Sim, uso, meu ingles nativo não é tão bom, para ajudar com informações ou trasmitir, poucos tem tradutor ativo
I’m transgender and science does not support your statment. Here is a good article which will help you. Every single major scientific and Psychological Association in the western world accepts that gender is a spectrum and that transgender is both real and a natural component of Humanity. They based this on the actual science.
A good example would be to research the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis and it’s sexual dimorphic manifestations that correlate with gender identification rather than primary sexual characteristic.
2 Likes
This may truly be the least informed statment on sex/gender I have read in years. I’d call it highly insulting, but I dont think you realize you are being insulting. Homosexuality and gender are different things. Chromosomes are only one small part of sex and gender.
I’m leaving this alone until you go read some biology books. Hopefully the moderator deletes these posts and stops this.
1 Like
So some insults. Just reality, a good prehistoric game should not even have gender issues. People do not look for this in Games. They end consumers - gamers - those who will be maybe 95% want only prehistory, without gender ideology. For this there are other games in the market that is based on gender. The Sims 4 itself works that. People want a simulator just from prehistory. But as for genetics, it is important and sex-defining. People are born man or woman, invariably. I do not know “pregnant” man, in nature this does not exist, so any other genres are artificial, cultural inventions. But this does not interest me. Just my opinion, a prehistoric game should stay with prehistoric themes. Just this. Even because for example the theme of his topic, “equality” never existed. There have always been social classes and division of tasks by sex, in some people more in others less. But it does not exist and there never was such a city of “all alike”. If this were so, there would be no dynamics that evolved humanity from nomadic bands to transcontinental cities and civilizations. And as their attempt to force women to have been “in large measure” soldiers. There was no such thing in prehistory, 20%, 30% of bodies of armored women do not mean they are all warriors. The earliest account of women in combat is in the old testament, in the campaign of the Hebrews in Sinai, the women made the internal military defense of the camps and only later they made the service of liquidating the defeated enemies without leaving alive wounded. Alias characteristic of the IDF today, men in active combat across borders, women in the inner security and internal military services in place of men. Some in antiquity were certainly active warfare, but in smaller numbers, rest assured. I agree with a certain position that nomadic and more equestrian tribes had greater participation of the woman. Obvious reasons small groups and large sparsely populated environment, enemy incursions like beaters and spies, thieves were common, knowing warfare was vital. Very different from agrarian societies like rome or commercial like Athens. Being athens with greater freedom of “gender” in their concepts of gender be dissociated from biological sex. But agrarian societies are conservative, women have a somewhat secondary role. societies a little more freedom, commercial societies like Aenas or Minoa Crete a freedom, that would shock any nomad and agrarian. But I repeat Grigor already gave solution, slider of feminine freedom to the player to control the tribe.
But Wikipedia source? It does not seem to me something “intellectual to the subject”. I prefer to return to topics relevant to games. Diverse options like backpacks, shoes. This is what players are looking for a prehistory full of options and would be what the group should dedicate. Assist creating bank of ideas and images for developers.
But as I said, it’s just my opinion.
I recommend readings: How to change the course of human history | Eurozine
It is foolish to say that the Neolithic pattern is “equitable and egalitarian.” And even in the Paleolithic this is not true. All groups are human or animal have inequalities between individuals, this is what makes evolution possible. Neolithic societies had mining of several resources more known; obsidian, amber. Collecting resources to the point where there are large continuous trade routes and even those routes of salt imposes a great specialty. It takes chargers, guides, and someone who operates the venture that benefits the tribe! It takes extensive protection nets on the routes and authorization to pass through territories of other tribes. It is a great reductionism and unrealistic social dynamics. EQUALITY IN CITIES, even less. The SIMPLE FACT of a tribe having a leader, shaman, healer, already imposes some figures that are the elite. Warriors and hunters as a middle class and collectors like the lower class. Artisans of spears and silex as highly specialized upper middle class. The dynamics of the real period, when one searches the period in its economy and conflicts in the period, imposes a dynamic contrary to this “equalization” IDEALIZED. Many confuse “social cooperation” with “equality or equity.” Achelian or Odulvanian technology could never propagate without the need for social or labor inequality. Certain areas in which they lived are certainly lacking the resources to craft technology artifacts, requiring trade. Scaling up to supply your tribe and the other requires specialization. And more and more that their culture spreads these centers has to scale up. Although this pattern can be theoretically refuted. We still have small groups growing in population in general, we call population increase, to supply this population we need to increase artifacts, part-time artisans, become full time, can not hunt, fish, etc. But they receive their social part of resources or buy by exchanging their tips from silex and amber or another resource. It is really utopian to think of “equality and equity”. Human evolution is the evolution of social specialization, inequality.