I’m thinking about maybe going with the name Kira? I really like Kim too but I like Kira way more and some people already do call me Kira…. And it’s still kinda genderless?

Mogeko made this comment on their blog (underneath a picture of Satanick saying “So?”, in reference to an earlier comic where he expresses interest in Siralos but Ivlis says that Siralos is a man). I’m preserving it here since their blog comments always vanish after a couple of days for some reason.

Everyone here is bi! Such ideas as gender and age are left as an afterthought.
Not to mention there are even several without gender, or somewhere in the middle, so it’s pointless to even think about it.
~ With the Exception of Humans and Some Other Groups ~”

If humans are excluded from this statement, it may mostly refer to the gods and devils, which would make sense since they’re gods/devils and Etihw is already established to be genderless. Still, very important information.

EDIT: Personally, I wouldn’t take this remark as a solid confirmation that literally any character not “excluded” is bisexual. Assuming Mogeko even intended it to refer to such a broad range, I would read it to mean “any given character is bi until proven otherwise.” Which is still a pretty sick deal, if you ask me.

For example, since Yosafire is shown to be aggressively uninterested in men, and says she only has eyes for women (only Froze, even), I would be inclined to think she’s just a lesbian. When a character is that explicit about both her interests and lack of interest, to me it takes precedence over a vague comment that may not have been intended to include her. You’re free to interpret it otherwise, but please don’t consider this post “confirmation” of anything.

Okay hold up, real talk for a moment. Castiel is thousands upon thousands of years old. He’s a celestial being who was created at the dawn of time. His true form is the size of the Chrysler building and a “celestial wavelength of pure intent” trapped in a tiny male meat suit. His human body his male. Castiel himself technically isnt. He’s genderless. (still using male pronouns tho cos thats what he goes by in the show and its easier) Do not, not for a second, ever believe Castiel is “straight” no matter how much the show wants to shove that down our goddamn throats. Because for gods sake, why would a millennia old celestial being be fucking STRAIGHT?? When he’s not even fucking MALE technically??? Why would he conform to stupid fucking society norms????? He probably doesnt even have an orientation.

Like it irks me beyond all compare that they keep trying to reinforce that cas likes women just because he’s in a male vessel. Like. Why????

Still thinking about non-binary characters in podcasts vs mainstream media, and it just occurred to me that Welcome To Night Vale is the first instance I’ve ever come across of characters’ genders being explicitly stated as outside of the binary for the audience. 

The most obvious example - and the one I keep returning to - is the Sheriff’s Secret Police’s genderless spokesperson. The gender game is right there in the name. Though, admittedly given their description, they could to be included in the category of ‘possibly not human/out of the ordinary’ that many non-binary characters seem to fall into. That being said, this is Night Vale.

Then there’s also Alicia, a masked warrior from the Desert Otherworld, who is described as “not a woman or a man”. This description immediately establishes them as identifying as a gender outside of the binary. Again, ‘out of the ordinary’ given that they are a giant desert warrior, but - as with the genderless spokesperson - still humanoid and (presumably) living in a society where binary genders are the norm.

In many mainstream instances, non-binary character’s genders are treated almost like Easter Eggs within the canon, or never really brought up in context. I mean, I was really excited about the Crystal Gems from Steven Universe being confirmed as non-binary, but it hasn’t gone beyond the creator saying that they are. 

And it doesn’t necessarily have to go any further.

I’m not saying that all non-binary characters should be defined by their gender, have a spotlight placed on it, or anything like that. I just happened to notice that WTNV goes about establishing such characters in a way that is quite different from the current norm.

For anyone who complains about Ruby and Sapphire being considered lesbians

While it’s true that gems are technically genderless, they still do choose to take on the form of females the majority of the time. Amethyst has actually taken a male form a couple of times in canon (Purple Puma), which was confirmed in the Guide to the Crystal Gems.

Canonically, they DO go by the female gender pronoun, aside from Steven. That is not something the fandom has placed on them. We know that characters are not limited to the she/her and he/him pronouns, as the Crewniverse confirmed that Stevonnie uses they/them - so genderfluid and non-binary characters are canon. Yet the gems do not view themselves as non-binary, they view themselves as female. Even Homeworld gems choose to take on a gender, so this seems to be a common trait of gems.

Since they use the she/her pronouns, they are considered lesbians by a lot of fans. Even if they identified as genderless all the time, they would still be homosexual, as homosexuality is attraction to the same gender. Just as a human born with male body parts can identify as female, so too can gems. If a person such as that dates a female, is that a heterosexual relationship or a homosexual relationship? Is the relationship not valid as a lesbian relationship because of some silly body parts? It’s really all up to the people that form and make up the relationship to decide, not any outside party. Not only that, but lack of sexual organs or sex does not make a relationship less valid either. I hope that’s not all you think validates a relationship.

Gems have love, and gems have romance. Gems can be in a romantic relationship even if it is not physical in the human way. They have the concept of being in a long term relationship, even if their relationships are not based around the same traits that make up a human relationship. It’s still love, it’s still romance, it’s still valid as a relationship. Just as not all human relationships are the same, neither are gem relationships. They still exist, and they still matter.

The point of Steven Universe is to be relatable. As the Crewniverse has stated, if someone sees them as lesbians, than they can be. If someone else sees them as good friends, then they can also be that. Fusion is left ambiguous on purpose. Everyone can take their own meaning of the relationship, and it’s still valid. What you personally get from the show, what it means to you, and how you see it, are most important. How someone else sees it is also just as valid and important to them, even if you don’t agree, and even if it’s not how you perceive the show.

anonymous asked:

Some feminist you are if you're refusing the little representation we have.

1) I am not any less of a feminist for demanding good representation of my gender in the media, if anything that makes me a good, just person. You do not know where I came from, where I lived, what I’ve been through, so you’re in no position of telling me I am not a feminist. Because unlike you I do not hide and I stick to my guns. 

2) Arguing about gender issues in a franchise where it makes no sense for them to exist is redundant and idiotic. I am most hurt for the fact that people are demanding binaries and not variety within design. Why does a “female” Cybertronian has to have breasts, a thin waist, large hips and wear lipstick? I’m not saying it’s bad because I myself wear lipstick and am quite endowed, but does that make any sense to you? Also the female mannerisms piss me off. These mannerisms are acquired, not innate. I know a LOT of males who have “female” mannerisms, whatever the fucked up societal definition for them is. 

I myself lack on that department because I grew up in a house where gender roles weren’t imposed.

You’re demanding females be reduced to a stereotype, you’re saying you prefer for this stereotype to be perpetuated, and if that’s gonna happen I say No. I don’t want ANY “representation” of that kind.

3) As an example: I do not feel represented by Arcee at all (IDW verse). Her story is quite tragic in fact. She became different from everyone else due to an experiment, she’s a single case, she doesn’t represent all women. Furman can spend the eternity barefoot stepping on lego. The writing was unfortunate because for her to be a female it means everyone else was male. But that just means Furman didn’t think ahead, it was his mistake.

4) James Roberts was nothing but a SAINT for trying to fix this. Please read More Than Meets The Eye if you still doubt they’re genderless. He basically kicked the whole “female transformers are there to be companions” stereotype in the fucking balls when he introduced the term “Conjux Endura”.

5) It’s quite hypocritical of you to not be able to identify or feel represented with any other character. If you’re demanding equality and you consider yourself a feminist you should be able to identify with plenty of strong characters. I know I do because I view myself in them.

Do I see myself in Optimus? Fuck yeah, he’s representing my ideals. Do I see myself in Cliffjumper? Fuck yeah tiny thing that kicks ass. Do I see myself in Tailgate? Duh. The representation IS THERE, but you’re just so fucking self centered you cannot see it. What the fuck do you want? You want a Cybertronian named Maria who has, idk, brown hair, olive skin, and black eyes with hobbies like, ice skating or watching TV?? You can’t they’re fucking robots. All I keep hearing is “blah blah blah females LOOK LIKE THIS PLEASE REDUCE FEMALES TO A “FEMININE” DESIGN” and I’ve had it with such superficial bullshit.

6) Fuck you. This is the last time I’m arguing about this, and no matter what you tell me I won’t change my mind. 

Pseude Submitted: Any idea on how to deal with people who repeat themselves while missing the point?

It keeps happening.

I love how Furman is accusing you of being a GEEWUNner.  I doubly love how he’s missing the very point he’s making: something different is happening in the comics now and it’s different from what happened before and he doesn’t like it because it’s what he “grew up with” aka what he wrote.  Frankly, he chose to focus in on the GEEWUN argument because it’s the easiest to refute.  He chose not to focus on his own hypocrisy regarding how he himself changed Overlord etc because that would mean confronting his own retcons.

However, deeper than that, I have a theory that Furman is utterly incapable of seeing his own failing here for a reason not very often spoken of in regards to him, and one that I only cautiously provide : I suppose that Simon Furman, at least in part, believes that he created something new.  I suppose that he believes that the stories he wrote in more recent times, especially those pertaining to his babies Jhiaxus and Grimlock, take place in a separate universe, the IDW Furmanverse, over which his mind and his creative decisions preside.  The Furmanverse is separate from Geewun, but he seems to believe it to be a, if not the, reigning worldbuilding setup for IDW right now.  Thus when other people come along in IDW and contradict his canon, he goes “no no no that’s not canon in Furmanverse!” which leads to his upset.  He becomes upset, I suppose, not because he sees people attacking Geewun or IDW or Transformers in general with retcons, but because they are changing His Baby.  To him, he retconned nothing : he created a new universe.  It’s everyone else that is retconning his canon.

The prime problem here, if this is what Furman is thinking, and I don’t pretend to know if this is true or not, would be the failure to realise that his works are one part of the larger IDW canon which can and will change over time to better appeal to readers.  This doesn’t declare his works retroactively crap.  They can still stand on their own as good or bad stories on their own merit.  What is happening with Ms. Scott’s work is that she is telling stories and doing worldbuilding to support them in a way that better fleshes out her ability to tell dynamic stories and create wonderful characters.  When telling a story, I must repeat, this storytelling and character building should absolutely come first!  If you have to change canon a little bit to tell a better story, then do it.  For example, in G1 it is certainly not canon that Ultra Magnus is in fact a job title and set of armour worn by the job title’s bearer.  But now it’s canon in IDW as part of a very interesting story.  Changing canon in new iterations of comic books is very much like changing canon as new cartoon shows come out.  Prowl in G1 wasn’t a motorcycle ; Prowl in Ani is a motorcycle, because that’s what we’re going with in that iteration.  New things happen, canon evolves, and the central point of all of it is always to tell the best possible stories!

To introduce more female characters may seem to some to be a gigantic reworking of canon to allow for “female gender” but in fact it’s such a tiny, tiny change, especially in Transformers.  Because, as has been pointed out numerous times before, even by Furman himself, the Transformers do not have a human conception of gender.  Therefore, they can use whatever pronouns they like.  Let me produce an analogy : If an alien species with five genders were to tell a story about humans, they could stick with just using one gender to represent us, or two, or identify each character, sorting us into one of the five genders just to fit in with their culture.  But let’s say that in Human Show One, all humans are categorised as zorks because we have two legs.  Then when Human Show Two Electric Boogaloo comes out with humans represented in five genders, the aliens might say “Wait, when I was young all humans were zorks!  Now humans come in yib, heff, and twok and fnar!  This goes against reality!  Humans are a bigendered species!  Also all those yibs and fnars that want more humans in their gender are complaining too much and we’re not marketing toward them.”  However, the aliens behind Human Show Two Electric Boogaloo wanted to portray humans using all five gender pronouns and representations because, and here’s the important part, the aliens aren’t really telling stories about humans, but rather using humans as an analogy for stories about aliens.

This is exactly what humans do with Cybertronians : we’re not really telling Cybertonian stories, but using Cybertronian stories as analogies for human stories.  This is what humans always do.  We anthropomorphise.  We look to Cybertronian characters and see human aspects in them that make them heroes or villains.  Sometimes we decide to make them more alien with aspects of their biology and culture that are distinctly inhuman, but overall the stories of Cybertronians are very human ones of love, loss, betrayal, war, sacrifice, and hope.  Science Fiction of this type is at its core meant to hold a mirror to humanity.  Therefore when humans watch Cybertronian stories, even if they are stories of a non-gendered race, it’s not terrible for humans to want to ascribe gender to the robots.  It’s perfectly natural.  And if we can look at one robot and go “he” we can look at another robot and go “she.”  These robot stories don’t exist in a vacuum, and they exist to tell stories to humans.  If 51% of the population find that they want more characters to easily identify with, simply by changing a pronoun and hiring a female voice actor, I really don’t see what the big deal should be from the creative side.

Let me repeat for Mr. Furman and anyone like him : even if Cybertronians are non-gendered, that doesn’t actually make them all “he,” and it doesn’t stop any of them from deciding to identify as a “she” to humans at any moment.  Human gender is utterly alien to them.  We are the ones ascribing gender to them.  Gender happens when you have at least two alternatives.  You can’t make a “female” and then go “bam, now there’s gender” without making a corresponding “male”.  The remaining robots are not all male now.  They are still genderless.  Any genderless robot can decide to become any gender it wants when interacting with humans.

To come back to my first point, Pseude, I have no idea how to respond to Mr. Furman when he appears to be deaf to our rational points of argument.  I think he might be working from the supposition that he’s created a canon and is very upset that it’s being undermined, but this is conjecture on my part only, and I do not pretend to know the mind of Furman.  I am fully able to accept that Furman didn’t intend for his story to be insulting to women both cis and trans, and trans*folk in general.  However, once he’s found out that it has offended many of them, it would be a great time to go “Oh.  Please tell me how I messed up, and I’ll try to do better in the future.”  The response to “I’m offended.” is not “Well I didn’t mean to offend you so stop being offended.”

If I may be slightly unkind to Mr. Furman, I will say this : how in the world did he last this long in the creative industry without coming into contact with critique and learning from the process?  The creative world is vicious in critique.  Ms. Scott was being very kind in her analysis and response to Furman’s work.  Furman has reacted to her and other fans’ critique of his work like a giant baby.  Further, in insulting Ms. Scott’s professionalism in his original post, and subtly deriding her work in comparison to his own, he has made himself look like less of a professional.  I strongly suggest that Furman step back and look at how juvenile and unprofessional he is acting.

Pseude, I applaud your post to Mr Furman, and I find it sad that he did not respond to all of its important points.

Good morning what a lovely day it is the sun is shining the birds are singing and the gems are still genderless regardless of what pronouns they use
ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ