Please don't try to use this to cover your homophobia, you wouldn't have proposed this if you weren't uncomfortable with people that aren't like you. We have seen this before and can recognize it a mile away, unfortunately, we get it a lot.

So my proposition to you is to be tolerant and acceptive of others, let people be creative and express themselves. To tell people to just move on when a species that peaks their interest excludes LGBTQ+ members is just rude. Species don't have to be exclusionary, their doesn't have to be a 'minority' that is excluded to 'protect' and artist. I know that their will always be conflicting opinions, but this will just inflame the problem. This will not help, this will only hurt; it would be wise of you to learn tolerance, because we're not going anywhere.

*edit: I lost a thought then got it back, here ya go:
I also have faith in some of my fellow members that they wouldn't be exclusionary with this rule, that they would allow heterosexuality because we know the feeling of exclusion. We would not abuse this because we are tolerant and respectful of others, where as people who aren't tolerant will abuse this to comfort themselves while disrespecting others. I also figured that I would be question as to why heterosexual people don't get to decide what is exclusionary/homophobic. The reason is because you are not feeling things the same way we are. We see/feel this as a way to deny our existence, whereas you see this as a way to protect yourself from us. To you its just a matter of 'opinion' on LGBTQ+, to us its another source of hate and intolerance.

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.