Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26261607-20150330225417

First of all I'd like to say, this is my first time talking about something on this Wikia (or ANY Wikia). I have a very deep appreciation for Steven Universe, enough that I'd go and make an account to discuss a thought I had with other fans. Sorry this is so long, I just want to be crystal clear and not leave any missing evidence in what I say.

So without further ado, the thought is, are Ruby and Sapphire "Lesbians"?

Now before anyone starts flaming at me for this question (which I realize I'm gonna get anyway for asking it...), I'd want you people to know: I AM AWARE GEMS ARE NEITHER MAN NOR WOMAN (I read the discussion here asking why Ruby is referred to as "she" and not "he"). Unlike some on that discussion, I get that Gems are...well Gems. We all love who Pearl or Amythyst or Garnet are as people, but they are sentient rocks from another planet. Not human. We knew that from day one, so in a sense, we kinda have to assume a few things about Gems, one being they have no parents or kids...and they arn't naturally any sex, being sentient rock people.

What I realized reading that discussion, is that obviously Gems would gravitate towards having a more feminine look, given how Rebecca Sugar designed them. Considering the whole shape shifting thing, Gems could make themselves look like anything or anyone they want, so they could choose to physically be a man if they want (like Amythyst does at times). But between looking like a bunch of rocks or looking like humans (ok so I think of Peridot as more of a "robot" than human in design), no story writer/game developer/whatever would make a race NOT look human IF THE AUDIENCE IS TO ASSOCIATE WITH THEM. That said, why make them feminine? Because of genetics: think of Gems as a universal-sex race, which means Gems could be male or female or whatever. I dont remember the name (I think it's androgenous), but there is a genetic disorder that makes mens' Y-chromosome weaker, so they look/act like women. In other words, women are superior in regard to genetics. Gems, like humans, could just default to a female form. Just a thought.

However gender is different. Gender is not derived from sexual organs or body design (which Gems can change as much as they wnt by shape shifting), instead behavioral inclinations. Amythest, I just thought of, is more like a guy than a woman. You ask why. I ask, "why not?" How many woman are THAT slobish, openly crass, lazy and does obnoxious things? I mean, yeah there are women who are like that (not that I ever met), but honestly is that not a steryotypical guy? On top of that, she frequently transforms into a MALE wrestler with lots of chest hair...WHICH IS MANLY AS HELL.

But just because, like in real life, someone is overtly masculine in behavior doesnt mean they identify as that gender. I certainly see Garnet as a large, able black woman (voiced by an Afro-American woman), even though (many) male anime characters are like Garnet: a strong stoic giant of great mystery and few words. As for Ruby, who makes up half of Garnet, I see as a guy. Not because I think "Ruby and Sapphire are lovers, and since it can only be heterosexual for unnamed reasons, Ruby is a boy and Sapphire a little lady," but because of what we briefly see of Ruby. Ok, yes, its also because Ruby looks (and sounds) like a boy, but physical appearance means only so much really.

What I'm getting at is, if I'm right and Ruby is (or recognizes him/herself as) a man, I would not be surprised because of how action-oriented and direct (typical qualities of a guy) Ruby is shown to be. If I'm wrong and Ruby identifies (or is identified, as "she" is in the episode we briefly see Ruby in) as female...well wouldn't that make Ruby and Sapphire lesbians, in a matter of speaking? Also, as they are Gems and love each other so deeply (remember, Gems are sexless), would the homeworld Gems not see Garnet as an unnatural freak? In other fantasy stories, members of a sexless race who act romantic are considered unnatural and perverse by the sexless race, as reproduction is not done between individuals. In history, homosexuals were seen the same way, as were/are androgenus people considered today.

As a closing note, I dont care if this reads as sexist. I hope I dont come across as sexist, nor do I intend to ask this (or further explain this) question in a way that offends others. If you see it that way, fine. I just wanted an honest discussion on this thought. 