[split] gender choice selection

[Dragon Master]

a species that requires more than 2 genders to procreate is interesting, but just wasteful. Imagine how hard it would be to produce offspring. I belive the mix of genes is not a great enough benfit. Wow, I don't think I contributed anything at all.

[Kestenvarn]

There's a race in the Ringworld series with three genders - two function as mates, and a dumbed-down third one that takes care of birthing for them.

[Temuchin Khan]

Maybe add an option to choose the gender if random selection is selected: random, male or female, so everyone is happy :)

I think this idea has the potential to make everyone happy, at least in multiplayer: the ability to specify whether you want a randomly generated male leader or a randomly generated female leader. Anyway, this is the option I would support.

[turin]

Since all races in Wesnoth are, though in some people's opinions not human, at least mammal or reptile, and both of those have exactly 2 sexes, I really doubt that any of the races in Wesnoth don't have exactly 2 sexes.

I mean really, people...

[Flametrooper]

a species that requires more than 2 genders to procreate is interesting, but just wasteful. Imagine how hard it would be to produce offspring. I belive the mix of genes is not a great enough benfit. Wow, I don't think I contributed anything at all.

*Imagines*
Ummm. Thank you very much, Dragon Master, I will now need to take a cold shower and lie down.

[JW]

The whole point of having 2 sexes is that each parent donates half of their DNA. Anything else is unnecessary.

Of course, you can have an oddity where, lets say, the the 3rd sex is the only one that can birth the offspring (as mentioned above), but then they don't actually pass on their genes. They're kinda like the other 2 sex's bi**h.

That is, of course, unless a new form of replication is created TNA anyone??
[size=0]several meanings[/size]

[scott]

We're built on bilateral symmetry, even down to the DNA level. Since even asymmetric organisms share this fundamental DNA structure, you can assume that either Wesnoth is the same way or that they didn't evolve from a single source. A trilateral organism with three strands per DNA chain might need three parents. Alien.

[Viliam]

The whole point of having 2 sexes is that each parent donates half of their DNA. Anything else is unnecessary.

It works a bit differently. Sexes are not necessary for splitting DNA to half and recombining it. Just as male organism gives a half DNA, and female organism gives a half DNA, exactly the same way the asexual or multisexual being can provide half DNA -- and if by any mechanism these halves can get together, they can recombine. It has nothing to do with number of sexes, only with how the DNA is constructed... it is easy to split in halves and join again.

The problem is elsewhere. When we speak about child getting half a DNA from each parent, we speak about nuclear DNA. But there are other important things in body cells outside nuclei, which are not created by the nuclear DNA, but provide their own -- the mitochondria. Mitochondria are something like cells inside cells, and they have their own reproduction systems. When two asexual beings reproduce, it goes like this -- the nucleus of the new cell is created by joining the halves of parent's nuclear DNA, but the mitochondria are fully provided by both parents... and sometimes they just fight each other inside the cell, until only side wins, and this will be the child's mitochondria. This fight is exhausting, often causing the whole cell to die (from mitochondria's point of view, winning is of most importance, whether they lose or the whole cell dies, it makes for them no difference; they are pretty selfish).

And that's why sexes exist. The "sex" is simply a conspiration of nuclei against mitochondria. When two sexual cells meet to create one child cell, the nucleus in the "male" cell betrays its own mitochondria -- it enters the "female" cell without them. Thus the child contains nuclear DNA from both parents, but mitochondrial DNA only from mother. The in-cell fight has been avoded. This is the basic difference between male and female: female provides mitochondrial DNA, male does not; both provide half of nuclear DNA. Anything beyond this is just an "added value".

What if there were more than two sexes? The common misconception is that if a species would have e.g. 3 sexes (let's call them A, B, C), you need 3 individuals, one from each sex, to reproduce. Not true. Beings based on DNA need 2 individuals to reproduce -- DNA is a "double helix", it can only split to halves, not to thirds. The three sexes mean simply 3 possible flags used in algorithm to determine which cell will use their mitochondria, and which will voluntarily give up. So in the example of 3 sexes, you need 2 individuals from different sexes to reproduce (e.g. A + B, A + C, B + C), and an algorithm to decide which one provides mitochondria, for example A provides mitochondria when having sex with B or C, and B provides mitochondria only when having sex with C.

There are some beings with more than 2 sexes on this planet (I guess they are all of microskopic size), but the 2 sexes model is the most successfull -- it has the advantage in simplicity, and in having to know which sex to interact with, so it can receive some "added value"... like one sex able to become pregnant, etc.

[PingPangQui]

Good Morning,

I didn't expect that my two sentences would lead to such a heavy discussion. Next time I'll be a bit more carefull what I write - hm, or maybe not . After all this discussion gave at least some people a new perspective towards the subject.

Back to topic: I actually don't think that there has to be a user choice between different genders, unless a difference in gender defines a difference in abilities (e.g. female = more intellegent, better in ranged attack, ...; male = stronger,faster,...). However this again would actually either lead to different units or to additional traits.

Afterall one want's or at least should hire the employee thats suites their position best irrespective their gender in case it is not of importance, as currently in BfW, i.e. random gender is quite appropriate.

In order to make it for everyone clear: I'm pretty aware that this attitude doesn't apply for a high number of employers and I'm also sure it won't apply for all wesnoth players too, unfortunately.

Have a nice day

Ping Pang Qui

P.S.: The leader is ofcourse a complete differnet thing, since this is what repesents you as a player - although i don't mind playing either genders.

[xtifr]

P.S.: The leader is ofcourse a complete differnet thing, since this is what repesents you as a player

Yeah, that's why I refuse to play undead--I'm afraid people might not realize that I'm actually alive. And I don't play elves because I don't want people thinking I'm gay, and I don't play dwarves because I don't want people thinking I'm short, and I don't play orcs or trolls because I don't want people to know the truth...er, please ignore that last part.

[tsr]

Putting the scientific perspective aside I think that it would benefit the game and the community if the definition of gender was to be remade (I don't say this should be a big priority, but that it would be nice).

As the system is done now it implies that if no gender is chosen then it is male (I'm talking about the unit.cfgs here). This is IMO a bad thing for two reasons.

1. Gameflavor

I know that I would like to develop an ungendered species. I know, that I could just ignore the gender then and avoid the [female] tag, etc, but this would mean that the units are percieved as male, not as ungendered.

Another situation would be for example a species with 4 variations each representing one of the four classic elements (earth, wind, fire and water) where the developer wishes the player to not chose between them but wants to vary them a bit anyway.

2. Social responsibility

I am aware of that this could be countered with, it's just a game, so why bother. But I say, that you allready bother on how BfW affects it's users (there is a no blood policy) and wheter you like it or not people are affected by these small things.

As the system is now we say that the current world order - where male is the default - is not only ok, but also something good.

If the gender system was changed to something where you have to explicitly define the gender of a unit in the config (like adding a variable 'variation=male/female/androgyn/robotic/earth/etc/etc') it would mean that the developers of this game want you the player/developer to not assume maleness. This is a good thing IMO.

/tsr

[scott]

2. Social responsibility

I am aware of that this could be countered with, it's just a game, so why bother. But I say, that you allready bother on how BfW affects it's users (there is a no blood policy) and wheter you like it or not people are affected by these small things.

As the system is now we say that the current world order - where male is the default - is not only ok, but also something good.

If the gender system was changed to something where you have to explicitly define the gender of a unit in the config (like adding a variable 'variation=male/female/androgyn/robotic/earth/etc/etc') it would mean that the developers of this game want you the player/developer to not assume maleness. This is a good thing IMO.

Since the fantasy world is based on medieval northern Europe, and the dev team has explicitly avoiding inserting gender where it would clearly not be realistic in that setting, this just sounds like a lot of work with no change in the results. The dev team doesn't feel the obligation to keep even its loyal users happy. Now they have to worry about the entire society?

[tsr]

The dev team doesn't feel the obligation to keep even its loyal users happy. Now they have to worry about the entire society?

Nope, no musts/haves or the like, just trying to say that this game does affect the world (however little this is) and that you could chose to aknowledge that and use that power for something good.

The devs have allready chosen to not show blood/gore as a social stand, this is IMO just another possible way to do so.

/tsr

[JW]

The dev team doesn't feel the obligation to keep even its loyal users happy. Now they have to worry about the entire society?

Nope, no musts/haves or the like, just trying to say that this game does affect the world (however little this is) and that you could chose to aknowledge that and use that power for something good.

The devs have allready chosen to not show blood/gore as a social stand, this is IMO just another possible way to do so.

/tsr

:insert comedic shock icon here:

...did he just write that?

[tsr]

Nope, no musts/haves or the like, just trying to say that this game does affect the world (however little this is) and that you could chose to aknowledge that and use that power for something good.

The devs have allready chosen to not show blood/gore as a social stand, this is IMO just another possible way to do so.

/tsr

:insert comedic shock icon here:

...did he just write that?

Yes, I did, care to elaborate on what is so funny/chocking?

(not only because I don't get it, but also because it would help the topic evolve in a constructive way)

/tsr