Feminizing BIONICLE

[Kevin Owens]

Fisher would you mind showing where I said that genders are arbitrary.  Also genders don't have innate characteristics.  Stop saying that.  You're wrong.

 

Also because people seem to be implying that you have to have gender for a character I want to bring up Data from Star Trek.  Data has no gender, but he's the best character in the entire franchise this side of Worf.  Gender is not a prerequisite for a good, interesting, and relatable character.

[Noxryn]

And what I'm saying is that you can't call something "female" without associating any of the characteristics of that object with femininity. Therefore making a female MoC is, in your point of view, sexist and wrong.

 

At the extreme of your argument would be "genders are arbitrary". In this case, they are because I assign them to them, but I do so based on genders that exist in real life, which aren't arbitrary IMO - they are what they are. But just because I assign something arbitrarily to something doesn't make me evil.

 

And the extreme of the "genders are arbitrary" argument is that genders don't exist. Because if they don't have characteristics, then they are invalid categories. All of us know that genders exist and have characteristics of themselves. You're basically saying genders are evil because they have characteristics that distinguish people. And that means that we should have no categories to distinguish people, because that's evil...and so on until everything is arbitrary. And if everything is arbitrary, it shouldn't matter if I decide to arbitrarily decide to assign characteristics to a nonexistant category that doesn't affect anything. Right?

 

Your argument doesn't add up to sound logic. Truth is, genders do exist, they are valid categories, and they do have characteristics. The amount of characteristics in these categories is probably larger than most people think, but they still have characteristics in and of themselves. The only difference is whether you choose to acknowledge these characteristics or not. And if you choose not to acknowledge them, you are living in denial.

 

Genders in humans have inherent characteristics; genders in MoCs have what I assign, and such creativity is not wrong.

Sorry, but gender has less to do with a set of physical characteristics and a lot more with the mental perception of the self. It's a form of identification, it's a form of finding out where you fit, who you are and, for a lot of people, their gender doesn't match what they were assigned at birth. For a lot of people, their bodies don't match the social image of what a particular gender is or should be and, want to know what this can cause? Depression, dysphoria, discomfort. To be frank, it can also occur to cisgender women who don't fit the societal paradigm of what a woman "is" and can bring forth a multitude of other issues for all these people. By saying "this is a feminine set" is saying "you are not female if you do not fit within this feminine set" unless that is precisely your point, and if so I will block you because anything you would have to say past that point holds no relevance to any discussion on this subject.

 

Frankly, your argument doesn't add up to sound logic on the basis you are incorrect about what of a person defines that person's gender.

 

Which is my point.

 

Which is: You can't physically feminize sets because if they are referred to as female, if the character identifies as such, then they ARE FEMALE regardless. I mean, sure you can choose to reinforce the harmful paradigm that exists for how a woman should look and be, but why would you want to? Why wouldn't you want to teach a new wave of kids that women are so much more diverse than that? That they can look like Onua if they please? They can look like Tahu, they can look like Gali, they can look like Kiina, they can look like Pohatu or whoever else? Why not support them, rather than try to pull the biology card and then proceed to incorrectly define gender, ignoring all the outliers that exist and shouldn't be discounted because they are human beings and not just statistics?

[The Undertaken]

Yeah, but at the same time you may want people to actually be able to tell that "yes, this character is a [x]"
 
I sort of see your point though, specifically about reinforcing stereotypes. At the same time there is still purpose to, actually, I don't really disagree with most of what you're saying. Huh, I thought I actually had a counter argument to something here, but I don't. Not really. You win this round sir/ma'am/whatever, but just be careful. Not all audiences are as open minded as some of us here would like...

Edited October 23, 2014 by The Undertaken

[fishers64]

Sorry, but gender has less to do with a set of physical characteristics and a lot more with the mental perception of the self.

If it is a mental identification, it manifests itself in some characteristics -- if not physical, than mental, emotional, etc. Therefore, when I build a MoC, I am free to assign them. Anything else is insanity.

Frankly, your argument doesn't add up to sound logic on the basis you are incorrect about what of a person defines that person's gender.

MoCs don't have brains and can't decide genders for themselves. Therefore I assign them. It's as simple as that.

 

Why wouldn't you want to teach a new wave of kids that women are so much more diverse than that? That they can look like Onua if they please? They can look like Tahu, they can look like Gali, they can look like Kiina, they can look like Pohatu or whoever else? Why not support them, rather than try to pull the biology card and then proceed to incorrectly define gender, ignoring all the outliers that exist and shouldn't be discounted because they are human beings and not just statistics?

Indeed, why not? Because a woman who looks like Onua would look different from Onua IMO...'cuz Onua is a guy. Girls are different from guys somehow...because otherwise genders would be an arbitrary and invalid category, and incompatible with logic.

 

Look, I can see that you two are trying to get me into a debate about binary vs. nonbinary genders. I'm not getting into that debate, because I believe something on this subject that this board will consider intolerant. Here's what I'm going to say that won't get me in trouble, and is true:

 

1) Girls can and do look like Tahu and Onua in terms of build and proportions.

 

2) Something in terms of appearance or in terms of a character's mind as written in story is needed to distinguish gender.

 

3) Sometimes it is helpful to have a physical distinguishing characteristic on a set to say that a set is male or female. It's not strictly necessary, as you have pointed out, but it is helpful.

 

And that is my final word on this subject.

Edited October 23, 2014 by fishers64

[believe victims]

2) Something in terms of appearance or in terms of a character's mind as written in story is needed to distinguish gender.

 

...the former I can understand from your cissexist viewpoint, but isn't the latter basically just saying "a female character needs to fall into stereotypical personality traits to define her gender"?

[Noxryn]

Look, I can see that you two are trying to get me into a debate about binary vs. nonbinary genders. I'm not getting into that debate, because I believe something on this subject that this board will consider intolerant

No, I wasn't. But good to know that your views about other community members would be deemed intolerant on this website.

 

But I'll reiterate: You're wrong. Period. Women are not defined by a set of physical characteristics, but I guess you don't actually care about those women if your views of people who identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned would be "consider[ed] intolerant." That's my final word in responding to you.

[Kevin Owens]

 

Look, I can see that you two are trying to get me into a debate about binary vs. nonbinary genders. I'm not getting into that debate, because I believe something on this subject that this board will consider intolerant

No, I wasn't. But good to know that your views about other community members would be deemed intolerant on this website.

 

But I'll reiterate: You're wrong. Period. Women are not defined by a set of physical characteristics, but I guess you don't actually care about those women if your views of people who identify as a different gender than the one they were assigned would be "consider[ed] intolerant." That's my final word in responding to you.

 

I'm pretty much going to +1 Kit here.  I never wanted to get into a debate with you about anything.  I was never debating with you in the first place either.  I was just telling you that you were wrong.

 

Which you are.

[fishers64]

 

2) Something in terms of appearance or in terms of a character's mind as written in story is needed to distinguish gender.

 

...the former I can understand from your cissexist viewpoint, but isn't the latter basically just saying "a female character needs to fall into stereotypical personality traits to define her gender"?

 

Nope. Stereotypes are even narrower than actual gender categories. I wrote up a very long blog entry on that subject - I don't fall into female gender stereotypes, that doesn't make me any less female. 

[Klack]

Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?

 

Jokes! No. But seriously, it's just a MOC peeps. If I want to make a stereotypical female Bionicle, let me make it! It's what I want to do! Does designing a figure like I want it make me sexist? Probably not.

[Makaru]

Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?

 

I hope so.

[believe victims]

 

 

2) Something in terms of appearance or in terms of a character's mind as written in story is needed to distinguish gender.

 

...the former I can understand from your cissexist viewpoint, but isn't the latter basically just saying "a female character needs to fall into stereotypical personality traits to define her gender"?

 

Nope. Stereotypes are even narrower than actual gender categories. I wrote up a very long blog entry on that subject - I don't fall into female gender stereotypes, that doesn't make me any less female. 

 

 

"Actual gender categories" such as...? I can't think of any personality traits exclusive to a gender, or any limits on someone's personality regardless of gender, so I really don't understand what you're saying here.

 

Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?

 

Jokes! No. But seriously, it's just a MOC peeps. If I want to make a stereotypical female Bionicle, let me make it! It's what I want to do! Does designing a figure like I want it make me sexist? Probably not.

 

Get an actual sense of humor.

 

While you're at it, examine the possibility that the things you do, say, or make influence the world around you like ripples on a pond disrupt the floating leaves. If you make an MOC with Tridax pods stuck to its chest and a 1M waist, you enforce negative body image in girls who see it, and encourage young boys to uphold that as the ideal woman. Your actions do not happen in a vacuum, and you are responsible for their results.

 

Nobody's going to stop you from making your terrible MOC, no. But nobody's going to be quiet about it, either.

[Pomegranate]

Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?

 

Jokes! No. But seriously, it's just a MOC peeps. If I want to make a stereotypical female Bionicle, let me make it! It's what I want to do! Does designing a figure like I want it make me sexist? Probably not.

If you want to make a MOC that isn't stereotypical, though, like you're actively striving for that, then the topic's here for ya and full of suggestions. That was the whole point, new ideas on feminizing sets that aren't "nuva shoulder pads on the chest." It wasn't meant to point fingers and get snippy or anything, there's no need to feel like anyone's attacking you personally when they criticize certain trends. Everyone has a right to do what they want!

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Archius]

Bias all over the place.

[believe victims]

Bias all over the place.

 

If having thought-out and reasonable convictions and sticking to them is what constitutes "bias" these days, I don't see how any social change is ever expected to happen.

[Click]

Now does everyone see what I was talking about with "two uncompromising sides" and "leading to members fighting." Yeah.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Click

[Klack]

I never actually confirmed that I was making those sorts of MOCs in the first place, just an untrue comment of mine.

 

Never thought I would get attacked on BZPower for voicing my opinion.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Toaborox18

[Archius]

 

Bias all over the place.

 

If having thought-out and reasonable convictions and sticking to them is what constitutes "bias" these days, I don't see how any social change is ever expected to happen.

 

 

It's viewing only one side of the something and desconsiderate the other completely, and insist on it even tho one know he is wrong. Something that some people are clearly doing here.

[believe victims]

I never actually confirmed that I was making those sorts of MOCs in the first place, just an untrue comment of mine.

 

Never thought I would get attacked on BZPower for voicing my opinion.

 

I don't see any attacks here. I told you to get a better sense of humor, sure, but that's because there's not actually a punchline to "Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?". It is not actually humor at all. Otherwise, I was just calmly explaining what I thought of your opinion. Which is, you know, how debates work.

 

Now does everyone see what I was talking about with "two uncompromising sides" and "leading to members fighting." Yeah.

 

Compromise is overhyped as a solution to everything. Sometimes, you just have to stick to your guns.

 

 

 

 

Bias all over the place.

 

If having thought-out and reasonable convictions and sticking to them is what constitutes "bias" these days, I don't see how any social change is ever expected to happen.

 

 

It's viewing only one side of the something and desconsiderate the other completely, and insist on it even tho one know he is wrong. Something that some people are clearly doing here.

 

 

I know the definition of "bias". What I was telling you is I think you're manhandling the word, and that the term "bias" is useless when people are debating something, because of course people are going to stick by what they believe if they have thought it out and have the facts on their side. If everyone who ever asked for social change was silenced because they "weren't listening to the other side", no social change would ever happen. Society would be stagnant.

[Zidonaro]

 

I never actually confirmed that I was making those sorts of MOCs in the first place, just an untrue comment of mine.

 

Never thought I would get attacked on BZPower for voicing my opinion.

 

I don't see any attacks here. I told you to get a better sense of humor, sure, but that's because there's not actually a punchline to "Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?". It is not actually humor at all. Otherwise, I was just calmly explaining what I thought of your opinion. Which is, you know, how debates work.

 

You called the member's supposed MOC terrible just because you disagree with his opinion. That was a bit rude.

[believe victims]

 

 

I never actually confirmed that I was making those sorts of MOCs in the first place, just an untrue comment of mine.

 

Never thought I would get attacked on BZPower for voicing my opinion.

 

I don't see any attacks here. I told you to get a better sense of humor, sure, but that's because there's not actually a punchline to "Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?". It is not actually humor at all. Otherwise, I was just calmly explaining what I thought of your opinion. Which is, you know, how debates work.

 

You called the member's supposed MOC terrible just because you disagree with his opinion. That was a bit rude.

 

 

I called a theoretical MOC with enormous boobs and a stick-thin waist terrible. Reading comprehension is important.

[Pomegranate]

Saying someone's theoretical MOC is terrible with just reasoning after they dropped a Smelly Feminism "joke" doesn't seem like a disproportionate response to me. I think there's a lot of hostility that shouldn't be here, but I think it's because on both sides there's a bit of insult going back and forth. One side has a lot more right to be offended, but, that's neither here nor there at the moment. For once, almost every single one of my posts went completely ignored and it's not entirely my fault that we are where we are

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Reznas]

Telling someone that they are downright wrong in a debate shows that you are unwilling to respect other's opinions, which also shows that Click is entirely right in saying that this debate is going nowhere. In the end, no one is going to change their opinion on the matter.
 

Personally, I think that fishers is right in saying that there has to be some kind of traits to distinguish between male sets and female sets. Assigning "female" traits does not mean that all females have those traits. In fact, the proportions of men and women are incredibly diverse. So, yes, taking "ideal" body proportions is kind of inaccurate. But the point isn't to tell 8-year-old children that all women have the same proportions and characters as a female Bionicle character. The point is to help 8-year-old kids differentiate between male and female characters.

 

-Rez

[Zidonaro]

 

 

 

I never actually confirmed that I was making those sorts of MOCs in the first place, just an untrue comment of mine.

Never thought I would get attacked on BZPower for voicing my opinion.

 

 

I don't see any attacks here. I told you to get a better sense of humor, sure, but that's because there's not actually a punchline to "Is it just me, or does it smell like Feminism in here?". It is not actually humor at all. Otherwise, I was just calmly explaining what I thought of your opinion. Which is, you know, how debates work.

 

You called the member's supposed MOC terrible just because you disagree with his opinion. That was a bit rude.

 

I called a theoretical MOC with enormous boobs and a stick-thin waist terrible. Reading comprehension is important.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you

 

And something with "big boobs and stick-thin waist" doesnt mean its automatically "terrible", unless you only want to see it that way, and this seems to be the case.

[Regitnui]

Aiya! This is getting us nowhere in an awful lot of hurry. Again, I'm going to state my opinion:

 

1. Toa, Matoran, etc, are robots. They have no sex, but mental gender.

2. Women have a different range of body types to the range men have. There is some overlap, and outliers exist on both sides.

3. Some traits, as they are more common in one sex (Physical) than the other, have become associated with the gender (Mental).

4. There is nothing inherently discriminatory about referring to these traits as masculine or feminine.

5. Because certain physical traits are associated with mental gender, it is possible to refer to an inanimate object with gendered pronouns born of the object's shape (Ships are called 'she' for example)

6. When building a MoC, you may choose to refer to the physical traits to help defining the character's mental gender.

7. There is no prescribed or fixed way to build a feminine or masculine MoC.

 

So, putting that together, (and this is the part I'll be attacked for, because people don't read), There are certain physical traits that fall more often in the feminine range of body types can be used when building a MoC to reflect that MoC's mental gender. Is that an acceptable statement? Can we all agree on that?

 

 

Fisher would you mind showing where I said that genders are arbitrary.  Also genders don't have innate characteristics.  Stop saying that.  You're wrong.

 

Also because people seem to be implying that you have to have gender for a character I want to bring up Data from Star Trek.  Data has no gender, but he's the best character in the entire franchise this side of Worf.  Gender is not a prerequisite for a good, interesting, and relatable character.

Error. Error. Error.

 

Data has no gender, yet you use a masculine pronoun to describe it. Therefore, Data has a 'male' gender, and since the character is played by a male actor, the physical build reinforces this notion. _{Actually, didn't Data at some point start a relationship with a female crewman?}

 

Toa have no physical sex, but behave and identify with a mental gender. Building them in such a way that their mental gender is reflected is not sexist, but similar to what the creators of Star Trek did with the (apparently non-gendered) character of Data.

[Pomegranate]

Data has no gender, yet you use a masculine pronoun to describe it. Therefore, Data has a 'male' gender, and since the character is played by a male actor, the physical build reinforces this notion. _{Actually, didn't Data at some point start a relationship with a female crewman?}

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Data was built to be, and considers himself, and is considered by others, to be a male. Noonien Singh, who built him, has a very explicit father-son relationship with Data, who has a brother, Lore, and eventually built his own daughter, Lal, and also his mother/Noonien's wife was rebuilt as an android and treated a a woman. The Measure of a Man is an episode title referring to Data, so with all this, I think it's safe to say Data is male, for all intents and purposes. It makes sense that he would go along with this as his lifelong dream is to become as human as possible. Soo that example was kinda iffy, yeah.

 

Telling someone that they are downright wrong in a debate shows that you are unwilling to respect other's opinions, which also shows that Click is entirely right in saying that this debate is going nowhere. In the end, no one is going to change their opinion on the matter.

 

Personally, I think that fishers is right in saying that there has to be some kind of traits to distinguish between male sets and female sets. Assigning "female" traits does not mean that all females have those traits. In fact, the proportions of men and women are incredibly diverse. So, yes, taking "ideal" body proportions is kind of inaccurate. But the point isn't to tell 8-year-old children that all women have the same proportions and characters as a female Bionicle character. The point is to help 8-year-old kids differentiate between male and female characters.

 

-Rez

There were two very clear instances of a Downright Wrong altercation on this page so I'll address them both, starting from Fishers getting told her understanding of Gender is Downright Wrong.

 

See, the thing is, Fishers is also saying the other side is downright wrong, but also openly admitting that it's because she has a different definition of established and accepted ideas and she disagrees with and does not respect her opposition's entire lifestyle and potential basis for an argument, to the point of being "intolerant". This is very different from Fishers being told that she is downright wrong about factual concepts that exist and mean a certain thing; there really is no disputing facts, you cannot claim that someone's argument is weaker for them telling the other side that 2+2=5 is wrong. Feelings may be hurt on both sides, but the damage for one side is due to a bruised ego from being told they're misinterpreting things completely, and on the other side they are suffering a personal offense that was pretty uncalled for considering the discussion was not yet flirting with the subjects Fishers brought up and made clear she thought very little of. I definitely felt pretty terrible after reading that, and while I can't claim to speak for anyone else, I really think it was uncalled for. Both sides should've handled that better, no doubt about it, but one argument is a lot weaker, as far as the debate conduct you described goes, than the other because of it.

 

As for Toa Borox's hypothetical MOC, he was told it would be a bad thing to build for the problem at hand due to reasons thoroughly explained over the last few pages, multiple times. I didn't read it as being told off for no reason, but by being backed up by strong evidence, and lots of it. Again, he started out with a pretty insensitive "joke", which could be very, very easily interpreted as painting those supporting ideas that are congruent with those of Feminism in an unpleasant light, and then proceeded to say his theoretical MOC is explicitly streotypical, so that's the angle from which it was approached. It seemed like a reasonable response to me, especially, when that point has been answered before.

 

Also, what about when you are not talking about making official Lego sets for 8 year olds? Obviously, marketing requires you to do things in a different way than when you're building something for yourself and strangers on the internet to look at. The merits of showcasing "ideal proportions" will be very different in those two situations. I think we've already had enough of the ideal, either way, and it's time to try something new, at least once, for the first time in almost 15 years of constraction. 

 

I think the discussion hasn't been at a standstill at all, both sides got new information and perspectives from the other and had an active back and forth discussing them. While in the end it appeared that neither side backed down, they did concede to certain points and leave the discussion with new information. I thought it was pretty good, all things considered, aside from the hostility and unpleasantness at the very end. Like someone else said a page or two back, I think, the point of debate is not to just try to sway your opponent, but the audience. Folks just reading this thread and not diving into the thick of it are probably learning a lot from it, as even in past discussions about gender issues in Bionicle, issues regarding the details of builds of the sets are often glanced over. I wouldn't say it's going nowhere unless nobody is getting anything out of these five pages, which I very much doubt.

Edited October 23, 2014 by Pomegranate

[Reznas]

See, the thing is, Fishers is also saying the other side is downright wrong, but also openly admitting that it's because she has a different definition of established and accepted ideas and she disagrees with and does not respect her opposition's entire lifestyle and potential basis for an argument, to the point of being "intolerant". This is very different from Fishers being told that she is downright wrong about factual concepts that exist and mean a certain thing; there really is no disputing facts, you cannot claim that someone's argument is weaker for them telling the other side that 2+2=5 is wrong. Feelings may be hurt on both sides, but the damage for one side is due to a bruised ego from being told they're misinterpreting things completely, and on the other side they are suffering a personal offense that was pretty uncalled for considering the discussion was not yet flirting with the subjects Fishers brought up and made clear she thought very little of. I definitely felt pretty terrible after reading that, and while I can't claim to speak for anyone else, I really think it was uncalled for. Both sides should've handled that better, no doubt about it, but one argument is a lot weaker, as far as the debate conduct you described goes, than the other because of it.

 

Also, what about when you are not talking about making official Lego sets for 8 year olds? Obviously, marketing requires you to do things in a different way than when you're building something for yourself and strangers on the internet to look at. The merits of showcasing "ideal proportions" will be very different in those two situations. I think we've already had enough of the ideal, and it's time to try something new, at least once, for the first time in almost 15 years of constraction. 

 

I think the discussion hasn't been at a standstill at all, both sides got new information and perspectives from the other and had an active back and forth discussing them. While in the end it appeared that neither side backed down, they did concede to certain points and leave the discussion with new information. I thought it was pretty good, all things considered, aside from the hostility and unpleasantness at the very end.

 

I may be wrong, but from what I've read so far, fishers never directly said the words, "You are wrong." I think there's a fine line between having confidence in debates (we all think we're right, otherwise we wouldn't debate in the first place) and bashing the other opinion in a debate. The latter is, plain and simple, ad hominem. "You are wrong," ignores the opposing opinion and doesn't support any argument.

 

I don't really think the '2+2=5' argument is really a fair comparison. I see what you mean, but this topic is far more complicated than just "telling people they are misinterpreting things." There are two legitimate sides to this argument. There is only one legitimate argument for 2+2=5, and that being the fact that it is mathematically impossible. I really don't think that either side of this argument has the right to assume their opinions as fact.

 

What fishers said probably wasn't necessary. I won't argue with you there, and I definitely agree that both sides have made mistakes. I just don't like seeing blatant statements like, "You're wrong, and I'm right," in semi-civilized debate, because it honestly just defeats the whole purpose of debating, in the end.

 

If I were the manager over the Bionicle theme, I would do a lot of things differently. Certainly. I would, first of all, do away with the horrible gender ratio. Then I would work on better female character development (and give female characters more important roles). I'm not sure what I would do with the builds. Like I said, while the "average" or "ideal" woman is only a stereotype, some "feminine" qualities need to remain intact so as to help customers and followers differentiate between male and female. How I would do this, I'm not sure. There's always color assignments, but that seems awfully stereotypical. Another idea, which has already been mentioned, is just slight differences from the male builds, like breasts, slightly wider hips, etc. Proportionally, I would like to see a variety of different female builds. Some with broader shoulders, some with a petite waist, some with a muscular build, etc. In a nutshell, I would want to keep "femininity" in the picture, yet at the same time keep build variety as well.

 

I agree. It was very civilized for most of the debate, until now, of course.

 

-Rez

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

I am quite proud of this argument. Only on BZPower could this argument have happened in a civilized manner. Thank you for not being like the rest of the Internet.

[The Undertaken]

Actually it has been surprisingly civilized. Yeah there were some bits of hostility, which given the topic at hand is pretty much inevitable, but for the most part there has been some decent argumentation.

all in all this could have gone a lot worse, and I for one feel slightly more aware of certain assumptions I make than I was before.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

this topic went from "feminizing" as in building an "ideal" female body out of bionicle pieces, to "feminizing" as in feminism.

 

the latter is probably what bionicle needs more of. :u

[fishers64]

I did say "this is wrong" a few times in here, yes, but only because I thought I had a logical argument to back it up. 

See, the thing is, Fishers is also saying the other side is downright wrong, but also openly admitting that it's because she has a different definition of established and accepted ideas and she disagrees with and does not respect her opposition's entire lifestyle and potential basis for an argument, to the point of being "intolerant".

To be clear, I have no problems with people who are transgender, think that genders aren't binary, and I refuse to discriminate based on that. I disagreed with something minor in Kit's post, that if I continued that line of argument, I would be considered intolerant by the board (that is, everyone here).

 

I hold myself to even a higher standard than BZP's intolerance rule - I want to avoid saying anything that could even be misconstrued as intolerant. Unfortunately, while I openly tolerate and will interact with people of all kinds and stripes, I refuse to tolerate and believe lies. Truth is intolerant. Period. (And I don't force people to tolerate it either, since that is cruel. That's why I didn't go there.)

 

Feelings may be hurt on both sides, but the damage for one side is due to a bruised ego from being told they're misinterpreting things completely, and on the other side they are suffering a personal offense that was pretty uncalled for considering the discussion was not yet flirting with the subjects Fishers brought up and made clear she thought very little of. 

Read Kit's post again, most specifically the part I responded to with that comment. She did bring that subject up. 

[believe victims]

And something with "big boobs and stick-thin waist" doesnt mean its automatically "terrible"

 

Yes it does. Yes it very, very does. Especially when it's the exact theoretical MOC i described with a waist 1M thick and boobs bigger than the head.

[Ballom Nom Nom]

 

And something with "big boobs and stick-thin waist" doesnt mean its automatically "terrible"

 

 

Yes it does. Yes it very, very does. Especially when it's the exact theoretical MOC i described with a waist 1M thick and boobs bigger than the head.

The pedantic MOCist part of me wonders if one stud waist would be a more precise term, as 1M seems to imply a meter thick waist, which would be on most standard-sized MOCs problematic for a different reason.

 

Of course, other than that I fully support your argument.

 

~B~

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

 

 

And something with "big boobs and stick-thin waist" doesnt mean its automatically "terrible"

 

Yes it does. Yes it very, very does. Especially when it's the exact theoretical MOC i described with a waist 1M thick and boobs bigger than the head.

The pedantic MOCist part of me wonders if one stud waist would be a more precise term, as 1M seems to imply a meter thick waist, which would be on most standard-sized MOCs problematic for a different reason.

 

Of course, other than that I fully support your argument.

 

~B~

 

 

a meter thick waist and boobs bigger than their head would probably imply the problem is actually how small bionicle heads are restricted to being. because to fit a meter of waist, the boobs would have to be bigger than that tiny head! :v

[Pohatu: Uniter of Stone]

Wat. How can a moc have a one stud waist and breasts larger than the head? That does not seem possible, and why would anyone do that if it was possible.

[Narglepuff the Protector]

So, I'm new to this topic. Hi, everyone.

 

If I remember correctly, wasn't a big argument against having more female characters in Bionicle the fact that the line was meant to appeal to little boys? Why all of a sudden do members with similar views want female sets with "feminine" proportions? Sounds contradictory to me.

[fishers64]

The pedantic MOCist part of me wonders if one stud waist would be a more precise term, as 1M seems to imply a meter thick waist, which would be on most standard-sized MOCs problematic for a different reason.

No it isn't. Just add legs. 

[Aanchir]

 

 

And something with "big boobs and stick-thin waist" doesnt mean its automatically "terrible"

 

Yes it does. Yes it very, very does. Especially when it's the exact theoretical MOC i described with a waist 1M thick and boobs bigger than the head.

 

The pedantic MOCist part of me wonders if one stud waist would be a more precise term, as 1M seems to imply a meter thick waist, which would be on most standard-sized MOCs problematic for a different reason.

 

Of course, other than that I fully support your argument.

 

~B~

 

In official LEGO terms, "M" stands for "module", in other words, a unit of eight millimeters. This is what most people mean when they say "stud". It's just a different term for the same thing, the same way the official term for "Light Bluish Gray" is "Medium Stone Grey" or the official term for "BIONICLE socket" is "ball cup".

 

Even outside the LEGO hobby, "meter" is generally abbreviated with a lowercase "m".

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

 

 

 

And something with "big boobs and stick-thin waist" doesnt mean its automatically "terrible"

 

Yes it does. Yes it very, very does. Especially when it's the exact theoretical MOC i described with a waist 1M thick and boobs bigger than the head.

 

The pedantic MOCist part of me wonders if one stud waist would be a more precise term, as 1M seems to imply a meter thick waist, which would be on most standard-sized MOCs problematic for a different reason.

 

Of course, other than that I fully support your argument.

 

~B~

 

In official LEGO terms, "M" stands for "module", in other words, a unit of eight millimeters. This is what most people mean when they say "stud". It's just a different term for the same thing, the same way the official term for "Light Bluish Gray" is "Medium Stone Grey" or the official term for "BIONICLE socket" is "ball cup".

 

Even outside the LEGO hobby, "meter" is generally abbreviated with a lowercase "m".

 

 

not when it's an EXTREME METER. *kickflips 360 degrees*

 

at the risk of not adding anything meaningful with this post i add this:

So, I'm new to this topic. Hi, everyone.

 

If I remember correctly, wasn't a big argument against having more female characters in Bionicle the fact that the line was meant to appeal to little boys? Why all of a sudden do members with similar views want female sets with "feminine" proportions? Sounds contradictory to me.

 

duh, because a primarily heterosexual male audience usually wants to have few girls and have what girls there are be sexually appealing. :b

Edited October 23, 2014 by Rahkshi Lalonde

[Klack]

I actual want to try and make a 1M-waisted MOC, with just studs for the midsection.

 

And no, it's not going to be a female.

[Rahkshi Lalonde]

I actual want to try and make a 1M-waisted MOC, with just studs for the midsection.

 

And no, it's not going to be a female.

 

one module waists work for all kinds of things, mainly KILLER ROBOT DRONES and the like.