The gang talks Diablo 4 Beta, Microsoft Activision acquisition, E3 2023, Hogwarts Legacy’s ridiculous ending (no spoilers), and oh so much more!
Download (1 hr 10 minutes) - iTunes - Google Play - Stitcher - RSS - YouTube
Check out the CAGcast on YouTube for clips and complete episodes.
Show Linkage/Notes:
Intro - Andruss - Desert Flute
Outro - Tic Tac Dough 1978 Theme Song (Remade)
Please submit your show questions via CAGbag or Twitter.
#2
CAGiversary!
Posted 30 March 2023 - 07:57 PM
Whoa, are we back on a weekly schedule? This was a pleasant surprise, and I love the game show theme. Tic Tac Dough was a favorite of mine!
Speaking of Marvel Snap, I don't play it as much as I used to but the Moon Girl / Devil Dinosaur combo still usually slays for me. Speaking of, the Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur cartoon on Disney+ is great family fun and woke enough to give DeSantis the chills..
@ship and @wombat highly recommended.
@ship I'm impressed that you are taking the family through the entire HP series, just since it gets so dark. My 8 year old gets too scared to go that far in yet. Your move is encouraging me to give it another try with her (currently stopped at Chamber of Secrets). #TranslivesAreHumanLives
#3
CAGiversary!
Posted 30 March 2023 - 10:42 PM
Cheapy weird defensiveness for JK Rowlings and Harry Potter is really odd and leaving a bad taste in my mouth, especially because after listening since 2006 I know that he isn't some bigot. Is it really more important to not have wombat tell you what to do than it is to say that the Cagcast stance is Trans Rights are Human Rights?
I really do love the show, so please don't take this as an attack or anything like that.
#4
The Podfather
Posted 31 March 2023 - 03:28 PM
Cheapy weird defensiveness for JK Rowlings and Harry Potter is really odd and leaving a bad taste in my mouth, especially because after listening since 2006 I know that he isn't some bigot. Is it really more important to not have wombat tell you what to do than it is to say that the Cagcast stance is Trans Rights are Human Rights?
I really do love the show, so please don't take this as an attack or anything like that.
No one likes to be told what to do or say especially adults but more importantly I'm sure CheapyD doesn't want his brand taking stances on issues that have nothing to do with the show. Also without actually discussing what these Trans rights are the whole "Trans right are Human rights" phrase is meaningless and pressuring people to say it accomplishes nothing.
Has Cheapy watched The Offer yet?
- 2kings likes this
#5
Ne'er-do-well
Posted 01 April 2023 - 02:39 AM
I'm sure CheapyD doesn't want his brand taking stances on issues that have nothing to do with the show.
It's not a controversial or dangerous thing to say. If "his brand" is so soap-bubble weak that he's afraid for its future by making such a bedrock-level statement of support, maybe it's not worth keeping around. He comes across as a coward here.
#6
The Podfather
Posted 01 April 2023 - 08:01 PM
It's not a controversial or dangerous thing to say. If "his brand" is so soap-bubble weak that he's afraid for its future by making such a bedrock-level statement of support, maybe it's not worth keeping around. He comes across as a coward here.
It's not controversial or dangerous. The problem is that this turns people off because people aren't tuning into the Cagcast to hear their stances on social issues. We can listen to cable news or go on Twitter for that. This is the same problem sports and other industries faced when they started talking about social issues and making stances. I'm sure there are people who care about this stuff but the general audience doesn't. There is nothing cowardly about refusing to have stances on social issues on a show called Cheap Ass Gamer. All brands are weak, the minute you start doing something the audience isn't interested in they will leave, just look at Star Wars, the MCU, modern comics, etc.
I have a question for you, why does the Cagcast need to have a stance on Trans Rights?
- 2kings likes this
#8
CAGiversary!
Posted 04 April 2023 - 02:50 PM
CAGCast, being an independent discussion of a few friends who like games, can have a stance on whatever they want. If you don't want to hear it, you don't have to listen.
It was appropriate to discuss trans rights in relation to Hogwart's Legacy. Every game journalist included that as well, in light of JK's comments. This didn't happen in a CAG vacuum.
We are seeing sickening new laws being enacted across the US (and elsewhere) to bully and further disenfranchise trans citizens for purely political reasons. The legislators who support it see trans citizens as an easy target that will get them more votes from their base. In the meantime real human lives, now treated as less-than, are being damaged. It's a fair point of discussion, and having a stance on it is not "hollow".
Anyway... back to the games. Or whatever CAG wants to discuss. 
- MassiveDuck likes this
#9
The Podfather
Posted 05 April 2023 - 02:35 AM
CAGCast, being an independent discussion of a few friends who like games, can have a stance on whatever they want. If you don't want to hear it, you don't have to listen.
It was appropriate to discuss trans rights in relation to Hogwart's Legacy. Every game journalist included that as well, in light of JK's comments. This didn't happen in a CAG vacuum.
We are seeing sickening new laws being enacted across the US (and elsewhere) to bully and further disenfranchise trans citizens for purely political reasons. The legislators who support it see trans citizens as an easy target that will get them more votes from their base. In the meantime real human lives, now treated as less-than, are being damaged. It's a fair point of discussion, and having a stance on it is not "hollow".
Anyway... back to the games. Or whatever CAG wants to discuss.
They can have a stance on whatever they want but they can also choose to not have a stance on things as well. The problem here is that Wombat was trying to pressure Cheapy into having a stance. And the person I replied to seem to be upset that Cheapy didn't want to take a stance on the issue.
No, it wasn't. Hogwarts Legacy is just a video game that has nothing to do with Trans rights. As far as I know, neither the game nor developers or publishers have said anything negative about Trans Rights.
I will admit I don't know all these "new laws" but the ones I have seen seem pretty reasonable to me. We already ban children under the age of 18 from getting tattoos so banning "gender-affirming care" for children under 18 makes perfect sense to me. Once you turn 18 and become an adult you can do whatever you want. And the other thing is preventing biological men from using women's spaces like locker rooms or competing against them in sports. This too makes perfect sense and it's crazy that stuff like this needs to be a law. A few years ago this was just common sense, we have a WNBA and NBA for a reason.
It is hollow because it's just words without action.
#13
CAGcast or nothin
Posted 05 April 2023 - 12:09 PM
TI will admit I don't know all these "new laws" but the ones I have seen seem pretty reasonable to me. We already ban children under the age of 18 from getting tattoos so banning "gender-affirming care" for children under 18 makes perfect sense to me. Once you turn 18 and become an adult you can do whatever you want. And the other thing is preventing biological men from using women's spaces like locker rooms or competing against them in sports. This too makes perfect sense and it's crazy that stuff like this needs to be a law. A few years ago this was just common sense, we have a WNBA and NBA for a reason.
I can't believe I have to say this but "gender affirming care" is not the same as a Tattoo. Please just stop.
#14
The Podfather
Posted 05 April 2023 - 03:41 PM
I can't believe I have to say this but "gender affirming care" is not the same as a Tattoo. Please just stop.
It's not about the tattoo itself, you could replace that with cosmetic surgery or anything else children under 18 can't do, it's the principle. Society believes children aren't mentally capable of making the decision to do these things because they don't fully understand the long-term effects. Knowing that why would anyone listen to a 10-year-old who claims to be born in the wrong body? Explain that to me.
#15
CAGcast or nothin
Posted 05 April 2023 - 04:29 PM
It's not about the tattoo itself, you could replace that with cosmetic surgery or anything else children under 18 can't do, it's the principle. Society believes children aren't mentally capable of making the decision to do these things because they don't fully understand the long-term effects. Knowing that why would anyone listen to a 10-year-old who claims to be born in the wrong body? Explain that to me.
That's not how it works, even in states when Gender Affirming care is legal. A 10 year old may have gender dysphoria, but it requires a diagnoses. Doctors are important here. Hormone therapy or blockers wouldn't happen until later. At 10, it would if anything be about acceptance and therapy. https://www.scientif...s-really-shows/
- gorgo likes this
#16
The Podfather
Posted 06 April 2023 - 05:44 PM
That's not how it works, even in states when Gender Affirming care is legal. A 10 year old may have gender dysphoria, but it requires a diagnoses. Doctors are important here. Hormone therapy or blockers wouldn't happen until later. At 10, it would if anything be about acceptance and therapy. https://www.scientif...s-really-shows/
I read that article and I think it illustrates the problem people have with this trans stuff, there are no real standards or rules to any of this stuff. For example, I read an article where parents labeled their 10-year-old child as trans. What exactly does that mean? Can anyone just label themselves as trans? Do you have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria first before you can be labeled as trans? Is everyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria trans? I assume not but the article doesn't really discuss this. This article claims that children as young as 16 have potential access to gender-affirming surgery yet other people will claim that no surgeries are being done on minors. Terms like "gender affirming care" are very vague and like I said there are no rules to any of this so its impossible to know exactly what's going on. One thing we do know for sure is that some of these treatments like GnRHa therapy have side effects. The article claims the benefits outweigh the side effects but we don't have enough data to know that for sure and the article has a little too many "it could", "the data suggests", "[it] appears", "it can be", or "[it] may" to my liking. We are dealing with children here and at least in my opinion we shouldn't be testing theories on them.
Back to the main point, the article says that after a gender dysphoria diagnosis "The Endocrine Society guidelines recommend a maximum of two years on GnRHa therapy to allow more time for children to form their gender identity before undergoing puberty for their sex assigned at birth, the effects of which are irreversible". Why are we allowing children to form their own gender identity? Why is this a choice they get to make?
#17
CAGcast or nothin
Posted 06 April 2023 - 06:34 PM
I read that article and I think it illustrates the problem people have with this trans stuff, there are no real standards or rules to any of this stuff. For example, I read an article where parents labeled their 10-year-old child as trans. What exactly does that mean? Can anyone just label themselves as trans? Do you have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria first before you can be labeled as trans? Is everyone who is diagnosed with gender dysphoria trans? I assume not but the article doesn't really discuss this. This article claims that children as young as 16 have potential access to gender-affirming surgery yet other people will claim that no surgeries are being done on minors. Terms like "gender affirming care" are very vague and like I said there are no rules to any of this so its impossible to know exactly what's going on. One thing we do know for sure is that some of these treatments like GnRHa therapy have side effects. The article claims the benefits outweigh the side effects but we don't have enough data to know that for sure and the article has a little too many "it could", "the data suggests", "[it] appears", "it can be", or "[it] may" to my liking. We are dealing with children here and at least in my opinion we shouldn't be testing theories on them.Back to the main point, the article says that after a gender dysphoria diagnosis "The Endocrine Society guidelines recommend a maximum of two years on GnRHa therapy to allow more time for children to form their gender identity before undergoing puberty for their sex assigned at birth, the effects of which are irreversible". Why are we allowing children to form their own gender identity? Why is this a choice they get to make?
Children have always formed thier own gender identities. It's just that the vast majority form identities that match thier birth gender, so we don't notice. Are you saying that parent should be able to decide thier child's gender identity no matter what? That sounds way worse.
#18
The Podfather
Posted 08 April 2023 - 10:30 PM
Children have always formed thier own gender identities. It's just that the vast majority form identities that match thier birth gender, so we don't notice. Are you saying that parent should be able to decide thier child's gender identity no matter what? That sounds way worse.
Come on Wombat, you are older than me, you know that the concept of "gender identity" didn't even exist 15+ years ago. So no children have not always formed their own gender identities. A child's gender is determined by a doctor at birth and it is based on their biology, an actual science. In some very rare cases, the child might not believe that, and these people were believed to be suffering from gender dysphoria. This is how it always has been and in most cases still is. In the last 10 years or so people have started claiming that gender is a social construct and that your gender identity can be whatever you want. I don't even know the science or logic behind this but for some reason, people believed this and this created the idea that people can just identify as whatever they want at any age without any kind of proof because it's based on feelings. To answer your question no, parents don't decide their child's gender the doctor at birth does that.
I'll ask again because you didn't actually answer the question, why are we allowing children to form their own gender identity? Why is this a choice they get to make?
#19
Ne'er-do-well
Posted 10 April 2023 - 06:41 PM
the concept of "gender identity" didn't even exist 15+ years ago.
Our not having a term for a concept does not mean the concept didn't exist prior. Doctors didn't bother washing their hands before or after surgeries for centuries because we didn't yet understand germs and microorganisms. The germs didn't stand by and wait for us to grasp the concept before existing.
- gorgo likes this
#20
The Podfather
Posted 11 April 2023 - 10:28 PM
Our not having a term for a concept does not mean the concept didn't exist prior. Doctors didn't bother washing their hands before or after surgeries for centuries because we didn't yet understand germs and microorganisms. The germs didn't stand by and wait for us to grasp the concept before existing.
That's true but I was alive 15+ years ago so I know for a fact that the concept of gender identity didn't exist back then. Other concepts like preferred pronouns also didn't exist back then.
#21
Ne'er-do-well
Posted 12 April 2023 - 01:05 AM
That's true but I was alive 15+ years ago so I know for a fact that the concept of gender identity didn't exist back then. Other concepts like preferred pronouns also didn't exist back then.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're just speaking nonsense. You "know for a fact" how no one twenty years ago felt conflicted about their gender assignment at birth?
You sound like the folks in my tiny hometown who are confident that they've never met a gay person, because gay only exists in liberal cities and states.
- gorgo likes this
#22
The Podfather
Posted 12 April 2023 - 03:25 PM
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but you're just speaking nonsense. You "know for a fact" how no one twenty years ago felt conflicted about their gender assignment at birth?
You sound like the folks in my tiny hometown who are confident that they've never met a gay person, because gay only exists in liberal cities and states.
I'm speaking nonsense? That's funny coming from someone who doesn't even know what the gender identity concept is. Feeling conflicted about your biological gender is called gender dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria has been around for a long time but this isn't what we are talking about. The gender identity concept is the idea that your gender is whatever you self-identify as. For example, to be a woman all you have to do is identity as one. This idea is fairly new and has not been around for a long time. Next time learn what these concepts mean before making yourself look foolish.
#23
Ne'er-do-well
Posted 13 April 2023 - 12:13 AM
By all means, bob and weave behind semantics as it suits you.
I'll restate it this last time and then be done with this: your being unaware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And maybe don't churlishly tell folks they're "making themselves look foolish" while positing confident "I know for a fact" declarations you cannot credibly make or back up.
- Z-Saber likes this
#24
The Podfather
Posted 13 April 2023 - 01:45 PM
By all means, bob and weave behind semantics as it suits you.
I'll restate it this last time and then be done with this: your being unaware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And maybe don't churlishly tell folks they're "making themselves look foolish" while positing confident "I know for a fact" declarations you cannot credibly make or back up.
lol this isn't a semantics issue, gender identity and gender dysphoria are two separate things.
I never claimed that gender identity didn't exist 15 years because I was unaware of it. Anyone alive 15+ years ago knows that the idea that to be a woman all you have to do is identify as one didn't exist just like the idea of preferenced pronouns didn't exist back then either.
#25
CAGcast or nothin
Posted 13 April 2023 - 06:36 PM
lol this isn't a semantics issue, gender identity and gender dysphoria are two separate things.I never claimed that gender identity didn't exist 15 years because I was unaware of it. Anyone alive 15+ years ago knows that the idea that to be a woman all you have to do is identify as one didn't exist just like the idea of preferenced pronouns didn't exist back then either.
As someone that has beed working in the LGBTQ+ community for over 15 years, I can confirm that those things existed. They just did not impact you at the time.
#27
The Podfather
Posted 14 April 2023 - 04:14 PM
In reality probably still not impacting him outside of getting upset about it online.
lol I love that you think I'm getting upset. I'm not sure what I would be getting upset about but cheerleaders like you are funny, you know people who don't add anything to a discussion and are only here to like posts.
As someone that has beed working in the LGBTQ+ community for over 15 years, I can confirm that those things existed. They just did not impact you at the time.
Without context working with the LGBTQ+ community doesn't mean much when it comes to gender identify because that's a very vague statement. Most groups within the LGBTQ+ community are sexual orientations which has nothing to do with gender identity. Do you actually work with trans people? I thought you worked in marketing but it's never been really clear what you actually do when you talk about your job on the podcast. I don't even care about this anymore though because we have moved so far from the actual point.
This has nothing to do with how it impacts me. I'm a man so none of this stuff has ever impacted me. All I personally want is to know the why. Why do we need to allow biological men to compete against women in sports? Why do we need to allow children to form their own gender identity? Why is this a choice they get to make? Why do we need to redefine what a woman is and create "inclusive terms" like birthing person? Why does everyone have to accept your gender identity? Why are we testing theories on children? Why does a podcast called Cheap Ass gamer need to have stance on "Trans Rights"? I'd love to have answer to these questions.
