Talk:Women and video games

Scarlett Transgender

This article may not be aware that Scarlett is actually a transgendered male. I think this is important to the overall picture and makes existing statements in this article need more attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.163.29 (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I doubt that would be a suitable inclusion in this article. According to the cited article, "The response ot her success from the gaming world was was mixed. Many people celebrated her wins. But a loud minority of fans attacked her gender identity at every opportunity. Hostyn herself rarely talks about this aspect of her life, even going so far as to say it’s disrespectful to even acknowledge the fact in online encyclopedia entries about her." Keeping in mind that WP:BLP is Wikipedia policy, we would need multiple high quality secondary sources illustrating the fact to be important to the overall picture. -Thibbs (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

See also the related section below. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sasha "Scarlett" Hostyn

Both § Women in Competitive Gaming and Electronic sports#Women in esports contain this text:

Canadian StarCraft II Zerg player Sasha Hostyn (Scarlett) first gained notoriety in the open qualifiers of IGN ProLeague 4, where she defeated top-tier Korean players. She is well known for being one of the few non-Korean players who can play at the same skill level as male Korean players.

I agree with IP 76.115.163.29's statement on this Talk page that we need to mention that Scarlett is a transgender,[1] for the "overall picture". That Scarlett is a transgender is (very) relevant given the context. In these article sections about women - even the section titles include the word "women" - if we use Scarlett as an example, especially for "[...] who can play at the same skill level as male [...]", without mentioning Scarlett is a transgender, then we're leaving out important information that the reader needs to comprehend/assess the entire picture. We're distorting reality. This is similar to the fallacy of exclusion and suppressed evidence. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BB: edit and edit --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the edit for WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE reasons. If we get multiple high-quality sources saying it's important, then we can talk. And if we do add it, it would need serious rephrasing: saying "a transgender" is like calling someone "a black". Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your decision. WP:UNDUE does not apply: that Scarlett is a transgender is factual and not a viewpoint. A fact that is relevant given the context; a required, proportionate detail. The reference is merely included as a reliable source for the fact. WP:NPOV - that includes the WP:UNDUE section - is primarily related to views, not facts. As you can see at WP:YESPOV, the explanation of WP:NPOV focuses primarily on the difference between facts and assertions/opinions. Including that Scarlett is a transgender is acceptable per WP:BLP. The reference makes the material verifiable, and the material and its tone are not misleading, not criticism, the material is not an under- or overstatement, not a viewpoint. The importance of including the fact stems not from external factors but from the use of Scarlett as an example of women in competitive gaming/esports in the Wikipedia articles. If we do not include that Scarlett is a transgender woman, readers will assume that Scarlett is a regular female in terms of biology (two X chromosomes; different type of gamete), which would distort the "overall picture". This is especially true with the related material in the article that Scarlett is "well known for being one of the few" who are similarly skilled as male players. One of the few women who can compete with men is a man biologically. This is fascinating. It is properly sourced too. (See also, for example, GlobalPost[2] and The New Yorker.[3]) All articles from reliable sources that discuss or mention Scarlett that I have been able to find do in fact mention that Scarlett is a "transgender", "transgender gamer", "transgender woman". This is because it's noteworthy. I don't mind rephrasing the material. Feel free to add something you deem (more) appropriate/precise either in the article or, if you prefer, on this Talk page to discuss it further. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well another thing that all of the RSes discuss is the fact that the issue is used as a means to attack and criticize this living person online. So you can understand that it's a sensitive BLP issue and that we need multiple high quality secondary sources that demonstrate the fact to be important to the overall picture. I'll have to review the sources in greater depth later today but from a quick skim I didn't see anything claiming an actual substantive advantage or difference between transgendered women and what you call "regular women", and I certainly don't see anything about the chromosomal details of this living person's body (she could have been born an XX male for all know - I'd need to see scientific or medical RSes to be confident in asserting her genetic composition). I'm not dead-set against including the information if it's needed, but I'm happy to err on the side of caution here. We might consider dropping a note at WP:BLPN if there is disagreement. -Thibbs (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OK so I've just looked over the sources in a bit more depth now. First of all I notice that they all mention the transgender issue. Clearly it's an important fact in relation to Hostyn. So for the article on Sasha "Scarlett" Hostyn, we'd probably want to give due mention of the fact. Regarding the transgender issue's relation to the topic of this article I see considerably less merit:

• The original Daily Dot article mostly discussed the issue in relation to its use by "a loud minority of fans" who "attacked her gender identity at every opportunity". Hostyn is quoted as saying that she has "always tried to make it a complete non-issue".
• The GlobalPost piece notes that the transgender issue is particularly important in the realm of "name calling and derogatory comments", but it doesn't go into any detail about how the fact influences Hostyn's performance. In fact it highlights Hostyn's request that "esports fans will focus on her play rather than her gender."
• The New York Times piece treats the matter similarly, providing Hostyn's feeling that being transgendered has no bearing on her role in gaming, and only vaguely pointing out that some argue "no fair" to set up the fact that eSport tournament director, pHaRSiDE, had dismissed these complaints.
• The A.V. Club treats the issue in considerably greater depth, discussing the history of attitudes toward transgendered people in athletic events where physiological differences were argued as the main reason to bar transgendered people from competitive events. But the thrust of the The A.V. Club article seems to be that physiological differences play little or no part in eSports, that Hostyn's detractors represent a vocal anonymous set of spectators, and that in Hostyn's words, "In terms of actual play, there is (as far as I know) no advantage to being born male or female. But even if there was, being transgender means you are born with the brain of the opposite gender; so I would not have that advantage or disadvantage". To me this suggests that for the purposes of this article there wouldn't be any more reason to note that she was born anatomically male than for us to make note of other unusual bodily issues (cleft palate, webbed toe, one leg shorter than the other, etc.) of any other women.

Again I'd recommend bringing this issue to WP:BLPN. The editors there are very familiar with this kind of issue. -Thibbs (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I have created a new section on the WP:BLPN Talk page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is absolutely relevant. In the overall topic of "women and video games", Scarlett isn't all that important. (Though if she keeps playing as she has been lately, this will certainly change.) She gets two sentences, which is about right, and they specifically tie her to "women and video games". What they don't do (and what we won't write) is to use her biology or gender as sly criticism about (to paraphrase) a "biological man unfairly competing against regular women". They don't state that because the theory is bunk. And we won't write it because of WP:BLP. Woodroar (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to change my opinion. I disagree with you for reasons I've already stated. As mentioned above, I've asked for (additional) input on the WP:BLPN Talk page. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Article is about women. It doesn't question how they identify, why, or for how long. She should be treated neutrally, as a woman. In contrast someone such as Chaz Bono is an activist, it is therefore relevant to many articles related to his appearances (such as Dancing with the Stars). Otherwise, everyone else has mentioned many other valid reasons for it not being relevant. Koncorde (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As SPACKlick wrote, it is a gendered article: if dividing gamers by gender and sex is a relevant consideration then the specific gender/sex and gender/sex history of the individuals is relevant. If you and other people do not understand how context works, it's pointless discussing this. You are the majority on this Talk page and you win. Anyway, luckily for all of us - including me - it no longer matters, because there is now an article about Sasha Hostyn that mentions she's a trans woman. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems like an eminently sensible way to handle this issue. If the subject of a WP:BLP claim has publicly and repeatedly expressed her view that she considers an emphasis on some issue related to her to be offensive and when the only RSes that cover the issue portray it as an illegitimate criticism only leveled by trolls and bigots and wholly unrelated to her performance in the area to which the claim refers, then there would have to be a very good reason for us to spread it widely across the encyclopedia. It's true the article (by its nature) covers women to the exclusion of men, but I see a strong argument that this matter of disclosing the "gender/sex history" of individuals is less an issue of dividing esports athletes by gender than it is of dividing their gender identities by perceived legitimacy. Anyway it's not helpful for us to think of this discussion as a "win" or a "loss". We're all on the same side here. When BLP concerns are kept to a minimum then it is the encyclopedia that wins. -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly valid for her BLP, where it can be dealt with using the level of accuracy and significance it deserves. In contrast it has no particular context for this article, so its inclusion is forced and does not read well, and puts significant and unwarranted focus upon a negligible matter in terms of "Women and video games". Koncorde (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

the section about the (non-)notable individuals

If you want have it done properly, list BRIEFLY the actually notable figures, such as Roberta Williams, Amy Hennig, Corrinne Yu, Jane Jensen, Rieko Kodama, Lorelei Shannon, Yoko Shimomura, and so on. Women who worked on well known games and are well known. Not some random Lebanese woman nobody heard of. Also, do it briefly. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed earlier. At the time there was no objection to splitting out that section and turning it into its own article. Whole-scale deletion of large amounts of reliably sourced information seems like a poor idea. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I just saw your "There was originally no coverage of individual women in the article at all. This changed in October 2013 when User:152.33.61.191 added subsections on the 5 individuals we currently see in the article. I have no idea why Roberta Williams wasn't given a bigger subsection. Frankly the whole idea of spotlighting a handful of particularly notable women seems like it might be a mistake. There will always be disagreements about who are the most important individuals in any field." It's MISLEADING, useless, and bloating the article like hell. I've deleted it but someone reverted me. It needs to be deleted, until a short list of actually notable individuals can be compiled, the best would be if they were just listed and noted who they are (being a writer, programmer, artist, composer, and so forth). Obviously, only those who are having articles of their own, as they're notable for Wikipedia. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Here are also a few more: http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/263815/the-feminine-side-of-game-design-10-female-game-designers With just these and those I've already mentioned you can quickly make a list of more than a dozen to replace the current mess, then note this list is only partial, and have it done for now. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And here are some executive types: http://fortune.com/2014/09/23/10-powerful-women-video-games/ and http://files.tested.com/photos/2014/11/23/71050-women-in-gaming-b22gwdhiqaehxrw.jpg for more content creators (most of them have articles). --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that the current list is misleading in any way, but I am receptive to the idea of trimming it or splitting it out into its own article. Frankly the list seems like something much more suited to a category to me. At any rate it might be a good idea to draw up a proposal in a sandbox or here in talk before just axing out the material. -Thibbs (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And of course nothing comes out of it as always and this section is going remain there until the fall of fossil fuels based civilization. GG Wikipedia editors. --185.34.28.184 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why don't you create a draft (or even a partial draft) in a user sandbox and then propose it here? That would be the easiest way to gain community consensus in favor of your idea. If there is consensus then it would only be a simple matter of copy & paste to implement it. If consensus can't be reached then there won't be any unnecessary disruption of the article. If you aren't interested in creating such a draft then I might make an attempt at it myself. -Thibbs (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• A category sounds good to me, but we've already got Category:Women video game designers, Category:Women video game developers, and Category:Women video game programmers‎ (I'm having trouble figuring out the difference between the last two, btw). Not sure what new category could be created. What would a separate list be titled? List of women video game designers and/or list of women video game developers? Those seem like they would have to end up including everyone we have an article for, I think. Then we'd have to consider doing the same for men in those groups, which is frankly rather daunting to contemplate. I've copy edited a number of horrifyingly huge lists in my time, not fun. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

To address the side question of the difference between designers, developers & programmers. I envisage that they are analogous to movie script writers, producers & directors/special effects, respectively. Alternately, one might consider a developer to be the same as a project manager; not necessarily involved in the hands on programming. Hope this helps in some small way. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That's alot of examples of notable in those categories, however, it would be an idea to make a critera that is stated rather than just "Notable", as that's very unspecified. For example, Artistical notability, Musical notability, Design notability, Programming Notability etc etc. That would help it to become more specific and less vague than just notable. Of course, pioneers notability would help with women such as Roberta. (Or Any from this image found on a Chan area. [Basic Notability of women]. TheRealVordox (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I'm about to drop a big edit that's mostly rearrangement of material. I tried to make the demographics section less of a data dump, and I pulled a lot out of the disparity section that wasn't about disparity per se. Most of that ended up in a section about women's genre preferences. Hopefully no one flips their lid. Rhoark (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• My initial impression is favorable. I especially like the way the notable women in the industry were handled. Most people expect that this category will grow and keep growing so a bulleted list makes a lot more sense to me than a subsection per person. -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable women in the video game industry

Can we add these?

• Anna Kipnis - Psychonauts
• Ayako Saso - Final Fantasy
• Ayano Otsuka - Yarn Yoshi
• Fumie Kamatani - Nights into Dreams, Phantasy Star
• Jen Zee - Supergiant's bastion
• Kiki Wolfkill - Project Gotham racing series
• Kinu Nishimura - one of Capcom's main designers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.140.107 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Linda Currie - Jagged Alliance
• Lorraine McLees - Halo
• Lucy Bradshaw (Maxis boss) - Maxis label of Electronic Arts
• Mariel Cartwright - Skullgirls
• Mari Shimazaki - Bayonetta
• Mary DeMarie - Homeworld/Deus
• Muriel Tramis - Geisha, Asterix, Urban Runner etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.140.107 (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Shannon Studstill = God of War
• Sherry McKenna - Oddworld
• Susan Manley - SSI and Electronic Arts
• Yusuke Hashimoto - PlatinumGames Inc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.140.107 (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2015‎

Do any of them meet WP:GNG? If so it would be a better idea to create actual stand-alone articles on them first. -Thibbs (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

also, while I'm all for expanding the list to include notable people in the field I have to wonder where we should draw the line between "females in the industry" and "notable females in the industry." For instance, I dunno if we should consider Lorelei Shannon a notable woman in the video game industry because most of her work is focused on writing fiction and game manuals. We should probably take a step back before this list turns from "notable women" to just "women in the video game industry." Sethyre (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• I believe some would meet WP:GNG. I have at least one of the names on a list of Women in Video Games that I am (very, very slowly) working on creating articles for. See Fortune articles here & here for details. Any help with sourcing, article creation, copyediting, etc. would be greatly appreciated. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)