The Energon Pub

Susha wrote:IDW has approached the notion of female tf's.

Initially with spotlight RC. She was created by Jihaxus as an experiment (gone wrong)

Roberts has also expressed interest in the argument and has adressed it specifically in an interview, (sorry cant remember where, maybe on IDW forums..)
Specifically: More than Meets the Eye, episode 13. Whirl chooses a girl as his avatar. in the interview roberts speaks about how Whirl percievies himself.. emh i mean herself.. Also ultramagnus chooses Verity as his avatar, but for other reasons.
More about tf sexuality and emotional relations is explored in Rewinds and Chromodomes relationship in the series.

There if you haven't read it you should be good for a while.

I think Whirl's avatar was one of those 'reflects your inner self' things, which was I think mostly done for LOLs by Roberts; Ultra Magnus's, IIRC was deliberately chosen, not because he thought of himself as female but as a sort of tribute to Verity who was one of the few people to get emotionally close to him (I think she calls him "Uncle Magnus" at one point.)

Whirl I think also uses male pronouns.

NOT nitpicking, just sort of making sure *I*'m getting it right (please correct gently if I'm wrong).

Reproduction in IDW verse is also covered, right? The Cabbage Patch model and spark splitting. In neither case do we have biological reproduction at all--it seems to my feeble memory that there's no real genetic contribution/family/anything like that.

Though then again we do have Houses. It is confusing. That's all I can say.

I'm mostly still and always just wanting clarity as to what a female robot *is*? What IS female if it's not tied to biology?

CC, DEEP THOUGHTS yo

I had an idea a while ago. In Tranformers Prime Ratchet makes the distinction of referring to cybertronian biology, specifically the t-cog. Now I thought of this and wondered if something like nanites could explain some things. Within each cybertronian are nanocells that include copies of the cybertronians unique CNA. These nanocells allows the bots living metal skin to heal over time and also allow for sexual reproduction in the circumstances that require it. Obviously this would allow for two different sexes which may or may not correlate to the genders. This is a bit weird but makes them seem more like an evolved species of alien than some robots someone made.

and I also understand that such things could never be spoken of in media aimed at kids.

Optimizzy wrote:I had an idea a while ago. In Tranformers Prime Ratchet makes the distinction of referring to cybertronian biology, specifically the t-cog. Now I thought of this and wondered if something like nanites could explain some things. Within each cybertronian are nanocells that include copies of the cybertronians unique CNA. These nanocells allows the bots living metal skin to heal over time and also allow for sexual reproduction in the circumstances that require it. Obviously this would allow for two different sexes which may or may not correlate to the genders. This is a bit weird but makes them seem more like an evolved species of alien than some robots someone made.

and I also understand that such things could never be spoken of in media aimed at kids.

The Covenant of Primus book explained how sexes/genders works in the Aligned continuity. Essentially, there are no sexes in the Cybertronian race, but instead there are two distinct "types" of Cybertronians that simple "parallel" the distinction between male and female sexes in other races. And with contact through these other races, the Cybertronian race simply came to use male and female pronouns to aid these other races in recognizing the differences between these two types of Cybertronians.

As for why there are two different types, it's because of the originl Thirteen Primes, Solus Prime was unique among her brethren and all "female" Cybertronians are patterned after her template, given the Cybertronian race a 1:12 ratio between "females" and "males" (unlike other races like humans who have a more equal 1:1 ratio).

Sabrblade wrote:Essentially, there are no sexes in the Cybertronian race, but instead there are two distinct "types" of Cybertronians that simple "parallel" the distinction between male and female sexes in other races.

Yeah, I remember reading something about that. I only mention Aligned as it gave me the idea. I still like the idea of them being an actual species, albeit of a silicate nature. I think the Aligned version of the sexes is probably the best and most thought out there is so far. The idea that they simply 'look' female and male but are not actually biologically female and male makes sense.

The only problem I see is from a story telling point of view. Relationships and 'love' stem from a need to biologically reproduce and produce families. There are exceptions, but that is the evolutionary basis.

In my own personal fanon, I see Cybertronians as a biological life form that evolved a form that mimics machines for all intents and purposes. We see them as "robots" but really they are living, growing things, capable of reproduction and thus, evolution. Like we are biological 'machines' they are mechanical 'biologicals'. That's my own particular take on it.

Optimizzy wrote:The only problem I see is from a story telling point of view. Relationships and 'love' stem from a need to biologically reproduce and produce families. There are exceptions, but that is the evolutionary basis.

In my own personal fanon, I see Cybertronians as a biological life form that evolved a form that mimics machines for all intents and purposes. We see them as "robots" but really they are living, growing things, capable of reproduction and thus, evolution. Like we are biological 'machines' they are mechanical 'biologicals'. That's my own particular take on it.

But they ARE "biological" in the Aligned continuity. Optimus calls them "Autonomous Robotic Organisms", and Starscream refers to T-Cogs as a part of their "biology".

They can still express love and desire without wanting to sexually reproduce.

The race is born from the AllSpark within the Well of All Sparks.

eh, I don't see how when they do not reproduce by biological means. Budding would be the closest thing to an actual biological method of reproduction. And in speaking of 'love' I only mean from an observable point of view. However, I will concede that family love one another so it need not always be for reproduction.

What I made an aside about was my own particular take on them, as a species that fulfills all the biological life processes as we do.

That the shows states that they are biological is intriguing as a starting point, however the show does not really demonstrate this. I guess what I mean is I want to see biological transformer families! lol

However, the fiction does address these ideas, in a suitably alien way. Unlike many other fictional beings, the transformers are truly alien. They are not flesh but metal. They do not have sexes (genders, but not sexes) they reproduce through unconventional means and sustenance is gained in unique ways.

It's very interesting from a biologists point of view.

They don't need to biologically reproduce to be biological.

The word "biology" simply means "the science of life and living matter." They use the word to refer to the Transformers as living beings, not as babymakers.

The Reason why we have genders in Robots from distant planet? Marketing, Hasbro and Takara decided that Transformers shouldn't beign for boys only... Also, the older you are, the more you appreciate Black Arachnia's Shape;)

Sabrblade wrote:They don't need to biologically reproduce to be biological.

The word "biology" simply means "the science of life and living matter." They use the word to refer to the Transformers as living beings, not as babymakers.

I am afraid that I do not know what you mean. In what way does anything reproduce in a non-biological way? I mean, obviously transformers have different ways of reproduction that are not biological, but those methods do not indicate the species is biological. You can't make the argument that a factory of sentient machines making more machines is biological simply because they reproduce.

I'd argue that without the inclusion of budding as a method of reproduction they would not really be biological. If we look at other continuities, they were really constructed robots. It is only recently that writers have stressed the idea that they are a natural species. This is one idea that I really like and want more exploration into it

TurboMMaster wrote: Also, the older you are, the more you appreciate Black Arachnia's Shape;)

indeed.

Optimizzy wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:They don't need to biologically reproduce to be biological.

The word "biology" simply means "the science of life and living matter." They use the word to refer to the Transformers as living beings, not as babymakers.

I am afraid that I do not know what you mean. In what way does anything reproduce in a non-biological way? I mean, obviously transformers have different ways of reproduction that are not biological, but those methods do not indicate the species is biological. You can't make the argument that a factory of sentient machines making more machines is biological simply because they reproduce.

I'd argue that without the inclusion of budding as a method of reproduction they would not really be biological. If we look at other continuities, they were really constructed robots. It is only recently that writers have stressed the idea that they are a natural species. This is one idea that I really like and want more exploration into it

I'm saying that they are biological by the sole virtue of their being "alive". As I said, the word "biology" is "the study of life". They are living beings regardless if they make babies or not. Their being alive with internal bodily functions is what makes them biological.

And because the fiction says that they are, even though they are birthed by an external supernatural force located in a giant hole in the ground.

It's not that hard understand since "biology" and "babymaking" are not mutually exclusive in science fiction.

Sabrblade wrote: It's not that hard understand since "biology" and "babymaking" are not mutually exclusive in science fiction.

Well, I was kinda looking at it from a scientific, rather than science fiction point of view. Reproduction is one of the 7 life processes that indicates whether something is alive or not.
I'm just looking at them from a biologists point of view. I wouldn't be able to say they are technically alive unless they reproduce through asexual or sexual means. Fortunately, at least in one continuity, they reproduce through budding which is asexual. In that example they can be considered alive. Again, through a scientific point of view. Just because the fiction says so does not mean that they truly meet that criteria.
I get what you are saying though, and I'm looking at it from a strictly scientific point of view. I apologize for the confusion.

For off-topic trivia, the seven life processes are:

Locomotion, Reproduction, Sensation, Ingestion, Excretion, Respiration, and Growth.

I'd argue that Cybertronians have displayed all of these in one form or another except perhaps respiration as that is gaining some form of energy from air. PM me if you can think of reasons why they could? Air intakes for engines perhaps?

Optimizzy wrote:Fortunately, at least in one continuity, they reproduce through budding which is asexual.

And abominable.

Sabrblade wrote:Whatever you guys do, do NOT turn to a TF fan named Tramp about this subject. You will regret it, dearly.

ahhh, the Tramp wars.................I remember them well

Optimizzy wrote:I'm just looking at them from a biologists point of view. I wouldn't be able to say they are technically alive unless they reproduce through asexual or sexual means.

that system of judging is flawed.

would you consider a "Mule" alive???Mules dont reproduce.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Optimizzy wrote:I'm just looking at them from a biologists point of view. I wouldn't be able to say they are technically alive unless they reproduce through asexual or sexual means.

that system of judging is flawed.

would you consider a "Mule" alive???Mules dont reproduce.

Male ones, at least. There've been a few rare reports of fertile female mules when mated with purebred horses or donkey, but the point does still apply for male mules.

So, yeah, does that mean male mules aren't alive?

The life processes are meant to be applied to populations (species) rather than individuals. Hybrids are created on an individual basis and usually through human control. They are alive because the two species that contributed to their creation are alive. However, the descendant of a mule cannot be alive. This is semantics as a mule cannot have a descendant because of their sterility.

Sterile subjects do not negate the status of a living organism because usually they possess the capability to reproduce but for some quirk of nature lack the means.

The life processes are meant to be applied to a species as a whole, and not on an individual.

Sabrblade wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Optimizzy wrote:I'm just looking at them from a biologists point of view. I wouldn't be able to say they are technically alive unless they reproduce through asexual or sexual means.

that system of judging is flawed.

would you consider a "Mule" alive???Mules dont reproduce.

Male ones, at least. There've been a few rare reports of fertile female mules when mated with purebred horses or donkey, but the point does still apply for male mules.

So, yeah, does that mean male mules aren't alive?

I've heard some of those reports, but havent seen any credible evidence.

and I'm sure you know Male mules arent the only hybrid animals that can not reproduce either.

Optimizzy wrote: However, the descendant of a mule cannot be alive.

this statement made no sense.

if the mule could produce a decedent it would be alive at some point in its development..

Sterile subjects do not negate the status of a living organism because usually they possess the capability to reproduce but for some quirk of nature lack the means.

The life processes are meant to be applied to a species as a whole, and not on an individual.

as stated, the judging system is flawed

I'm sorry my explanation was not enough.

These were systems created by better and smarter people than myself, I don't fully understand every facet myself, but I trust in the methods. To judge if something is a living organism it has to meet to life processes.

That is the way it is and that is the method I am using. I'm using an accepted method and applying it to a fictional 'species' for fun. Not really interested in defending a well-established system.

Of course, the topic is Gender in transformers, not whether the accepted criteria for judging a species is flawed or not, so maybe we should stick to that.

[/quote]No moreso than G1 Tracks, who was equally given a vain personality and an exaggerated campy voice. Yet, people adamantly defend Tracks as not being such. [/quote]

I am not sure about that one because tracks is not like knock out. plus he is an autobot and more people defend him.

nightshade666 wrote:

No moreso than G1 Tracks, who was equally given a vain personality and an exaggerated campy voice. Yet, people adamantly defend Tracks as not being such.

I am not sure about that one because tracks is not like knock out. plus he is an autobot and more people defend him.

He's every bit as vain as Knock Out is, regardless of his faction. Back in the day, people were claiming that Tracks was gay just as much as people do today about Knock Out.

Sabrblade wrote:

nightshade666 wrote:

No moreso than G1 Tracks, who was equally given a vain personality and an exaggerated campy voice. Yet, people adamantly defend Tracks as not being such.

I am not sure about that one because tracks is not like knock out. plus he is an autobot and more people defend him.

He's every bit as vain as Knock Out is, regardless of his faction. Back in the day, people were claiming that Tracks was gay just as much as people do today about Knock Out.

I am inferring that nowadays people are more criticizing and sarcastic

answering those who said to want to take a scientific approach..

there is little science to be recalled here at best it becomes an issue of vocabulary and definitions...

HOWEVER,

philosophy has talked such notions before (much earlier than transformers)

and it is in fact the angle with wich Roberts tackles the theme in Mtmte..

The term biological is indeed misleading, and what is more relevant in out case is SENTIENCE.

The famous COGITO ERGO SUM, or simple, knowledge of ones own existance.

Christian theology tends to adjudicate such characteristic as being solely human, but if we take the notion
of sentience beyond humanity (which would require us to leave planet earth...) then would sentient beings still have to obey to certain "social needs"

SOmeone has here addressed the relationship between chromodome and rewind in mtmte as being the sole form of affection possible in nature. While that is certainly true for animals it is certainly not so for sentient beings. See Froid's famous ediupus complex. Humans also create very strong bonds with their mothers and when natural parents are missing we usually create very strong bonds with adoptive parents.. I've seen it with my own eyes. And in extreme cases, when people get rejected by society they can bond very intensly with cats.. dogs...

social animals also giev great meaning to social relationships,particularly animals that live in packs. which is after all the first step in biology towards more complex societies.


Back to robots.

Sex is either,

1 solely a mean of reproduction
2 a means of "intense" bonding with someone of the same species


often sexual relationships (other those for which u pay for) trascend the act and see the "actors" engage in processes or reciprocal understanding. Which is what roberts has considered to be more interesting than
just "robot sex".. cos if thats what this topic is really about there is ALOT of robot hentai on the internet, just go check that out....


in more simple words.. inquiring about the existance and use of genitals in transformers is .... mumbo jumbo (to quote Orson Wells on his sole comment about transformers)
The intellectual capacity of non human sentient beings to form sentimental bonds is certainly a topic of more interest and about which there is a little bit more to say about than just, stick that piston in that hole...
and just to be clear that is the direction the authors of tf comics decided to take... I'm sure its just
a coincidence and they didn't give it any thought at all... ... ...

nightshade666 wrote:

Sabrblade wrote:

nightshade666 wrote:

No moreso than G1 Tracks, who was equally given a vain personality and an exaggerated campy voice. Yet, people adamantly defend Tracks as not being such.

I am not sure about that one because tracks is not like knock out. plus he is an autobot and more people defend him.

He's every bit as vain as Knock Out is, regardless of his faction. Back in the day, people were claiming that Tracks was gay just as much as people do today about Knock Out.

I am inferring that nowadays people are more criticizing and sarcastic

Well, I certainly can't argue that last point since I'm one of the leaders in that particular pack. What gets me is that folks considered Tracks gay way back in the day. I never thought he was gay, I just thought he was an arrogant, narcissistic douchebag. Kind of like taking Sunstreaker and jacking him up a few notches.

I have to applaud everyone for the input that's been presented so far. This has been one of the most thought inspiring, "science meets philosophy" debates that I've seen on here and the level of civility is absolutely heartening. As for my own take on the subject, I honestly don't know where to begin with my own input. So many theories that I may subscribe to have already been touched upon and I feel that the only true, rock solid answer we would ever get would be to actually ask the one individual who is responsible for the creation of the entire TF mythos from day one. Since that isn't likely to happen due to the fact that so many hands have been dipped into that particular creative pot that no one knows for certain anymore just who to turn to, this leaves the entire topic within the realm of the ponderings of the ancient philosophers of our own origins.

However, if I had to theorize I would have to say that ultimately I would like to think that the creation of a new Cybertronian spark would come about from the mixing of two distinct "parent" sparks. A portion of each spark being joined in whatever manner (not necessarily by any standard manner thought of as "sexual") to create a decidedly new and unique spark around which a spark casing would form and later a protoform shell, and after a given span of time a developed protoform would come fully on-line and take a form resembling at first something that appeared to be a mix of both "Parents".
While this has nothing to do with the topic of Gender and everything to do with conception it does bring to light that the Gender issue is really only an issue with wholly organic life-forms. While we have established that, by definiton, the Transformers are "biological", the need for gender is not really a "need" in the process of biology for their race but is something that would only be a nagging preoccupation in the minds of sentient "organics" such as ourselves. I would propose that "gender", much the same as their ability to transform, is an adaptive feature used to blend in to their environment and is really only a noticeable feature outside the confines of Cybertron itself. Within their own race it is something that would not be noticed or acknowledged any more than making the distinction between a Cybertronians alt-mode resembling a Ford or a Chevy. The Cybertronian could care less, it's just fitting in to it's new environment.
That's just my take on it. Whether or not it fits with any of the multitude of explanations out there, whether it somehow falls in line with any continuity is not of particular concern to me. It's just one fans opinion or insight into the possibilities. After all, this discussion has blurred the lines between philosophy and science and speculation is the only realm that covers both adequately until such time as hard "science-fact" can resolve the issue.