Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've always been of the mind, as ZeroWolf indicated Furman's intention, that Transformers are "Other" and should be treated as such. They are sentient artificial lifeforms, beyond gender classification. The 'alien' aspect is the thing most writers shy away from and it's the most interesting part. Hence why virtually every show and comic eventually veers away from planet based adventures into the stars.

Cute picture. I'll give you a definition: http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights ... nition/en/

As Daniel says above, if you want to create genderless characters, create genderless characters. Not gendered characters that just so happen to all be recognisable (and recognised and accepted) as male, then add 'otherness' to other genders.


I do like what IDW has done with geo-socio-political issues without being too on the nose with some of them (not as much with others, but that happens). And I hope that baseline is kept, even if only as seeds of something that can be expanded upon, rather than having to go in and add bits to make it make sense. Whatever people who do not understand comics but claim to do so might say, none of that affects the success of a story, a series, or a business.

@blackhat humans slowly becoming mechanical...wasn't that the Go-Bots origins

I do wonder what might have been had ratchet been female...apart from bringing up memories of "one flew over the cuckoos nest"

Va'al wrote:none of that affects the success of a story, a series, or a business.

Yes it does. Details of a story affect its quality, and if the quality doesn't meet the expectations of the targeted/desired customers/readers, it will negatively affect sales. It's irrelevant what the details are and who finds them unacceptable. That can be applied to any side of any geo-socio-political issue.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Va'al wrote:none of that affects the success of a story, a series, or a business.

Yes it does. Details of a story affect its quality, and if the quality doesn't meet the expectations of the targeted/desired customers/readers, it will negatively affect sales. It's irrelevant what the details are and who finds them unacceptable. That can be applied to any side of any geo-socio-political issue.

Sure. But the point that is being missed is: people are complaining about a specific thing being detrimental to the sales of comics - usually pointing at Marvel comics, and TF comics because reasons - and that thing has been proven, multiple times, by numbers of sales, reprints, demand and trade orders, to not be true.

The issue is still the Direct Market system. The issue is the lack of publishers' actual backing of their own creators. The issue is the stubbornness of people who rely solely on continuity over narrative exploration. The issue is still relying on numbers on single books and only in print (when the digital world is immense, trade purchases outnumber singles, and online presences are more important that whatever banner they might have at the big media events).

IDW is guilty of this too, and I hope they learn their lesson for whatever comes next. One press release and one interview with one of the creators does not a marketing campaign make. Fansites and people who hunt down and publish news do most of the marketing for these companies as it is, for free, and they can't expect the likes of us and the creators themselves to be promoting their own work in their place - and if they do, maybe they should consider paying at least the creators for that sort of work.

As I said, I hope IDW (and any other publisher) learn from this, and do a good job next story universe round. I don't have any idea about what will come after September, I'd just like some good bases established with this current universe to help form the bedrock of the new one.

Va'al wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Va'al wrote:As I said, I hope IDW (and any other publisher) learn from this, and do a good job next story universe round. I don't have any idea about what will come after September, I'd just like some good bases established with this current universe to help form the bedrock of the new one.

I agree with pretty much all of your post. I was talking with a friend, who incidentally waits to buy the trades, he and I were discussing how it seems some people want the Autobots vs the Decepticons - both agreed that this was too cookie cutter, too established and too run of the mill. Mostly because, in the end, it will ultimately be the Autobots who win. (As I remarked before "barf". IDW broke from the established norms to give us a new set of ideas to work with. So I agree va'al. To cement current readers in, and perhaps draw new ones, at least using some of the new established ideas.

Va'al wrote:

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've always been of the mind, as ZeroWolf indicated Furman's intention, that Transformers are "Other" and should be treated as such. They are sentient artificial lifeforms, beyond gender classification. The 'alien' aspect is the thing most writers shy away from and it's the most interesting part. Hence why virtually every show and comic eventually veers away from planet based adventures into the stars.

Cute picture. I'll give you a definition: http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights ... nition/en/

As Daniel says above, if you want to create genderless characters, create genderless characters. Not gendered characters that just so happen to all be recognisable (and recognised and accepted) as male, then add 'otherness' to other genders.


I do like what IDW has done with geo-socio-political issues without being too on the nose with some of them (not as much with others, but that happens). And I hope that baseline is kept, even if only as seeds of something that can be expanded upon, rather than having to go in and add bits to make it make sense. Whatever people who do not understand comics but claim to do so might say, none of that affects the success of a story, a series, or a business.

It sounds to me like you want the comics to be used as a soapbox for intersectionality. I don't. And based on sales figures,and other posts, I'm not alone.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can.

This doesn't mean I hate any specific group identity. I don't. Any statement to the contrary is just virtue signaling garbage.

The view that there are too many perceived males is troubling to me. In addition, the demand for more representation in a comic book about Transformers seems to be narcissistic and disingenuous. If you want it to be about you, fine. I'm not interested in you or comics about you. I will never kiss anyone's butt over their identity. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

I'm glad this iteration is ending. Next time I hope the comic is something everyone can enjoy.

misfire19d wrote:

Va'al wrote:

AllNewSuperRobot wrote:I've always been of the mind, as ZeroWolf indicated Furman's intention, that Transformers are "Other" and should be treated as such. They are sentient artificial lifeforms, beyond gender classification. The 'alien' aspect is the thing most writers shy away from and it's the most interesting part. Hence why virtually every show and comic eventually veers away from planet based adventures into the stars.

Cute picture. I'll give you a definition: http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights ... nition/en/

As Daniel says above, if you want to create genderless characters, create genderless characters. Not gendered characters that just so happen to all be recognisable (and recognised and accepted) as male, then add 'otherness' to other genders.


I do like what IDW has done with geo-socio-political issues without being too on the nose with some of them (not as much with others, but that happens). And I hope that baseline is kept, even if only as seeds of something that can be expanded upon, rather than having to go in and add bits to make it make sense. Whatever people who do not understand comics but claim to do so might say, none of that affects the success of a story, a series, or a business.

It sounds to me like you want the comics to be used as a soapbox for intersectionality. I don't. And based on sales figures,and other posts, I'm not alone.

Let me be as clear as I possibly can.

This doesn't mean I hate any specific group identity. I don't. Any statement to the contrary is just virtue signaling garbage.

The view that there are too many perceived males is troubling to me. In addition, the demand for more representation in a comic book about Transformers seems to be narcissistic and disingenuous. If you want it to be about you, fine. I'm not interested in you or comics about you. I will never kiss anyone's butt over their identity. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

I'm glad this iteration is ending. Next time I hope the comic is something everyone can enjoy.

Pretty much my outlook. I don't want IRL human politics in my Transformers. There is a time and a place for sociopolitical discussions but a comic about robots that turn into cars is not it. And having seen the direction Marvel has gone, we don't need any more of that crap in the world.

Actually sci-fi has always been a perfect place to look at all different kinds of politics and social issues. Transformers is a sci-fi genre comic at heart (or sci-fantasy sometimes) thus it's perfectly acceptable for tfs to address these issues. There is something to be said for how these issues are approached but that's down to the writers.

Here's a question concerning real life issues in comics, does that mean x men should never have existed? Or that they should have never done the legendary green arrow and green lantern series that touched upon a lot of real life issues like drugs and racism? Or that Black Panther should never have existed either? As for comics being for everyone...that's down to the individual not the comic, or want the creators to tell the stories they want to tell, and I'll decide whether or not to read it.

A few years ago I might have agreed with you. However, the Western comic industry has shown itself (at present) to be incapable of handling such issues without resorting to strawmanning, pandering and generally treating the subject matter with all the subtlety and tact of an Antifa thug. Doesn't help that most mainstream comics exclusively cater to one side.

ZeroWolf wrote:Actually sci-fi has always been a perfect place to look at all different kinds of politics and social issues. Transformers is a sci-fi genre comic at heart (or sci-fantasy sometimes) thus it's perfectly acceptable for tfs to address these issues. There is something to be said for how these issues are approached but that's down to the writers.

Here's a question concerning real life issues in comics, does that mean x men should never have existed? Or that they should have never done the legendary green arrow and green lantern series that touched upon a lot of real life issues like drugs and racism? Or that Black Panther should never have existed either? As for comics being for everyone...that's down to the individual not the comic, or want the creators to tell the stories they want to tell, and I'll decide whether or not to read it.

The thing is, the way it works and how X-Men made it work was to treat real life issues through allegory. Subtlety. Tell stories in such a way as to be thought provoking without beating you over the head with the point they are making.
For some, that method doesn't work. Those that say "___" gender/creed/ethnicity isn't being represented enough in X-Men (clearly missing the entire point of what 'Mutant' is addressing).
But Transformers isn't about US and it shouldn't be.

There are aspects of politics you can use for alien/TF stories (Alien Nation was a good example)Intolerance, isolationism, parables on War etc I just don't think gender-politics, especially the current mindset on the subject, works within the context of Giant Alien Robots.

Why not though? Hasbro thought that fender mattered, hence arcee and I'm willing to bet they aways thought of the cast as guys (especially if they didn't want ratchet a girl). Writers should be able to tell the stories that they want, I think you'll all agree with that, and if they want to include such things then that's their choice, the same as it's our choice to read it and like it or not.

The main thing though that I don't understand is why people get so bent out of shape over the gender issue. I look at these things and I scratch my head over why people take offence to them, like the thing with marvel. The only one that I could understand somewhat was with Thor, which I think could have easily been rectified by just calling her goddess of thunder or lightning (comparisons to Mary stu of final fantasy fame aside).

This is why I said they should include fembots but just go in with no explanation...perhaps the inevitable thing G1 really did quite well *aside from characterisation issuses*

>I had a comment here... Murdered by '503'<

Why not? Because it's disingenuous. The reasons behind Arcee's creation were hardly noble and progressive to begin with.

These are Alien Robots, not "guys", they are Transformers. Pronouns and descriptives be damned! Visually, the only Cybertronian gender in this series is Fembot. Considering the whole premise of Transformers is of an infiltrating race with a malleable mold, that can become anything within their surroundings. That should be incentive enough to fuel a creative writer to make the Fembots something else. As I said, give a unique Function and/or purpose to that form and not just as a gross sexualised fetish like BW Blackarachnia.

The problem with Marvel is two-fold. On the one hand they are trying anything and everything to lure the MCU fanbase into the comics. However, without any clear or concise vision on how to make the comics more inclusive to cater to the maximum number of people.
The other problem is the newer fans that voice their dissent are unfamiliar with how the comics work and that things such as gender swapped heroes and satire of political issues has been going on since at least the 70's. Jane Foster was Thor long before the 2000's after all. Not that the ignorant would know that, or care.

...elita 1 was created before arcee. We saw her and the other fembots like moonracer and chromia. If you create female characters, you are clearly saying the others are male. I would be surprised if the original guys in charge thought any differently. If they weren't male and truly gender less, why was ratchet not allowed to be a woman?

Anyway, when was Jane foster actually thor? I thought the reason people were kicking off was because they were treating the characters name as a mantle?

We need to accept though that fembots will be there as part of the reboot. It's down to the writers now to make us care for them.

ZeroWolf wrote:...elita 1 was created before arcee. We saw her and the other fembots like moonracer and chromia. If you create female characters, you are clearly saying the others are male.

Semantics. The first Fembot was created for the same reason none the less. The same reason She-Ra was created. What it is clearly saying, is a toy company is directly aiming a toyline at Girls, that otherwise might not be party to it. It's a marketing measure, not denoting gender. I did find a quote I thought was interesting, on this mindset:

The main real-world reason for all this can be seen from IDW Publishing's plans to introduce more women in 2014. Plans were afoot to make two look less visually 'female' and more like "the default Cybertronian design" so readers wouldn't know they were female until their dialogue. That was dropped to make it more visually clear that these were the female characters. Humans are just conditioned to associate certain looks like certain genders.The Link

ZeroWolf wrote:I would be surprised if the original guys in charge thought any differently. If they weren't male and truly gender less, why was ratchet not allowed to be a woman?

Maybe because there was already a Ratchet toy? Answers to most questions such as these often come down to money, Like I said, intent was neither noble nor progressive.

ZeroWolf wrote:We need to accept though that Fembots will be there as part of the reboot. It's down to the writers now to make us care for them.

That's not the issue. My point is to give them a reason why they visibly conform to a gender in a sentient Robotic race without sex. Not for just for this:

ZeroWolf wrote:Anyway, when was Jane foster actually thor? I thought the reason people were kicking off was because they were treating the characters name as a mantle?

What If? #10 (1978)

Interesting...though if they used that name for janes recent run as the thunder goddess, would they have reacted the same?

My response is the same though (and this is where we get locked into a infinite loop) is that why should they give a reason for that (as to why they have male and female?) We already suspend our belief about giant alien robots that can transform into cars and household objects, surely it would be easy to say that there is gendered cybertronians and leave it at that? I mean we could just say that sparks are gendered like what black hat was thinking.

ZeroWolf wrote:Interesting...though if they used that name for janes recent run as the thunder goddess, would they have reacted the same?

I think so. As I said, the people that decry Jane as Thor and the whole "SJW Marvel" have no real appreciation of the history of Marvel Comics. Nor how none of the "agenda" they state is being "forced down their throats" is new or original in any way.

ZeroWolf wrote:My response is the same though (and this is where we get locked into a infinite loop) is that why should they give a reason for that (as to why they have male and female?) We already suspend our belief about giant alien robots that can transform into cars and household objects, surely it would be easy to say that there is gendered cybertronians and leave it at that? I mean we could just say that sparks are gendered like what black hat was thinking.

The only way to break the loop is to make Literal Male-Bots. Which creates a grey area that is risky to pursue. Also in answer to your specific question as to why they should give a reason: Because every of Subgroup, From Dinobots to Firecons, has one.

ZeroWolf wrote:Interesting...though if they used that name for janes recent run as the thunder goddess, would they have reacted the same?

My response is the same though (and this is where we get locked into a infinite loop) is that why should they give a reason for that (as to why they have male and female?) We already suspend our belief about giant alien robots that can transform into cars and household objects, surely it would be easy to say that there is gendered cybertronians and leave it at that? I mean we could just say that sparks are gendered like what black hat was thinking.

This is pretty much my thinking. I like fembots, I wanna see more of them. I will admit an explanation for their presence would be nice, but not strictly necessary.

If you actually need an explanation for the existence of boy-robots and girl-robots, there's a variety of approaches one could take. (I have mentioned these before but I'll expand on them here.)

1: The evolutionary holdover/appendix approach. Perhaps the Transformers are so ancient that they evolved into purely mechanical beings over a long, long period of time (as opposed to the Gobots who became cyborgs to escape some kind of catastrophe IIRC). Gender, sexuality and various other "humanizing" features of Transformers are all holdovers from this period, be they cultural or anatomical. This would open up pathways for interesting story ideas- perhaps have "Bio-Luddites" who believe the whole technoevolution thing was a bad idea and want to return to their organic roots, possibly via horrible experiments (like an evil version of the Beast Machines Maximals). On the flipside, you'd have "Ascendents" who believe that all organic features and holdovers are flaws in need of purging, and only by shedding all "obsolete behaviour and anatomy" can the Transformers become true gods (Shockwave would be perfect for this with his featureless mono-eye face, emotionless, calculating outlook and "For Science!" motivations).

2: The cultural osmosis/"Hey, that looks nifty!" approach. Perhaps in the old days, the Cybertronians were androgynous and very, very "inhuman". When they first ventured forth into the wild blue yonder and encountered organic races, they took notes of their cultures and biology. Upon returning to Cybertron with their findings, many features of the alien races they had made contact with, notably gender and elements of organic anatomy (notably faces) were considered good enough ideas to be worth incorporating into their culture and technology. This would also explain the presence of romance and, if you wanted it, sex (be it for reproduction or simply for pleasure) in Transformers culture; some ancient Transformer explorer bore witness to some alien wedding, thought "Huh, that's nice, we should do something like that!" and sure enbough the emergent race developed the concept of romance.

3: The purpose-built approach. If we gave them a "creationist" approach (be it divine in the form of Primus or mundane in the form of the Quintessons) then perhaps their creator deliberately gave them gender for whatever reason- Primus did so to bless his children with the ability to feel love as organics do, the Quintessons did so to make them more appealing to the buyers of their products (a robot house servant is obviuously going to sell better if you make it look like a friendly butler/maid than a featureless, cyclopean drone). The former is good for a more lighthearted, uplifting story whilst the latter could raise some very dark and interesting questions depending on how you wanted to do the Quintessons.

4: The reproductive approach. Transformer bodies are manufactured in factories and foundries and the creation of them has long been mastered, but sparks cannot be so easily made. Sparks are created by the union of a male and female spark (technically speaking this can be a very clinical, boring chore, but Transformers generally enjoy adding some element of romance/sexuality to the process for whatever reason) and after a gestation period, the female spark "buds", splitting off a portion of itself into a new spark. This is obviously quite tiring and requires some recovery time for the female (their soul just divided itself after all) but given that other methods of making new sparks are ususally disastrous, the old-fashioned way isn't going out of fashion any time soon.

I agree with all those ideas bh, and would be happy with any of them (but also happy with no explanation if that's the way they go).

@allnew why would the fembots be in their own group? By that logic would the opposite be true? Look at potp slash, the female dinobot. She's a dinobot and her gender never enters the equation.

Sub Groups are denoted by Mold. Seekers, Battlechargers, Cassettes etc Likewise, a Common body type suggests a Mold, which denotes a Sub Group. Slash is a Dinobot. Arcee, Moonracer et al don't belong to any other group mold but share the Fembot body type, which then makes that it's own Sub Group.

...that's not how it works, as combiner teams are rarely the same body type. I mean in what world is a space shuttle body the same as a jeep body? Also prowl doesn't belong to a group mold, does that mean he's in his own sub group? You're making it more complicated then it needs to be which is there is boy bots and girl bots, that's it. Not everything needs an explanation

ZeroWolf wrote:...that's not how it works, as combiner teams are rarely the same body type. I mean in what world is a space shuttle body the same as a jeep body? Also prowl doesn't belong to a group mold, does that mean he's in his own sub group? You're making it more complicated then it needs to be which is there is boy bots and girl bots, that's it. Not everything needs an explanation

You're quibbling over semantics again. Just picking a few choice examples doesn't mean "that's not how it works". Just from combiners alone, the Constructicons and Predacons reinforce my point. You also miss how combiner teams are themselves their own Sub Groups, even without a unifying mold.
Those that do share a mold can typically be classified as a Sub Group. Also Prowl Does belong to a group mold (Bluestreak and Smokescreen say 'hi'). A Sub Group is more than one person, hence the term "group".

You're right combiners were a bad example but what of jazz and blaster? The fembots are not a subgroup...not officially, I mean you can say they are in your headcanon but that's as far as it goes unless hasbro says something, which I don't think they have. Especially looking at all the different universes where fembots exist without belonging to any sub-group. Does it really matter if they don't have an explanation? These are giant alien robots that can shrink down to a handgun (while also thinking about handgun is a smart choice for an alt mode without actually using it to hide), I don't think that not having a reason for fembots to exist is going to make us say: "yeah this isn't realistic"

I'd like to see the original G1 Autobots of the Ark and the G1 Decepticons of the Nemesis at war thinking they are the ONLY Transformers left and slowly introduce new characters from the rest of the Autobots and Decepticons as they travel and battle their way across space.

I'd like to see them think Cybertron is a life-less husk with no point in returning because it's energon is depleted.

That's what I want to see. I also want to see more JAZZ as Optimus Prime's Second-in-Command and not that stupid old boring Prowl. I also want to see less Character death, if a character dies I want it to be impactful and not "LOOK THE GUY WHO CAN TURN INVISIBLE JUST GOT RANDOMLY CUT IN HALF BECAUSE I'M A poopy ASS WRITER"

Black Hat wrote: 4: The reproductive approach. Transformer bodies are manufactured in factories and foundries and the creation of them has long been mastered, but sparks cannot be so easily made. Sparks are created by the union of a male and female spark (technically speaking this can be a very clinical, boring chore, but Transformers generally enjoy adding some element of romance/sexuality to the process for whatever reason) and after a gestation period, the female spark "buds", splitting off a portion of itself into a new spark. This is obviously quite tiring and requires some recovery time for the female (their soul just divided itself after all) but given that other methods of making new sparks are usually disastrous, the old-fashioned way isn't going out of fashion any time soon.

I actually really like this idea. I'd like to see that as a way for Cybertronians to create new sparks. They build a body and then two Transformers produce a spark for that newly built Transformer.

That would be cool.

ZeroWolf wrote:You're right combiners were a bad example but what of jazz and blaster? The fembots are not a subgroup...not officially, I mean you can say they are in your headcanon but that's as far as it goes unless hasbro says something, which I don't think they have. Especially looking at all the different universes where fembots exist without belonging to any sub-group. Does it really matter if they don't have an explanation? These are giant alien robots that can shrink down to a handgun (while also thinking about handgun is a smart choice for an alt mode without actually using it to hide), I don't think that not having a reason for fembots to exist is going to make us say: "yeah this isn't realistic"

Jazz and Blaster have Ricochet and Soundwave respectively. Everyone pre-Movie shared a mold with someone else. It is one of the aspects of Transformers I find so fascinating. A race that is literally mass produced. Which is why I initially found the Fembots and people that wanted gender pushed into this so jarring. Obviously the more unique Post-Movie characters also suggested a further evolution is the production of Cybertronians, moving away from the Mold system. Which is why it works that Unicron creates mass-produced soldiers in The Sweeps and the Armada, further reinforcing that it is an idea of the past.

Galactic Prime wrote:I'd like to see the original G1 Autobots of the Ark and the G1 Decepticons of the Nemesis at war thinking they are the ONLY Transformers left and slowly introduce new characters from the rest of the Autobots and Decepticons as they travel and battle their way across space.

^This. The easiest way to introduce everyone without need for explanation. Also as stated and as IDW originally did, No Cybertron. It's dead and the Cybertronians of all sides scattered. That way you don't need Lazy Writer 101 aka Earth to explain altmodes and mold variation. The Robots are in disguise across the galaxy. Hence Insecticons, Firecons, Throttlebots, Fembots etc

This way, on Cybertron, EVERYONE was Proto-form. Design and Gender free. Post-Cybertron they adapted to where they ended up. It solves everything.