This came up in the "Things you hate about the franchise" thread and I wanted to continue the debate without further derailing the thread so I'm making this one here. And there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to have a civil discussion on this. And the quotes I wanted to pick up from: Yes, we are. Our biological make up requires us to eat meat for survival. On a fundamental level, that requires killing other animals, which can be interpreted as "war like". That's a bit of stretch I know, but the point still stands. Actually, anyone who's seen Jurassic Park knows that it's actually the reverse: All mammals start of as female and just require a certain hormone at a certain embryonic stage to make them male. So in real life, female is actually the default gender. But, I see why you're mad about that and it makes sense. Getting to how this relates to the comics and TF in particular, I don't blame you for being miffed about this. I would be too. For one thing, this is the only TF fiction where this has ever needed explaining because it's the only one where it's ever been established that they were inherently genderless (and they are genderless, I'll address the use of male pronouns later on). No other version of the franchise has this. G1 never needed to explain why Arcee, Elita-1, et. al were there, everyone just accepted it and moved on. Same Animated, AEC, with every other iteration up until IDW and Furman's Spotlight: Arcee. And really what he did was to essentially level the playing field. He established that there's no gender at all, male or female. It's even addressed in story when Arcee thinks "They're doing it again. They're not even aware of it. "her". "She"." The problem with this is that up until that issue, the other characters have been referred to as "he" or "him". This is the fault of the writers since we're human and we have two genders and will ascribe those pronouns to the characters that get written. In a real setting the IDW Cybertronians would likely be using more generic pronouns such as "it", "that" or "this". But, we as humans write with the pronouns that we're familiar with. I think this also raises the question of how human something has to be before we start ascibing these features on them? I mean, no one looks at a toaster and thinks "He's making toast again." But if the toaster looked more human we might. But at what point would that happen? And, is it based solely on how human something looks or is there some "personality" component to that as well? Does something have to be sentient in order to have those properties applied to them or does it just need to look human? At the end of the day, we're talking about robots. Technological beings. Machines. Machines don't inherently have gender, so in context, this whole thing really shouldn't be an issue at all. In theory. Where this breaks down is the fact that we're really not talking about machines. These are characters in a story. They're being used to tell a human story which requires the characters to anthropomorphized to a level where we can relate to them as humans. Thus, robbing them of aspects like gender makes story telling more difficult. And limiting gender in the story setting is even worse because it makes it harder to tell more stories in that setting. And on top of that, it risks alienating a good portion of the potential audience. As for roboboobs: I have horrified many a friend with Transmetal Blackarachia. Complete with removable bra. Anyway, the issue does raise some interesting questions, so discuss.