User talk:Geewunling/FemaleTF-Sandbox - Revision history

Khajidha: Undo revision 539425 by 77.74.50.121 (Talk)oddly appropriate, but no

2011-01-01T02:15:41Z

Undo revision 539425 by 77.74.50.121 (Talk)oddly appropriate, but no

Can't load revision 539428

77.74.50.121 at 02:11, 1 January 2011

2011-01-01T02:11:33Z

Sexcommunity partnersuche sexuellen Vorlieben partnersuche: new section

Can't load revision 539425

Geewunling: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-15T05:43:57Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 15 April 2010
Line 58:		Line 58:
	::::"''I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters.'""		::::"''I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters.'""
	::::I... really don't think that's actually going to be a problem here. A simple link-jump to any given character's page should point out what they're about, and many of the sections will be about how female-ness is a non-issue in various series. Let me work up the Armada section at least, since I consider that the first series to treat female TFs as "normal". --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 18:06, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::I... really don't think that's actually going to be a problem here. A simple link-jump to any given character's page should point out what they're about, and many of the sections will be about how female-ness is a non-issue in various series. Let me work up the Armada section at least, since I consider that the first series to treat female TFs as "normal". --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 18:06, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::Actually, I would say the first to treat them as normal is the G1 cartoon with the exception of "TSFAT", which seems to be a retcon retconned in regards to femTFs anyway. And if that doesn't go, then BW does. But... yeah, as I said, that's what I fear will happen, I could be way wrong and I'll be happy to be proven to. I'm looking forward to what you'll do on the UT section. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 01:43, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

M Sipher: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T22:06:18Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, 14 April 2010
Line 56:		Line 56:
	::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::::::::And that makes three of us. But whatever little answers we come up with to explain the unexplained that we could probably fan-talk for hours about, that does not change the "gender bias" in the marketing reasons behind it, the fiction's dealings with it and the fandom's reaction at large and specifically to it. And that's what I want this article to be about, without pointing fingers. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 16:00, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::::And that makes three of us. But whatever little answers we come up with to explain the unexplained that we could probably fan-talk for hours about, that does not change the "gender bias" in the marketing reasons behind it, the fiction's dealings with it and the fandom's reaction at large and specifically to it. And that's what I want this article to be about, without pointing fingers. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 16:00, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			::::"''I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters.'""
			::::I... really don't think that's actually going to be a problem here. A simple link-jump to any given character's page should point out what they're about, and many of the sections will be about how female-ness is a non-issue in various series. Let me work up the Armada section at least, since I consider that the first series to treat female TFs as "normal". --[[User:M Sipher\|M Sipher]] 18:06, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Geewunling: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T20:00:36Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 14 April 2010
Line 55:		Line 55:
	:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::::::And that makes three of us. But whatever little answers we come up with to explain the unexplained that we could probably fan-talk for hours about, that does not change the "gender bias" in the marketing reasons behind it, the fiction's dealings with it and the fandom's reaction at large and specifically to it. And that's what I want this article to be about, without pointing fingers. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 16:00, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Khajidha: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T19:42:30Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 14 April 2010
Line 54:		Line 54:
	::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Jeysie: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T19:36:21Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 14 April 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:
	:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Khajidha: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T19:30:26Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 14 April 2010
Line 52:		Line 52:
	::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Geewunling: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T19:24:51Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 14 April 2010
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:::Yes, that's the elephant in the room. And it is something that should be adressed, which is what the background sections are for. However, my experience with the TF fandom is that female Transformers are made much more controversial than they should be and for the sake of the article, I want to avoid siding. For instance, I find Furman a sexist for his problems with female Transformers and his bizarro take on Arcee. As well, I find his IDW lack-of-explanation one of the most embarrassing moments in TF fiction development ever. But I know a lot of people like it - like seeing Arcee as a mad, raving monstrosity who can't be stopped by anyone and is so much more awesome than any of the wimpy females preceding her. They think the IDW story for females' existence is brilliant. Some people feel there should never have been females added to the cast (never questioning why males are acceptable then), some feel (nearly) all the females that have been added are crap (giving the male characters a far bigger range to qualify as good), some feel females are weird but the characters okay (again, not questioning males) and others love each femTF for the sake of them being female (I won't deny I do in a way, the same way I squee over Minibots, Mutants and Six Changers). Meanwhile, nobody bothers to realize how Hasbro/Takara look at ''Transformers'' and that the relative low numbers of females is not because of some great brilliant realization that robots have no need for gender but because girls don't sell in a boy-oriented toyline, which the fiction is there to promote. And when they do, I have seen it more than once end in accusations of sexism towards the companies (rather than to society as a whole, but I figure there's a loop going on there with the entertainment industry giving the audience what they want and the audience being influenced by what they get from the industry). So what I am trying to say is that I wish to keep all of that <strike>gender-whining</strike> female-whining out and try as objectively and subtlely as possible to address the various takes on gender/female Transformers throughout the (main) continuities. In doing so, I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters. And if that happens, regardless of whose fault it is, I think the article fails in its duty... That's about it to some of my currently finished writing. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 14:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::Yes, that's the elephant in the room. And it is something that should be adressed, which is what the background sections are for. However, my experience with the TF fandom is that female Transformers are made much more controversial than they should be and for the sake of the article, I want to avoid siding. For instance, I find Furman a sexist for his problems with female Transformers and his bizarro take on Arcee. As well, I find his IDW lack-of-explanation one of the most embarrassing moments in TF fiction development ever. But I know a lot of people like it - like seeing Arcee as a mad, raving monstrosity who can't be stopped by anyone and is so much more awesome than any of the wimpy females preceding her. They think the IDW story for females' existence is brilliant. Some people feel there should never have been females added to the cast (never questioning why males are acceptable then), some feel (nearly) all the females that have been added are crap (giving the male characters a far bigger range to qualify as good), some feel females are weird but the characters okay (again, not questioning males) and others love each femTF for the sake of them being female (I won't deny I do in a way, the same way I squee over Minibots, Mutants and Six Changers). Meanwhile, nobody bothers to realize how Hasbro/Takara look at ''Transformers'' and that the relative low numbers of females is not because of some great brilliant realization that robots have no need for gender but because girls don't sell in a boy-oriented toyline, which the fiction is there to promote. And when they do, I have seen it more than once end in accusations of sexism towards the companies (rather than to society as a whole, but I figure there's a loop going on there with the entertainment industry giving the audience what they want and the audience being influenced by what they get from the industry). So what I am trying to say is that I wish to keep all of that <strike>gender-whining</strike> female-whining out and try as objectively and subtlely as possible to address the various takes on gender/female Transformers throughout the (main) continuities. In doing so, I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters. And if that happens, regardless of whose fault it is, I think the article fails in its duty... That's about it to some of my currently finished writing. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 14:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Khajidha: /* Too much fiction? */

2010-04-14T19:07:42Z

Too much fiction?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 14 April 2010
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:::I tried to mirror pages such as Faction Mini-Cassette, Combiner, Mini Vehicle, Triple Changer, etc. when writing the fiction sections, taking into account my own estimate those sections might not be "complete". Which is why the fiction sections became (a lot) bigger. Now, I have two questions for you. 1.) What do you mean with "bounce back-and-forth in perspective and tone"? and 2.) This article already is big and will continue to grow regardless of how much of the fiction sections get cut. Are there options for subpaging instead of cutting for the sake of staying close to 30kb? As you might have noticed, that is my plan at least for a potential FemTFtoy page.		:::I tried to mirror pages such as Faction Mini-Cassette, Combiner, Mini Vehicle, Triple Changer, etc. when writing the fiction sections, taking into account my own estimate those sections might not be "complete". Which is why the fiction sections became (a lot) bigger. Now, I have two questions for you. 1.) What do you mean with "bounce back-and-forth in perspective and tone"? and 2.) This article already is big and will continue to grow regardless of how much of the fiction sections get cut. Are there options for subpaging instead of cutting for the sake of staying close to 30kb? As you might have noticed, that is my plan at least for a potential FemTFtoy page.
	:::Yes, that's the elephant in the room. And it is something that should be adressed, which is what the background sections are for. However, my experience with the TF fandom is that female Transformers are made much more controversial than they should be and for the sake of the article, I want to avoid siding. For instance, I find Furman a sexist for his problems with female Transformers and his bizarro take on Arcee. As well, I find his IDW lack-of-explanation one of the most embarrassing moments in TF fiction development ever. But I know a lot of people like it - like seeing Arcee as a mad, raving monstrosity who can't be stopped by anyone and is so much more awesome than any of the wimpy females preceding her. They think the IDW story for females' existence is brilliant. Some people feel there should never have been females added to the cast (never questioning why males are acceptable then), some feel (nearly) all the females that have been added are crap (giving the male characters a far bigger range to qualify as good), some feel females are weird but the characters okay (again, not questioning males) and others love each femTF for the sake of them being female (I won't deny I do in a way, the same way I squee over Minibots, Mutants and Six Changers). Meanwhile, nobody bothers to realize how Hasbro/Takara look at ''Transformers'' and that the relative low numbers of females is not because of some great brilliant realization that robots have no need for gender but because girls don't sell in a boy-oriented toyline, which the fiction is there to promote. And when they do, I have seen it more than once end in accusations of sexism towards the companies (rather than to society as a whole, but I figure there's a loop going on there with the entertainment industry giving the audience what they want and the audience being influenced by what they get from the industry). So what I am trying to say is that I wish to keep all of that <strike>gender-whining</strike> female-whining out and try as objectively and subtlely as possible to address the various takes on gender/female Transformers throughout the (main) continuities. In doing so, I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters. And if that happens, regardless of whose fault it is, I think the article fails in its duty... That's about it to some of my currently finished writing. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 14:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::Yes, that's the elephant in the room. And it is something that should be adressed, which is what the background sections are for. However, my experience with the TF fandom is that female Transformers are made much more controversial than they should be and for the sake of the article, I want to avoid siding. For instance, I find Furman a sexist for his problems with female Transformers and his bizarro take on Arcee. As well, I find his IDW lack-of-explanation one of the most embarrassing moments in TF fiction development ever. But I know a lot of people like it - like seeing Arcee as a mad, raving monstrosity who can't be stopped by anyone and is so much more awesome than any of the wimpy females preceding her. They think the IDW story for females' existence is brilliant. Some people feel there should never have been females added to the cast (never questioning why males are acceptable then), some feel (nearly) all the females that have been added are crap (giving the male characters a far bigger range to qualify as good), some feel females are weird but the characters okay (again, not questioning males) and others love each femTF for the sake of them being female (I won't deny I do in a way, the same way I squee over Minibots, Mutants and Six Changers). Meanwhile, nobody bothers to realize how Hasbro/Takara look at ''Transformers'' and that the relative low numbers of females is not because of some great brilliant realization that robots have no need for gender but because girls don't sell in a boy-oriented toyline, which the fiction is there to promote. And when they do, I have seen it more than once end in accusations of sexism towards the companies (rather than to society as a whole, but I figure there's a loop going on there with the entertainment industry giving the audience what they want and the audience being influenced by what they get from the industry). So what I am trying to say is that I wish to keep all of that <strike>gender-whining</strike> female-whining out and try as objectively and subtlely as possible to address the various takes on gender/female Transformers throughout the (main) continuities. In doing so, I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters. And if that happens, regardless of whose fault it is, I think the article fails in its duty... That's about it to some of my currently finished writing. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 14:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:00, 14 April 2010
Line 55:		Line 55:
	:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::::::And that makes three of us. But whatever little answers we come up with to explain the unexplained that we could probably fan-talk for hours about, that does not change the "gender bias" in the marketing reasons behind it, the fiction's dealings with it and the fandom's reaction at large and specifically to it. And that's what I want this article to be about, without pointing fingers. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 16:00, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 14 April 2010
Line 54:		Line 54:
	::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			::::::::That's pretty much the position I've adopted, too, since there has been gender differentiation in all continuities. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:42, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:36, 14 April 2010
Line 53:		Line 53:
	:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::::I've always felt, personal canon-wise, that TFs were genderless, in the sense that whatever they consider male and female has little to do with what we consider male and female, functionally speaking. The only commonality is that their females sometimes superficially look like ours. (Then again, there's also some ''male'' TFs that look somewhat like our females...) --[[User:Jeysie\|Jeysie]] 15:36, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:30, 14 April 2010
Line 52:		Line 52:
	::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			::::::I believed it. They are robots, not sexually reproducing organisms male and female are totally irrelevant. At least until someone added females. [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:30, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:24, 14 April 2010
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:::Yes, that's the elephant in the room. And it is something that should be adressed, which is what the background sections are for. However, my experience with the TF fandom is that female Transformers are made much more controversial than they should be and for the sake of the article, I want to avoid siding. For instance, I find Furman a sexist for his problems with female Transformers and his bizarro take on Arcee. As well, I find his IDW lack-of-explanation one of the most embarrassing moments in TF fiction development ever. But I know a lot of people like it - like seeing Arcee as a mad, raving monstrosity who can't be stopped by anyone and is so much more awesome than any of the wimpy females preceding her. They think the IDW story for females' existence is brilliant. Some people feel there should never have been females added to the cast (never questioning why males are acceptable then), some feel (nearly) all the females that have been added are crap (giving the male characters a far bigger range to qualify as good), some feel females are weird but the characters okay (again, not questioning males) and others love each femTF for the sake of them being female (I won't deny I do in a way, the same way I squee over Minibots, Mutants and Six Changers). Meanwhile, nobody bothers to realize how Hasbro/Takara look at ''Transformers'' and that the relative low numbers of females is not because of some great brilliant realization that robots have no need for gender but because girls don't sell in a boy-oriented toyline, which the fiction is there to promote. And when they do, I have seen it more than once end in accusations of sexism towards the companies (rather than to society as a whole, but I figure there's a loop going on there with the entertainment industry giving the audience what they want and the audience being influenced by what they get from the industry). So what I am trying to say is that I wish to keep all of that <strike>gender-whining</strike> female-whining out and try as objectively and subtlely as possible to address the various takes on gender/female Transformers throughout the (main) continuities. In doing so, I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters. And if that happens, regardless of whose fault it is, I think the article fails in its duty... That's about it to some of my currently finished writing. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 14:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		:::Yes, that's the elephant in the room. And it is something that should be adressed, which is what the background sections are for. However, my experience with the TF fandom is that female Transformers are made much more controversial than they should be and for the sake of the article, I want to avoid siding. For instance, I find Furman a sexist for his problems with female Transformers and his bizarro take on Arcee. As well, I find his IDW lack-of-explanation one of the most embarrassing moments in TF fiction development ever. But I know a lot of people like it - like seeing Arcee as a mad, raving monstrosity who can't be stopped by anyone and is so much more awesome than any of the wimpy females preceding her. They think the IDW story for females' existence is brilliant. Some people feel there should never have been females added to the cast (never questioning why males are acceptable then), some feel (nearly) all the females that have been added are crap (giving the male characters a far bigger range to qualify as good), some feel females are weird but the characters okay (again, not questioning males) and others love each femTF for the sake of them being female (I won't deny I do in a way, the same way I squee over Minibots, Mutants and Six Changers). Meanwhile, nobody bothers to realize how Hasbro/Takara look at ''Transformers'' and that the relative low numbers of females is not because of some great brilliant realization that robots have no need for gender but because girls don't sell in a boy-oriented toyline, which the fiction is there to promote. And when they do, I have seen it more than once end in accusations of sexism towards the companies (rather than to society as a whole, but I figure there's a loop going on there with the entertainment industry giving the audience what they want and the audience being influenced by what they get from the industry). So what I am trying to say is that I wish to keep all of that <strike>gender-whining</strike> female-whining out and try as objectively and subtlely as possible to address the various takes on gender/female Transformers throughout the (main) continuities. In doing so, I fear keeping to the female-highlighting parts of the fiction might leave a certain biased part of the casual reader group believing that being female is all there is to the femTF characters. And if that happens, regardless of whose fault it is, I think the article fails in its duty... That's about it to some of my currently finished writing. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 14:55, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
	::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)		::::Just a quick comment on the "never questioning males" point. Until the addition of females to the cast it was possible to assume that the male TFs were only "male" as a convenience of writing. Using "it" for a sentient character seems insulting and English (at least traditionally) assumes male gender for unknown actors ("everyone should do his duty"). [[User:Khajidha\|Khajidha]] 15:07, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
			:::::Yes, I know that argument. But the thing is that's.. not really true. Did anyone ever actually believe they were genderless, what with the he's and the male voices and the heterosexual interaction with not-Transformers and the (humanoid) body types, etc? The male orientation is... well, you have to be pretty... willfully ignorant to maintain that pre-fem, the "guys" were not guys. I get that people might claim that, but I doubt any of them actually believes it's true. Not to mention that there's this gender bias going on in the human psyche that genderless equals male (as if female is a deviation per standard) that only makes the claim more... questionable. [[User:Geewunling\|Geewunling]] 15:24, 14 April 2010 (EDT)