If the context of your argument is 'Races have a fixed visual identity' then you're not addressing this at all. You're just saying it doesn't matter to you that this goes against your argument when doing certain types of content. For someone who is adamant on using facts over opinion, you seem to be okay with using your opinion to address the facts.
If you make a claim that Ducks can't fly, and someone points out Ducks do fly, then you aren't countering the argument by saying 'Well only sometimes, but I don't regard that as real flying. They don't fly most of the time'. You're just backpedalling and defending a complete fallacy. You need to address the claim you made, and you definitely aren't doing so here.
You can't say the general silhouette is the same when unbent Orc literally changes the entire silhouette. You do understand what silhouette means right? It is not 'basic shape', it is not textures, it is the *outline*. The general silhouette does *not* remain the same. Thrall does *not* have the same general silhouette of a hunched-over Orc.But the general silhouette of the character remains the same. An orc is still an orc, bent or unbent. A forsaken still looks like a forsaken, bone protrusions or not.
And the general silhouette of the Worgen does not stay the same at all considering they can shift forms. There are no facts behind your argument, your beef with the visual identity being broken is completely subjective.
If Human can include a diverse range that includes Worgen and giant Kul Tiran, then there's no reason why you should be arguing against a Forsaken Elf allied race. 'Forsaken' does not apply to any singular race and does not adhere to any singular 'visual identity'. The terminology we use is simply a catchall for a Human(based) Undead variation, yet at no point is it exclusive to Humans.
No matter how we look at this, Unbent Orcs and Worgen are exapmples of Blizzard providing racial options that break visual identity. This is a FACT.
But it does work against the notion that any given race has any singular visual identity. If we accept both the male and female Forsaken as two different visual identities for the Forsaken, then there is plausible reason to expand that to more. This is the very reason why Worgen are not deemed problematic or visually confusing, considering it is *within their identity* to take on Human form.Gender is irrelevant. All female draenei have the same basic silhouette. So do all male tauren. Gender dimorphism is not a strong argument to make.
Repeat it as much as you want.I will repeat what I have said multiple times: this is about a race's own visual identity. This has nothing to do about two races sharing the same silhouette.
This statement is absolutely irrelevant to the context of races having distinct visual identities. The fact of the matter is they no longer do considering some races can change that identity, some races share their general silhouettes with other races (including of the other faction) and the fact that visual identity is not something Blizzard adheres to themselves in the context of how Allied Races have been presented.
Ehh, now you're arguing semantics. For someone who is dedicated to facts and lore, you sure are keen at dodging the facts that matter in order to argue the difference between 'Kul Tiran Nation' and 'Kul Tiran Navy'.
Fact - Kul Tirans were represented by standard Humans in all media prior to BFA. BFA CHANGES that identity by associating and representing them with larger humans in playable form. What we considered as Human-only Kul Tiran prior to BFA is now open to accepting Large and Skinny variations. Which means any concept of a Lordaeron Human-based Forsaken can also be effectively CHANGED to include Forsaken Elf and/or Calia-style 'Lightbound' Forsaken.