FANDOM


  • (i'm hoping this is the right place to post this!! i've never started a forum post before, only commented on preexisting ones, so please forgive me.)

    this is something i noticed a while ago, and i wasn't sure where to ask about it, but at some point an infobox template category was changed from "gender" to "sex"; obviously those two are different, and changes on characters' pages have reflected that, with Gems' boxes going from "Genderless" to "Sexless".... but some other characters' pages have changed as well. notable, both Stevonnie's and Smoky Quartz's pages now read "Unknown" instead of "Nonbinary", which is weird and a little bit frustrating, because their sexes are never going to be explicitly discussed (which is a relief, considering both of them consist of a young boy) and will remain "Unknown" forever, whereas their identities as nonbinary people have been explicitly discussed and confirmed. what exactly was the reason for making this change, which seems to do nothing but prevent characters from having the word "nonbinary" on their page and force pages to be labelled "Unknown" forever?

      Loading editor
    • Honestly the change from Gender to Sex in the infoboxes was an amazingly stupid decision and I do agree we should change it back.

        Loading editor
    • I was considering adding a gender option for those who do not fall into the binary and/or are trans.

      OnyxSpected wrote: Honestly the change from Gender to Sex in the infoboxes was an amazingly stupid decision and I do agree we should change it back.

      Wait for a month to pass and you can make another vote.

        Loading editor
    • Lenhi wrote:
      I was considering adding a gender option for those who do not fall into the binary and/or are trans.

      OnyxSpected wrote: Honestly the change from Gender to Sex in the infoboxes was an amazingly stupid decision and I do agree we should change it back.

      Wait for a month to pass and you can make another vote.

      lol ok

        Loading editor
    • Lenhi wrote:
      I was considering adding a gender option for those who do not fall into the binary and/or are trans.

      Honestly, this would make me feel a whole lot better.

      I believe I mentioned it on the voting board, but I really feel that non-binary characters should explicitly state that they are non-binary. Unknown just isn't the same.

        Loading editor
    • And it's kind of not inclusive because (for example) many people believe Lars is transgender, so adding his biological sex isn't really a good idea in thats sense.

      Yeah we do need to vote :0

        Loading editor
    • OnyxSpected wrote:
      And it's kind of not inclusive because (for example) many people believe Lars is transgender, so adding his biological sex isn't really a good idea in thats sense.

      Yeah we do need to vote :0

      oh yeah, i never really thought about it since i don't headcanon lars as trans, but ur right.

      We already did a vote and sex won.

      So gotta wait another month i think before we can hold another vote and change it.

        Loading editor
    • OnyxSpected wrote:
      many people believe Lars is transgender

      Wait this is a thing?

        Loading editor
    • Iudexkoo wrote:
      OnyxSpected wrote:
      many people believe Lars is transgender
      Wait this is a thing?

      Personally I don't believe it but yes there are people that do (one of the reasons being his parents called him laramie which is a gender neutral name mostly given to girls at birth)

        Loading editor
    • Well, we can say that infobox parameters are 100% correct now and can't be speculated.

      As for Lars, your personal headcanons were never confirmed or hinted by anything in the show/by anybody in the crewniverse. And as for Smoky/Stevonnie, their gender is a complicated topic and can be argued about forever, but the parameter can be added in the infobox for them as an exception if you really feel offended or whatever the reason is. It's a 5 minutes work.

        Loading editor
    • Andrey Andrey wrote:

      As for Lars, your personal headcanons

      "Personally I don't believe it but-"

        Loading editor
    • OnyxSpected wrote:

      Andrey Andrey wrote:

      As for Lars, your personal headcanons

      "Personally I don't believe it but-"

      Ah, I started writing the messege before you replied. I kinda saw that coming, so tried to not direct a message to you exclusively.

        Loading editor
    • Andrey Andrey wrote:
      Well, we can say that infobox parameters are 100% correct now and can't be speculated.

      As for Lars, your personal headcanons were never confirmed or hinted by anything in the show/by anybody in the crewniverse. And as for Smoky/Stevonnie, their gender is a complicated topic and can be argued about forever, but the parameter can be added in the infobox for them as an exception if you really feel offended or whatever the reason is. It's a 5 minutes work.

      the problem with "we can say that the infoboxes are 100% correct right now" is that the ones that matter (in terms of representation) don't say anything. Stevonnie and Smoky Quartz, both of whom are vital representation to nonbinary people and are canonically nonbinary currently just say "unknown". that's neither accurate nor useful.

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, I think that no genders matter, as well as I believe gender not being binary at all. People were always putting labels on other people and were given stereotypes of how they should act (e.g. "act like a lady/gentleman"), and people can't just act from one extreme to another — it's like saying that the people in the world can be split in two groups: good and evil, sane and insane, etc. But instead of removing labels, people just thought up lots more labels, started to demand rights for being labeled different, bringing up even more stereotypes. And the most weird, they connected all those labels to sex, which was nothing but just a parameter in your document (passport, ID, etc) for some laws/jobs to treat you (you can't deny that some laws have biological basis). People started to speculate on such a non-static thing as gender, change it whenever they feel like it and put it before anything else (80% of profile descriptions on tumblr).

      So I find splitting people into constantly changing groups instead of getting rid of them completely weird, as well as the term "gender" having parameters, but that's just my thoughts.

      Although the documentation (infoboxes) we have now is static and not supposed to be argued about, if you want to, you can state that they are canonically nonbinary (even if I don't think that anyone else is binary) in the trivia section, or if you really really really want to, we can add infobox attributes just for these two.

        Loading editor
    • Andrey Andrey wrote:
      Honestly, I think that no genders matter, as well as I believe gender not being binary at all. People were always putting labels on other people and were given stereotypes of how they should act (e.g. "act like a lady/gentleman"), and people can't just act from one extreme to another — it's like saying that the people in the world can be split in two groups: good and evil, sane and insane, etc. But instead of removing labels, people just thought up lots more labels, started to demand rights for being labeled different, bringing up even more stereotypes. And the most weird, they connected all those labels to sex, which was nothing but just a parameter in your document (passport, ID, etc) for some laws/jobs to treat you (you can't deny that some laws have biological basis). People started to speculate on such a non-static thing as gender, change it whenever they feel like it and put it before anything else (80% of profile descriptions on tumblr).

      So I find splitting people into constantly changing groups instead of getting rid of them completely weird, as well as the term "gender" having parameters, but that's just my thoughts.

      Although the documentation (infoboxes) we have now is static and not supposed to be argued about, if you want to, you can state that they are canonically nonbinary (even if I don't think that anyone else is binary) in the trivia section, or if you really really really want to, we can add infobox attributes just for these two.

      i mean it's great and fascinating that you see the world that way? but nevertheless the fact that we do have two canonically nonbinary characters is incredible and needs to be recognized, because nearly everyone else in the world assumes that everyone is cisgender until explicit and repeated proof to the contrary is given (and sometimes not even then!). 

      but even leaving the representation matter aside: the change from gender to sex was just completely arbitrary, achieved nothing, and shouldn't have happened in the first place, imo. 

        Loading editor
    • I mean, considering that it's only two characters, you can just as easily place that bit of information into their article, like what Andrey said.

      A lot of people are arguing about information being left out of the infobox, but they forget that the rest of the article where the infobox is placed exists. There's no rule saying that information that can't be placed in the infobox can't be placed anywhere else in the article. Oh, two characters are non binary and doesn't fit with the infobox parameters? Just place it in their personality or trivia section.

      The infobox isn't the center of information of a character's page, it's the entire page itself. The infobox is just there to show an extremely short summary of a character. Remove any section of an article of a character (like Appearance, Personality, History, etc.) and the page would be extremely lacking since the infobox doesn't cover everything. Remove the infobox from an article, and the said article would still be considered complete since any information there is already in the article and in greater detail, I might add.

      And if people argue that "but people don't want to read an entire article and may not read the information about them idetifying as this thing", then that's their problem. If they can't read anything aside from what is shown to them at face value and just assume that an entire character is who they are because of a few words from just the infobox, it's not on us, it's on them. Also, that's why articles are separated into sections. Wondering if a character identifies as something else but the infobox doesn't show it and not in the mood to read an entire article? Just read the Personality, Relationships, or the Trivia section. It's bound to be in them. If it's not in the article and has been confirmed to be true, add it in (with proper sources ofc).

        Loading editor
    • Gender is a weird thing within the context of the Gems. They are technically genderless because they come from a culture that only has one "gender", "Gem", and as such never developed the concept of gender to begin with. But when you take a Gem outside of their own culture/society and place them in our human one, I would personally argue that they would fall under the female gender as we as humans define it. They have feminine bodies and are refered to by feminine pronouns - they are after all either considered Steven's sisters or even mums/aunts by the human characters. As a result the human characters see and treat them like human women - a role which them seem perfectly fine with accepting (as well as the Crewniverse).

      So in a way Gems are both genderless (i.e within their own culture/society) and female (i.e within our human culture/society). So I don't really see the whole issue with refering to them as female as we, like the human characters, very much recognize them as such.They're also adopting the female gender role for themselves. But then again, I am also fine with the classification of genderless because from their own perspective, Gems are genderless.

      And don't even get me started on how Gems are technically asexual but with the potential to become both biologically female AND male depending on what *erhm* "equipment" they decide to shapeshift for themselves...!

      EDIT: Oh and I agree with changing it back to "Gender" rather than "Sex" in the infoboxes. Sex is pretty useless since Gems are all asexual by default and there are no transexual or transgender human characters in the show: what you see is what you get in terms of woman/girl character being of the female sex, and vice-versa for the men/boys.

      So. Yeah. Sex is useless and unecessary - if we insist on having some kind of classifier like this, "Gender" is far more useful and to the point.

        Loading editor
    • Strong In The Real Way wrote:
      Gender is a weird thing within the context of the Gems. They are technically genderless because they come from a culture that only has one "gender", "Gem", and as such never developed the concept of gender to begin with. But when you take a Gem outside of their own culture/society and place them in our human one, I would personally argue that they would fall under the female gender as we as humans define it. They have feminine bodies and are refered to by feminine pronouns - they are after all either considered Steven's sisters or even mums/aunts by the human characters. As a result the human characters see and treat them like human women - a role which them seem perfectly fine with accepting (as well as the Crewniverse).

      So in a way, the Gems are both genderless (i.e within their own culture/society) and female (i.e within our human culture/society). So I don't really see the whole issue with refering to them as female as we, like the human characters, very much recognize them as such. But then again, I am also fine with the classification of genderless because from their own perspective, Gems are genderless.

      And don't even get me started on how Gems are technically asexual but with the potential to become both biologically female AND male depending on what *erhm* "equipment" they decide to shapeshift for themselves...!

      EDIT: Oh and I agree with changing it back to "Gender" rather than "Sex" in the infoboxes. Sex is pretty useless since Gems are all asexual by default and there are no transexual human characters in the show (i.e a female character is not going to be a trap). So. Yeah. Sex is useless and unecessary - if we insist on having some kind of classifier like this, "Gender" is far more useful and to the point.

      hey as a trans woman i agree with you and i think you make very good points, but could you maybe not use the terms "transexual" and "trap"? those are both (although especially the latter) really rude terms to use.

      i agree though that the Crewniverse doesn't do a good job of classifying the Gems as either genderless or women, and i don't think it's wrong per se to refer to them as women, even if it's canonically dubious, because unless you happen to have read the specific interview that states Gems are genderless, they read as feminine in the show.

      @ludexkoo, i agree that the infobox doesn't need to contain the entirety of a character, but the issue here isn't that the infobox lacks certain information; it's that the change to the infobox was counterproductive, and now contains irrelevant and misdirecting information. the infoboxes functioned perfectly well when the category was "Gender", but now that it's "Sex" it forces certain characters' pages to read "Unknown" when before there was actually data to put in that section of the infobox.

        Loading editor
    • The change was completely justified, and I do not know why so many of you struggle to grasp the idea of the differences between "gender" and "sex", and honestly, I'm beginning to hate that the show has something like this because it breaks its own viewers brains....

      Please read carefully and completely. The crystal gems are sexless. How do we know they are sexless?, well, it's simple really, it's because they have no genetalia. (Uh Oh, theres that TABOO word....) The way to determine a beings sex is by its genetalia, and since they have none, they are "Sexless"

      Now, they are also clearly of the female gender. How do we know, you ask???, well, because they wear skirts, dresses, leg warmers, ballet flats, ribbons, tights, long hair, high heels, female voices, calling each other "she/her", etc., they are clearly, obviously designed to emulate a female, but because fans can't tell the difference between "sex" and "gender" and think they come hand-in-hand and are interchangeable, people still argue they are "Genderless", which doesn't make sense. Then they try to get techincal and say "It's not confirmed", "they're just rocks", or "because the creator said so"(which is often used as an end-all argument) But hey, ignorance is bliss. I have no doubt in my mind someone will try to argue against me.

        Loading editor
    • EDIT: Oh and I agree with changing it back to "Gender" rather than "Sex" in the infoboxes. Sex is pretty useless since Gems are all asexual by default and there are no transexual or transgender human characters in the show: what you see is what you get in terms of woman/girl character being of the female sex, and vice-versa for the men/boys.

      So. Yeah. Sex is useless and unecessary - if we insist on having some kind of classifier like this, "Gender" is far more useful and to the point.

      How is it any more useful when it is clearly ignoring obvious signs? If anything, sex is more useful because it tells viewers that despite them CLEARLY looking like girls, they have no sex, therefore are not actually girls in a biological sense.

        Loading editor
    • LionGuy97 wrote:
      The change was completely justified, and I do not know why so many of you struggle to grasp the idea of the differences between "gender" and "sex", and honestly, I'm beginning to hate that the show has something like this because it breaks its own viewers brains....

      Please read carefully and completely. The crystal gems are sexless. How do we know they are sexless?, well, it's simple really, it's because they have no genetalia. (Uh Oh, theres that TABOO word....) The way to determine a beings sex is by its genetalia, and since they have none, they are "Sexless"

      Now, they are also clearly of the female gender. How do we know, you ask???, well, because they wear skirts, dresses, leg warmers, ballet flats, ribbons, tights, long hair, high heels, female voices, calling each other "she/her", etc., they are clearly, obviously designed to emulate a female, but because fans can't tell the difference between "sex" and "gender" and think they come hand-in-hand and are interchangeable, people still argue they are "Genderless", which doesn't make sense. Then they try to get techincal and say "It's not confirmed", "they're just rocks", or "because the creator said so"(which is often used as an end-all argument) But hey, ignorance is bliss. I have no doubt in my mind someone will try to argue against me.

      actually.... the Gems are canonically  genderless as well as sexless. (and for what it's worth, the amount of condescension in your post is completely unnecessary. as i've already stated in this chain, i'm a transgender woman; no offense, but i would know a lot better than you about the nuances of gender and the distinction between gender and sex.)

      again, the problem isn't that the infobox says the Gems are sexless, because yeah, they are. it's that they were changed from "Gender" to "Sex" which was counterproductive and pointless, and forced characters' pages to change from explicitly representing marginalized communities to displaying information as "Unknown" forever.

        Loading editor
    • First off, you aren't more or less knowledgeable on the said nuances of gender and sex due to the fact that you are a transgender woman. You are more knowledgeable to the nuances if you took the time to look them up and study them, regardless of gender identity/orientation/whatever. Using arguments analogous to "I'm Japanese therefore I know more about Japan than you." makes it weak (pretty sure it's also a fallacy but I don't know which one). I know and acknowledge that you have had first hand experience but please do not assume that you are more knowledgeable because of it.

      And, there is no problem about forcibly changing characters from representing something to something it's not. Just because it doesn't say on the infobox, does not mean they no longer represent that group at all. It literally just means it isn't on the infobox, nothing more, nothing less. If it isn't on their respective pages, outside of the infobox, then that's when you should complain.

        Loading editor
    • Iudexkoo wrote:
      First off, you aren't more or less knowledgeable on the said nuances of gender and sex due to the fact that you are a transgender woman. You are more knowledgeable to the nuances if you took the time to look them up and study them, regardless of gender identity/orientation/whatever. Using arguments analogous to "I'm Japanese therefore I know more about Japan than you." makes it weak (pretty sure it's also a fallacy but I don't know which one). I know and acknowledge that you have had first hand experience but please do not assume that you are more knowledgeable because of it.

      And, there is no problem about forcibly changing characters from representing something to something it's not. Just because it doesn't say on the infobox, does not mean they no longer represent that group at all. It literally just means it isn't on the infobox, nothing more, nothing less. If it isn't on their respective pages, outside of the infobox, then that's when you should complain.

      i think saying "i can study an ephemeral and culture-based concept and be exactly as knowledgable as someone for whom this understanding is literally life-and-death" is a bit of a stretch, but i acknowledge that it was a bit immature of me to say that; however that's not the point of this thread.

      the point is that there was no reason to change the infoboxes. that's literally all i'm saying here! the change to the infoboxes was pointless and counterproductive, and so far no one has really said anything to the contrary? so it seems at least that we all agree on that.

        Loading editor
    • Changing it was a community decision, i.e. vote. It was reasonable. A few people and I already stated why it was reasonable. There were more people who found it reasonable than people who didn't. Until the crewniverse finally answers this question unambiguously, we can't put an unambiguous term in the infobox. Also, as Judge said, all info that is not inside the infobox, can be put in the article anyway.

        Loading editor
    • actually.... the Gems are canonically genderless as well as sexless.

      Then someone asked if they were agender, which Rebecca did not respond to. The point with that is while the statement is technically correct, as the Gems are not only aliens but might have an entirely different society and world of rules compared to humans, it does not mean that defining someone's gender is impossible to the human eye and processed through the human brain (as gender is a social and cultural designation regarding masculinity and femininity).

      In any case, Iudexkoo explained everything that answers your question. If you don't like it, then there is an option to make a vote to change it back or to take the advice of Iudexkoo. The vote to change gender to sex makes the biological designation more correct ("in my opinion" disclaimer) as saying the gender of someone being female needs the context that makes such a designation relate to the biology of the character, which is excessive in a template that is meant to point out important dotpoints already on the page and is impossible for a foreign entity from space that somehow ended up on Earth.

      Those are my thoughts.

        Loading editor
    • As far as Judge's comment that not all the information needs to be put in the infobox, I understand and it makes sense. But the infobox is just a quick summary right? So it only shows really important aspects of their character? I think that Stevonnie being canon non-binary is pretty significant and should be highlighted, there aren't many non-binary characters in any shows after all... It shouldn't be burried in all that info on their page. "Unknown" just isn't the same. Isn't non-binary representation.

      I think they have both Stevonnie's gender and sex on the page infobox now, so I'm satisfied with how it is. Maybe should do it for Smoky Quartz too? *shrug*

        Loading editor
    • As far as Judge's comment that not all the information needs to be put in the infobox, I understand and it makes sense. But the infobox is just a quick summary right? So it only shows really important aspects of their character? I think that Stevonnie being canon non-binary is pretty significant and should be highlighted, there aren't many non-binary characters in any shows after all... It shouldn't be burried in all that info on their page. "Unknown" just isn't the same. Isn't non-binary representation.

      I think they have both Stevonnie's gender and sex on the page infobox now, so I'm satisfied with how it is. Maybe should do it for Smoky Quartz too? *shrug*

      —大ファン

      The significance of the non-binary designation of Smoky Quartz and Stevonnie is trivial. Remember that non-binary means having a designation outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity. From my perspective, this would be accurate if the fusions were exclusively between humans because, as I mentioned above, there is no such thing as these rules and systems on Homeworld, making it unknown to humans from our eyes and our brains due to the type of entities involved.

      To combine Gems and humans results in a hybrid unlike anything we have studied, comprehended, or have been given exposition from has it make sense to call their gender unknown. This is because the added element defining one's characteristics established in human society is foreign and indeterminable through proper logic and reasoning that humans have known since the Greek times.

      This response is meant to be neutral, for I am not smart enough to come up with a proper decisive supporting or argumentive thesis. Why do I sound technical in the first place when the show doesn't go this far? Why is this thread so technical about this sex vs. gender issue when the show doesn't go this far? Who knows anymore. This is officially worse than Undertale for me.

        Loading editor
    • LionGuy97 wrote:

      EDIT: Oh and I agree with changing it back to "Gender" rather than "Sex" in the infoboxes. Sex is pretty useless since Gems are all asexual by default and there are no transexual or transgender human characters in the show: what you see is what you get in terms of woman/girl character being of the female sex, and vice-versa for the men/boys.

      So. Yeah. Sex is useless and unecessary - if we insist on having some kind of classifier like this, "Gender" is far more useful and to the point.

      How is it any more useful when it is clearly ignoring obvious signs? If anything, sex is more useful because it tells viewers that despite them CLEARLY looking like girls, they have no sex, therefore are not actually girls in a biological sense.


      I dunno. As I said, being shapeshifters capable of adapting to the human form to the point where they can even reproduce with us... I'm not sure I'd call them asexual. They're more like omnisexual in that they can become whatever sex they want and in a way are all sexes at once as a result.

      Amethyst is an interesting case, as always, in that she uses her human organs way more than Pearl and Garnet. She mentions her fondness of peeing. In order for her to pee, she would need to fairly regularly be shapeshifted into the "configuration" of a human female (cuz I don't see no bulge on her). She probably spends quite a lot of time not only fitting the gender role of female, but shapeshifted into a biological female as well. Not to mention her time spent as Purple Puma. Does she eat and drink as him? Probably.

      It is weird. As I said, sex and gender are weird as far as the Gems are involved and I'm not quite sure how to classify it.

        Loading editor
    • Strong In The Real Way wrote:
      sex and gender are weird as far as the Gems are involved and I'm not quite sure how to classify it.

      in that case, why did we add an designation specifically for designating the sex of the Gems.

        Loading editor
    • Andrey Andrey wrote:
      Changing it was a community decision, i.e. vote. It was reasonable. A few people and I already stated why it was reasonable. There were more people who found it reasonable than people who didn't. Until the crewniverse finally answers this question unambiguously, we can't put an unambiguous term in the infobox. Also, as Judge said, all info that is not inside the infobox, can be put in the article anyway.

      i genuinely haven't seen anyone defending the change? i've seen people complaining about including a Sex or a Gender section at all, but like, that's a different matter altogether.

      this is coming from a place of genuine curiosity: could you explain what the benefits are to changing the infoboxes to "Sex"?

        Loading editor
    • SummerScoutVenus wrote:
      Strong In The Real Way wrote:
      sex and gender are weird as far as the Gems are involved and I'm not quite sure how to classify it.
      in that case, why did we add an designation specifically for designating the sex of the Gems.

      Well, these infoboxes are standard for all characters, not just Gems.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.