It is. It's also sort of like one of those philosophical debates, where you can have two disagreeing points of view arguing based on reasoned merits put forth by each proponent. Part of the enjoyment is the "duel" of words, so to speak.

I read that interview a while back... it's rather long, but really interesting. I don't remember him commmenting on TF reproduction or gender though... can you point out the bits you're talking about?

See, that's just a result of that reinforced binary way of thinking we have all been conditioned to adopt. I mean, naturally, I'm always right so everyone else MUST be wrong ... right?  

I think a lot of fans had issues with that. One of the objections is to the presupposition that Transformers, a genderless species at the point of Jhiaxus' interference, are somehow "male" by simple default. This is really dumb, because without sex or gender, there really is no "male", and therefore no magic "female" that can be introduced. Not unless you're working within a strictly Biblical paradigm, but it's probably best to leave that on the sidelines.

Furman's approach appears to define "male" and "female" in the most superficial terms.

Secondly, Furman's portrayal of the first "female" of the Cybertronian species seems to be aligned with some very old, very misogynist cliches... it may not have been his intention. He might have just gotten lost in the idea of how giving a robot a "sex change" could turn them into a raging irrational aberrant hysteria-driven beast. But c'mon... he's supposed to be a literate guy. He should have known better.

I think the problem there is that they are underrepresented, so when they are given some face time, but only exist within certain cliched parameters, that's a good reason to cry foul.

To be clear, my issues with Fembots are bipartate...
A) I don't think gender needs to be introduced or integrated into Cybertronians because I think they're a more "fertile" field for theoretical speculation and reflection when they are not slotted into such neat human cliches.
B) When they are used in the fiction, they rarely represent an original approach to character, instead falling prey to easy tokenism. There are very few Fembots who are good characters outside of being generic female cliches.

No, no... you missed my point. I'm not trying to tear anybody down, but rather unite us all in our admittedly absurd affection for utterly frivolous pursuits.

Own your inner geek. Anyone who protests their geekiness instantly gets a black mark as far as I'm concerned, because if you can't afford enough self-reflection to be aware of how we're all geeks in one way or another, then you're really taking yourself too seriously.  

There's really little justification for what we're doing. Whether superficial or pseudo-intellectual, it still amounts to the same thing. Transformers... a pretty silly and juvenile commercial property with little to offer the world on any meaningful cultural level. Yet here we are... and we're doing it because it's fun.  

Yes and no. The mere fact that Transformers are machines, and can transform, instantly tells us that they are NOT limited to the same range of motion that a human would be. I mean, sure... they follow a rough humanoid model, but they don't necessarily have the same guts or jointing issues, and they can clearly have themselves modified to fit some very particular configurations. I think that makes for some interesting possibilities.

YES. And it's a shame that few writers after that point every gave it that much thought. Aligning TFs too closely to human beings is only a failure of imagination.

Which of course raises the question of why that part was there in the first place, if he's better off without it.  

Of course, Kup is pretty old... maybe it's something newer TFs have long since done away with, and so that's why Hot Rod didn't even notice it was missing?  

Yeah, I never thought much of those designs, but it is interesting to see how, besides making them "more futuristic and sleek looking", the simplification evident in the Movie TFs also made them much easier to distill into an easily animated format. Ahem.

But I've always considered that cheating a bit... from a design perspective, where's the challenge in creating a Transformer who doesn't have to transform into anything recognizable? Why minimize the appearance of alt-mode artifacts when their very presence is an essential aspect of the Transformers robot aesthetic? Likewise, it's also interesting to see how much of that "sleek, human-like" animation aesthetic had to be compromised in the toys in order to make them actually transform (and even then, into nonsense vehicles for the most part).

I can respect that, because I like it when things "fit".

But I still don't like that origin... and so I have to keep looking for something else that works. Of course the journey is half the fun.

I believe that's absolutely the idea, but I might contend that it would be a problem to assume that such Earth-like dimorphism and cliches exist across the universe. It's kind of dumb isn't it? I mean, these cliches don't even all exist across THIS planet!

But in the arena of Space Fantasy there is of course the well-worn archetype of the humanoid aliens, the "Type-M" planets, and so forth. It's hardly a realistic vision, but it is, after all, a fantasy. And therein lies the biggest pitfall for my arguments.  

Their GIANT flesh-and-blood
owners. Apparently Earth humans are the shrimpy pixie race of the universe.

As I said above, I think it represents a "failure of imagination".

Well played, sir... now I must be confronted by the belittling acknowledgement that I am engaging in a serious debate about toy robots with someone that necessarily must be, at best, half my age. I'm going to go cry now.  

Though to reformulate my earlier comment about mens' magazines: They have this thing called the internet. You might want to try it.  

I'm sorry for taking it badly then. I mistook your laziness for dismissive smarminess...  

...though I do take exception to having everything I've said reduced to "nitpickery". *cough*

Tiny levers and gears! Tiny levers and gears!!! Robo-Darwin! Woot!  

I've put forth this same interpretation myself... the same way some TFs are distinguished by "native" animal forms (Ravage, Buzzsaw, Skylynx, etc) or by a distinctive monocular head design (Shockwave, Whirl) or even outright scale relative to other TFs, what are seen as "fembots" could simply be a demographic of TFs that hail from a particular region of Cybertron where such designs were the norm.

However, this also totally eliminates them from the gender discourse altogether, since their perceived "sex" is nothing more than a superficial and coincidental outward appearance. In terms of who and what they are, there is really nothing that makes them different or "more female" than any other TF. It's all in the associations of organic races (like humans) that TFs might encounter.

This is one of my preferred theories, in fact.

Which takes us right back to IDW Jhiaxus, doesn't it? Hm.

zmog

 

what were the names of the Autobot fembots of the G1 cartoon
i only know 2
1 Arcee
2 Elita-1

 

Well, there were also Chromia, Moonracer, and Firestar. We saw at least two more Female Autobots in The Search for Alpha Trion, but they weren't named and neither were the Paradron medics we saw in Fight or Flee.

 

thanks, now i know the name's thanks man