Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

News Credits: 2 · by **Hero Alpha** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 11:42 am

Dead Metal wrote:
Hero Alpha wrote:Now stupid, annoying "political correctness" is trying to jack up my Transformers universe, I wish people would just stop with PC crap.

I know right? Just let them be Transformers, no need to put our labels and hang-ups on them.

News Credits: 25 · by **SW's SilverHammer** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:21 pm

Hero Alpha wrote:
Dead Metal wrote:
Hero Alpha wrote:Now stupid, annoying "political correctness" is trying to jack up my Transformers universe, I wish people would just stop with PC crap.

I know right? Just let them be Transformers, no need to put our labels and hang-ups on them.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 4:00 pm

Furman didn't even use his own words to respond to Scott's post. He just took the words of a TFW user who only registered just to tear Ms. Scott's post down.

Looking at her original post before it was broken apart and cherry-picked, it hardly looks bad at all:

Okay, this question has come up a lot and it’s time to finally answer.

In a vacuum, Furman’s story is completely legitimate. The idea that someone is fundamentally changed against their will and struggles/rages against that is a really interesting idea. In fact, I wrote a very similar thing with the Dinobots. It taps into a deep human fear that God exists and is apathetic to/causes our pain.

Also dealing with characters that are literally alien naturally leads writers to play with/explore what aspects of humanity do and do not translate: are they alive? does Primus really equate to God if they have concrete knowledge of his existance? what does it mean to be male/female in a non-reproductive species?

The issues I have with Furman’s choice is that we don’t exist in a vacuum and the suggestion that 1. women only exist in aberration 2. being a women is inherently traumatic 3. being a women has any correlation to mental illness are extremely upsetting. Do I think Furman was trying to make a statement about human women with Arcee’s origins? No. In fact, the largest share of blame lies with the tokenization of women in the brand in general. If Arcee was one of many women transformers and she became female in this manner, it would not be an issue for women writ large (although still troubling for the transgender community). It is because she is the ONLY women (and that this story ensures that she will ALWAYS BE the only woman) that Arcee’s story becomes untenable.

Hopefully John, James and I have come up with a way around this Gordian Knot that will satisfy the fan-base, but satisfying-or-no, the most immediate imperative is to ENSURE this story does not continue to keep women readers, fans and characters at arm’s length from the brand. I’ve often said that everyone should feel that they are allowed to like Transformers and it is my complete and utter privilege to take this next step to make that happen.

TLDR version: Arcee’s origin is offensive because we don’t have any other female origins to balance it. We’re working on it, stay tuned.

PS To fans that still claim Transformers are asexual: Academically, you have legitimate standing, but practically, ask yourself this: Jazz has been voice by actors from three different races over the years. If, in the next video game, Jazz was voiced by a woman, would you feel the character had been changed at all? If so, you do not perceive Transformers to be asexual. If not, you are a rare, rare bird indeed.

'Til All Are One,
Mairghread

Furman needs to learn to separate the art from the artist.

And, really, THIS is what he's mad at? He's afraid that this thing is going to retcon his Arcee origin (when it has been stated time and again that it will NOT), but did he ever get this mad about "All Hail Megatron" eradicating the status quo he had set up and built upon across several world-building mini-series? Cuz I think he'd be more warranted to be mad at that over this thing that he fears will affect just one of his stories (which, as has been stated repeatedly, it won't).

This frenzied fandom and Furman are foiling the fun of this fan-formed figure w/ foolish frantic fury, folly, & fail.

News Credits: 25 · by **SW's SilverHammer** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:10 pm

I may be the only one to say it, but I agree with her point, and Sabrblade's. Even the twincast brought up a similar point when they were debating my question, that with the IDW continuity and the "Frankenstein Created Woman" plot point, it was never defined what it meant to be a woman for a transformer, beside that it makes someone kill crazy, with heavy handed tokenization. That added with the concept there is only one woman on Cybertron, with no male equivalent.

Also

PS To fans that still claim Transformers are asexual: Academically, you have legitimate standing, but practically, ask yourself this: Jazz has been voice by actors from three different races over the years. If, in the next video game, Jazz was voiced by a woman, would you feel the character had been changed at all? If so, you do not perceive Transformers to be asexual. If not, you are a rare, rare bird indeed.

Oh snap

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:31 pm

If Furman's gonna be such a sourpuss about this, I challenge him to introduce the male gender into Transformers with noticeable differences between those who he claims have no gender and those who just got the male treatment (beyond simply throwing it in our faces with effortless "I AM NOW MALE!" statements and the like).

News Credits: 25 · by **SW's SilverHammer** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 5:37 pm

Sabrblade wrote:If Furman's gonna be such a sourpuss about this, I challenge him to introduce the male gender into Transformers with a noticeable differences between those who claims he no gender and those who just got the male treatment (beyond simply throwing it in our faces with effortless "I AM NOW MALE!" statements and the like).

Also he has to make the "Male transformers" dark and brooding because their tortured and some other heavy handed trope :HEADHURTS:

News Credits: 2 · by **Hero Alpha** » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:38 pm

SW's SilverHammer wrote:
Hero Alpha wrote:
Dead Metal wrote:
Hero Alpha wrote:Now stupid, annoying "political correctness" is trying to jack up my Transformers universe, I wish people would just stop with PC crap.

I know right? Just let them be Transformers, no need to put our labels and hang-ups on them.

Thanks, I am on a roll today lol.

News Credits: 1 · by **Sodan-1** » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:05 pm

I've made it to the bottom of page three and frankly I'm taking a break. This thread is pretty heavy duty and it's too late in the day to be taking on 100+ so far reasoned but by no means brief comments.
:HEADHURTS:

Seibertron wrote:I hate seeing this discussion. Let me make it really simple for everyone. There are Transformers who have male appearances, speech, and mannerisms and there are Transformers who have female appearances, speech, and mannerisms. They don't reproduce in a method with which we are familiar. It's really that simple.

Some things are best left not overcomplicating.

Woah, woah, woah, woah. It's really not that simple though. You make it sound like this is our fault. I agree that that's how Transformers used to be, and I think for the most part we were all quite happy to accept it. But then IDW came along and screwed it up by attempting to expand the boundaries of story telling by focusing on topics that've never been covered within the fiction before. IDW are the ones who overcomplicated it and the fans have been left to try and make sense of it ourselves.

From the sounds of things Scott's work on Windblade may be the official liaison on the subject here to help us sort things out. I think we need to be patient and wait to see what the story tells us instead of continuing to bounce ideas around because this is going nowhere.

As far as Windblade's aesthetics go, I can understand (and perhaps in part agree with) those who take issue with the 'overuse' of a Japanese theme in the design. What's annoying is looking at the concept sketches there were a couple of designs which had what I'd call an ancient Mediterranean look to them that I think would've been pretty awesome.

News Credits: 4 · by **craggy** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:29 am

introducing male transformers would threaten the sales too much. no-one wants to read about robots that transform into sofas and play video games all day.

News Credits: 4 · by **King Kuuga** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:47 pm

If you made any of the"genderless" characters male, absolutely nothing about them would change. That's why people are annoyed about Furman's remarks.

News Credits: 4 · by **craggy** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 6:34 pm

That Bot wrote:If you made any of the"genderless" characters male, absolutely nothing about them would change. That's why people are annoyed about Furman's remarks.

going by what happened to Arcee I'd imagine they'd at least get bigger crotch pieces.

News Credits: 436 · by **Sabrblade** » Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:49 pm

Bay, this article was sure late to the party - http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/01/02/robot-gender-wars-for-transformers/

In other news, final word from the Furman homefront - http://simonfurman.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/response-to-mairghread-scott/#comments

simon furman says:
January 2, 2014 at 7:47 am
Okay, so while I was toasting the New Year, this thread has gone has gone a little berserk. Thanks for all your comments, one way or the other, but I’m drawing a line in the sand here. Mairghread and I have spoken and ironed out the bumps. Let there be an end to this. And like I said before, I won’t tolerate outright rudeness. Dave Grew – please respect my wishes and do not post insults. That won’t be tolerated.

simon furman says:
January 2, 2014 at 7:48 am
That means no more posts here, please. Thanks. Let’s all move on now.

simon furman says:
January 2, 2014 at 9:51 am
I asked for no more comments here. PLEASE RESPECT MY WISHES.

And one that he seems to have deleted:

simon furman on January 2, 2014 at 9:57 am
The matter is closed. No apologies or resolution are forthcoming. No further discussion will be tolerated. THIS I COMMAND!

*sigh* Simon... you can request people to stop discussing this, but you cannot force them to. Especially when YOU raised it in the first place. :roll:

Of all of this, all he really had to say was this part of your first post:

Mairghread and I have spoken and ironed out the bumps.

That's it. Short, clear, and to the point.

If he wanted to say more on the matter, an actual apology for being so bitter over nothing and using someone else's words over his own would be a start.

Or hey, he could have been civil an spoken to Scott about this in the first place instead of making a petty commotion over it in public.

And... does he not know how to close blog comments on his own site?

At least that nonsense is over.