should they have gender?

Ah, but does a lack of overdetermined genders preclude "romance"? Can robots made of square boxes not have romances with each other, or must it always be a robot made of squares with another one made of ovals?

The funny thing about that is that while gender has popped up in most of the fictions so far, it's almost never in any significant role, and romance is reduced to a remote sideline at best. Also, in the rare instances that they have any presence at all, female characters are pretty much NEVER allowed to exist outside of romantic contexts, which is profoundly sexist (even aside from the sexualization of their physical forms).

So in that sense, I don't really know what fiction you've been following. Was it fan-fiction?

To be fair, this thread would be a lot more boring if that were the case. I mean, that's pretty much what the poll graph is for at the top of the page, no?

I think you could make a case for that. The problem is that the gender lines in Transformers have traditionally been drawn in very simplistic and problematic ways. And, just as some men and women can be "feminine" or "masculine" in ways that contradict with their actual sex, robots could too... which distorts the issue further. Why is Skids male, for example? Or Hubcap? I mean, if they're merely identified as male or female based on external social constructs, it doesn't really matter, and I'm fine with that... but it doesn't leave much room for robo-porn.

Agreed. I don't understand the compulsion to take away what makes Transformers potentially different and conceptually interesting, and instead make them just like anything else we've seen a hundred times?

Heh.

Often their very character concepts and visual designs are based around them being treated like Earth chicks (ie: the writers and designers build that into them before they even appear on screen).

Since you understand the point of my analogy, they you know what I mean. Things that indicate sexual dimorphism in humans are often things that would be completely irrelevant to giant robots. In Transformers and Fembots, this degree of dimorphism is accentuated to an even greater anthropomorphized degree, and hangs very much on contemporary 20th century north american social constructs.

I don't agree with your trajectory here. Where does gender factor into the "form follows function" discourse?

I get that, but it still doesn't address the nonsensical degree of gender overdetermination in the character types or designs... especially when you consider that the social context that determines some tose associations wouldn't exist for beings with such a different culture and biology.

I could agree with that... but not the emotions of the mechanical entity, but rather the emotions of the observing entity.

I would think it's more a case of vice versa, and that persona follows form. Unless you're trying to make a cast for self-deterministic existentialism in Transformers.

But Skywarp's thuggery, Prowl's logic and Hound's secret longing to be something other than what he is speaks neither to their specific forms, nor to their gender... so... what are you saying?

errrr... and "emotion" determines gender how again? I'd be careful about what you're saying here, because as soon as you start ascribing certain emotional characteristics to one sex/gender or another, you start to run into problems. While biological factors play a role, social conditioning is still the biggest part of that.

I approve this message.

And why not have a brawler type that decides on Earth that he/she gender-identifies as female... maybe for no better reason than a proclivity for the colour pink, and then assume a teeny tiny girly voice?

I suspect this still creeps into the taboo categories that many people would object to, though I understand where you're coming from.

The problem is that, with the qualities that you've described, the sex metaphor no longer applies to the activity in question. If it loses its biological and social reference points, it becomes dissociated from sex, and no longer fulfills that role. As you said, it becomes little more than a game or pastime.

However, if it became a sacred act exclusive to certain partners, I suppose that would start to carry some of the social baggage we associate with sex (at least in some contexts).

I don't really like the concept of protoforms or nanotechnology or pseudo-organic processes, since they disturb the industrial-mechanical metaphor that Transformers was founded upon.

Arguably Airazor got to be that kind of character for all of... what, 3 episodes, before Tigatron came along? Kind of a shame.

Or possibly Hong Kong. But yeah... totally.

That was kind of my problem with it too.

Exactly. I highlighted the part I thought was particularly salient, but I think that's an acceptable solution, though of course it doesn't necessarily address the stereotyping that is taken for granted in the genre. One would hope that alongside an approach such as this, we would also see more innovative and unconventional character types that don't fall into the binary so neatly.

I agree... or at the very least, should insist upon it with a faint echo of flattened irritation.

I like your poll. Once upon a time I would have been an Option #2, but I've since become more friendly to Fembots, so I share your #3 leanings.

Under some circumstances, I'd accept something like #6, though only if it were not necessarily tied to overt, anthropomorphized physical gender traits, and not necessarily even limited to 2 genders for that matter. But I guess in that case, it might as well be robot astrology, right? Is Prime a Cancer or a Leo?

zmog

I'm gonna have to say yes, because as much as I love Starscream, Dinobot, and some other male Transformers, I don't think I'd enjoy this franchise as much without femmes.

An example for me is the original Marvel comics continuity of Transformers. I absolutely despise that continuity for its lack of females, despite Starscream, my number one fave, being in the series. This goes for IDW's G1 comics as well. I loathe how they handled Arcee, and I refuse to buy any G1 IDW comics (Animated, Prime, and Movies are fine with me though). Dark of the Moon also isn't safe from this, as while Starscream was in it as well, there were no female Transformers because Michael Bay killed off Arcee, Elita-One, and Chromia (and Alice, for the Decepticons) because he didn't like them. DOTM is my least favorite of the Transformers movies. And while ROTF greatly disappointed me with its treatment of the femmes, at least they were there.

I know some of you reading this will think "So what if one person wouldn't be in this franchise without femmes," but all I'm saying is that I have thoroughly enjoyed female Transformers in the various mediums through which the franchise has gone.

I'm content with anything between "we only interpret them as resembling our ideas of male and female" and "they are actually born/created/etc as male and female". I think refering to them as all non-gendered is excessive, as is giving them full on sexual reproduction.

I enjoyed IDW's take where being made "different" was one of the things that drove Arcee insane. All the same, I also like series like Prime where being female doesn't mean anything special at all. I think the only approach I wouldn't like is if the feminity is over stated and is the character's only personality trait. This was a bit of a problem for G1 cartoon Arcee.

Originally Posted by Smasher It's just so cool to hate your passions these days. I'll be glad when liking something is the new cool.

The problem of course, was that with IDW Arcee, what made her "different" was also simply making her "female", which aside from the logic holes in that development, carries quite a bit of sociological baggage. The implication that she went crazy no simply because of being "different" but because she was made "female" has extremely misogynistic overtones.

Anyone here seen Pedro Almodovar's last movie The Skin I Live In? I think it resonates a bit with this discussion, which his probably the first time Almodovar and Transformers have really been discussed in the same context.

zmog

Well, I've been drawn back in here. Too many things I want to be a part of.
Look at what you're saying. Sentient robots having gender. Most of us, including myself, don't mind female characters in the sense of they are considered female by humans but have no real gender. It'be be the same as sentient robots breathing or sentient robots throwing up. Just because they are aliens and sentient doesn't mean we totally forget their mechanical origins.
Couldn't agree more on the new poll being necessary. I'd go with a #3 personally.
My name is Rewind Eject and I approve this idea. (For the it's worth at least. In my universe, transformers consciously choose their english voices so the 'females' are those who see themselves alligning more to feminine traits and choose a female voice to easily show bits of who they are to humans. (Red Alert sounds like a nurse because that's what her patients would expect, Ironhide chose a southern drawl to bring to mind the calvary and westerns.)

That's basically what I've come up with as well. I've decided that instead of parent/ sibling relations; it's more of 'batch brothers' in mass. So at a certain time or whatever, the next batch would be created, trained in 'primary programming', and see each other sort of as peers. I also like budding followed by forging. Once again, I'll go into my own theory. First comes protoform splitting. A transformer spews nanite laced matter which molds on its own into a blank slate. This can be done virtually any time. Next, either the same bot or another one (which is why they have blanks) mitotically splits its spark and places it into the protoform. This fully activates the new bot. There are also two manners of growth. Either they slowly gain details until the 'primary protoform' is replaced by a completely individualized body, or the protoform is molded before the spark is input thus causing cloned bodies. (Which one is used depends on different cultures and the times). Example; during the war, large bodies with input weapons were gangmolded for more powerful soldiers on both sides. (Hope at least some of this makes some sense).

I agree wholeheartedly. For generics you have scientists, bruisers, clumsy folk, squat, gangly, cowardly, and more. For females you have female. I honestly think it would have been better if they created the characters firt then just flipped a coin for gender.


Once again, agreed. We know what humans are, lets see what makes these Cybertronians so special. That's my personaly problem with humans in the franchise. (Off subject, but hear me out). The robots are often used as exposition when needed and otherwise to immediately accept and understand human culture. I don't want to see that, I'd rather have them show me their culture. I know me, what about them? What makes them tick?


Like I said before, I approve this idea. we need more 'archtype breakers'. Granted, female bruiser is it's own archtype (what isn't now adays), but it's underutilized in Transformers. If you're going to have them assume genders upon reaching earth as we've more than once suggested, I want to see every variety on the concept possible.
Here is where we disagree. On the same line that they should be different from humans, I believe they should be different from human machines. The metaphor still exists, but the line is blurred between machine and life. I guess I'm biased though, because I dislike the idea that they can be dissected, and built perfectly by someone. I like that there is something else (a spark in most cases) to them beyond pistons and gears.


That isn't what I think. What I think is 'why does gender matter'? If one of the Wreckers in DotM was 'female', how would that affect your love of the movie? Her character wouldn't change, she'd have the same amount of lines, but be portrayed as a femme. What difference does that make? Same with all the other universes. Simply liking a character more because she's female seems odd to me.

Originally Posted by Autovolt 127 Megatron Growls So he can hopefully lower Optimus's attack stage by one point. However Optimus has the special ability Hyper Cutter which negates Growl.

4 and 6 are my sweet spot, either of them is where I'd prefer TF fiction land. I skew a little closer to 4 but don't mind 6 much. 5 is clearly true in BW.

3 and below are more inhuman than I prefer my TFs. I can deal with 3, it's ok, but it's not my favorite option.

7 and 8 are creepy. TFs have always been VERY anthropomorphic and I don't mind that really, but here's the point where the anthropomorphism just becomes silly, stupid and/or gross. Just some stuff we don't need to get into in a children's toyline based property. Just unneccessary and pervy imo.


-ZacWilliam, I'd be all for another pole as long as we get to vote for multiple options.

It would be interesting to see TF that don't have any of definitely male or female traits, looks completely agender (like some of Gundams or other piloted mecha), have androgynous voices and referring to themselves as 'it'.
But it would be more difficult to perceive and feel empathy to them as to characters. And TV companies won't allow to show such series, fearing of ruining gender identities of little children.

The female bruiser has become a sort of archetype, but I guess my point was that the girly female bruiser has not. I mean, sure we have Strika, and... well, just Strika... who is the butch female thug type. But what about a female who looks like Bulkhead and acts like Sailor Scout?

I'm fine with sparks, because they convey that necessary bit of mystery, a randomization factor that adds a wrinkle to the formula of industrial assembly and prescribed programming. You can build the robot and give it a complete programming suite, but once you attach a soul to it, the temperament of that spark may not fit with what you've built.

I (like everybody else) have my own ideas on how that all could work together. For me a "protoform" wouldn't be a nanotech magic chrysalis. It would be the "starter body" (similar to your suggestion) that may be the "traditional" way a new TF is given life. It's a fuel-efficient, smaller, generic body that can be replaced or upgraded based on the requirements of the spark (some sparks are big, and can handle big bodies, others fit in small packages, others have nervous, volatile energy, some are mild and gentle, etc...), even as the basic programming is supplemented by a learning matrix, instead of having everything pre-determined. This way the "childhood" metaphor remains, without necessarily foregoing the industrial construction methods in favour of mysterious nanotech mumbo-jumbo.

The prolonged process would lead to more successful, gradual upgrades into a well-realized bot who is comfortable in their own skin, so to speak. A bot like Bumblebee may turn out to be extremely suited to his small body, and may not be much changed from his initial protoform. On the other hand, a high-performance bot like Roadbuster (or even Metroplex for that matter) might need to be given a larger frame with a number of hardpoint weapon ports because his spark was too big to be contained in a small protoform, and as a result he experienced frequent bugs, poor coordination or power fluctuations, despite what his programming and specs might otherwise indicate.

Particularly successful bots are the ones that were blended with an attentive development period. Prowl probably received logic and computational upgrades because his spark seemed to be able to handle the processing speeds and "paging" demands. Jamming a similar upgrade into another body might not work as well (Computron for example, though his issues stem from being a composite mind. Skids and his incredible data capacity, but dangerous absent-mindedness, maybe). Likewise, due to a unique "quirk of the Spark", Skywarp can intuitively navigate dimensional translocation without prohibitive energy demands. This is why he can do this, and nobody else can.

During times of war, industrial assembly lines and rigid schematics would be used because such a time-consuming gradual process is not a luxury that could be afforded. If the Decepticons in particular embraced this method as a way of building a "master race" of dedicated military bots, it might explain why so many of them are volatile, dysfunctional or sociopathic... their sparks were crammed into pre-made shells, denied a gradual process of acclimation, and forced to fit, rather than following a proper protoform development cycle.

If you go by the G1 Tech Specs, that makes a pretty good case for why the Technobots are all so screwed up. They were loaded up with high specs and high-performance bodies, but had fresh sparks loaded into them without a selection or calibration process. Such are the exigencies of war, sometimes.

Wheelie, to use another example, is probably not much more than a protoform, but his spark has adapted during his time marooned without programming supplements or parts upgrades. It's quite possible that he will never "grow up" for that reason.

Sorry... getting away from the "gender" question there. But I hope that explains how a "soul" (the Spark) can explain the chaos and magic of individuality even in the context of a fairly industrial-mechanical techno-biological culture.

zmog

This is an incredibly tough question for me. I have no problem with the idea of Transformers who have female personalities and appearances, but I don't think of them as having actual physical genders/sexes.

I went with "no" for arbitrary reasons, so yeah.

Originally Posted by Chopperface I love Animated Straxus. Ever seen his "account" on Formspring? His roleplayer is hilarious.

*snip*
Kind of an interesting idea you got going there.