Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26248252-20150418023438/@comment-26394655-20150528091911

Sunsetphoenix wrote: yah. anyhow, please remember that gems have no gender (this is directed towards everyone) and that they could very well decide to reform as a male pronoun, and they choose to be a female pronoun. I think the show is gender diverse enough, though. the main character is a smart and intuitive boy. i do not mean to offend ppl of the male gender, but there r already so many articles of media with mainly boys. take a look at comics, for example. and when girls are the lead, it is often overdone in the context of ditzy girls falling in love and 'girl power' which kind of offends me... and i am a girl... since t is so stereotyped with boy crazy barbies with proportions with even more sex appeal than supermodels, bratz, fashonistas, and tinkerbell. i like su a lot because it os a show that finally introduces strong female leads that aren't ditzy or boy crazy AND are balanced out with boys. Boys are also important, and you can't keep them as weak side characters. All genders are unique and awesome in their own way. So, I think yellow diamond has a pretty high chance of assuming a female gender pronoun, and i also think and hope that we're gonna get awesome new male leads, too. I am so sorry if this got off topic and turned knto a gender equality post. I just had to get my reasoning out there because im so tired of the barbie 'girl power' stereotype and ppl putting down boys to make girls look good. You're right, the gems themselves don't exactly have a gender, but they do refer to the female gender when they occupy their humanoid form. If they didn't they would be called "it" instead of referred to as "she" or "her".

Gender and sex are two different things. Sex is what you are actually born as, there is no really 100% changing that( we won't get into that). Gems of course can effortlessly change what sex they APPEAR more like but it does not change them innately(their forms are only an illusion). Gender however can vary. With the current gems characteristics they all seem to be lumped together under "she" and "her." Even the more brutish of gems that display more clear characteristics  stereotyped of the male gender are referred to as "she."

So in essence, and I say this to the OP, we can argue that there have been gems that display characteristics of the male gender(and sex) at either one point or time (Purple Puma) or constantly(Jasper). The others also are not exactly "girly girly" (Garnet, Ruby, Peridot). Really at this point you practically have already had a "male" gem(s), only thing that hinges this point is that despite them showing male gender characteristics they either eventually are referred back to she(like with Purple Puma), or again, still considered a she despite being seemingly masculine like with Jasper.

I could understand the desire for an obvious 100% male "gendered" gem. But it seems unnecessary when the other gems display characteristics of the male gender quite a bit. Again I refer to Jasper.

Now I also understand at this point what I said may incite debate about gender. I'm going by the stereotypical perspective of gender in our western society. It's not to say those of the female sex cannot do things that a man may tend to do as the male gender. Gender is only a category that one is assigned to, usually on the basis of sex, but still it's a very loose category that comes down to personal preference these days. I may consider myself a female sex wise, but gender wise I'm very much male like. Still, I ask others to refer to me as "she" and "her", despite my different gender characteristics my gender identity is female.