Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks XBox (Games) Games News Your Rights Online

Xbox Live Now Allows Gender Expression 348

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox Live Now Allows Gender Expression

Comments Filter:
  • by mdwh2 (535323) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @03:52PM (#31382792) Journal

    Except polygamy hurts society, especially men in general.

    Er no - his comparison is not logical, but let's not defend gay people by trying to demonise other groups.

    Certain religious groups might hurt society (although even there, I find it laughable that men are harmed - how exactly?), but there is nothing wrong in having multiple relationships, including wanting that to be recognised legally. There are many people who practice this for non-religious reasons (more generally called things like polyamory). I speak as someone who's both bi and poly.

    (I also find it ironic that, usually with marriage, doing it for religious reasons is seen as better, or even, the primary reason why marriage should be allowed. Yet for poly unions, religion is suddenly a bad reason. Which is it?

  • by headkase (533448) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @03:56PM (#31382830)
    You don't need to reproduce to love each other.
  • Exhibitionism? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BoppreH (1520463) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @03:58PM (#31382836)

    [...] 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?

  • Re:Angry Much? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 7Prime (871679) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @05:54PM (#31383822) Homepage Journal

    Agreed. Abolish marriage as a legal contract. Allow civil unions to define legal pairings, and let individual churches choose whether or not to recognize certain "marriages". Everybody wins... ...that is, everybody except those that want to force their hangups on everyone else. I say 'fuck 'em'

  • by Linzer (753270) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @06:36PM (#31384172)

    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.

    Well said. It happen that this is exactly how things work in France (and probably a bunch of other countries). Only civil marriage has legal value. Then, the catholic church choses to grant religious marriage only to couples who are already in a civil marriage, so catholics usually marry in two steps, civil wedding, then religious.

  • by Kerrigann (1401847) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @08:07PM (#31384784)

    First of all, let me state that I've read all your posts for this story, and you seem to make very cogent, logical arguments. Thank you. Even if I disagree with someone, hearing a well, thought out, rational argument is never a bad thing :)

    I'm also coming in to the conversation pretty late, but I felt I had to respond to some of your suggestions because this actually affects me personally:

    What you don't seem to realize is that everything you have argued that gay people should be allowed to have, they are allowed to have in virtually every state in the union.

    Huh? I don't get automatic visitation and am not automatically able to make medical decisions for my partner if she is hospitalized. If my spouse loses her job, we are put in federal income tax brackets as if we made twice as much as we actually do (even though I am providing for her). In my state, it is illegal for us to adopt children. It costs a great deal of money to put her on my company insurance plan, and everyone else at my company gets it for free. If she had emigrated to the US from another country, my spouse would not automatically be eligible for citizenship. If we bought a house together, my spouse would have to pay inheritance taxes on the house in order to stay in it if I died.

    Most of these things are true in most states, as far as I know.

    That being said, I see where you are coming from with your suggestion that the government should get out of the business of marriage in general. I agree that, given enough time, you could dismantle the 1,138 federal laws referencing marriage and make sure that they applied in a marriage neutral way, or eliminate them altogether.

    I'm also not necessarily against the idea that many of the rights given to married couples could be be predicated on actually raising children, but I would argue that this should apply to couples who raise adopted children also, including same sex couples who do so.

    All in all, I'd actually prefer a system that was marriage neutral, but the reality of the situation today is that being "married but not married" in a culture where marriage is embedded so deeply in the culture is complicated. Even simple things like *renting a car* are a hassle when you have to argue with three different people so that you're not charged double what a heterosexual couple would be charged (sorry, off-topic, just annoyed because it happened to me recently)

    Most people that I know that are a proponent of legalizing gay marriage are also not automatically against the idea of doing what you suggest, but just feel that it's the looong way around. How about a compromise? Legalize gay marriage now, *then* set about dismantling the national/state/local marriage system. (Hah! there's a suggestion that angers just about everyone!)

    I'm also not necessarily against the benefits for polyamorous couples and other forms of marriage, but there's one point that needs to be made here.... Choosing to participate in a polyamorous marriage vs a two person marriage is very much a choice, whereas choosing to participate in a heterosexual vs homosexual marriage is very much *not*. I am aware this assumes some pretty modern, romantic, western values here where people are not forced into marriage for the mechanical act of child bearing, but still... assuming you're not gay, could you imagine having sex with another member of the same sex? That's how much of a choice it is.

    Now, if you believe that homosexuality is not congenitally determined... I'd say that's an axiom that we're probably not going to resolve here.

  • by jesset77 (759149) on Saturday March 06, 2010 @08:18PM (#31384862)

    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.

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...