|
|
Post by foresterr on Nov 15, 2013 14:44:33 GMT
-Jim North, thedoctor and Foresterr are of position 1 (right, Foresterr, you mean this?). Nah, you know what, I'm changing my bet  Annie ran off to her secret lair to plan and plot after learning the fact that she can actually hit it off with a girl (which for some inexplicable reason honestly never ever has occured to her before, interpreted any comings and goings that occured before now as pure friendship  ), and her choices are no longer limited to either eternal celibacy, or fooling around with guys, babies, wasting away, et caetera, et caetera. I hope no one suggested that one before, the thread got kinda long in the meantime  |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 15, 2013 15:29:30 GMT
The last 4 options are basically "Annie retreats out of shock" with reasons why she would be shocked. Annie's unawareness of Kat's and Paz's relationship is at least to some extent supposed in each of these. You can work them out with her being aware on some level, but not completely. And quite many in this forum have chosen amongst options 3-6. No, I mean specifically "shock not compounded by any of these other reasons you gave". "Shock not compounded with these particular reasons" is nothing specified. You have to give a reason to that shock and then it is something specific. The only reason to shock I can find in your post is that she did not know of Kat's relationship, but this is so close to option 3 that I count it as one version going to that category. Just less "upset" and more "surprised". If you mean some other reason, please explicate it. |
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 15, 2013 16:01:38 GMT
Ok, that's a bit much. They may not be ENTIRELY related, but I'm pretty sure that, whether through innate tendencies or societal mores, gender identity and phsyical sex are VERY MUCH related, so much so that the vast majority of the population of both physical sexes tends to identify with their respective gender. The relation may be argued to be of one kind or another, but it is there. That said, the point is accurate in that (in-story at least, and in many other stories) creatures can have gender identity without physical sex. Maybe they're related for SOME or MANY, but extending that to ALL (or robots!) is kind of the issue we're talking about Gender is the term for self-image while sex is the term for what you're born as. While the majority might identify their gender as exactly the same as their sex that's not a complete given and the number of people who are transsexual, transgender or identify somewhere in the middle isn't so small. Most people these days (at least in Aus, living in a city) would know a couple of people who are trans. Shadow is a boy, robot identifies as a boy. So, it's either homosexual or queer/'other' if you consider him to have no sex but to be male gender. Even if someone were to insist that he has neither sex nor gender, then it's still queer/'other'. Without going to that old multiple genders and sexes and gender-sex distinction again, I'm still sure, as I was the last time this was discussed, that everybody is familiar with it, even without having read their Butler and Irigaray. The point is very simply this: how do you identify as a male robot if there is no such thing as male robot? If there are no male robots, then whatever the self-identification of the robot it does not make sense to call it male in any sense that would be relevant for the "gay or straight" question that was asked here. The possibility that goes closest is that Robot is coded so that it has a "male identity" in its code, but that does not give Robot such sense of sexual identity that he could be gay in a meaningful way. If Shadow 2 is sexually reproductive boy, then okay, he can be gay if he takes Robot for a guy and fancies Robot sexually (which was the thing debated that lead to this are they actually guys debate). But it is hard to make sense out of Robot being gay. Let me still clarify before I get the whole list of queerness of sexually reproductive species here: I'm also aware of a lot of that, but it is of no relevance that amongst sexually reproductive species there are more than two sexes and that there are identities that correspond to the sex other than ones own or something that does not go strictly to either sex. Nor that some change their sex or their sexual identity at some points. We are talking here about a species with no sexes, so there is no sex to which it could identify. It is not a question of whether one can identify with the other sex than one's own, because here there clearly is no such situation. It is a question of how one can identify oneself sexually if one has no sex whatsoever. So tell me, how can a non-sexual creature of non-sexually reproductive species, with no sexual individuals in his whole species, identify oneself as a sexually defined individual in his species? And how does this happen so that his acts of compassion could in any sense be gay or straight? What do gay and straight even mean for non-sexually reproductive beings? How can robot even conceive his compassion as gay or hetero, when there are no opposite sexes in his species? These are the real questiona here, not that whether there are gender identities that do not correspond to one's own sex, which is completely irrelevant to this issue. Again, Disney's fairies were my example for two reasons: 1) that's a clearly nonsensical world with boys and girls in a species that has no function for sexes; 2) I find it completely possible that Tom is just writing something that defies logic. It is no surprise, this is a web comic, not a science book. Disney's fairies born from the first laughter of a baby, so they do not reproduce sexually, yet they have extremely sexual phenotypes, a bit like barbies. Actually, I'm pretty sure the 'born from baby's first laugh' thing was in the original Peter and Wendy. (Of course, the rest of the details about Peter Pan and the fairies are left out: The fairies have no morals, and are only capable of holding a single emotion in its purest form at any given moment. Tinkerbell was downright homicidal in the novel, or would have been if she had the chance. Adaptations left out a lot of other things, too, like Peter killing off any Lost Boys who showed signs of growing up, or forgetting anyone he hadn't seen in a long enough time (even Tinkerbell and Wendy). Sure. But the hyper-sexual fairies with no sexual reproduction still make no sense, regardless of the father of this idea. Disney adds a lot of non sense to the story, however. On a side note, unlike in the new Tinker Bell movies, in Disney's original Peter Pan movie Tinker Bell gets homicidal, trying to get Wendy killed. So that part is actually kept in the adaptation, at least to some extent - I haven't read the book. |
|
|
|
Post by Daedalus on Nov 15, 2013 16:07:47 GMT
(remember, Jeanne was a master fencer) ...my point exactly? Ah, I missed what you were saying. I still think that S1 represents Diego better, though. But who knows. |
|
fishtie
Full Member
...I've learned to be amazed first and ask questions later.
Posts: 114
|
Post by fishtie on Nov 15, 2013 20:12:30 GMT
Maybe they're related for SOME or MANY, but extending that to ALL (or robots!) is kind of the issue we're talking about Gender is the term for self-image while sex is the term for what you're born as. While the majority might identify their gender as exactly the same as their sex that's not a complete given and the number of people who are transsexual, transgender or identify somewhere in the middle isn't so small. Most people these days (at least in Aus, living in a city) would know a couple of people who are trans. Shadow is a boy, robot identifies as a boy. So, it's either homosexual or queer/'other' if you consider him to have no sex but to be male gender. Even if someone were to insist that he has neither sex nor gender, then it's still queer/'other'. Without going to that old multiple genders and sexes and gender-sex distinction again, I'm still sure, as I was the last time this was discussed, that everybody is familiar with it, even without having read their Butler and Irigaray. The point is very simply this: how do you identify as a male robot if there is no such thing as male robot? If there are no male robots, then whatever the self-identification of the robot it does not make sense to call it male in any sense that would be relevant for the "gay or straight" question that was asked here. The possibility that goes closest is that Robot is coded so that it has a "male identity" in its code, but that does not give Robot such sense of sexual identity that he could be gay in a meaningful way. If Shadow 2 is sexually reproductive boy, then okay, he can be gay if he takes Robot for a guy and fancies Robot sexually (which was the thing debated that lead to this are they actually guys debate). But it is hard to make sense out of Robot being gay. Let me still clarify before I get the whole list of queerness of sexually reproductive species here: I'm also aware of a lot of that, but it is of no relevance that amongst sexually reproductive species there are more than two sexes and that there are identities that correspond to the sex other than ones own or something that does not go strictly to either sex. Nor that some change their sex or their sexual identity at some points. We are talking here about a species with no sexes, so there is no sex to which it could identify. It is not a question of whether one can identify with the other sex than one's own, because here there clearly is no such situation. It is a question of how one can identify oneself sexually if one has no sex whatsoever. So tell me, how can a non-sexual creature of non-sexually reproductive species, with no sexual individuals in his whole species, identify oneself as a sexually defined individual in his species? And how does this happen so that his acts of compassion could in any sense be gay or straight? What do gay and straight even mean for non-sexually reproductive beings? How can robot even conceive his compassion as gay or hetero, when there are no opposite sexes in his species? These are the real questiona here, not that whether there are gender identities that do not correspond to one's own sex, which is completely irrelevant to this issue. Again, Disney's fairies were my example for two reasons: 1) that's a clearly nonsensical world with boys and girls in a species that has no function for sexes; 2) I find it completely possible that Tom is just writing something that defies logic. It is no surprise, this is a web comic, not a science book. Actually, I'm pretty sure the 'born from baby's first laugh' thing was in the original Peter and Wendy. (Of course, the rest of the details about Peter Pan and the fairies are left out: The fairies have no morals, and are only capable of holding a single emotion in its purest form at any given moment. Tinkerbell was downright homicidal in the novel, or would have been if she had the chance. Adaptations left out a lot of other things, too, like Peter killing off any Lost Boys who showed signs of growing up, or forgetting anyone he hadn't seen in a long enough time (even Tinkerbell and Wendy). Sure. But the hyper-sexual fairies with no sexual reproduction still make no sense, regardless of the father of this idea. Disney adds a lot of non sense to the story, however. On a side note, unlike in the new Tinker Bell movies, in Disney's original Peter Pan movie Tinker Bell gets homicidal, trying to get Wendy killed. So that part is actually kept in the adaptation, at least to some extent - I haven't read the book. I believe the concept is that in human society, gender encompasses certain personal and social ideas that have nothing to do with actual sex (males are tough, females are caring, etc.). Isn't it possible that a sentient* non-sexual** being, who is used to human society where most people identify as one of two genders might come to associate themselves as one of the two genders as well?*** As for the fairies? They are clearly constructs of the human mind**** thus we instill in them sexual traits to make them more familiar and less frightening. It gets around that whole angel problem of having to start every conversation with 'be not afraid.' *capable of self acknowledgement and self modification **in a biological sense ***and yes, robot has clearly set himself aside from robot society for some time ****perhaps etheral beings ala Coyotes big secret? |
|
chaosvii
Junior Member
I absolutely did not expect this!
Posts: 84 
|
Post by chaosvii on Nov 15, 2013 21:14:50 GMT
Sex is biological, gender is cultural, right? In the modern (aka very recent) usage of the words yes. But it is worth noting that the word gender also refers to "primary sexual characteristics" prior to this recent (I think it started in the 1970s, but I can't find a solid source for this) definition. Such biological traits are independent of gender identity and sexuality due to how each of these characteristics operate under separate biological mechanisms that don't really interact with each other so much as each of them typically follow the same trends and are thus perceived as interrelated rather than merely correlated. |
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Nov 15, 2013 21:30:23 GMT
Physical gender and gender identity are strongly, but not perfectly, correlated.
For humans.
That correlation is obviously missing for species that lack one or both of those attributes, which would probably include species where physical gender is routinely mutable.
I would also expect a weaker correlation among species for whom mating is largely involuntary. Or at the least a weaker *sense* of gender identity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nnelg on Nov 16, 2013 5:14:52 GMT
No, I mean specifically "shock not compounded by any of these other reasons you gave". "Shock not compounded with these particular reasons" is nothing specified. You have to give a reason to that shock and then it is something specific. The only reason to shock I can find in your post is that she did not know of Kat's relationship, but this is so close to option 3 that I count it as one version going to that category. Just less "upset" and more "surprised". If you mean some other reason, please explicate it. Um, the reason for the shock is that she just discovered something she didn't expect; something she never even considered as a possibility. The only analogy I could think of right now would be finding out your grandmother is a bug-eyed alien in disguise. (Sure, it's a bit exaggerated, but that's the point of an analogy.) But if you think "upset" and "surprised" are close enough to include in the same category, then I guess there's no point in arguing it. |
|
Nemo
New Member
Posts: 5 
|
Post by Nemo on Nov 16, 2013 5:57:36 GMT
How many people stay with their first love? How many people hook up with their BFF ? *Raises hand* I did. We hooked up. Didn't work out romantically. Still friends. I'm pretty sure it's more common than first loves staying together. |
|
Momo
Junior Member
Big meanie jerkface
Posts: 58
|
Post by Momo on Nov 16, 2013 6:20:21 GMT
How many people hook up with their BFF ? *Raises hand* I did. We hooked up. Didn't work out romantically. Still friends. I'm pretty sure it's more common than first loves staying together. On the flipside, I've never hooked up with my BFF. Never ever thought of her that way despite being into girls. I also know a couple that's been together since middle school who are now happily married with children. It could go either way. I personally would prefer things didn't end with Annie/Kat for reasons completely unrelated to ship preferences, but I wouldn't call it unrealistic whether it does or doesn't happen. |
|
Nemo
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by Nemo on Nov 16, 2013 6:30:31 GMT
*Raises hand* I did. We hooked up. Didn't work out romantically. Still friends. I'm pretty sure it's more common than first loves staying together. On the flipside, I've never hooked up with my BFF. Never ever thought of her that way despite being into girls. I also know a couple that's been together since middle school who are now happily married with children. It could go either way. I personally would prefer things didn't end with Annie/Kat for reasons completely unrelated to ship preferences, but I wouldn't call it unrealistic whether it does or doesn't happen. The only statistic I have for first loves are general divorce rates. My grandparents have been together their entire lives. It happens. It just seems like a rare thing. Hell, I can't really even imagine being with my first love. We are incredibly different people. I have a feeling it had a lot to do with how much she liked penises and I didn't. But you know. To each their own. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Nov 16, 2013 10:01:37 GMT
FWB can work out great, and it can also backfire terribly and hurt everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedoctor on Nov 16, 2013 15:35:56 GMT
Physical gender and gender identity are strongly, but not perfectly, correlated. For humans. That correlation is obviously missing for species that lack one or both of those attributes, which would probably include species where physical gender is routinely mutable. I would also expect a weaker correlation among species for whom mating is largely involuntary. Or at the least a weaker *sense* of gender identity. This is what I was trying to say above; warrl has said it better than I did, though. |
|
|
|
Post by takesailorhunt on Nov 16, 2013 17:25:21 GMT
Woah... that escalated quickly. I'm sure if Paz needed a kidney, Kat could try to concoct one for her. Wow. That's awesome. I wonder how transplantable the kidneys would be. Ah science, how I love you so... |
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Nov 16, 2013 20:01:57 GMT
I'm pretty sure it's more common than first loves staying together. The point is AnnieKat is as much likely than PazKat, and dismissing PazKat because it's an unusual situation in favor of AnnieKat which is an equally unusual situation doesn't makes much sense Also, AnjaDonald is a good exemple of a "first teenage romance for life" |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Nov 16, 2013 20:58:51 GMT
I'm pretty sure it's more common than first loves staying together. The point is AnnieKat is as much likely than PazKat, and dismissing PazKat because it's an unusual situation in favor of AnnieKat which is an equally unusual situation doesn't makes much sense Also, AnjaDonald is a good exemple of a "first teenage romance for life" Actually, I think AnnieKat may be less likely, because so far I've never read a story where the best friends/main characters of the story get paired D: Well, you don't know if they've liked anyone before that. |
|
|
|
Post by keef on Nov 16, 2013 22:30:57 GMT
-Jim North, thedoctor and Foresterr are of position 1 (right, Foresterr, you mean this?). Nah, you know what, I'm changing my bet Annie ran off to her secret lair to plan and plot after learning the fact that she can actually hit it off with a girl (which for some inexplicable reason honestly never ever has occured to her before, interpreted any comings and goings that occured before now as pure friendship ), and her choices are no longer limited to either eternal celibacy, or fooling around with guys, babies, wasting away, et caetera, et caetera. I hope no one suggested that one before, the thread got kinda long in the meantime If I understand Coyote correctly she doesn't really have a choice in the matter: " just as will happen when you have a child". When, not if. |
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Nov 16, 2013 23:25:35 GMT
There's no reason to consider Coyote infallible in this matter, however. I expect that a lot of unexpected and unforeseen things will happen with Annie over the course of the comic; it's been implied many times that there's something exceptional about her and Kat. |
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Nov 17, 2013 0:33:53 GMT
There's no reason to consider Coyote infallible in this matter, however. I expect that a lot of unexpected and unforeseen things will happen with Annie over the course of the comic; it's been implied many times that there's something exceptional about her and Kat. Just look at the first appearance of Coyote in the story. He thought Antimony was Surma, then he thought Eglamore was Antimony's father. Don't expect omniscience from Coyote. He has been and can be mistaken about things. And think it is hilarious. |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Nov 17, 2013 0:59:52 GMT
There's no reason to consider Coyote infallible in this matter, however. I expect that a lot of unexpected and unforeseen things will happen with Annie over the course of the comic; it's been implied many times that there's something exceptional about her and Kat. Just look at the first appearance of Coyote in the story. He thought Antimony was Surma, then he thought Eglamore was Antimony's father. Don't expect omniscience from Coyote. He has been and can be mistaken about things. And think it is hilarious. Personally, I think he's rather more amused by his little tiffs than his successes |
|
|
|
Post by nightwind on Nov 17, 2013 3:20:39 GMT
Just look at the first appearance of Coyote in the story. He thought Antimony was Surma, then he thought Eglamore was Antimony's father. I think it's entirely possible he knew the truth at first sight and said that on purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by SilverbackRon on Nov 17, 2013 7:20:40 GMT
Just look at the first appearance of Coyote in the story. He thought Antimony was Surma, then he thought Eglamore was Antimony's father. I think it's entirely possible he knew the truth at first sight and said that on purpose. I always wondered about that, now that we have seen "ethervision", I couldn't imagine how Coyote could mistake their identities. I looked up any Word of Tom I could find and located this gem: Q: "Do Ysengrin and Coyote normally have trouble telling humans apart, given that they mistook Antimony for her mother?"
A: "Not really. Annie just seems a lot like her mom at first."So, WoT, Coyote really did think she was Surma. Viewing it that way, I guess he just looked at a pretty red-haired girl who happens to be part fire-elemental in ethervision, he just assumed it was Surma since there was only one of those he had ever met. |
|
|
|
Post by Gulby on Nov 17, 2013 14:14:48 GMT
Maybe that's because Annie has inherited the very soul of her mother, and by any way, she "smells" like her. Since Coyote isn't attached to human time, the fact that many years are gone and that Antimony is younger than Surma the last time Coyote saw her doesn't count at all. No ?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Nov 17, 2013 15:04:41 GMT
Maybe that's because Annie has inherited the very soul of her mother, and by any way, she "smells" like her. Since Coyote isn't attached to human time, the fact that many years are gone and that Antimony is younger than Surma the last time Coyote saw her doesn't count at all. No ?... Doesn't explain that he thinks Eggers is the father |
|
planeswalker
New Member
Continuing to preach the "Please be Okay" agenda.
Posts: 4
|
Post by planeswalker on Nov 17, 2013 15:45:53 GMT
Doesn't explain that he thinks Eggers is the father Possibly because that's the last info he had, that Surma and Eglamore were together. There's a lot we've yet to learn about what happened back then with the whole Surma/Renard/Eglamore/Anthony situation. |
|
|
|
Post by sidhekin on Nov 17, 2013 15:55:44 GMT
Also quite possibly feigned, with that as the convenient pretext. Coyote enjoys the awkwardness, and more so, I suspect, as Eggers is involved.
|
|
planeswalker
New Member
Continuing to preach the "Please be Okay" agenda.
Posts: 4
|
Post by planeswalker on Nov 17, 2013 15:59:58 GMT
Also quite possibly feigned, with that as the convenient pretext. Coyote enjoys the awkwardness, and more so, I suspect, as Eggers is involved. Yes, that's another good possibility. You just never know with Coyote. |
|
|
|
Post by quinkgirl on Nov 17, 2013 16:33:00 GMT
Also quite possibly feigned, with that as the convenient pretext. Coyote enjoys the awkwardness, and more so, I suspect, as Eggers is involved. I always had the sneaking suspicion that Eglamore might've liked Surma... but that might be just me. |
|
Omnium
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by Omnium on Nov 17, 2013 16:39:05 GMT
Also quite possibly feigned, with that as the convenient pretext. Coyote enjoys the awkwardness, and more so, I suspect, as Eggers is involved. I always had the sneaking suspicion that Eglamore might've liked Surma... but that might be just me. GET OUT OF TOWN! |
|
|
|
Post by Elysium on Nov 17, 2013 16:57:16 GMT
Possibly because that's the last info he had, that Surma and Eglamore were together. That's exactly the point; Coyote isn't omniscient, so we shouldn't take his dialogue for granted |
|
), and her choices are no longer limited to either eternal celibacy, or fooling around with guys, babies, wasting away, et caetera, et caetera.
