Sphinxter said: No, what I'm saying is that about as often as it is not, "gender" in these cartoon characters has no physiological indicator and that therefore "a female character" and "a male character dressed as a female character" and vice versā become indistinct and that therefore the man who professes to have a sexual orientation and claims to be "attracted to females" might best admit that he's not attracted to females, but to certain types of clothing instead. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Actually, neither of your conclusions follow from either of your premises. First: "Gender has no physiological indicator, therefore there's no difference between a man dressed as a woman and vice versa." No, because that ignores voice timbre, pronouns, styles of dress, gender stereotypes, response to pronouns - everything that people in the real world use to signal what gender they are. Every difference that doesn't involve something directly observable, that's nonetheless entirely obvious from - I'll say it again - context. Yes, sometimes this can be ambiguous! Even in the real world! Welcome to the 21st century. Some people AFAB present as men, some people AMAB present as women, and they are the gender that they identify as, and some people identify as neither and dress however the hell they please, and all of this is OK and also none of our business. However, are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a male character and a female one? Really? Because if so, you've got bigger issues. Second: "Male characters dressed as women and vice versa are indistinct, therefore people only have sexual preferences towards styles of clothing." I mean, putting aside that the time a sexual preference is most relevant is when the clothes come off... Like, that's just not how sexuality works? I think what you're trying to get at is that people are attracted to the whole package of gender stereotypes and not just people's physiologies. And, yes, this is true - clothes and makeup, as well as people's body (and regular) language, hairstyle, physique, tone of voice, accent, and about a million other things all go towards what might make one person attractive to another. But to suggest that you can separate all of these things out from identity and pretend that certain 'types of clothing' (and hairstyle, and makeup, etc.) isn't coded towards one gender or another is pure madness. Like, yes, gender stereotypes aren't written into DNA, they're society- and culture-specific. But they're still real, you know? Money only has the power we ascribe to random bits of shiny stuff too, but you wouldn't say that the coins in your pocket are worthless. Oh, and for good measure I'm also refuting your premise as well, because (as other people upthread have pointed out) often physical indicators of sex are made very clear in anime. Basically - I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what it means to identify and present as a sex, and of what goes into sexuality. (And the fact that you keep on saying 'gender' and mean 'sex' isn't helping.) Also, that's not how you spell 'presupposed', 'preferences' or 'vice versa'. Your diacritics and 'æ' letters are cute, but they make you look like you prefer looking smart to being correct. Just a helpful tip. (The æ is used in words like dæmon or encyclopædia, where they denote a certain sound - and most dictionaries accept a simple 'ae' in those words anyway.) |
Maurice_5Dec 10, 2019 2:23 PM
Maurice_5 said: And again none of thse are physiological — are you saying that a male becomes a female when he grows his hair out and puts on a dress and uses different pronouns and speaks in female inflexions?First: "Gender has no physiological indicator, therefore there's no difference between a man dressed as a woman and vice versa." No, because that ignores voice timbre, pronouns, styles of dress, gender stereotypes, response to pronouns - everything that people in the real world use to signal what gender they are. Every difference that doesn't involve something directly observable, that's nonetheless entirely obvious from - I'll say it again - context. Yes, sometimes this can be ambiguous! Even in the real world! Welcome to the 21st century. Some people AFAB present as men, some people AMAB present as women, and they are the gender that they identify as, and some people identify as neither and dress however the hell they please, and all of this is OK and also none of our business. It has nothing to do with ambiguity; it has to do with that those that claim they have "sexual orientations" best start admitting that their sexual præferences are not about physiological differences but merely about clothing styles, as in all the things you mention in verbatim "voice timbre, pronouns, styles of dress, gender stereotypes, response to pronouns" — a man of sexual orientation might claim that he exemplī gratiā is attracted to "males", but in reality he is attracted to little more than certain manners of clothing and certain haircuts, for that is all that communicates "male" in these cartoons; he is simply lying to himself to keep his identity alive.However, are you honestly telling me you can't tell the difference between a male character and a female one? Really? Because if so, you've got bigger issues. I'm saying that there are no actual physiological differences between male and female characters in a quite a few such cartoons, dare I say the majority, and that thus those that say they care about supposedly "male" and "female" characters best start admitting that what they really care about are haircuts and dresses, not genders and sexes and simply confuse the two with each other.Second: "Male characters dressed as women and vice versa are indistinct, therefore people only have sexual preferences towards styles of clothing." Yet these sexual præferences are constantly expressed towards characters in series where clothes never come off?I mean, putting aside that the time a sexual preference is most relevant is when the clothes come off... Like, that's just not how sexuality works? I think what you're trying to get at is that people are attracted to the whole package of gender stereotypes and not just people's physiologies. No, my claim is far stronger than that; my claim is that, with pertainance to such cartoon characters where these physiological differences don't even exist, the physiology is thus simply irrelevant, they are attracted only to clothes and they best start admitting that the idea of "sexual orientations" they cling onto to keep their sense of self alive and often even delude themselves with they were supposedly "born with" is nothing but a socialized præference for clothing styles.And, yes, this is true - clothes and makeup, as well as people's body (and regular) language, hairstyle, physique, tone of voice, accent, and about a million other things all go towards what might make one person attractive to another. All that, except physiology.But to suggest that you can separate all of these things out from identity and pretend that certain 'types of clothing' (and hairstyle, and makeup, etc.) isn't coded towards one gender or another is pure madness. Like, yes, gender stereotypes aren't written into DNA, they're society- and culture-specific. But they're still real, you know? Money only has the power we ascribe to random bits of shiny stuff too, but you wouldn't say that the coins in your pocket are worthless. That doesn't change that the attraction isn't felt towards physiology, but towards purely socially conventional stereotypes that will be gone in a century and that they best start admitting it is thus pure social brainwashing and that they are thus not attracted to either "males" or "females" but rather simply to certain clothing patterns.A sexual orientationtard might say that he is supposedly "attracted to male characters", clearly he is simply attracted to certain haircuts. Oh, and for good measure I'm also refuting your premise as well, because (as other people upthread have pointed out) often physical indicators of sex are made very clear in anime. Yes, when they are; no, when they aren't — that still apparently stops not the man of sexual orientation from being attracted when they are not.Basically - I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what it means to identify and present as a sex, and of what goes into sexuality. (And the fact that you keep on saying 'gender' and mean 'sex' isn't helping.) I understand very well; I am saying that with pertinence to these cartoon characters that what it means to "identify as præsent as a sex" has no actual physiological basis and that gender becomes nothing more than socialized clothing, as such "sexual orientations" are naught more than socialized brainwashing in this world.Also, that's not how you spell 'presupposed', 'preferences' or 'vice versa'. Your diacritics and 'æ' letters are cute, but they make you look like you prefer looking smart to being correct. Just a helpful tip. (The æ is used in words like dæmon or encyclopædia, where they denote a certain sound - and most dictionaries accept a simple 'ae' in those words anyway.) Ah yes, an argument from dictionary, how verily bourgeois.https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pr%C3%A6ference Pray tell, what makes your arbitrary spelling more "correct" than "mine"? They denote no sound; English spelling is rarely based on the phonemic sounds it repræsents but rather on the structural etymology and morphology of the word. The æ in "encyclopædia" is pronounced identically to the "e" in "centipede", the reason for their difference is quite simple: their etymology is completely different, the "pæd" from the former ultimately derives from the Greek stem "paid-" indicating a relation to children; as in "encircled children", how they were taught in Greece, whereas the "ped" on "centipede" derives from the Latin stem meaning "foot", a thousandfoot, if one will. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| I'm gonna bash my head against this wall one last time... Sphinxter said: My claim is that, with pertainance to such cartoon characters where these physiological differences don't even exist, the physiology is thus simply irrelevant, they are attracted only to clothes and they best start admitting that the idea of "sexual orientations" they cling onto to keep their sense of self alive and often even delude themselves with they were supposedly "born with" is nothing but a socialized præference for clothing styles. So, it's only to do with 2D characters, and not the real world at all? Well, that helps, because it means we don't have to wade into the whole IDPol mire - for better or worse, Japan just ain't there yet for the most part. Okay. So, as best as I can understand - and I do wish you'd write more clearly, dear - you're saying that because you can't see a dick and balls on the majority of anime males, all we have to go by is the tertiary sexual characteristics that have more to do with how people choose to present themselves, with hairstyle and the rest of it. And that since these are culture- and society-specific, and because someone who's physically one sex can adopt the tertiary sexual characteristics of the other, they should be discounted as a real way of determining one's sexuality. Right! So, you realise that all these tertiary, 'non-physiological' indicators that you're saying people are attracted to are - and stop me if I'm going too fast - just representations, right? Like, there's no physical hair, no physical clothes. They're drawings, representations. We interpret the 2D images to assume a 3D shape. These can in turn be used to determine things about the character from their appearance - a school uniform means they're likely in school, high-class clothes and ringlets mean they're from a wealthy background, a buzzcut is often used to denote someone who's into baseball. Likewise, you use things like their mannerisms and voice to assume things about the character. A high, fast-paced voice combined with lots of quick movements and rapid changes in facial expression indicates an energetic, outgoing character; a slouch and menacing swagger likely means the character is a delinquent. All of this is visual shorthand so that the show can make us, the viewer, understand things about the character that it would otherwise have to tell us. "Show, don't tell" is pretty much the art of conveying as much information as possible through means other than direct exposition to get the message through to the viewer. I don't think that's especially controversial. And yet, you want to entirely reject the idea that we can assume things about a character's gender from how they choose to dress, how they choose to style their hair, how they choose to speak, what pronouns they choose to use and respond to? Nah. When we're attracted to a 2D character - which, again, is just a representation - we're actually being attracted by what is implied to be there, using the visual shorthand discussed above. (Or at least I am.) Call it 'social brainwashing' if you like - certainly, the world could do with gender norms being challenged more often - but the fact remains that the artist had this character choose to present in that manner, and thus I can quite safely assume X, Y and Z about them. When you hear hoofbeats, you think horses, not zebras. If and when you do actually see a zebra accompanying those hoofbeats, then you can adjust your mental model accordingly - with an apology for misgendering if appropriate. Phew! (And, like, spelling isn't arbitrary? Don't know where you've got that from. English spelling does have artifacts from earlier spellings, but that doesn't mean it's the correct spelling now. Likewise, your grammar, at points: as a tool to communicate - which is, after all, the point - all you're doing is indicating a desire to appear smart. Protip, the best writers make their views understood in plain English - none of this 'this still apparently stops not' bollocks.) |
| Picture a skyscraper and a water puddle placed away from the skyscraper. There's the skyscraper, a real building, made of metal, glass and various other building materials, produced after calculations, risen from the ground. Then, there's the puddle, placed away from the skyscraper, reflecting it on its surface. What's reflected isn't a real building, there were no building materials used to produce it, it's on the surface of water, not on the ground; at the same time, the puddle doesn't reflect the skyscraper in its entirety, only a part of it, but the observer, despite not seeing every single detail of the skyscraper it reflects, can identify that what is indeed reflected on the surface of the puddle is a skyscraper. I don't need to see the ground the skyscraper stands on, I don't even need to see the whole 30 floors of it at once: I know the puddle is reflecting a skyscraper. This is because the image isn't the same as the object, it never is. It makes absolutely zero sense to expect every column, every metal junction, the ground it stands on, that everything be absolutely depicted on the image for it to be a skyscraper, because it isn't real, it's an image. Images are produced from abstractions of objects (sensible plane) or from the representation of ideas (intelligible plane). If I draw a heart, I don't need to put all real characteristics of it for you to know it's a heart. Why don't I draw all the valves, all the chambers of the heart? Because art is an exercise of 'clipping' what isn't necessary for my intention to come across, given that I have a finite amount of time, materials, means to produce the art. Were I to draw an anatomy book, it'd be part of my purpose to produce an image as close to the object as possible - and even then, it wouldn't be the object itself, merely an image, it wouldn't sufficient address the object in its entirety. Art is a limited medium, it can't reproduce every single detail because it will not only overwhelm the audience, it's an impossible endeavor. Only what's the most important is translated into the image: I don't need to depict that one person standing near the window of the skyscraper for it to be a skyscraper; if I do depict them, it must have a purpose, I must intend something by depicting it. What would be the purpose of depicting every single sex characteristics if it were of no importance in my work? I might do it as an artistic choice or as a reflection of my artistic style. If I don't, it doesn't make my image any less intelligible as what it depicts. If I give enough traditional gender signifiers, I'm expecting my audience to fill in the gaps: as I told you in another thread, expectation is everything in art, be it from the side of the audience, be it from the side of the artist. When one approaches a medium, they learn its language as they consume it. Maybe a kid watching a movie for the first time doesn't get it when the camera (the most common example of 'clipping', since the camera never depicts the whole object, but only a section in an image) shows someone walking outside a house, then next frame, they're inside it.. I can't call it a plothole that it was never shown them entering the house, there mustn't be 1) overdepiction of detail that consumes the finite spam an artist has to convey it's message; 2) holding the audience back with details not important to the image. If it were important to show how they got into the house, I would have. The artist expects you to fill in the gaps when there's nothing important about what it isn't depicting. If you observe it carefully, the younger the intended audience, the less these common 'tricks' are used and, as the intended audience gets older, they're introduced more and more. This is because, as with learning a language, you're learning how to deal with images and how they relate to the object, despite never properly being one. This also is true with animation and the depiction of characters. After watching enough of it, you learn what a character is intended to be, better said, what's your expectation of such intention. These can always be subverted. The artist may try to subvert the expectations that a character be female: this subversion, however, is intended. A 'trap' character wasn't produced with the intention of being an image of a male, it was produced with the intention of subverting the expectations of the audience by producing an image of a female and making it not match the text they wrote. It's on purpose, it isn't due to a lack of sex characteristics. Why did I say all of this? I'll sum it up on a tl;dr: an image will never match the object; depicting part of an object is enough for the image to be correlated to it; the language of a medium is the main point to be addressed when discussing it, not the objects it addresses; expectations are a big part of art, so playing with it or using it as a tool for producing intelligible images without overdepiction of details are commonplace. |
KosmonautDec 10, 2019 4:40 PM
 |
Maurice_5 said: Certainly, I made the very specific claim that with nonrealistic cartoon characters "gender" is often nothing more than hairstyles and that those who use such cartoon characters in their gender debate best be cogniscient of that.So, it's only to do with 2D characters, and not the real world at all? Well, that helps, because it means we don't have to wade into the whole IDPol mire - for better or worse, Japan just ain't there yet for the most part. Okay. As I pointed out already, this is far from idiosyncratic of Japanese drawing styles; this is the norm nonrealistic cartoons everywhere it seems.So, as best as I can understand - and I do wish you'd write more clearly, dear - you're saying that because you can't see a dick and balls on the majority of anime males, all we have to go by is the tertiary sexual characteristics that have more to do with how people choose to present themselves, with hairstyle and the rest of it. And that since these are culture- and society-specific, and because someone who's physically one sex can adopt the tertiary sexual characteristics of the other, they should be discounted as a real way of determining one's sexuality. Indeed, that would be exactly one of the things I'm saying.So, you realise that all these tertiary, 'non-physiological' indicators that you're saying people are attracted to are - and stop me if I'm going too fast - just representations, right? I am not sure what you mean with "just repræsentation"; I am mearly staking the claim that they are two things A) nonphysiological and B) arbitrary cultural conventions that will die out as swiftly as they came to be.[quote]Like, there's no physical hair, no physical clothes. They're drawings, representations. We interpret the 2D images to assume a 3D shape. These can in turn be used to determine things about the character from their appearance - a school uniform means they're likely in school, high-class clothes and ringlets mean they're from a wealthy background, a buzzcut is often used to denote someone who's into baseball.[/qupte]The difference is that to have yet to meet the man who stakes the claim that he has a so-caleld "sexual orientation" towards baseball players and that he supposedly be born with this and that this is a biological inclination rather than a form of socialized brainwashing — I have met then who stakes such claims about gender quite frequently. And yet, you want to entirely reject the idea that we can assume things about a character's gender from how they choose to dress, how they choose to style their hair, how they choose to speak, what pronouns they choose to use and respond to? Not at all, I never said these assumptions would be unfounded; I just said that there are no real physiological differences berween male and female characters in cartoons quite often; and that the man who stakes the claim that he is attracted to the suppose "gender" of such cartoon characters best admit that his attraction has no physiological component and that he's simply attracted to clothingWhen we're attracted to a 2D character - which, again, is just a representation - we're actually being attracted by what is implied to be there, using the visual shorthand discussed above. (Or at least I am.) Call it 'social brainwashing' if you like - certainly, the world could do with gender norms being challenged more often - but the fact remains that the artist had this character choose to present in that manner, and thus I can quite safely assume X, Y and Z about them. Okay, say that one supposedly be attracted to the unseen genitals that one will never see. Then how do you explain characters like Schwi and the attraction thereto; that's the ultimate nail in the coffin; there is no implied vulva; the Vulva is explicitly not there; one has to concede that unambiguously in the case of Schwi, his gender has no physiological component left; he has no breasts, no female body shape, no genitals, he is a robot; his "gender" is purely composed of social conventions — as such the man of sexual orientation who claims attraction towards Schwi for his "gender" has no choice to admit that his attraction has no physiological component and that it's completely, 100% based on social conventionss; he is not attracted to anything physiologically female, he is attracted to arbitrary social things that society taught him to be attracted to.When you hear hoofbeats, you think horses, not zebras. If and when you do actually see a zebra accompanying those hoofbeats, then you can adjust your mental model accordingly - with an apology for misgendering if appropriate. Indeed, this argument might apply to traps when their actual genitals be revealed, but not to Schwi.(And, like, spelling isn't arbitrary? Don't know where you've got that from. English spelling does have artifacts from earlier spellings, but that doesn't mean it's the correct spelling now. Likewise, your grammar, at points: as a tool to communicate - which is, after all, the point - all you're doing is indicating a desire to appear smart. Protip, the best writers make their views understood in plain English - none of this 'this still apparently stops not' bollocks.) You have yet to præsent a criterion for what you base your idea of "correct spelling" on.@Kosmonaut If the imperfect reflexion of reality leaves out any physiological gender characteristics, that stil changes not that a man of sexual orientation who claims to only be attracted to one sex but can find himself attracted to a depiction that leaves out any identifiable sex characteristics still best admit his delusions that he is not as attracted to genders as he claims to be. Indeed, the image is more simplified than reality, but in this case it leaves out in its simplicity most all physiological sex characteristics, yet the man who claims he is attracted to "genders", especially the man who claims he was supposedly born therewith, not socially brainwashed, can still find it attractive — he surely deludes himself. |
SphinxterDec 10, 2019 5:05 PM
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: if you switch their haircut that doesn't mean you switch their genders there are plenty of scenes that back up that the girl is a female such as the cloths she wears her underwear specific to her lingerie and the stated biological features in the narrative itself and plenty of other series. This is something that has been bothering me for a while in regards to many gender debates that pertain to nonrealistic drawn characters with most of the participants completely unaware of the fact that boys and girls in fact are drawn with identical faces — sometimes female characters have mammaries to differentiate them but more often than not they are also drawn without those. To be sure: a large percentaage of these cartoon characters have nothing physiological to them that would indicate their sex, it's purely their haircut and the type of school uniform they wear.  Could anyone explain to me what it is that makes Sorata male and Masiro female here? There seems to be nothing of the sort — certainly if their haircuts were switched then Sorata would be female and Masiro male. Masiro and other female Sakurasou characters are oridinarily drawn with visible breasts underneath their clothes however, but often that's not even the case:  All it would take for this character to be a different sex is diffferent clothes and a different haircut. A more striking example would obviously be these two:  Yes, they are completely identical for naught than their clothing. Sure their faces may seem similar but there is such a thing as men having effeminate faces and women having masculine. There's nothing wrong with being attracted to a male character dude but thats no justification to deny facts that women are biologically women and men are biologically men, unless you bring in the whole gender neutral argument and identifying as such with other genders , thats what traps are for. And if youre attracted to traps there's nothing wrong with that either. But to distort reality to make up for your insecurities is misguided. Alot of these are assumptions so my bad. Also statistically speaking women tend to have longer hair and the voices are also a clearer distinction between the characters you marked on the images. |
| [/quote]They could actually be giving them differently formed faces and draw males with square jaws and females with pointy jaws or draw males with thicker necks and an adam's apple but they rarely do. The point is that there is a lot of debate regarding the genders of characters and I'm merely pointing out that in a very large percentage of cases where the viewer is inclined to "gender" a character, he does so on nothing physiological and he will thus "gender" any male character with long hair as female.[/quote] That's an interesting point you make (the guys in JoJo's look definitely male, but it's not often you get that clear a distinction), animators could go to much greater lengths to differentiate between males and females, but I expect that it's too much work (given how I'm always hearing how stretched the animation industry is), and the studios want to have cute looking guys as well as cute looking girls, because they sell well. |
 |
| Indeed, same in say Vinland Saga or other media where they actually have physiological sex characteristics. Teenage Canute, noted for his androgynous appearance at the time:  Older Canute:  The jawline, the Adam's apple, the brow ridges and what-not — if he were in a female school uniform and clean shaven he'd still look like a male in a female school uniform. but it's not often you get that clear a distinction), animators could go to much greater lengths to differentiate between males and females, but I expect that it's too much work (given how I'm always hearing how stretched the animation industry is), and the studios want to have cute looking guys as well as cute looking girls, because they sell well. I doubt that it's more work to draw the jaw in a different shape; it has to be drawn in some shape.They just think this androgynous shape is cuter and prettier, but that changes not that the viewer who claims himself to have a "sexual orientation" best start admitting that it has no physiological component, apparently. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| The gender indicators you mention is what differentiates them. Clothing, haircut, acessories etc. Those things tell you whether the character has a penis or a vagina. When a human being has a penis, it is male. When it has a vagina, it's female. I know that's a controversial statement nowadays though lmao. So the gender differentiation requires some input from the viewer. If you just say "well that could be a guy dressed up to look like a girl", then sure whatever gets you off. But reasonable people will get through life a lot more smoothly by making reasonable assumptions. And when one does that, the characters might as well be drawn with exposed genetalia, because, conceptually, the penis or vagina is there. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
YossaRedMage said: Yet, as I said, Schwi canonically has no genitals — this is pointed out and a minor plot point, but he's still "female" for little more than having long hair.The gender indicators you mention is what differentiates them. Clothing, haircut, acessories etc. Those things tell you whether the character has a penis or a vagina. When a human being has a penis, it is male. When it has a vagina, it's female. I know that's a controversial statement nowadays though lmao. So the gender differentiation requires some input from the viewer. If you just say "well that could be a guy dressed up to look like a girl", then sure whatever gets you off. But reasonable people will get through life a lot more smoothly by making reasonable assumptions. And when one does that, the characters might as well be drawn with exposed genetalia, because, conceptually, the penis or vagina is there. Apart from that, every character of course stands a certain risk to be revealed to be a trap at any point. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| I repudiate many times those anime with androgynous drawings, especially when the prota could practically pose as a girl, but it is not and he is treated hostilely while the girls are treated sweetly and kindly, it is like a very strong dissonance in the tone of an anime supposedly comedy or Slice of life. |
| There's enough to work out and not impede on one's experience. That's all that matters to me. Couldn't give a damn if "it's not physiological". |
 |
Sphinxter said: Yet, as I said, Schwi canonically has no genitals — this is pointed out and a minor plot point, but he's still "female" for little more than having long hair. Oh. LOL fair enough. Well if someone has no genitals I guess it could be said they have no gender. Doesn't stop people assigning whatever gender they like though, or the person choosing a "gender", whatever it even means at that point. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
YossaRedMage said: The gender indicators you mention is what differentiates them. Clothing, haircut, acessories etc. Those things tell you whether the character has a penis or a vagina. When a human being has a penis, it is male. When it has a vagina, it's female. I know that's a controversial statement nowadays though lmao. So the gender differentiation requires some input from the viewer. If you just say "well that could be a guy dressed up to look like a girl", then sure whatever gets you off. But reasonable people will get through life a lot more smoothly by making reasonable assumptions. And when one does that, the characters might as well be drawn with exposed genetalia, because, conceptually, the penis or vagina is there. Sex and gendere are not the same thing and gender is a social construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender The idea that women and men should wear certain garments is also social construct. There is no reason why men couldn't wear skirts and makeup. Making this type of assumptions is inherently a transphobic view that should be eliminated from our society. |
  Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
AnimeFeminist said: YossaRedMage said: The gender indicators you mention is what differentiates them. Clothing, haircut, acessories etc. Those things tell you whether the character has a penis or a vagina. When a human being has a penis, it is male. When it has a vagina, it's female. I know that's a controversial statement nowadays though lmao. So the gender differentiation requires some input from the viewer. If you just say "well that could be a guy dressed up to look like a girl", then sure whatever gets you off. But reasonable people will get through life a lot more smoothly by making reasonable assumptions. And when one does that, the characters might as well be drawn with exposed genetalia, because, conceptually, the penis or vagina is there. Sex and gendere are not the same thing and gender is a social construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender The idea that women and men should wear certain garments is also social construct. There is no reason why men couldn't wear skirts and makeup. Making this type of assumptions is inherently a transphobic view that should be eliminated from our society. I always find these kinds of topics very difficult since where i am from gender related discussion havent been that relevant in the Netherlands for a while. For example gay adoption has been accepted here since 2001. I wouldn't really know if i am transphobic on not since i never truly spoke with a trans person. Idd like to think i would be able to treat them with kindness and respect like how i would like to be treated myself. Lets say if everyone was just more kind and accepting of each other would there still need to be discussions like these? |
 |
Mark_Dingemanse said: This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with kindness or transgenders.nAnimeFeminist said: Sex and gendere are not the same thing and gender is a social construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construction_of_gender The idea that women and men should wear certain garments is also social construct. There is no reason why men couldn't wear skirts and makeup. Making this type of assumptions is inherently a transphobic view that should be eliminated from our society. I always find these kinds of topics very difficult since where i am from gender related discussion havent been that relevant in the Netherlands for a while. For example gay adoption has been accepted here since 2001. I wouldn't really know if i am transphobic on not since i never truly spoke with a trans person. Idd like to think i would be able to treat them with kindness and respect like how i would like to be treated myself. Lets say if everyone was just more kind and accepting of each other would there still need to be discussions like these? This discussion is simply pointing out that in a seizable chunk of cartoon characters gender is in no way physiological despite many discussions around it assuming it to be. I'm simply saying that they are seeing differences they're expecting to be there that are not there, similar to how many seem to think that there are actual gendered differences in the faces of præteens, because they expect them to be there, whereas they aren't there. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| @Sphinxter that's a bit of shift from your initial statement, isn't it? You claimed drawings have no gender, while that's true, an image may be depicting a certain gender and it's up to the audience's interpretation whether such depiction worked or not. This is what I had been addressing in my post. Whether this lack of gender signifiers implies something on a person's alleged sexuality would be another topic entirely. |
|
Kosmonaut said: If by "initial statement" you mean "the 120 char limited title wherein something is to be put".@Sphinxter that's a bit of shift from your initial statement, isn't it? You claimed drawings have no gender, while that's true, an image may be depicting a certain gender and it's up to the audience's interpretation whether such depiction worked or not. This is what I had been addressing in my post. Whether this lack of gender signifiers implies something on a person's alleged sexuality would be another topic entirely. I made it quite clear in my opening paragraph that my claim is that they often lack physiological sex characteristics. My opening paragraph was such: This is something that has been bothering me for a while in regards to many gender debates that pertain to nonrealistic drawn characters with most of the participants completely unaware of the fact that boys and girls in fact are drawn with identical faces — sometimes female characters have mammaries to differentiate them but more often than not they are also drawn without those. To be sure: a large percentaage of these cartoon characters have nothing physiological to them that would indicate their sex, it's purely their haircut and the type of school uniform they wear. If a man of sexual orientation still be attracted to these genderless creatures; he must admit to himself that he is not attracted to sexual characteristics, but arbitrary social conventions that will surely shift in the next century. The defence against this was that he is supposedly attracted to the sex characteristics he expects to be there based on the hair length, but a character like Schwi puts the nail in the coffin of that idea; there is no expectation of any sex characteristics there which he lacks ahole. But that's far from all of it; I notice that plenty of discussions surrounding this seem to implicitly assume that these characteristics be there, with all participants failing to notice that they are absent. It is essentially not much more than the man who claims a præference for Coca Cola over Pepsi, yet he cannot tell them apart in a blind trial; he best admit that his actual præference is not for the drink, but for the bottle it is served in; in much the same way that the man claiming a præference to a certain "gender" of cartoon character best admit that it is not for the gender, but for the haircut it is served in. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Still, on the opening paragraph you quoted, the topic in question was in regards to the expectations and lack of biological sex signifiers, not self-appointed sexual orientations, but alas.Kosmonaut said: If by "initial statement" you mean "the 120 char limited title wherein something is to be put".@Sphinxter that's a bit of shift from your initial statement, isn't it? You claimed drawings have no gender, while that's true, an image may be depicting a certain gender and it's up to the audience's interpretation whether such depiction worked or not. This is what I had been addressing in my post. Whether this lack of gender signifiers implies something on a person's alleged sexuality would be another topic entirely. I made it quite clear in my opening paragraph that my claim is that they often lack physiological sex characteristics. My opening paragraph was such: This is something that has been bothering me for a while in regards to many gender debates that pertain to nonrealistic drawn characters with most of the participants completely unaware of the fact that boys and girls in fact are drawn with identical faces — sometimes female characters have mammaries to differentiate them but more often than not they are also drawn without those. To be sure: a large percentaage of these cartoon characters have nothing physiological to them that would indicate their sex, it's purely their haircut and the type of school uniform they wear. If a man of sexual orientation still be attracted to these genderless creatures; he must admit to himself that he is not attracted to sexual characteristics, but arbitrary social conventions that will surely shift in the next century. The defence against this was that he is supposedly attracted to the sex characteristics he expects to be there based on the hair length, but a character like Schwi puts the nail in the coffin of that idea; there is no expectation of any sex characteristics there which he lacks ahole. But that's far from all of it; I notice that plenty of discussions surrounding this seem to implicitly assume that these characteristics be there, with all participants failing to notice that they are absent. It is essentially not much more than the man who claims a præference for Coca Cola over Pepsi, yet he cannot tell them apart in a blind trial; he best admit that his actual præference is not for the drink, but for the bottle it is served in; in much the same way that the man claiming a præference to a certain "gender" of cartoon character best admit that it is not for the gender, but for the haircut it is served in. The thing is, in my analysis, that the process going on inside most of audience is not what you describe it as. Despite having very few biological sex signifiers, it has some cultural ones. What happens next is that, the same way one reads a book and produce an image of what the text is trying to convey, the audience 'completes' the image the way they think it is supposed to be. I may say: summer plains. Then, you go on to imagine a green prairie, the sun shining over it, cicadas singing. I never said any of that, but the image you associate with my text comes with your own image. I believe it's the same for the audience in question when watching animation. The image, despite lack of biological signifiers, says to their cultural perception that the object in question is female. They proceed to imagine biological signifiers where, in theory, there are none. |
|
Kosmonaut said: It was about many "discussions" that were had about this; certainly "are traps gay?" is one of the most common ones; these discussions often assume that these "traps" supposedly look more like the opposite sex than is par for the cours for such characters, and I reject that assumption.Sphinxter said: Still, on the opening paragraph you quoted, the topic in question was in regards to the expectations and lack of biological sex signifiers, not self-appointed sexual orientations, but alas.If by "initial statement" you mean "the 120 char limited title wherein something is to be put". I made it quite clear in my opening paragraph that my claim is that they often lack physiological sex characteristics. My opening paragraph was such: If a man of sexual orientation still be attracted to these genderless creatures; he must admit to himself that he is not attracted to sexual characteristics, but arbitrary social conventions that will surely shift in the next century. The defence against this was that he is supposedly attracted to the sex characteristics he expects to be there based on the hair length, but a character like Schwi puts the nail in the coffin of that idea; there is no expectation of any sex characteristics there which he lacks ahole. But that's far from all of it; I notice that plenty of discussions surrounding this seem to implicitly assume that these characteristics be there, with all participants failing to notice that they are absent. It is essentially not much more than the man who claims a præference for Coca Cola over Pepsi, yet he cannot tell them apart in a blind trial; he best admit that his actual præference is not for the drink, but for the bottle it is served in; in much the same way that the man claiming a præference to a certain "gender" of cartoon character best admit that it is not for the gender, but for the haircut it is served in. The thing is, in my analysis, that the process going on inside most of audience is not what you describe it as. Despite having very few biological sex signifiers, it has some cultural ones. What happens next is that, the same way one reads a book and produce an image of what the text is trying to convey, the audience 'completes' the image the way they think it is supposed to be. How is that not exactly what I described? How is that different from:I notice that plenty of discussions surrounding this seem to implicitly assume that these characteristics be there, with all participants failing to notice that they are absent. Or my claim that they see what they expect to see in præteens or with cola beverages? He sees something that isn't there. I may say: summer plains. Then, you go on to imagine a green prairie, the sun shining over it, cicadas singing. A lesser man such as you might, a superior man such as I does not.I never said any of that, but the image you associate with my text comes with your own image. I believe it's the same for the audience in question when watching animation. The image, despite lack of biological signifiers, says to their cultural perception that the object in question is female. They proceed to imagine biological signifiers where, in theory, there are none. Yes, just as the man who thinks wine tasts better when he paid more for it because he expects it to — both are as ridiculous as the other. It remains that said man is not attracted to the taste of the wine itself, but to it price tag — nor is he attracted any actual physiological gender characteristics, but to his hair cuts. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| I mean, it's to be expected. Fictional character looks are typically very simplified compared to real faces and then stylized, so a lot of details that in real life would make male and female faces look different are not present. There are exceptions of course, like for example Archer, but it's a price we pay for the aesthetic of anime and cartoons. Despite that I think it's actually cool, as character gender ambiguity requires the storyteller to be able to convey what these characters are like, which gives opportunities like playing with a certain characters gender, like a female character actually being male, or whatever else. That's not a storyline that really works in real life, it's always so painfully obvious. Unlike anime characters, humans have Adam's apples and whatever else that make it obvious who's what. I don't particularly like that kind of storyline, but the fact that it can be done better than in live action is something worth noting. |
 |
Mark_Dingemanse said: Lets say if everyone was just more kind and accepting of each other would there still need to be discussions like these? Unfortunately yes. The discussion would persist because the living breathing memes of human beings will always find a way to have a problem and make you out to be someone in need of their help to be a better person. And they will continue to be a problem until everyone stops trying to please everyone all the time. The problem is that everyone is too nice and hold nothing as sacred. So a tiny number of deranged, angry, emotionally crippled people making enough of a fuss can change how everyone else acts, and in some cases how they think, but the reality is that it just makes people afraid to voice their real opinions for fear of the mob. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| If the show says they're male, then they're male. If it says they're female, then they're female. Simple as that. No need to overthink it. Manaban said: I feel like female characters tend to have tits more often than you're giving them credit for Also this. |
| So, has the council spoken and traps are neither gay or straight because it is an attraction to hairstyle and clothing? Damn, that came out of left field. Big brain talk, you know what that means. |
 Leading biologist Scott Pitnick said: The bigger your 'nads, the smaller your brains |
| Listen lads, if people start complaining about other people "assuming" drawing genders, that's gonna be really annoying Of course the way they are drawn inform us of their gender In order to differenciate men and women characters, we have to look at their masculine and feminine traits/clothes/hairstyles/behaviours Dude for example it's normal to think a character is a woman because they wear a dress, and another would be a man because they are...well let's say facial hair ? You choose Mickey and Minnie as an example, but I don't see where the problem is Minnie wears a dress, high heels, has a ribbon and mascara on. All of these are feminine attributes that demonstrate she's a female character Ok, you might not agree with that, but it's still the point of view of plenty of people, myself included (almost spitted out the words "right" and "wrong", but you can't use these words when it comes to opinions) |
| If the studio says its a man, then its a man. if it says it´s a woman, then its a woman. ¯\_( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)_/¯ You´re welcome. |
| :v |
Themousen said: Maybe you should have actually read the post because no one is complaining about anyone assuming any genders here.Listen lads, if people start complaining about other people "assuming" drawing genders, that's gonna be really annoying Of course the way they are drawn inform us of their gender In order to differenciate men and women characters, we have to look at their masculine and feminine traits/clothes/hairstyles/behaviours Dude for example it's normal to think a character is a woman because they wear a dress, and another would be a man because they are...well let's say facial hair ? You choose Mickey and Minnie as an example, but I don't see where the problem is Minnie wears a dress, high heels, has a ribbon and mascara on. All of these are feminine attributes that demonstrate she's a female character Ok, you might not agree with that, but it's still the point of view of plenty of people, myself included (almost spitted out the words "right" and "wrong", but you can't use these words when it comes to opinions) I'm saying that there are no physiological sex characteristics and that a lot of discussions surrounding this like "are traps gay?" seem to assume that there are. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| Uhm I hope no one posted this yet. I'd say it's because of anime budget. Similar to what pullman have said, I treat anime as a book but it's pictures instead of text. |
| Any artist can tell you that they do have genders and that yes it matters which one you choose. Mickey =/= Minnie. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Gan_water said: So what? Doesn't change that there are no physiological differences and that those that assume them to be there are thus simply seeing what they want to see, not what is actually there.Any artist can tell you that they do have genders and that yes it matters which one you choose. Mickey =/= Minnie. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Gan_water said: So what? Doesn't change that there are no physiological differences and that those that assume them to be there are thus simply seeing what they want to see, not what is actually there.Any artist can tell you that they do have genders and that yes it matters which one you choose. Mickey =/= Minnie. I don't deny that especially in anime, boys and girls might look quite similar, I'm okay with that. But there is a difference, otherwise what would be the point of traps? Wouldn't matter. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
Gan_water said: Traps are mostly just the auctor just telling you what the actual sex is. It's like saying there's a difference int he blood type of characters.Sphinxter said: So what? Doesn't change that there are no physiological differences and that those that assume them to be there are thus simply seeing what they want to see, not what is actually there. I don't deny that especially in anime, boys and girls might look quite similar, I'm okay with that. But there is a difference, otherwise what would be the point of traps? Wouldn't matter. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: This is something that has been bothering me for a while in regards to many gender debates that pertain to nonrealistic drawn characters with most of the participants completely unaware of the fact that boys and girls in fact are drawn with identical faces — sometimes female characters have mammaries to differentiate them but more often than not they are also drawn without those. To be sure: a large percentaage of these cartoon characters have nothing physiological to them that would indicate their sex, it's purely their haircut and the type of school uniform they wear. Could anyone explain to me what it is that makes Sorata male and Masiro female here? There seems to be nothing of the sort — certainly if their haircuts were switched then Sorata would be female and Masiro male. Masiro and other female Sakurasou characters are oridinarily drawn with visible breasts underneath their clothes however, but often that's not even the case: All it would take for this character to be a different sex is diffferent clothes and a different haircut. A more striking example would obviously be these two: Yes, they are completely identical for naught than their clothing. Gender is socially constructed, and thus why Micky is given what society considered male clothes, and Minnie is given what society considered female clothes. With this, people will consider Mickey as male and Minnie as female. But ULTIMATELY, what determine someone's sex is their genital. And the only person that can give those drawings a genital is the artists/mangaka/author/creator themselves. So, all the creator has to do to make Mickey a female is by saying so, and then drawing him with female genital of a mouse to further prove it. But a statement would suffice because they are the creator. They have absolute right to it. In short, the one that can determine a drawings's sex is the artist that drew it. As for gender, since it's socially constructed, it's really up to viewers and to the characters themselves (and in extension, the creator/owner of the character). |
 OTP: KidLaw | IzuKatsu | GureShin | EruRi | AoKi | See more!» My art » My translation » Doujinshi collection » Favorite Kurobas doujinshi  BISHIES X RAP |
| Primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Since a lot of characters are young they sometimes go light on or entirely lack secondary characteristics but older characters it's often more obvious what they are supposed to be unless they are intentionally designed to be more ambiguous. You are informed of a character's sex often by their name and or it's just outright said what they are although not always right away. Male characters are never drawn with a clear hourglass figire. |
More topics from this board
Poll: » What position do you watch anime in?Spunkert - Apr 23 |
21 |
by Rakish97
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» Has the isekai bubble finally burst ( 1 2 )EastIndiaCompany - Apr 23 |
62 |
by Gator
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Do you drop shows? ( 1 2 )EverRealm - Apr 23 |
65 |
by Gator
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » How much do you consume from the otaku world?castle2001 - Apr 22 |
31 |
by Gator
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Sticky: » AWC 2024 Anime Watching Challenge - Sign-Up (Open Until December 10th) ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )AWC_mod - Jan 1 |
981 |
by Palash_6
»»
6 minutes ago |