>>34669845I suppose that's where the two kinda split ways. Sexuality is, by it's very nature, sexual or at least sexual adjacent, whilst gender identity can be a strictly non-sexual as your gender doesn't define your sexuality. I think that makes it alot harder to separate for some people as, anything queer automatically becomes "Gay=man on man sex".
I definitely see your point though and I mean, as I've just said myself, it can be separated entirely from sexuality which, when discussing a kid's game, makes it a lot easier to include non-binary gender.
Maybe I'm trying to be too realistic, or maybe I'm just outright cynical at the point; but I worry about what the non-binary label could mean for some kids.
Like, on paper, I'd love to just say well of course, why wouldn't we include representation for all groups? But because not everyone thinks that way, because there are children who would bully and be bullied for identifying as non binary, and because of the likely volatile reactions of parents; I still think it has serious potential to be harmful to the community it's trying to help.
I feel awful writing that. What I'm seeing is we should provide less options for children to identify with in a game because of the social backlash it would likely cause. But it's sadly what I'm saying.
If we lived in a world where this just wasn't an issue, or even if the Pokémon franchise had just started today instead of 20+ years ago, then I have no problem.
It's a change to one of the most well known franchise's in history; people would not take kindly to this being added to "their" Pokémon and they would lash out horribly, most likely at the young people this is supposed to help.
This has made me feel so awful.
