They never really judged him based on his choice to live privately as a woman, just on the fact that he was crazy. I felt like those aspects were separate. He wasn't crazy because he was gay, he was crazy because he couldn't be George's number 1 girl and the game reflected that by having his portrayal in the afterlife also be that of a woman. If being gay was part of his corruption, it wouldn't be shown in those positive dream sequences, just like George wasn't shown there. 
Compare that to, say, Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, where his homosexuality is implied to be directly connected to his psychosis.His desire to live as a woman is the reason he killed them. That sort of thing got a pass because of the time it came out. I don't see that sort of direct correlation here.

" They never really judged him based on his choice to live privately as a woman, just on the fact that he was crazy. I felt like those aspects were separate. He wasn't crazy because he was gay, he was crazy because he couldn't be George's number 1 girl and the game reflected that by having his portrayal in the afterlife also be that of a woman. If being gay was part of his corruption, it wouldn't be shown in those positive dream sequences, just like George wasn't shown there. Compare that to, say, Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, where his homosexuality is implied to be directly connected to his psychosis.His desire to live as a woman is the reason he killed them. That sort of thing got a pass because of the time it came out. I don't see that sort of direct correlation here. "

It was relevant to his involvement, just the correlation wasn't directly linked to causation. Basically there's no reason to assume after you find out he's gay that he must be obsessed with George. Those are two separate entities.

Wow, spoiler right in the title of the thread.

I think swery just said   yo, let me put a gay dude up n diz bitch.

" Wow, spoiler right in the title of the thread. "

Unless there's some other podcast out there that discusses Thomas in this way, I am the person in question who brought up said discussion. It wasn't that I specifically disliked how Thomas was presented, I just wished that certain things about him had been handled differently. 
 
This is a terrible reply, however, and I'll try to give a longer (and more in-depth) one later.

" Unless there's some other podcast out there that discusses Thomas in this way, I am the person in question who brought up said discussion. It wasn't that I specifically disliked how Thomas was presented, I just wished that certain things about him had been handled differently.  This is a terrible reply, however, and I'll try to give a longer (and more in-depth) one later. "

" @kevinski:  There is a strong contingent of people out there who insist on being PC Police (and that's Politically Correct, easy to get confused on this gaming website). Anytime a minority character is placed in a villainous role there will be people who have a problem with it. They don't seem to realize that having only straight, white, male villains would be INCREDIBLY dull. "

I agree with you in so many ways.  I am actually really pleased by your comparisons with Psycho, because that's what I've been thinking about a lot- I mean, okay, the more obvious parallels with Psycho are probably George's dead mother in the basement, but Thomas and Norman have a very similar demeanor on the surface.  I suppose that's a bit of a digression.
 
I think I was a little frustrated with how Thomas's multiple personalities came out- that once he sort of snapped, I believe he was displaying the somewhat sweet but sad feminine persona he may have had all along but kept private ("Emily, Emily, I-") but also the very shrill, angry female persona ("Die, you skanky swine!").  I at least interpreted the different moods as different personalities?  I wasn't sure.  The voice acting (which was pretty impressive) suggested to me that they were wildly different moods, at least.  But I think it was difficult for me because everything Thomas had done so far had led me to a picture of him that was very sweet and meek and honestly very much like a lot of the characters I'm drawn to- and suddenly he was doing things that I didn't like, and it was a little tough for me to see him do something difficult.  I think in many ways, if they were multiple personalities, it was an interesting little mirror for York and Zach- that something inside Thomas stood up and decided to protect the meeker parts, though it was less of a helpful force and more of a potential suicide by police.  (I guess I've been wondering about that too, if the meeker part of Thomas just wanted it to be over, and knew that the situation would result in some kind of resolution, whether it was escape or death.  He seemed pretty fatalistic about the whole thing, when he was talking to York.)
 
All in all, he was the character I connected with the most.  Its been a long time since I latched onto someone like that.  After a few minutes of watching him, I knew he was interested in men (and attributed it to slash goggles, because i has them.)  I also knew he had a record player and liked jazz- I think I guessed that after the biscuit scene.  I can't describe how weird it was watching scenes of his apartment (I have not played the game, but watched through on youtube and then on Giantbomb) and seeing everything I felt like I'd already seen.  
 
I just thought it was pretty respectful that he got a place in the painting and in the forest.  I wasn't sure what to expect when it came to that, and I was pleasantly surprised. 

I would never, ever read too much into anything to do with Deadly Premonition, let's be fair, that might be giving the game's writing a tad too much credit, even if it is the strongest part of the overall package. 
 
That being said, I didn't see anything wrong with Thomas' portrayal; after all, transvestites can be insane, just like everybody else. It's not like they openly said 'Look how crazy he was, wearing women's clothing'. 
 
On another note, I don't at all see the Norman Bates thing with Thomas, it wasn't a case of split personalities, it was a case of a crazy person hiding his insanity very, very well. George you could maybe make a case for, but let's be fair, the dead-mother-in-the-basement thing has been copied so many times it's not even a direct reference anymore, it's a genre cliche.

I don't think Thomas' sexuality was significant. It's more about his personal repression of his gender identity. Seems like he wanted to be a woman but didnt pursue the healthy outlets for that and eventually went nuts. Probably because theres not alot of tolerance for gender reassignment in a small town. I don't think hes meant to be a condemnation or judgment of homosexuality. We also don't know exactly how much of an effect the red seeds have. Did he take them, i may have missed that. He, and maybe even George, might not really be responsible for their actions anymore by the end of their lives. The gas could turn people into murderous zombies, what were the chronic effects of exposure to the seeds or of living in greenvale with its level of toxic contamination in the soil?

"We also don't know exactly how much of an effect the red seeds have. Did he take them, i may have missed that. He, and maybe even George, might not really be responsible for their actions anymore by the end of their lives. The gas could turn people into murderous zombies, what were the chronic effects of exposure to the seeds or of living in greenvale with its level of toxic contamination in the soil? "

"Compare that to, say, Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, where his homosexuality is implied to be directly connected to his psychosis.His desire to live as a woman is the reason he killed them. That sort of thing got a pass because of the time it came out. I don't see that sort of direct correlation here. "

" I agree with you in so many ways.  I am actually really pleased by your comparisons with Psycho, because that's what I've been thinking about a lot- I mean, okay, the more obvious parallels with Psycho are probably George's dead mother in the basement, but Thomas and Norman have a very similar demeanor on the surface.  I suppose that's a bit of a digression. 
 
I think I was a little frustrated with how Thomas's multiple personalities came out- that once he sort of snapped, I believe he was displaying the somewhat sweet but sad feminine persona he may have had all along but kept private ("Emily, Emily, I-") but also the very shrill, angry female persona ("Die, you skanky swine!").  I at least interpreted the different moods as different personalities?  I wasn't sure.  The voice acting (which was pretty impressive) suggested to me that they were wildly different moods, at least.  But I think it was difficult for me because everything Thomas had done so far had led me to a picture of him that was very sweet and meek and honestly very much like a lot of the characters I'm drawn to- and suddenly he was doing things that I didn't like, and it was a little tough for me to see him do something difficult.  I think in many ways, if they were multiple personalities, it was an interesting little mirror for York and Zach- that something inside Thomas stood up and decided to protect the meeker parts, though it was less of a helpful force and more of a potential suicide by police.  (I guess I've been wondering about that too, if the meeker part of Thomas just wanted it to be over, and knew that the situation would result in some kind of resolution, whether it was escape or death.  He seemed pretty fatalistic about the whole thing, when he was talking to York.) 
 
All in all, he was the character I connected with the most.  Its been a long time since I latched onto someone like that.  After a few minutes of watching him, I knew he was interested in men (and attributed it to slash goggles, because i has them.)  I also knew he had a record player and liked jazz- I think I guessed that after the biscuit scene.  I can't describe how weird it was watching scenes of his apartment (I have not played the game, but watched through on youtube and then on Giantbomb) and seeing everything I felt like I'd already seen. 
 
I just thought it was pretty respectful that he got a place in the painting and in the forest.  I wasn't sure what to expect when it came to that, and I was pleasantly surprised.  "

" Honestly, I think it was a little more offensive when the game had him mincing around all effeminately. "

" I would never, ever read too much into anything to do with Deadly Premonition, let's be fair, that might be giving the game's writing a tad too much credit, even if it is the strongest part of the overall package. 
 
That being said, I didn't see anything wrong with Thomas' portrayal; after all, transvestites can be insane, just like everybody else. It's not like they openly said 'Look how crazy he was, wearing women's clothing'. 
 
On another note, I don't at all see the Norman Bates thing with Thomas, it wasn't a case of split personalities, it was a case of a crazy person hiding his insanity very, very well. George you could maybe make a case for, but let's be fair, the dead-mother-in-the-basement thing has been copied so many times it's not even a direct reference anymore, it's a genre cliche. "

I am willing to assume that Thomas ingested the seeds along with the rest of the cult. 
 
Which brings me to the big timeline issue I've been having while trying to piece together events for some fanfiction.  Emily says that she came to Greenvale when she was in highschool and that George asked her out.  This was on average about 10 years ago as the official website lists her as 26- so she was 16?  Anyway.  Thomas is 28 and his sister Carol is 20- so ten years ago, he also would have been in highschool and Carol, Anna and Becky would have been in grade school. 
 
Thomas says during his boss fight that things were so much better before Emily came to Greenvale, and that "we had so much fun." 
George says during his boss fight that he asked Carol and Thomas to make the bondage lair after he'd already been using the seeds on Anna and Becky. Was George involved with Thomas so far back (like when Thomas was in highschool/just out of it?), and was that what Thomas meant was so much fun, or was Thomas happier before he'd gotten with George at all?  (...Also, why did Carol hardly get any character development?  Sorry to hijack your thread.) "

Hm, kevinsky, I don't know why you're refuting things I didn't say.  I agreed with you, and I do think he was set off by something- a specific incident- probably the moment he realized that George had been trying to frame him the entire case (which has become more and more clear to me in subsequent viewings- especially the moment George suggests to York that the killer was the one who put on the high heels at the initial crime scene, but also the red hairs in the lumber mill and the book in Thomas's handwriting and George's false lead to Thomas's apartment.) 
 
Actually, the line, "We had so much fun" was directed at Emily, but yes.  I don't know if he means that he and Carol had more fun before they got involved with George, or he's adopted Carol as his protector in his own head and he means "we" the same way York means himself and Zach occasionally, or he does mean that at one point he and George had a relationship that he enjoyed.  
 
My only point was that I was saddened to see him doing things that were violent.  Which is how I think I was supposed to feel- I felt defensive of him when York threatens him ("If you dare to touch Emily" or something similar) and I was sad when he identified Emily as the problem in his and George's relationship, and not George.  I was moved by his development, not resistant to it.

I think a sad part of the problem with Deadly Premonition's production values, is that it's hard to tell whether something was done on purpose.  It's hard to put subtlety into it if you're working with such severe limitations.  I say this specifically about things like Thomas' nancy run and his dancing.  When you peek into his house and see him dancing there, it's hard to tell what the hell is going on due to the production values.
 
I agree with the poster who said that Thomas seemed more offensive to homosexuals when he was mincing about rather than when he turned homicidal.  It's George that I kind of have the problem with... it's as if the moment his bisexuality comes forward that he turns into a psychopath.  The Depraved Bisexual routine is so common there's a TV Tropes page about it.
 
It's nice that gay characters are starting to exist in games, that's a big step forward.  But so far the only complex and almost heroic interpretation of it I've seen is Kanji.  Usually it's closer to Herren and Wade from Dragon Age, who aren't offensive, but more than a little camp.

" Hm, kevinsky, I don't know why you're refuting things I didn't say.  I agreed with you, and I do think he was set off by something- a specific incident- probably the moment he realized that George had been trying to frame him the entire case (which has become more and more clear to me in subsequent viewings- especially the moment George suggests to York that the killer was the one who put on the high heels at the initial crime scene, but also the red hairs in the lumber mill and the book in Thomas's handwriting and George's false lead to Thomas's apartment.) 
 
Actually, the line, "We had so much fun" was directed at Emily, but yes.  I don't know if he means that he and Carol had more fun before they got involved with George, or he's adopted Carol as his protector in his own head and he means "we" the same way York means himself and Zach occasionally, or he does mean that at one point he and George had a relationship that he enjoyed. 
 
My only point was that I was saddened to see him doing things that were violent.  Which is how I think I was supposed to feel- I felt defensive of him when York threatens him ("If you dare to touch Emily" or something similar) and I was sad when he identified Emily as the problem in his and George's relationship, and not George.  I was moved by his development, not resistant to it. "

" I think a sad part of the problem with Deadly Premonition's production values, is that it's hard to tell whether something was done on purpose.  It's hard to put subtlety into it if you're working with such severe limitations.  I say this specifically about things like Thomas' nancy run and his dancing.  When you peek into his house and see him dancing there, it's hard to tell what the hell is going on due to the production values.
 
I agree with the poster who said that Thomas seemed more offensive to homosexuals when he was mincing about rather than when he turned homicidal.  It's George that I kind of have the problem with... it's as if the moment his bisexuality comes forward that he turns into a psychopath.  The Depraved Bisexual routine is so common there's a TV Tropes page about it.
 
It's nice that gay characters are starting to exist in games, that's a big step forward.  But so far the only complex and almost heroic interpretation of it I've seen is Kanji.  Usually it's closer to Herren and Wade from Dragon Age, who aren't offensive, but more than a little camp. "

Okay, before this thread gets any longer and it's even more difficult to get into it, let me bring up a few of my points. I don't really come at this as a discussion - as in, I'm right, you're wrong, etc. - but more a clarification of my statements on the podcast as to why I wasn't fully happy with the character of Thomas. 
 
Also, before I begin, let me clarify a few things. "I wasn't happy with X" and "I didn't like X" are two totally different things. (For example: I liked Deadly Premonition, I wasn't happy with some of its elements.) Being "politically correct" has nothing to do with anything. Also, Thomas isn't gay; at least, we don't know for SURE that he is. His situation seems to lean more toward being either a cross dresser or transgender (and let's also be clear that those two things aren't the same), and depending on which, the factors of his sexuality could be totally different (as gender identity and sexuality have no connection). 
 
You may have enjoyed the position you saw Thomas being in storyline-wise, and that's fine, even if I may disagree with some of your points. For me, it wasn't so much "I don't like what they did with Thomas" as much as it was "they could have done something FAR more interesting with him in my opinion". The problem I have starts with this question: how many POSITIVE portrayals of transgender / cross dresser characters can you name in video games? Every type of person can and should be available for use as an antagonist, but it can be hard to embrace that idea when positive examples of those characters are so few and far between. 
 
I would never say that the character of Thomas shouldn't exist, but once I knew for sure where they were taking him, it disheartened me. Up until chapter 5, I knew there was something a little "different" about him. Then, when getting to the point where you're searching his apartment, I started to have a sinking feeling as I began to get an idea for where I thought they were going for him: the crazy cross-dressing killer. 
 
But then I'm going through chapter 5, and as more pieces of the puzzle fall into place, I find myself loving where I now think the game is going. We are meant to think Thomas is the killer, that he's this psychopath freak, and yet, I see the resolution being that he's the killer's next victim, killed as one of "the girls" which comes as a shock to us and to most of the inhabitants of Greenvale. 
 
What actually plays out didn't go where I hoped, but also didn't go where I feared. Thomas is a character we can end up sympathizing with, a character who is both an innocent victim and somebody who deserves some level of blame. As it stands, great; I'm okay for the most part with how it worked out. 
 
At the same time, though, I just can't help but feel that it's all a little lazy. The cross dresser ends up being the one that attacks us, forcing us to kill him. I'm utterly shocked, in a very sarcastic way. And then, indeed, George is also a "sexual devient", and he's our other main human villain. No matter how strong or weak Thomas is/was as a character, it's just such an easy way to take the story to me. 
 
Which leads to a bigger problem: you may appreciate Thomas, I may appreciate him, but the way he plays out in DP, I just can't help but imagine a lot of players seeing him as nothing more than "the gay freak". We're never allowed to see any quality signs of Thomas in his "truer" self until the point at which he's going crazy and trying to kill Emily*, and that might be part of what makes me feel so uncomfortable.  Thomas as a cross dresser / transgender character is never presented to us until it's time to use him as our enemy, and I wish that hadn't have happened. It would have required the game to not use the reveal of Thomas being that was as a major surprise, but really, I'd have been perfectly fine with that. Even if we can appreciate Thomas for who he is, you cannot miss the fact that for a lot of people, Thomas being "bad" and his sexuality / gender identity are going to be directly linked.
 
(* that I know if. If there were scenes that I missed where York is shown that side of Thomas in a positive light, then I'm going to look more than a little silly.) 
 
For who he is in relation to the story and the overall game, I'm fine with Thomas. While I can't appreciate what was done with him as much as you can, I still think he's an interesting and pretty positive character once the game comes to a close. For me, though, I wish more had been done with him in a way that didn't have such potential to link his more personal side with feelings of negativity, and which wouldn't feed into the notion that such people are bizarre freaks. No matter how he ends up and what redemption he receives, that's exactly how he is portrayed at his most powerful and prominent moment in the game, at least in my eyes.

Which leads to a bigger problem: you may appreciate Thomas, I may appreciate him, but the way he plays out in DP, I just can't help but imagine a lot of players seeing him as nothing more than "the gay freak". We're never allowed to see any quality signs of Thomas in his "truer" self until the point at which he's going crazy and trying to kill Emily*, and that might be part of what makes me feel so uncomfortable.  Thomas as a cross dresser / transgender character is never presented to us until it's time to use him as our enemy, and I wish that hadn't have happened. It would have required the game to not use the reveal of Thomas being that was as a major surprise, but really, I'd have been perfectly fine with that. Even if we can appreciate Thomas for who he is, you cannot miss the fact that for a lot of people, Thomas being "bad" and his sexuality / gender identity are going to be directly linked..

" Also, Thomas isn't gay; at least, we don't know for SURE that he is. "

" The problem I have starts with this question: how many POSITIVE portrayals of transgender / cross dresser characters can you name in video games? Every type of person can and should be available for use as an antagonist, but it can be hard to embrace that idea when positive examples of those characters are so few and far between. "

" We're never allowed to see any quality signs of Thomas in his "truer" self until the point at which he's going crazy and trying to kill Emily*, and that might be part of what makes me feel so uncomfortable.  Thomas as a cross dresser / transgender character is never presented to us until it's time to use him as our enemy, and I wish that hadn't have happened. "

" (* that I know if. If there were scenes that I missed where York is shown that side of Thomas in a positive light, then I'm going to look more than a little silly.) "

" I think in many ways, this sort of thing may be why a lot of media doesn't attempt to handle transgendered/cross-dressing/gay/ethnic/etc characters and may avoid going into women's issues too deeply (because not having any women at all would probably end up looking too obvious)- because they're not as easy to handle as cisgendered heterosexual majority men who prefer men's clothing, especially when they're being written by people in the same group that the characters belong to.  Even a character that's satisfying to some people may come off totally the wrong way to others.  I think authors are scared of handling those issues incorrectly, so they avoid them instead of trying and maybe missing the point, which I think is unfortunate. "

I actually agree with this- wildly so, and I've been very uncomfortable when I've found evidence of it.  I don't know if you've listened to the Warning! A Huge Podcast Approaching (or whatever) podcast, the one with the Jeff Kramer-voiced interview of SWERY, but the guys in it, nice as they were, made a few offhand remarks about Thomas that just seemed... cold to me.  Not nearly the way I had always seen him.  

Thomas's character has got nothing at all to do with sexual preference and everything to do with gender identity, which is not the same thing. Not to try and play SWERY, but I'd guess that Thomas considered himself (herself?) straight, except born into the wrong gender.
 
I think it was both tasteful and tasteless. Tasteless in the sense that he is overtly animated "femininely" to a cartoonish extent , but tasteful in the sense that he wasn't a joke like a Rockstar character.

" @shidoshi said:

" Also, Thomas isn't gay; at least, we don't know for SURE that he is. "

I totally disagree here. It's blatantly obvious that Thomas is gay. I suppose that there's a remote chance that he's bisexual, but I seriously doubt it. He's obviously very attracted to men, and he barely even gives women so much as a glance.  

I see Thomas' sexuality and his mental state two completely separate things and I'm very surprised that anybody would make a link between the two. If anything I feel like Thomas' portrayal as a homosexual was rather generic and that is probably my biggest complaint about the character but considering how few games would actually dare to deal with the kind of subject matter anyway Deadly Premonition is rather making strides in this field. Thomas was definitely more believable than the other two villains at the end of the game; Thomas' boss battle was somewhat silly but the game always had a weird quirkiness to it and it definitely didn't deviate into the realms of the purely ridiculous like the battle with George or Kaysen. Unlike George and Kaysen though I never saw Thomas as a straight-out evil character, I felt like he was a good guy who had just been lead down the wrong path and the game seemed to take a similar stance on it, showing him at peace alongside the other girls in the afterlife-like realm at the end of the game. Although I did find Thomas a less likable character by the point that he was trying to kill Emily and it had been discovered that he had been involved with the murders I still never really hated him, I just saw him as an unfortunate case.

I thought the portrayal of Thomas as a tragic character was pretty sound. Everyone in the game is odd in some way, does Thomas' sexuality excuse him from the effects of the seeds or the general weirdness that afflicts everyone else in Greenvale?
 
Also, of all the ne'er-do-wells in DP, Thomas' motives were the most plain and understandable: Betrayed by his lover he sought revenge.
 
@Gamer_152 makes a good point: the game explicitly states it's position on Thomas. He ended up in the green room with the girls because he is essentially a good and nurturing character. The game never implies his sexuality is wrong or evil and doesn't pander to any particular gay stereotypes either.
 
@shidoshi: Considering the choice of outfit I interpret the cross dressing as Thomas desperately trying to win George back. I don't think he's transgender and I think the "DUDE IN DRESS=TRANSGENDER" interpretation is kinda shallow.

@shidoshi: Considering the choice of outfit I interpret the cross dressing as Thomas desperately trying to win George back. I don't think he's transgender and I think the "DUDE IN DRESS=TRANSGENDER" interpretation is kinda shallow. "

@shidoshi: OK, i simply thought everyone in the green room remains in the clothes they wore at the time of their death.
 
As to your big post I must admit I skimmed it because I already know that gay, transgender and transvestite have different meanings. I don't recall the game ever explicitly stating that Thomas was any one of them, therefore if your interpretation is that Thomas was transgender then Thomas was transgender. I think that is too dismissive of his plight though: if the reason for his cross dressing was to win George back then based on what you say that is a desperate and demeaning move for a gay man, and one which gives his character more pathos. So I prefer to think of it that way.

I think somebody should tweet Swery and ask him. Then act really surprised when he offers some cryptic bullshit and says it's up to the interpretation of the player. However within the context of the ritualistic killings, it makes most sense to me for Thomas to identify as a woman.

" Thomas's character has got nothing at all to do with sexual preference and everything to do with gender identity, which is not the same thing. Not to try and play SWERY, but I'd guess that Thomas considered himself (herself?) straight, except born into the wrong gender. "

I understand the fact that a person can believe himself or herself to be the complete opposite of his or her born gender, but I also realize that gender identity and sexual preference are also completely separate. The fact of the matter, however, is that a person in this scenario hasn't completely invalidated his or her true gender. A man who considers himself a woman isn't really a woman. A gay person is attracted to people of the opposite sex. By your logic, a transgender who was born a male and considers himself to be a female is only gay if he's attracted to women. That's completely incorrect. Thomas is gay, because he's attracted to the opposite of his born gender. What he *thinks* his gender is doesn't matter, because - to be perfectly honest - the gender that you're born into is the same gender that you'll die as, no matter what you do to alter it.    

 I'm sorry, but someone who legitimately believes himself or herself to be of the opposite sex when that same person has obviously seen hard proof of his or her true gender just strikes me as delusional. It's a mindset that doesn't strike me as healthy. If you're a guy who wants dress as a woman, then that's fine; just admit it. I just don't understand why a person like that sees fit to lie to other people about it, especially in cases when it's obvious that it's completely untrue. "

" I think this is where I might have to bail out of this discussion, because if I understand what you've said above in the way that you meant it, you've got a LOT to learn about those who are transgender and the deeper issues behind gender identity. Maybe it's a case of you just sticking to your own beliefs instead of understanding the issues of people in that kind of situation, in which case I REALLY don't want to continue on with this particular discussion. "

 I don't feel that I have anything further to learn about transgender people. Again, if someone is one gender and claims to be another, then there's something not quite right about that. I have no problem with someone wanting to be another gender, as long as they're still grounded in reality about it.    

That's like me claiming to be a unicorn and somehow believing it when I should know very well that I'm a human. 

Also, sorry, but gay is gay, regardless of whether or not someone is transgender. 

If that comes off as ignorant, then I apologize, but I'm tired of the definitions of words being stretched to suit those who prefer to live life in a delusional state. 

" The problem with this statement is it's an utterly insulting and demeaning comment disguised as an apology. 
 
Anyhow, the discussion of Thomas' situation is a valid one, so I'm not going to stick around to dissuade any potential future conversation on the matter. I can't continue on personally, though, because you're coming from a point where you simply refuse to accept the concept of being transgender as a legit and real one (and in the process basically look down upon everybody who is transgender). I can't begin to see how you can discuss the deeper aspects of the character of Thomas when you're instantly discrediting one of his potential character traits. "

 Okay, this thread has now gone is a strangely bizarre circle, as (a) it was started in response to the comments made on the podcast, (b) I - as the person from the podcast who brought this topic up on said podcast - replied to the comments made about the podcast, and then (c) you post saying you agree with me, and use the podcast as evidence of the kind of ignorance I was saying could happen! *laughs* "

Nice job on the massive spoilers for   Psycho.  It makes a lot more sense to put spoilers for things other than DP in spoiler tags than for DP in spoiler tags on the DP forum. Ugh. 
 
On Thomas. 
 
One of the things that people outside of liberal circles do not get about liberal criticism is that people from minority groups usually are not arguing against a particular depiction, saying it's wrong or bad or what not, it's rarely that. 
 
What they are arguing for... well as someone once adroitly put it to me, it's not about the conceit, but about the representation. There are far too many psycho gays as a percentage of gays appearing in the media as compared to the appearance of psycho gays as a percentage of real gays.
 
It's probably not inappropriate for the particular work which is being discussed, but the frequency the archetype is used is misaligned with reality, and so in the sense of a meta narrative, it's problematic; and symptomatic of prejudice. Though it's slightly annoying to hear all this whining about it. The best solution is probably to write your own stories, or generally do things to increase the attention on positive portrayals of gays rather than whine about the negative ones.
 
I was totally into Thomas' character, and he's clearly a fag. Love-G, remember? Now that I know Thomas the way that he is, I can't imagine him as being like anything else. 
 
I remember the podcast person talking about missed opportunities. I think those opportunities are political rather than actually story relevant. I think him being a normal victim along with the rest would've been a win for the positive depiction of gays column, but a loss for the  overall drama of DP.  
 
I think the 'problem' with Thomas is an overall lack of depth. There were no conversations with him to flesh out his back story, like we had for George. So there's no real explanation for why he acts like what he does. Being a homosexual in rural US must still be a serious trial, but we don't get into that. For a game with a fantastic, mind blowingly interesting take on gender, look no further than Persona 4's Kanji, one of the best characters in recent video games. 
 
I can only hope in the future that more games follow along the lines of Kanji and give us more great introspection of queer characters, or gender in general.

" Nice job on the massive spoilers for   Psycho.  It makes a lot more sense to put spoilers for things other than DP in spoiler tags than for DP in spoiler tags on the DP forum. Ugh. "

" What they are arguing for... well as someone once adroitly put it to me, it's not about the conceit, but about the representation. There are far too many psycho gays as a percentage of gays appearing in the media as compared to the appearance of psycho gays as a percentage of real gays. "

You don't need to delve deeply into the sexuality of a character in order to have a deeper understanding of that character. 

  For a character to be considered gay, does that character's sexuality need to be exposed?    

  It is probably no coincidence that Western European/Northern American, heterosexual, middle-class white men are generally unaware of their identity: they represent the "norm" against which everything is measured. 

" I think your entire post hinges on this important point, and could not disagree more. This is incredibly naive, if you think that a person's sexuality does not in a great way define who a person is. And frankly this is something only a white hetero male would say. Clearly your sexuality is not relevant, because the sexuality of any person considered to be the norm is not really fuel for discussion. On the other hand, being different, being a minority in any way, hugely shapes a person's psyche, warps their experiences in a way 'normal' people find hard to comprehend, and makes him or her a very different animal.  
 
I have a friend who is blind. In an attempt to show that I would treat her as all my other friends, I told that that her being blind "doesn't matter to me". As you can imagine, that was the wrong thing to say. Clearly it doesn't matter to me, but it matters to her. It matters a lot. "

" Very much so. I like this argument from a theoretical context. But it's just not reality. There are very few to no people in the world who would assume that a character, not hinted at being gay, is gay. Heterosexuality is the norm, This is not a debatable point. Even if the author intends to depict a positive non-trope gay person, if the reader does not take it that way, then it is not a depiction of a positive non-trope gay person. Despite what the author may say, when we talk about the media, we're talking about what most people in the world think. Not just the author. Though I think it would be great if the author comes out and says it.  
 
For instance, Ushiah might be gay. But run a poll and see how many people think of him that way.
 
The fact of the matter is that the psycho gay trope is overused. There's no way around that. 
 
The only way to counteract and lessen the effect of the over-prevalence of negative gay characters is to reveal and positively depict gay characters. "

To respond to the first part of your post, here's a reprint of my first post in this post: 

 One of the things that people outside of liberal circles do not get about liberal criticism is that people from minority groups usually are not arguing against a particular depiction, saying it's wrong or bad or what not, it's rarely that. 
 
What they are arguing for... well as someone once adroitly put it to me, it's not about the conceit, but about the representation. There are far too many psycho gays as a percentage of gays appearing in the media as compared to the appearance of psycho gays as a percentage of real gays.
 
It's probably not inappropriate for the particular work which is being discussed, but the frequency the archetype is used is misaligned with reality, and so in the sense of a meta narrative, it's problematic; and symptomatic of prejudice. Though it's slightly annoying to hear all this whining about it. The best solution is probably to write your own stories, or generally do things to increase the attention on positive portrayals of gays rather than whine about the negative ones.
 
I was totally into Thomas' character, and he's clearly a fag. Love-G, remember? Now that I know Thomas the way that he is, I can't imagine him as being like anything else.     

  I couldn't care less whether a character is black or white, gay or straight, etc. All I care about is the overall experience.    

" You might start to care if one day it starts to come into vogue to have very few hetero white male characters in games, the casts are mostly all black and female and gay, and roughly 40% of the hetero white males are insane harpies, and all the rest are supporting characters of no consequence. <- somebody should make this game. I would play it. "

" "Don't care" is not a badge of honor, it's an indication of selfishness. Yes I'm selfish and I don't care. "

There are so many insane hetero white male characters out there, anyway. Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me what gender, race or sexuality characters were as long as the plot wasn't always completely dependent upon that respective gender, race or sexuality.  

  it wouldn't matter to me what gender...etc

 You know, I'm not discounting the scientific aspect of transgender studies, but the fact of the matter is that these people are born with the bodies of their true genders. Their belief that they're of the complete opposite gender doesn't negate this fact. I'm not trying to sound insensitive. I just find it very hard to believe that someone can't take their physical qualities at face value and realize that they're not the gender that they believe they are    

" And now I realize that I've totally wasted my time, because you're an idiot. Clearly you think your 'beliefs' are the most important, and that what you find hard to conceptualize must  be false right?  You should realize that your beliefs are not only completely worthless since not only are you not an expert, you're totally ignorant about these issues! "