Cambion

so i keep seeing the word 'sexism' being thrown around on this forum (and, y'know, everywhere else, but i digress) there are two (major) problems with that word the first is that it implies that gender discrimination is based on physical distinctions (i.e. sex), which it is not. it is based on people's societal status as a man or as a woman, or as a non-binary individual (because yes, those kinds of people do exist, contrary to popular belief, and are discriminated against by men and women alike). the problem is that people tend to equate certain physical characteristics (sex) with gender, which has to do with how people see themselves. there is no way that these two can be the same thing. to say as much would mean that transgender people, whose gender differs from the one they were assigned at birth based on their sex, do not exist. which, of course, they do - i'm one myself. there's quite a few more around this site, and hey, guess what, they exist in real life too. how about that but again, i digress. i could rant for another paragraph or two about how gender discrimination applies to transgender people, but for brevity's sake, i won't tackle that subject just now the second problem with the word 'sexism' is that it implies that discrimination against men can exist, which is hugely erroneous. men have just about always been seen as superior to women, and have, with few exceptions, always been in positions of power. women have been systematically oppressed throughout history, and are still oppressed by men today. what do i mean by 'systematically'? i mean that men have specifically set up laws and imposed societal rules that discriminate against women. the idea that this can go in the opposite direction, the idea that the oppressed group can oppress their oppressors, while still being oppressed themselves, is ridiculous the word to use instead of 'sexism' is 'misogyny'. since people seem to love dictionary definitions, let me throw one at you: this word describes the phenomenon that the culture of nearly every civilization throughout history has experienced. there is no 'sexism'. there is misogyny, and it is everywhere. it permeates everything humans do, the way we think - many, many women even have internalized misogyny from the sheer amount of external misogyny in their lives. we have taught ourselves (led by men who thought they were the superior gender) for thousands of years to hate half of our own species based on a single distinction, and it's absolutely horrible. to imply that there is any way that this could be reversed under present conditions is disrespectful, rude, and above all incredibly ignorant

which is why i hope that the reboot will change the gender ratios. (and also why i headcanon the gender ratios of the old storyline as 50/50) fictional characters don't have agency. they don't think independently. they were created and written about by humans. and i honestly don't know why you keep bringing up sexual reproduction/physical sex characteristics. sex and gender aren't the same thing. Sumiki basically just said all that needs to be said here, though.

yes, but if we're going to distinguish between "identical" beings by using humanlike genders, why not make the amounts of each gender equal to humans as well? if it "doesn't matter" because the genders are "the same", why do you care so much about not changing the skewed percentages? it is literally not possible to be sexist against men. women are a marginalized and oppressed group, and proper representation is important and rare. while Friends is nowhere near perfect (read: stereotypes), it's an important step for Lego towards equal representation, at least as long as we're talking quantity rather than quality.

They are portrayed exactly like the "male" characters. They're physically the same as the "male" characters. Why people care about a distinction without a difference is something I still don't understand. i'm pretty sure you just missed the entire point of what he said. allow me to repeat it. "physically the same" doesn't matter at all. he even set aside the depictions of female characters in-story, although those were also sub-par. the fact of the matter is, there are less than one-fifth as many female characters as male ones. that's what he meant by "token status".

nope. trust me, that pairing's been around nearly as long as Bionicle itself. That would be a very strange universe. not much stranger than one where only 1/6 of the inhabitants are female.

i kept all of mine, cardboard and everything, but as far as i can tell i'm the exception. i'm not interested in selling them, though, sorry. if you can't find any complete packages on Bricklink, i'm not sure what to tell you. i doubt anyone here would be willing (or able) to sell off just packaging, although i could be wrong. (also this topic is in the wrong forum)

not that i know of, sorry.

MNOG sound effects can be found in the BioMedia Project's music section.

i count nine limbs

asexual means "doesn't experience sexual attraction". i believe you mean agender ..unless of course you mean "keetongu's species reproduces asexually" which is entirely different Since I understood that gender and sex mean the same thing, I assumed agender and asexual mean the same thing as well. I'm not a native to English, so please apologise my awful political correctness..... well uh. no, actually, gender and sex aren't the same thing. but this isn't really the appropriate place for me to be explaining all that; it would be a huge digression. PM me if you're interested i guess

yes, but let's keep the discussion on topic. i'm disappointed no one's come along with any more character-specific gender headcanons....

asexual means "doesn't experience sexual attraction". i believe you mean agender ..unless of course you mean "keetongu's species reproduces asexually" which is entirely different

if we're talking specific character gender headcanons then oh boy here we go: Tamaru is female. Orde is female because seriously, do we really need Greg's misogynistic error correction? Takua is agender [genderless]. no two Great Beings have the same gender or pronouns. Vakama is female. that's all i've got for now but give me time and i'll have more

thank you. you've summed up my feelings about this entire thread in one paragraph.

unfortunately, i don't think there is. you're gonna have to look through the instructions and pick out pieces as you go

here you go. the instructions are linked right at the bottom of the BS01 page, though....

IT'S ME

yeah, it's nice that people are actually taking me seriously here even when i type like this, and it's cool to see more varied typing styles around here and i was the same way for a long time, like even during the early stages of my decline in "proper" grammar i was still a grammar freak which is, tbh, really hypocritical. fortunately ive calmed down on that since then, heh

there's a fair number of us who use Casual Typing here on bzp. there does seem to be some sort of unspoken rule against it though doesnt there? at least a general attitude that "proper" grammar makes you Mature and Serious (i still punctuate more on bzpower than i do elsewhere), which makes sense on a site that's ostensibly for kids. personally, though, i find that "proper" grammar often comes off as intimidating.

[applauds] about time this happened. i'm really looking forward to seeing the full redesign. the transitional stuff looks alright; there's a few things that are kinda weirdly placed, but otherwise it's nice.

not quite the degree of realism i had in mind, but hey, the spirit is there xP ..honestly, that drawing reminds me more of Five Nights at Freddy's than anything, which isn't really a bad thing

now, in general, i agree with you on this. but i have to say that in this particular instance it's interesting to know what's canon and what's just set design. i had never actually thought about the fact that the '01 Rahi had friggin' treads on them until now...and hey, it turns out that those are actually A Thing in the canon, and they make for some potentially really creepy headcanon depictions.

no.

after reading the topic i can't not think of treaded rahi as having natural-looking heads and front legs and stuff, and then mechanical bits just protruding from the back like something out of a horror film we need some creepy art of this i'd do some but well. fact of the matter is i can't

as far as i can tell, BS01 says nothing on the matter. we can only assume that the sets were accurate, canonical representations of the Rahi.