Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsProfanity filters, homophobic slurs, and Blizzard's shaky relationship with the LGBT community
by Fox Van Allen 
Jan 25th 2012 at 9:00AM
Yesterday on the official World of Warcraft forums, a poster brought up the fact that the word "transsexual" gets censored by Blizzard's mature language filter. Almost immediately after, another poster brought up the fact that the word "homosexual" is censored as well. The obvious follow-up question has stirred a hornet's nest of controversy: Why are these considered bad words?
Predictably, that forum thread quickly spun out of control. It was ultimately locked by a moderator, but not before Blizzard Community Manager Bashiok chimed in:
"Transsexual" censored by filter
We've reviewed our filter list and there are a few words there that should not be blocked as profanity; we'll be removing them in a future patch.
So case closed, right? Well ... hold on. Before we simply close the books on the matter, there are some important questions to be answered. Namely this: Why was "transsexual" censored in the first place?
A well-meaning policy?
The censoring of the words transsexual and homosexual is not new to the game. They've been sitting on the list of banned words since the game launched on Day One. We just never really took notice because the default setting for the profanity filter was off. But now, thanks to a bug in patch 4.3, the new default setting is on. (This should be fixed in patch 4.3.2.)
But why did Blizzard censor the words in the first place? To find the answer, you'll need to travel five years into the past, back when the company had a very different outlook on the inclusion of sexuality in its game.
In 2006, a World of Warcraft player named Sara Andrews decided to start a guild that was LGBT-friendly and began publicly recruiting players. The guild was touted as a safe haven free of judgment and intolerance. Though many would assume the act innocuous, Blizzard's initial reaction to Andrews was extremely hostile. Specifically, Blizzard said that "advertising sexual orientation is not appropriate for the high fantasy setting of the World of Warcraft." Andrews was -- inexplicably -- in violation of the company's harassment policy. Follow-up conversations with the company only confirmed the company's stance: Recruit for a gay-friendly guild in chat, and your account will be banned.
Andrews went public with her story, and predictably, the news spread beyond WoW to even the mainstream news. Blizzard's public statement defending their position to disallow Andrew's guild, while not malicious, was horrendously misguided:
Topics related to sensitive real-world subjects -- such as religious, sexual or political preference, for example -- have had a tendency to result in communication between players that often breaks down into harassment.
Eventually, Blizzard crumbled under public and legal pressure, allowing Andrews to create her guild and issuing her an apology. Since then, numerous LBGT-friendly guilds have popped up on numerous servers, with the bulk being concentrated on Proudmoore (US).
Looking at the 2006 statement, it's quite easy to see where Blizzard got the idea to censor the words transsexual and homosexual -- the company thought it would protect those communities from harassment. Removing those words from the censorship list is simply an act that should have happened six years ago. A simple oversight.
So the issue is dead, right? Well, not quite. There's a follow-up question that might be even more damning than the initial one. Namely this: If saying "homosexual" gets eaten up by the language filter, then why the hell do the words "fag" and "faggot" sail right through?
An ugly culture
The answer to that question reveals a very ugly side of male-centric gaming culture. Words like "fag" and "faggot" are terribly common in MMOs. Just last night, the word was used multiple times during one of my Raid Finder runs. Insults and taunts are a part of playing video games, and to an adolescent boy, there's no greater insult than to attack his manhood.
That's not especially news, of course. Gaming culture is what it is, and though there have certainly been strides to change aspects of it (just look at last year's Penny Arcade Dickwolves outrage), progress is slow. But while it's easy to understand why an insecure 13-year-old might endorse a culture that thinks "faggot" is acceptable, it's harder to understand why Blizzard would want to be a part of it as well.
The words fag and faggot are nothing new. The words existed in 2004 when Blizzard first crafted its anti-discrimination policy, and they existed in 2006 when Blizzard reaffirmed it in an effort to stop Andrews. And faggot is certainly said with an exponentially higher frequency than the fairly benign homosexual and transsexual. Shouldn't it have been filtered out as part of Blizzard's overzealous sensitivity to "real-world subjects ... such as sexual preference?"
Without a doubt, the fair answer is yes. If we're not allowed to say "homosexual" because it opens gays up to harassment, then "faggot" should certainly be off the table as well if the policy was to be enforced evenly.
Am I suggesting that Blizzard is an anti-gay company? No. It's certainly butted heads with the gay community on an uncomfortably high number of occasions. Most recently, Blizzard wound up in hot water over a video the company produced in which the singer of Cannibal Corpse used numerous anti-gay slurs. Blizzard eventually apologized for that, just like it eventually made good with Andrews. It's is not an especially proactive company when it comes to treating gays with respect, but at the very least, it's highly reactive in making up for its past mistakes.
Banning the word homosexual, while simultaneously allowing the word faggot to go uncensored even to the eyes of a 10-year-old, is another sharp insult to the gay community. It's an endorsement of the gamer culture, a message that says that the word faggot's place in the gamer culture should be protected. A message that the company thinks that the n-word is to be censored, but an insult like faggot is no big deal.
I have little doubt that Blizzard will make good with gays here, much as it has when it's made missteps in the past. But this incident should serve as a powerful wake-up call to a company that makes millions of dollars in yearly revenue from the gay community. And for all of us, maybe it's time to wake up to the reality that some aspects of the nebulous gamer culture might not be worth preserving.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 17 of 18)
bremic Jan 25th 2012 4:56PM
There was an excellent article on a topic like this about gaming in general only a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/Feature/287429,u-r-so-gay-homophobia-in-gaming-and-why-it-hurts.aspx
Darth Bunnywabbit Jan 25th 2012 5:18PM
I've enjoyed reading these comments.
In my personal opinion, homophobia/bigotry/misogyny is trashy. Nice people don't do it. Respectable people don't do it. It's something only losers engage in. An area where losers are being loud and showing off is not a place for me. Imagine if you had a big fancy nightclub and were hoping to get lots of customers, but a bunch of smelly, ugly people in stained clothes are camped out in the lobby, being loud and spitting tobacco and scratching their fleabites. If you're not going to ask them to leave, you probably at least should do something about keeping them from dominating the space and discouraging the kind of customers you want.
I liked the reference to Baron-Cohen's book. He noted that adolescent boys tend to score lower in empathy, which is probably why they try to bond by grossing each other out. Unfortunately, they tend to drown everyone else out, and Blizzard lets them continue to sit out front making the place look skeevy. I'm having much more fun these days playing games that have bouncers.
Anti~ Jan 25th 2012 5:28PM
"Insults and taunts are a part of playing video games, and to an adolescent boy, there's no greater insult than to attack his manhood."
Just because I sleep with other men doesn't mean I'm less of a man. :P
Other than that, good article.
Having said that, what can we, as the queer community, do about this?
Agony Jan 25th 2012 6:15PM
@Bloodshadow "You don't have to live a life of sin." Oh, dear Goddess. This old argument, again?
Two words: Latin Vulgate.
What is the Latin Vulgate? It's the complete Bible, Old and New Testaments, written in the late fifth century (over 1100 years before King James had his rendition of the Bible commissioned).
Nowhere in the Latin Vulgate is homosexuality, or anything remotely close to it, mentioned as being an "abomination", "sin", or whatever else. NOWHERE.
The mention about not lying with man as with women, for example, was not in reference to sexual relations being abhorrent, but rather had to do with effeminacy or putting off of women entirely when they were needed for procreation (in other words, homosexuality was fine so long as people remembered that the species of humankind needed to continue - this isn't about the "one man, one woman" thing either as people had multiple wives and mistresses, so understanding desert cultures and the patriarchal methodology is needed if you want to get down to the brass tacks and the understanding of Hebrew translations into Greek and Latin).
Christ never mentions anything about it (even in the King James rendition this is true...only Paul says anything to do with it, and he was only parroting outdated Levitical references), and the closest thing we even have to it is people wanting to have intimate relations with messengers of God in the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, with Lot offering up his daughters instead, the whole affair angering God and the city being destroyed. No mention of homosexuality though. NONE.
So what happened? Simple: James VI of Scotland, later to be crowned King James I of England, had these entries added into his rendition (Version) of the Bible, whether by accident of mistranslation or by design as he was a notorious homophobe according to historical documents. Some even believe that there is enough evidence to suggest James himself was a classic closet case with several male lovers, and he abhorred his "transgressions" so much that he railed against them publicly...and lethally.
The King James Version (rendition) has been discredited as being among the most flawed versions of the Bible extant by serious Biblical scholars, yet all consider the Latin Vulgate (the one with ZERO references to homosexuality) to be the most accurate.
TL, DR: Homosexuality isn't a sin, King James just thought it was, but James isn't Christ, and neither is Paul.
Thank you, and blessed be.
Talitha Jan 25th 2012 9:31PM
I have a small concern about your post. You seem to be implying that the Latin Vulgate was the original complete Bible (and that since it didn't refer to homosexuality as a sin, therefore it's not a sin).
There's one small problem.
The Latin Vulgate was actually the first LATIN translation of the Bible from the three original languages: Hebrew (the Old Testament - also known as Torah), Aramaic and Greek (the New Testament). The Old Testament was fully completed at least 400 years before Jesus' birth in ~4 B.C. The New Testament was first written (the Pauline letters), around 40 to 50 A.D., and Mark - the first of the four Gospels - was written in 50 A.D. (Jesus died ~30 A.D.).
The reason King James Version is such a big deal was because the other Biblical translations (into the other languages, such as English, German, and so on) were translated from Latin Vulgate (which was a translation itself), whereas King James Version was translated straight from the original Bible (as written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Yet another fact to know is that King James Version is what we call a "transliteration" - literal translation, word-for-word, as opposite to "translation" - which is a translation of ideas, and of sentences (if word-for-word wouldn't make sense, then they translate the context instead).
Hundreds of scholars were assigned to translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the English of King James Version, and ever since, thousands more scholars have studied those languages. They have all concluded that King James Version is indeed accurate in the passages concerning homosexuality in both the Old Testament AND the New Testament.
I forgot - this is one of the main driving wedges between the Catholics and the Protestants, earlier in the day, because the Catholics insisted on using the Latin Vulgate version long after it have been founded to be more inaccurate than King James Version and several other versions.
There, now that's all cleared up! Knowledge is power, peeps! :D
Talitha Jan 25th 2012 9:35PM
/facepalm
I forgot to add a few more facts: the writing of the New Testament was completed by 90 A.D., when the book of Revelation (the last one) was written. It was fully canonized between 300 and 400 A.D. (the delay was due to several scholars objecting to the book of Revelation, since it's such a confusing and strange book). The Old Testament/Torah was canonized long before Jesus was born (it was his Scripture. Fun fact!).
Gotta love history. :3
Agony Jan 25th 2012 11:55PM
Hi, Talitha -
No, I'm not implying that the Latin Vulgate is the first Bible, merely that it is the "go-to" for serious scholars on Biblical history, translations, etc. Sorry if you misunderstood.
The original KJV isn't more accurate than the LV, merely a verbatim translation without adjustment for language and context, which led to a lot of confusion as to intent down the road. The "1611 authorized" is the one that people like Bloodshadow tend to cling to like, if I may quote Mr. Spock, "a pair of Tiberian bats" and that one is filled with so many incongruities, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright contradictions as to be laughable, and it shines the light of the same upon the original KJV in comparison to the LV.
The fact remains, however, that these are a collection of parables, stories and interpretations that have been translated, added to, taken away from, edited, changed and altered depending upon whom was in power at the time, which is why I point people to the LV in that it hadn't been as heavily altered and is, in fact, a considerably more accurate portrayal of Biblical events as a result.
As to the references to homosexuality, it should be noted that until the latter half of the 19th century, many of the references to such were translated literally as "one who masturbates" and had nothing to do with same-sex relations. This was even corroborated by the Roman Catholic Church. Many modern Bibles cite the term "homosexual", yet this was not coined until about the same time as the change in understanding.
Be that as it may, the notion that it is an "abomination" is suspect at best, ludicrous at worst, in that it has been demonstrated to be an inherited congenital imprinting in much the same way as gender dysphoria, which is reflected in the DSM-V and suspected within its predecessor, the DSM-IV.
furrama Jan 27th 2012 2:41AM
Wow. That's just... no. Have you read the first chapter of Romans at all? The particular version matters little when the act is described. Any version of Romans 1:26-27
http://bible.cc/romans/1-27.htm . (And no, it isn't about shrine prostitutes in the area, he started from the beginning of God's relationship with men since creation and showed the course of human events. To pinpoint it on just shrine prostitutes in the area is just incorrect.)
But that doesn't matter, you've thrown all of Paul's "outdated" material out the window anyway, (while you chop up meanings in the OT at the same time). I guess Jesus coming to fulfill the law means very little, and while "everything is permissible and not everything is beneficial" some things are still considered vices and the first church leaders, (chosen by this Jesus), do outline some things and clarify what Christians should and should not be doing among themselves and non believers to separate themselves from the world and keep themselves holy and blameless.
Either way, any instance of homosexuality in the bible is referred to as an active role, not a passive one. It is the act of sex with the same sex that is a sin, not being born or coming out of puberty predisposed to your own sex. All sin after Christ is something that happens when you make a choice. Homosexuality as it is defined today is not a sin, and neither is heterosexuality. It's the actual act of sex with something or someone you're not allowed to have sex with. (Think: Israelites can't eat pork, that lady isn't your wife, so on.)
But here's the thing- if you aren't a Christian and don't want to be then don't worry about it. We SHOULD leave you alone, help your community if you ask, and not attack those who chose to live in the world. We should love everyone regardless of who they are or where they come from. The only time when an issue would come up is if someone within the church continued to have sex with his own sex, or grew up in the church and was discovered. Those within the church are under the new law, and they must give up many worldly things. Those outside of it are not and can do as they see fit. God has "given you over to your desires", and so should we. (This is also why I think we shouldn't vote, but that's another barrel of monkeys.) We should be peaceful monks among the world, but holy warriors among our own, not the other way around.
That's how it should be anyway. I do apologize to any LGBT folks that have been hurt by any member of the church. We have not been good to you. We must do better.
And while the KJV is extremely flawed there are plenty of versions that are not, (and I own quite a few). They do not agree with your claims, and while I am tolerant of many things I will not have you pick and choose what is or is not actually in there. While much IS up for debate this is not one of those things.
themutteringmutt Jan 25th 2012 6:28PM
I find myself compelled to mention, scanning through pages of comments, that WORDS are NOT the PROBLEM here. Censor-bots in small or larger forms do, as they say, NOTHING ... except perhaps encourage creative spelling.
We can argue all day about the offensiveness of fag, shag, on-the-rag or whatever, and offensive they may be, but the HATE is what must stop, and if there is not sufficient oversight to BAR and BAN some bully who wants to equate some kid's "fail" with his sexuality instead of just not being as good at the game, then slapping some "profanity filter" in the code and acting like it makes it safer for ANYONE is, at best, fooling yourselves, or worse an actual con game to run more players through the mill. Flag them, by all means, have an actual, you know, person look into the context if there's a problem. If there is NOT the staffing to look into complaints that well, we should be honest and warn players of the beasts, instead of "oh we have a profanity filter" as if it actually is good for beans.
For the few people that only KNOW one derogatory term, filter will work fantastic, for everyone else, there's actual thinking.
thebug Jan 25th 2012 7:13PM
Censhorship may ease the symptoms, but only education will cure the disease.
The hard part on the internet can be separating THAT GUY from the one who really believes what he's spewing. THAT GUY is only trying to stir folks up ... Look at me, pay attention to me!!! Many times they don't really believe what they're saying they just know it will get a rise out of folks. Responding to them only feeds the fire.
But if you run into someone who who truly believes blacks/jews/immigrants/gays/people who read books - whatever - are "bad", then you can make an impact by discussing it with them. Respect their opinion, listen, and explain calmly why you disagree. Give them something to think about. One person at a time you can change a whole culture.
PeterLo Jan 25th 2012 8:08PM
This topic was brushed upon at the last blizzcon.
PeterLo Jan 25th 2012 8:09PM
derp, link is here: http://youtu.be/DAOLaij17Ms?t=7m19s
Possum Jan 25th 2012 8:47PM
Wait, so when I report someone in a BG or trade using the word fag or faggot does this mean Blizzard does nothing about it?
Snuzzle Jan 27th 2012 8:49PM
NO. Please continue to report idiots who spew these words unthinkingly. Every time I have reported players for "fag" or "faggot" I make sure to note how hateful I find such words and I always get back a sincere note from a GM stating they take such matters seriously. Just because it's not a censored word doesn't mean they don't understand its meaning, and the fact that it has no place in WOW. I truly believe it was an oversight to not be on the list, a very unfortunate oversight seeing as how some other less hurtful words are on there.
i.am.seifyk Jan 26th 2012 1:56AM
I don't think that someone's right to feel comfortable is as important as everyone else right to feel like they may express themselves as they see fit.
Harassment is one thing. But there are systems in place to keep people who harass others out of the game. Harassment is persistent. Censoring the use of a word is never going to keep any form of intended harassment from happening.
As far as people saying "You try being gay. It's everywhere."
I am gay. I see it. I even call idiots "fags" and unfortunate situations "gay." I have never been offended by being called a fag on the internet. Sorry.
Direct, persistent slurs thrown at me in bars in the rural part of Tennessee I live in though? Offended and frightened every time. But do I think people should go to jail for calling their friends "a bunch of faggots" really loud in a public bar? No. Throw them in jail for getting in my face and threatening me with "faggot" because I'm different.
The word faggot isn't the important thing here. The harassment is.
p.s. But why the fuck is homosexual filtered? Makes no sense!
Snuzzle Jan 27th 2012 8:53PM
For calling their friends "a bunch of fags"? No. That's their right.
For calling me a "dumb faggot" when I don't behave as expected in a BG or dungeon? Yes. They should absolutely not think they can do this and it's okay. Same as if they called me a "dumb n**ger" or a "dumb c*nt" or a "dumb p**sy". You insert the hateful speech. It amounts to the same thing.
How does that old saying go? Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
Dwaynegregory Jan 26th 2012 2:31PM
Kiki, Laputa. Should these words be banned as well? Afterall, both are not nice words in some language. They are also names of wholesome children's animated movies. I don't agree with banning words. Instead Blizz needs to ban behaviors, including gay ones. I wa in a pug just two days ago where the healer announced that he was chatting with boys on Adam4adam, a gay site. Why do I need to know this? He's chatting with boys. Is he a ped? I ended up dropping the pug because I don't play to discuss politic, religion or sexual behaviors.
Aleymet Jan 26th 2012 10:12PM
Yes, rape culture harms men too. But it DOES especially affect women, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. (1 in 33 men vs. 1 in 4 women.) Straight men do not plan their lives around how not to get raped. Most women have been trained to do it since puberty. It's not about whether any one individual is or is not offended by a particular word.
Using the word "rape" casually in a game trivializes the act. But in real life, it has much more cultural significance than any crime like assault or robbery. Rape is used as a tool of oppression by men (as a class) against women (as a class)--and for that matter, against LGBT folks as well. I guess I'm outing myself as a Crazy Feminist Chick (TM), but this is something that really goes beyond what you happen to feel as an individual.
Snuzzle Jan 27th 2012 9:12PM
Rape is used as a tool of power, period. While a lot of people tout the 3% figure of male rape, many experts believe male rape is vastly underreported; I've heard figures as high as one in six. Ten percent of all reported rapes are males. Men are made to feel much more ashamed when they are raped, not only because it is so powerfully disempowering, but because of the stigma among the male population that a man cannot be raped because he should always want sex.
Gay men are not raped statistically significantly more than straight men.
Regardless of the figures, saying that rape specifically affects women is silly. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I was never taught "how not to be raped." I was, however, taught "how not to be attacked" with such common-sense lessons as "hey, you dumb girl, don't go down that dark, abandoned alley late at night, take the long way through the brightly-lit, highly populated area."
Rape is oppressing, period. Men have been being raped since the beginning of history, and to pretend that rape was invented specificaly to oppress women is what's silly. To insist that the word specifically pushes away women only is, again just silly.
cosmic hitler Jan 30th 2012 12:35PM
Seconding this. Y'all need to get the fuck over yourselves.