The Energon Pub

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:37 am

ctually Glyph, Simon wrote a good majority of the Marvle TF run. Bob Budyansky left pretty early on, and wrote only a few stories after Simon Furman tok over the majority of writing duties on the series. I know this because I have the entire run. and Simon Furman himself has been stated as saying he does not like the idea of female Transformers which is why he does not use them even in his IDW material. It is his choice. It is only in the Marvel UK run where Arcee was created on Earth. In the rest of canon she was created on Cybertron, Also, the Marvel run, both UK and US ignores the fact that there are other female transformers that have existed long before Prime and the Autobots left for earth 4 millon years prior. The Marvel run conveniaently ignores this detail. Simon Furman conveniently ignores this detail. Secondly, I am not picking and choosing. I am looking at the entirety of TF lore and looking at the commoin threads throughout the majority of it. What common thread is there? that there are clear males and females, not masculine and feminine. Masculine and feminine are traits, Male and female are strictly biological. Look it up in the dictionary.

female:1 a human being of the sex which becomes pregnant and give birth to young; a woman or girl. 2, any animal of corrisponding sex which bears living young or produces eggs: the females of the species 3. bot. a distillate plant. 4. belonging to the sex which bears young or produces eggs.

male: 1. of or pertaining to the sex that begets young by fertilizing the female.
—Webster's encyblopedic Dictionary of the English language.

Under synonyms, it states that the term "Male always refers to sex, while masculine refers to qualitiies properly associated with the male sex. Female also refers strictly to sexz while feminine refers to qualities associated with females.

According to every canon source, save the Marvel runs, the Transformers have males and females, not robots with masculine and feminine qualities—males and females. That is a hiuge distinction. In all of TF canon, save the Marvel runs, there is romance and courtship between these males and females. There is none in the Marvel runs. Yes, in the marvel run, TFs do not mate. I never denied that. However, in all the other continuities, the evidence strongly suggests that they are capable of mating, and do mate. The US cartoon strongly implies it with the romantic relationships between Optimus Prime and Elita-1, Chromia and Ironhide, Inferno and Firestar, and Powerglide and Moonracer, as well as the love triange between Hot Rod, Arcee, and Springer. The relationship betwween Moonracer and Chromia appears to be like mother and daughter the way Chromia looks after her in particular as well as scolds her when she screws up. Though there is no concrete proof, she may very well be Moonracer's mom. The implication is there, though no hard evidence. The evidence from the Japanese runs, as well as Beast Wars and [i]Beast Machines also points to sexual relationships—romantic love and courtship between males and females— as well as sexual harassment (Rattrap) and familial bonds (Rattrap claiming Arcee was his aunt.) The Japanese runs provide evidence of actual children, as does the '86 movie with the Lithonians, we actually see children running around their parents. The evidence from Cybertron is overwhelming considering Thunderblast's "moves" on Megatron. When you have that many series and stories all agreeing on TF genders and the implications thereof, and only one run, the Marvel US and UK going against that, the proof is clear. For the majority of TF lore, sexual reproduction is possible and highly likely among Transformers. That is not "cheery-picking", that is weighing one side against another and seeing which side has more to back it up. Which side has more examples, more consitancy on the matter. The marvel run as no females, no romantic relationships between genders, and no reproduction except through building protoforms, and no children among Transformers. The US cartoon run has females that have been around long before the Autobots went to earth, have romantic relationships between the genders, there are children. The Japanese runs (anime and manga) had both males and females among Transformers, had romantic relationships, marriages and children from these unions. Beast Wars (US and Japanese series) and Beast Maachines had males and females, romantic relationships between these genders, family bonds, and children. AEC, had males and females among Transformers, romance, and sexual innuendo between the genders includig flirting and blatant coming on to the opposite sex. You have basically one run without femmes at all (save one who was built for the sole purpose of human relations) and gender relationships between males and females on one side, and the entire rest of TF lore including the concept of them actually having sexes as well as romantic and familial relationships between these genders, up to and including marriag and children on the other. On top of that, there is the passage from TF MtMtE #8 stating that Cybertronians have other options for creatign new life aside from the use of manufactured protoforms.

Which outweighs which? The side that suports Transformers having real, physical genders and capable of sexual reproduction. The overwhelming majority of canon supports this possibility. Only a single continuity—the Marvel continuity—does not support it. All others do.

News Credits: 33 · by **Glyph** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:04 am

I'm going to have to pull a few piecemeal quotes out of your post to respond in a coherent manner...

Tramp wrote:ctually Glyph, Simon wrote a good majority of the Marvle TF run. Bob Budyansky left pretty early on

Actually Tramp, Furman's earliest work on the US title was #56 of 80 - a little earlier than I'd initially thought it was, as I'd thought he joined in the early 60s and worked on the last quarter of the run. The title was still more than two-thirds of the way through its run when Furman did his first work for it.

Tramp wrote:It is only in the Marvel UK run where Arcee was created on Earth. In the rest of canon she was created on Cybertron, Also, the Marvel run, both UK and US ignores the fact that there are other female transformers that have existed long before Prime and the Autobots left for earth 4 millon years prior. The Marvel run conveniaently ignores this detail

The Marvel run doesn't conveniently 'ignore the fact' of the existence of 'female' Transformers. The comics exist in a separate and irreconcilable continuity from the cartoon, where the female Autobots appeared and were shown to have been around at Arklaunch. I believe, though I could be wrong, that there have been a few fembot-styled TFs in the background of Marvel stories, as well as the obvious inclusion of Arcee, but they will have their own version of the history.

As to Arcee, in the rest of 'canon' I don't believe it states where she was created. Your persistent use of "it doesn't contradict me so my imagination must be right!" in place of any actual evidence is getting wearing.

Tramp wrote:I am not picking and choosing. I am looking at the entirety of TF lore and looking at the commoin threads throughout the majority of it.

You most certainly are picking and choosing. For example, you're taking the existence of female Autobots and something that looks like romantic involvement in the 80s cartoon (one continuity), combining it with a very vague throwaway line about other ways to create Transformer life in Dreamwave's MTMTE (a separate, rebooted continuity) and inferring from it that Transformers must reproduce sexually.

Yet you're leaving out the parts of the cartoon where it's very clearly stated that Vector Sigma is required to give life to new Transformers, or where Shockwave believes the female Autobots to be long extinct, and the part of Arcee's MTMTE bio where Kup has to explain Arcee's 'resemblance to the females of other species'* because other TFs don't understand what's different about her (how can they reproduce sexually if they don't even have a concept of male and female?).

You can't just pick and choose the bits you want to use - if you take one thing from a continuity, you have to accept the rest of that continuity as well.

* Note how Kup, the seen-it-all old-timer with lots of offworld experience, describes Arcee as resembling a female rather than actually being a female herself?

Tramp wrote:What common thread is there? that there are clear males and females, not masculine and feminine. Masculine and feminine are traits, Male and female are strictly biological. Look it up in the dictionary.

The common thread is that, in most TF continuities, there have been lots of bots who've been characteristically masculine and a very small number of bots who've been characteristically feminine. That does not support sexual reproduction on the level of a species (and the argument that the Quints made the fembots disappear doesn't hold up, because it's your inference from a single unfinished arc in one continuity only). If they did reproduce sexually, then I would expect the scarcity of fembots to produce a matriarchal colony society similar to a beehive, or possibly a pride/harem tendency - but you don't see those in any of the continuities, do you?

Also, didn't you just completely destroy your own argument? Male and female, as you said, are strictly biological. The dictionary extract you posted defines them in terms of their biological function. Machines... are not biological, therefore the biological concept of male and female is meaningless in relation to them. QED.

Tramp wrote:Under synonyms, it states that the term "Male always refers to sex, while masculine refers to qualitiies properly associated with the male sex. Female also refers strictly to sexz while feminine refers to qualities associated with females.

According to every canon source, save the Marvel runs, the Transformers have males and females, not robots with masculine and feminine qualities... males and females.

It's quite obvious that the synonym you posted refers to the strict sense of the word. See the note at the end of my previous post about the usage in general, casual and nonscientific language.

Tramp wrote:When you have that many series and stories all agreeing on TF genders and the implications thereof, and only one run, the Marvel US and UK going against that, the proof is clear. For the majority of TF lore, sexual reproduction is possible and highly likely among Transformers. That is not "cheery-picking", that is weighing one side against another and seeing which side has more to back it up.

Unfortunately, your reasoning is fatally flawed because it entirely rests on your own inference from the material, and not on what was actually shown. Let's compare the Western continuities...

ContinuityDirect references to sexual reproductionDirect references to asexual reproductionCartoonNone. Some weak implication via inter-TF romance in two episodes and flirting between Hot Rod and Arcee, and Wreck-gar is apparently married in one episode. However, note that Powerglide and Seaspray each display romantic attraction to non-Transformer characters with whom they presumably could not possibly reproduce, scuppering the "they wouldn't be attracted except for reproduction" theory.
Lithonians are not Cybertronians, and Wheelie's child-like appearance is never explained.S.O.S. Dinobots: Wheeljack creates the Dinobots from components.
The Search for Alpha Trion: Optimus Prime realises that Alpha Trion must have been his creator (note terminology) because he knows a specific and unique technical detail about his circuitry. A3 knows this same detail about Elita-One, and thus presumably created her as well - so if your reproduction theory is correct, Prime's so-called lover is his sister. Eww.
The Key to Vector Sigma: Megatron states that the megacomputer Vector Sigma 'gave us all life' - it is arguable whether he is talking about 'all of us here in this room' or 'all of us Transformers'. Both Autobots and Decepticons state that Vector Sigma is required to give new Transformers life.MarvelNone, whatsoever.Shockwave is unable to give life to his creations (Jetfire and the Constructicons) without the Creation Matrix held by Optimus Prime.
Optimus Prime, on multiple occasions, uses the Matrix to give life to new Transformers.
Cloudburst states unequivocally that Transformers do not mate.
Introduction of Primus, the Transformers' creator-god, establishes that the Matrix is the essence of Primus himself, and that creation of new Transformer life is therefore a pseudo-spiritual process.
G2 comics establish that prior to Matrix-fuelled creation, Transformers reproduced by cellular division.Beast WarsNo direct reference. Tigatron / Airrazor and Silverbolt / Blackarachnia / Cheetor display romantic attraction; Rattrap makes various lewd comments relating to (among other examples) fembot waitresses walking around without their torso plates, and calls Blackarachnia an "emasculatin' fembot" when she "nips the tip" of his tail. Innuendo = quick laugh slipped into the kids' show for the benefit of the known adult fan contingent.The series establishes the existence of sparks as a requirement for Transformer life, and also establishes that they arise externally, not from within other Transformers.
Protoforms are introduced as the 'raw material' for new Transformers.Beast MachinesNone. Again, some weak implication via romance between Blackarachnia / Silverbolt and Rattrap / Botanica.Megatron can only create drones, and is unable to create new Transformers without the use of captured sparks (even when he uses a captured spark, it is an existing Transformer in a new body, not a brand new Transformer).Armada / Energon / CybertronNone. Some flirting between various characters, most notably involving Thunderblast.Eh... I dunno. Armada is tolerable at times, but I mostly avoid these series like the plague.
This is just what I can come up with off the top of my head. Which would you say is the better-supported position?

Tramp wrote:On top of that, there is the passage from TF MtMtE #8 stating that Cybertronians have other options for creatign new life aside from the use of manufactured protoforms.

... which actually only suggests that there may be other options, does not in any way suggest that any of those options involve sexual reproduction. In any case, it also states that whatever those options may be, Transformers don't currently understand how to use them. Doesn't that rather go against your repeated claim that sex must be their normal method of reproduction?

Again, you pick and choose the bits you like from your beloved Dreamwave guidebook, but ignore the bits which blatantly contradict your preferred theory (such as Arcee's bio, mentioned above, or the establishment of protoform + spark as the normal process in the same passage or in the section about sparks).

Basically, this whole issue of the point of fembots has never been addressed in canon. I believe there's a host of evidence to say that, whatever the reason is, it's not sex; you clearly believe the opposite based on your own inferences. Therefore, in closing, I leave you with this final quote:

Bertrand Russell wrote:The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.

News Credits: 33 · by **Glyph** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:04 am

Ack. Double post.

by **ThunderThruster** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 9:15 am

Glyph wrote:Basically, this whole issue of the point of fembots has never been addressed in canon. I believe there's a host of evidence to say that, whatever the reason is, it's not sex; you clearly believe the opposite based on your own inferences. Therefore, in closing, I leave you with this final quote:
Bertrand Russell wrote:The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.

I think thats the best point that arisen through this entire thread.

i would like to ask Damolisher, why he finds it so hard to comprehend non-organic entities as lifeforms? Yes as has been repeatedly stated, they are robots, but that doesnt mean that they arnt lifeforms!

News Credits: 6 · by **City Commander** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:35 pm

Damolisher wrote:Argue this: You keep blabbering on about impossibilities and possibilities, yet the show is about Alien robots from another planet, who manage to get to and from Earth REALLY bloody quickly. Yeah, THAT'S scientifically possible

It could be actually. All that needs to be done is to pin two points in space together, and then pass instantaneously between the two. Space is curved, and infinite. It's very possible that within a few centuries that we will be able to do this, especially at the rate at which we are 'evolving' technologically now.

Of course, physics gets a bit complicated at this point. I'll explain it once I've got my master's degree in astrophysics and space design.

Transformers are alive; they have sparks, they have conscious, they have dreams. They are alive (in the world of transformers anyway) as you or me. In real life, it'll be a while till we can really bring them to life, but isn't that something to look forward to?

News Credits: 6 · by **City Commander** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:51 pm

Damolisher wrote:They're talking about the Creation Matrix, you goomba, not sexual organs. What sick freak puts sexual organs on robots? It's be pretty painful for a character, say, ENERGON WING SABER, who splits in half, to have reproductive organs.

Sorry, but that's just genius. I love what you say here.

Maybe Wingsaber keeps em folded out of harms way? :-?

And Goomba is my word of the week.

by **slycherrychunks** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:42 pm

Tramp wrote:It takes imagination to consider teh possibiklity of a robotic life form which can reproduce through autopoietic means, which have real genders, which can have families. That takes imagination.

Everything you've said about growing machines from nanotechnology is really interesting and imaginative - probably worth starting a seperate discussion about.
The bit about retracting cod-pieces less so.
I was specifically referring to forcing happy-family values onto characters that are alien machines. They should be beyond our comprehension in many ways and certainly beyond our science to be believable as an alien form of life. Not everything about them should be explained away in neat little easy-to-understand packages. Revealing to the audience that they "are just like us" would be unimaginative and lameitylamelame.

Secondly, the writers didn't antrhopomorphize them, They were already anthrompomorphic to begin with. They are humanoid in design for starters.

They gave them human like behavoir, made them do pointless, silly things like have girlfriends. I didn't actually mean anthropomorphise in terms of appearance/design. I thought that was clear.

Why wouldn't they be anthropomorhic? If they weren't, the audience could not relate to them It is that relatability that made the show and comics popular. Do you honestly believe the Transformers would be as big as it is if they didn't make them anthropomorphic? I would hope not.

No, I dont believe giant robots have to have any human qualities to be awesome. I hear Zoids are doing just fine.

by **Screambug** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:59 pm

Tramp wrote:Emotions have nothing to do with being organic or inorganic. That doesn't enter into the equation. In TF canon, we have several examples of courtship and romance between make and female transformers. Optimus Prime and Elita-1 are a romantic couple, as are Ironhide and Chromia, Inferno and Firestar, and Powerglide and Moonracer. Both Hotrod and Springer have a romantic rivalry over Arcee. In Beast Wars Black Arachnia and Silverbolt become lovers even though they are on opposiet sides of the war. In the manga version of Victory, Deathsaurus had a wife named Esmeryl, Liozak had a sister named Lyzak, and the Dinoforce all had children. In Cybertron Thunderblast had the hots for Megatron, She also had certain anatomical assets too under her armor which often peeked out when she raised her arms. And, Overide and Hotshot were constantly flirting during their races. Courtship and romantic pairing serves only one purpose, and that is reproduction. It doesn't matter if they are organic, techno-organic, mechanical, silicon based, carbon based, crystaline, or what-have-you.

That is why I am avoiding relationships like hell...I do not want kids. BTW, I don't like the idea of women being made just to be sex and baby receptacles, either.

I just like the idea of female Transformers just for being female Transformers, period. It's a very unique concept and it doesn't always have to do anything with reproduction. Too bad female Transformers are nearly extinct, what with the big war and bigger, bulky (male) Transformers are "needed" to do war.

BTW, MALE Transformers can reproduce by themselves...they gave birth in the G2 comics, you know?

by **slycherrychunks** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:09 pm

^You seem familiar. Dont I know you?

by **Zombie Starscream** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:55 pm

Screambug wrote:
Tramp wrote:Emotions have nothing to do with being organic or inorganic. That doesn't enter into the equation. In TF canon, we have several examples of courtship and romance between make and female transformers. Optimus Prime and Elita-1 are a romantic couple, as are Ironhide and Chromia, Inferno and Firestar, and Powerglide and Moonracer. Both Hotrod and Springer have a romantic rivalry over Arcee. In Beast Wars Black Arachnia and Silverbolt become lovers even though they are on opposiet sides of the war. In the manga version of Victory, Deathsaurus had a wife named Esmeryl, Liozak had a sister named Lyzak, and the Dinoforce all had children. In Cybertron Thunderblast had the hots for Megatron, She also had certain anatomical assets too under her armor which often peeked out when she raised her arms. And, Overide and Hotshot were constantly flirting during their races. Courtship and romantic pairing serves only one purpose, and that is reproduction. It doesn't matter if they are organic, techno-organic, mechanical, silicon based, carbon based, crystaline, or what-have-you.

That is why I am avoiding relationships like hell...I do not want kids. BTW, I don't like the idea of women being made just to be sex and baby receptacles, either.

I just like the idea of female Transformers just for being female Transformers, period. It's a very unique concept and it doesn't always have to do anything with reproduction. Too bad female Transformers are nearly extinct, what with the big war and bigger, bulky (male) Transformers are "needed" to do war.

BTW, MALE Transformers can reproduce by themselves...they gave birth in the G2 comics, you know?

Before these kinds of discussions, when I saw a fembot on Tv, I just thought "Oh look, theres a girl robot!" I never thought "Can a robot species have males and females, do they really have genders," whatever. I never thought about it that deeply. What I saw onscreen was what was so for that universe. When I saw a girl robot, I thought of them as a girl robot. Vector Sigma might have been used to create them, but girl robots still existed anyway. When I heard somebody say somewhere in G1 when they saw the fembots "Wow, I thought fembots where all extinct!" I had thought mainly "All the girls of the Transformers species must be nearly all gone!" I didn't analyse why, I just accepted it. This was back when G1 was still relatively new, back when a third of the people on here weren't even born.

Now I'm not saying to not analyse, go ahead and analyse, it is truely fun! I love doing it.
But I hope none of us become bitter enemies towards each other over a thing that is still very controversial within the Tf fandom.

Why is it controversial? Because there is enough evidence that points to both ends as being possible, and plus the storylines are not even harmonious. As I have said before, something old can become obsolete as soon as a new story arc is added to that continuity.

All that I know is, they are robots, but they are living robots. Not the unliving robots we have here on Earth. How they are alive and how they came about can be up to debate.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:55 pm

Glyph wrote:I'm going to have to pull a few piecemeal quotes out of your post to respond in a coherent manner...

Tramp wrote:ctually Glyph, Simon wrote a good majority of the Marvle TF run. Bob Budyansky left pretty early on

Actually Tramp, Furman's earliest work on the US title was #56 of 80 - a little earlier than I'd initially thought it was, as I'd thought he joined in the early 60s and worked on the last quarter of the run. The title was still more than two-thirds of the way through its run when Furman did his first work for it.

Tramp wrote:It is only in the Marvel UK run where Arcee was created on Earth. In the rest of canon she was created on Cybertron, Also, the Marvel run, both UK and US ignores the fact that there are other female transformers that have existed long before Prime and the Autobots left for earth 4 millon years prior. The Marvel run conveniaently ignores this detail

The Marvel run doesn't conveniently 'ignore the fact' of the existence of 'female' Transformers. The comics exist in a separate and irreconcilable continuity from the cartoon, where the female Autobots appeared and were shown to have been around at Arklaunch. I believe, though I could be wrong, that there have been a few fembot-styled TFs in the background of Marvel stories, as well as the obvious inclusion of Arcee, but they will have their own version of the history.

As to Arcee, in the rest of 'canon' I don't believe it states where she was created. Your persistent use of "it doesn't contradict me so my imagination must be right!" in place of any actual evidence is getting wearing.

No, there are no femmes in any of the Marvel run. And yes, the DW comics do contradict Marvel's origin for Arcee She was not built on Earth. Based upon the DW story line, she appears to have been sent by the Quntessans as a mole. This story arc has not run its course yet.

Tramp wrote:I am not picking and choosing. I am looking at the entirety of TF lore and looking at the commoin threads throughout the majority of it.

You most certainly are picking and choosing. For example, you're taking the existence of female Autobots and something that looks like romantic involvement in the 80s cartoon (one continuity), combining it with a very vague throwaway line about other ways to create Transformer life in Dreamwave's MTMTE (a separate, rebooted continuity) and inferring from it that Transformers must reproduce sexually.

Yet you're leaving out the parts of the cartoon where it's very clearly stated that Vector Sigma is required to give life to new Transformers, or where Shockwave believes the female Autobots to be long extinct, and the part of Arcee's MTMTE bio where Kup has to explain Arcee's 'resemblance to the females of other species'* because other TFs don't understand what's different about her (how can they reproduce sexually if they don't even have a concept of male and female?).

You can't just pick and choose the bits you want to use - if you take one thing from a continuity, you have to accept the rest of that continuity as well.

* Note how Kup, the seen-it-all old-timer with lots of offworld experience, describes Arcee as resembling a female rather than actually being a female herself?

I'm not leaving anything out. The line about Vector Sigma is covered under the use of Protoforms. Vector Sigma, the Matrix,,these are necessary to bring a protoform to life. What I am talking about is reproduction without the use of protoforms, as stated as possible by MtMtE #8. That is not picking and choosing.

Tramp wrote:What common thread is there? that there are clear males and females, not masculine and feminine. Masculine and feminine are traits, Male and female are strictly biological. Look it up in the dictionary.

The common thread is that, in most TF continuities, there have been lots of bots who've been characteristically masculine and a very small number of bots who've been characteristically feminine. That does not support sexual reproduction on the level of a species (and the argument that the Quints made the fembots disappear doesn't hold up, because it's your inference from a single unfinished arc in one continuity only). If they did reproduce sexually, then I would expect the scarcity of fembots to produce a matriarchal colony society similar to a beehive, or possibly a pride/harem tendency - but you don't see those in any of the continuities, do you?

Actually, no it wouldn't create such a society at all. If nearly every fem were taken, what you would be left with is a society force to use alternative means to continute this woudl include genetic engiuneering/cloning, or, in the case of a mechanical race, protoforms.

Also, didn't you just completely destroy your own argument? Male and female, as you said, are strictly biological. The dictionary extract you posted defines them in terms of their biological function. Machines... are not biological, therefore the biological concept of male and female is meaningless in relation to them. QED.

No because Biological does not mean organic.
This is the definition of Biological:

biological: Having or pertaining to biology.

[b]Biology: the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, esp. with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure, etc.

All life is biology. what the basis of that lifeconsists of is part of the study of biology. Any life process is a boilogical process. It has nothing to do with whether or not something is organic. So, no, it is not contardictory. Transformers are life forms, they have a mechanical based biology.

Tramp wrote:Under synonyms, it states that the term "Male always refers to sex, while masculine refers to qualitiies properly associated with the male sex. Female also refers strictly to sexz while feminine refers to qualities associated with females.

According to every canon source, save the Marvel runs, the Transformers have males and females, not robots with masculine and feminine qualities... males and females.

It's quite obvious that the synonym you posted refers to the strict sense of the word. See the note at the end of my previous post about the usage in general, casual and nonscientific language.

What I gave you was not scientific, it was the dictionary common useage. the terms "male" and "female" always refer to the actual phyisical sex. The terms "masculine" or "feminine" refer to traits normally associated with these two sexes. Therfore, your use of the words "male" and "female" were wrong. Transformers are male and female, not just masculine and feminine

Tramp wrote:When you have that many series and stories all agreeing on TF genders and the implications thereof, and only one run, the Marvel US and UK going against that, the proof is clear. For the majority of TF lore, sexual reproduction is possible and highly likely among Transformers. That is not "cheery-picking", that is weighing one side against another and seeing which side has more to back it up.

Unfortunately, your reasoning is fatally flawed because it entirely rests on your own inference from the material, and not on what was actually shown. Let's compare the Western continuities...

ContinuityDirect references to sexual reproductionDirect references to asexual reproductionCartoonNone. Some weak implication via inter-TF romance in two episodes and flirting between Hot Rod and Arcee, and Wreck-gar is apparently married in one episode. However, note that Powerglide and Seaspray each display romantic attraction to non-Transformer characters with whom they presumably could not possibly reproduce, scuppering the "they wouldn't be attracted except for reproduction" theory.
Lithonians are not Cybertronians, and Wheelie's child-like appearance is never explained.S.O.S. Dinobots: Wheeljack creates the Dinobots from components.
The Search for Alpha Trion: Optimus Prime realises that Alpha Trion must have been his creator (note terminology) because he knows a specific and unique technical detail about his circuitry. A3 knows this same detail about Elita-One, and thus presumably created her as well - so if your reproduction theory is correct, Prime's so-called lover is his sister. Eww.
The Key to Vector Sigma: Megatron states that the megacomputer Vector Sigma 'gave us all life' - it is arguable whether he is talking about 'all of us here in this room' or 'all of us Transformers'. Both Autobots and Decepticons state that Vector Sigma is required to give new Transformers life.MarvelNone, whatsoever.Shockwave is unable to give life to his creations (Jetfire and the Constructicons) without the Creation Matrix held by Optimus Prime.
Optimus Prime, on multiple occasions, uses the Matrix to give life to new Transformers.
Cloudburst states unequivocally that Transformers do not mate.
Introduction of Primus, the Transformers' creator-god, establishes that the Matrix is the essence of Primus himself, and that creation of new Transformer life is therefore a pseudo-spiritual process.
G2 comics establish that prior to Matrix-fuelled creation, Transformers reproduced by cellular division.Beast WarsNo direct reference. Tigatron / Airrazor and Silverbolt / Blackarachnia / Cheetor display romantic attraction; Rattrap makes various lewd comments relating to (among other examples) fembot waitresses walking around without their torso plates, and calls Blackarachnia an "emasculatin' fembot" when she "nips the tip" of his tail. Innuendo = quick laugh slipped into the kids' show for the benefit of the known adult fan contingent.The series establishes the existence of sparks as a requirement for Transformer life, and also establishes that they arise externally, not from within other Transformers.
Protoforms are introduced as the 'raw material' for new Transformers.Beast MachinesNone. Again, some weak implication via romance between Blackarachnia / Silverbolt and Rattrap / Botanica.Megatron can only create drones, and is unable to create new Transformers without the use of captured sparks (even when he uses a captured spark, it is an existing Transformer in a new body, not a brand new Transformer).Armada / Energon / CybertronNone. Some flirting between various characters, most notably involving Thunderblast.Eh... I dunno. Armada is tolerable at times, but I mostly avoid these series like the plague.
This is just what I can come up with off the top of my head. Which would you say is the better-supported position?

your table is completrly in error. The inferences are there. First off, you are ignoring the fact that Vector Sigma is required to bring [protoforms to life Transformers whos bodies were constructed. That is what Vector Sigma is for, as well as the Matrix. Secondly, all reference to romance is evidence of sexual reproduction. every inference, every romantic couple. These are all evidence for sexual reproduction. Therefore your table is in error
On top of that, Wheelie is clearly refered to and treated like a child in both the carton and comics. In the "86 movie, Grimlock specificalyy says to Wheelie "Why boy hit my nose?" Grimlock refers to him as a boy; a child. On top of that, it is Daniel whom Wheelie spends his time with. another child. Add to that, the reference in War and Peace when Prime scolds Wheelie for biting him. Prime treats him like a child. Wheelie is not just "child-like" he is a [v]child[/b], equivalent to about a 12 year-old.

G1 cartoon

mechanical

mechanical life forms

DW G1 comics

Beast Wars and Beast Machines(US and Japanese)

Victory

That is the comaprison. Which holds more weight? The possibility of TF sexual reproduction.

Tramp wrote:On top of that, there is the passage from TF MtMtE #8 stating that Cybertronians have other options for creatign new life aside from the use of manufactured protoforms.

... which actually only suggests that there may be other options, does not in any way suggest that any of those options involve sexual reproduction. In any case, it also states that whatever those options may be, Transformers don't currently understand how to use them. Doesn't that rather go against your repeated claim that sex must be their normal method of reproduction?

Biologically, yes. However, once again, with so few females for such a long time, the use of an "artificial" method obviously becomes more the norm. That does not mean thatn they lose the capability of sexual reproduction. If we lost almost every member of one of our sexes, and had to resort to cloning to survive, would that remove our capability to reproduce naturally? No. It would simply mean we needed more of the missing gender. In instances wehre two member of opposite gneders did come together, we would still have natural sexual reproduction. The same is true with TFs. With an extreme scarcity of femlaes, the use of Protoforms bacme the norm, but if a male and female did come together, they could still reproduce naturally through sexual reproduction.

Again, you pick and choose the bits you like from your beloved Dreamwave guidebook, but ignore the bits which blatantly contradict your preferred theory (such as Arcee's bio, mentioned above, or the establishment of protoform + spark as the normal process in the same passage or in the section about sparks).I haven't ignored anything. I have aknowedged that protoforms are the norm curently because there is something missing to allow other methods. the point is that the use of Protoforms is not the only possible method. the evidence shows that sexual reproduction is a possible method among Transformers. This has been increasingly possible as the series has progressed over the past 23 years as new stories have developed, and new concepts and new characters introduced.

Basically, this whole issue of the point of fembots has never been addressed in canon. I believe there's a host of evidence to say that, whatever the reason is, it's not sex; you clearly believe the opposite based on your own inferences. Therefore, in closing, I leave you with this final quote:
Bertrand Russell wrote:The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.

But, in this case there is good evidnece both ways, but the evicdence in favor outweighs the evidence against.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:18 pm

slycherrychunks wrote:
Tramp wrote:It takes imagination to consider teh possibiklity of a robotic life form which can reproduce through autopoietic means, which have real genders, which can have families. That takes imagination.
Everything you've said about growing machines from nanotechnology is really interesting and imaginative - probably worth starting a seperate discussion about.
The bit about retracting cod-pieces less so.
I was specifically referring to forcing happy-family values onto characters that are alien machines. They should be beyond our comprehension in many ways and certainly beyond our science to be believable as an alien form of life. Not everything about them should be explained away in neat little easy-to-understand packages. Revealing to the audience that they "are just like us" would be unimaginative and lameitylamelame.

Secondly, the writers didn't antrhopomorphize them, They were already anthrompomorphic to begin with. They are humanoid in design for starters.
They gave them human like behavoir, made them do pointless, silly things like have girlfriends. I didn't actually mean anthropomorphise in terms of appearance/design. I thought that was clear.
Why wouldn't they be anthropomorhic? If they weren't, the audience could not relate to them It is that relatability that made the show and comics popular. Do you honestly believe the Transformers would be as big as it is if they didn't make them anthropomorphic? I would hope not.
No, I dont believe giant robots have to have any human qualities to be awesome. I hear Zoids are doing just fine.

Zoids is a god show, but their the robots are animalistic, as well as piloted. Transforers are humanoid and don't have to be piloted. Secondly, if they made them more alien than they already are, we wouldn't be able to relate to them. Having them share many of our traits is what allows us to identify with them. It's good story-telling.

by **slycherrychunks** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:26 pm

Tramp wrote:Zoids is a god show, but their the robots are animalistic, as well as piloted. Transforers are humanoid and don't have to be piloted.

You've addressed the differences between Zoids and Transformers, but not my actual point about non-human robots being awesome.

Its also worth mentioning that in the UK comic continuity, they were piloted by humanoid robots (???) It still made for good fiction and we related to the machines as characters, not the robot pilots (the comic was clearly written and drawn this way - although there were frequents shots of the pilots sat inside the machine's head to add emphasis to the dialogue.)

Secondly, if they made them more alien than they already are, we wouldn't be able to relate to them. Having them share many of our traits is what allows us to identify with them. It's good story-telling.

This is why the first stories were set on earth and why we had human characters. We were supposed to relate to the humans, and learn about the mysterious alien mechanoids through them. Of course, somewhere down the line, things got crazy.

by **Tramp** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:33 pm

slycherrychunks wrote:
Tramp wrote:Zoids is a god show, but their the robots are animalistic, as well as piloted. Transforers are humanoid and don't have to be piloted.
You've addressed the differences between Zoids and Transformers, but not my actual point about non-human robots being awesome.

Its also worth mentioning that in the UK comic continuity, they were piloted by humanoid robots (???) It still made for good fiction and we related to the machines as characters, not the robot pilots (the comic was clearly written and drawn this way - although there were frequents shots of the pilots sat inside the machine's head to add emphasis to the dialogue.)
Secondly, if they made them more alien than they already are, we wouldn't be able to relate to them. Having them share many of our traits is what allows us to identify with them. It's good story-telling.
This is why the first stories were set on earth and why we had human characters. We were supposed to relate to the humans, and learn about the mysterious alien mechanoids through them. Of course, somewhere down the line, things got crazy.

No, Sly, we were meant to identify with them. They, not the Humans were the main characters. That is why the early stroies started on Cybertron, so we could se them through their eyes.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:38 am

Tramp, once AGAIN you're using obscure crap that isn't canon to argue, and you're once again proving that you're in denial that your theory has been blown to bits. I think Glyph would know what he's talking about. And I love the way you completely ignored my comment about Wingsaber's splitting in half. Let's look at why genitalia are impossible, hm?

Damn basis for Washing Machine infatuated robot from Robot Chicken... Oh, and it's clear that CherryChunks was talking about ZOIDS when she was talking about stories on Earth. Oh, and Glyph just defused all of your arguments, and no the points for your stupid argument don't overdo the arguments against. The fact that they're clearly ROBOTS destroys 50% of your so-called evidence already. The Thunderblast thing was a case of HUMOUR, not romance. She wasn't in love, she was just interested in who SHE thought was MOST POWERFUL. And Wheelie is a "Boy" because that's how he was built. Transformers aging is akin to a computer growing old and obsolete. Kup is Windows 3.1 to Wheelie's Vista. And do you call the Stunticons Protoforms? NO. Stop using your stupid MTMTE comics as fact, because they aren't. As you've been told a ridiculous amount of times, they aren't canon, and weren't even considered so by Dreamwave THEMSELVES. Therefore, and argument involving Japanese Manga, OR Mtmte Comics is not valid.

by **Tramp** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:03 am

Damolisher wrote:Tramp, once AGAIN you're using obscure crap that isn't canon to argue, and you're once again proving that you're in denial that your theory has been blown to bits. I think Glyph would know what he's talking about. And I love the way you completely ignored my comment about Wingsaber's splitting in half. Let's look at why genitalia are impossible, hm?

Wing Saber: Splits in Half
G1 Razorclaw and Rampage: Tails fold into groinal sockets. ARE NOT GENITALS.
Blaster: Yeah, some boombox he'd be if he could fold his legs up, only for his schlong to get in the way of the ground.
G1 Soundwave: Same Deal.
Any G1 Combiner Base: Legs need to split to attach groinal plate for gestalt unit.
Energon Arcee: Legs fold back into body, "Groin" becomes front of bike.
G1 Prime: Legs fold back up, "Groin" forms front grill of truck.
Any Energon Powerlinx character: Convert into way that makes genitals impossible, because they need head from for powerlinx mode, since their upper half mode requires their "Groin" for a chest.

Damn basis for Washing Machine infatuated robot from Robot Chicken...

Actually, none of that makes the proper "anatomy" impossible. and here is why:

abdomen

human

need

Energon

Cybertron

Need I go on? You also ned to consider this: the interface plugs and sockets do not need to be in the groins. They could be in the abdomen, or any other part of the body. The plug could be a finger like an octopus, or in the wrist. It could be in the side. The socket could be in the abdomen, or the back, or the side. Neither has to be in exactly the same place as on a human.

Secondly, the theory has not been proven impossibe either. Third, the Japanese material is just as canon as the US material and frankly, I don't care if you don't agree on that last point. It is just as valid as any US material. all of it is valid. Deal with it.

On top of that, I forgot to mention earlier regarding Hi-Q's remarks about Prime and the Autobots. His remark about them being alive because of their emotional responses, belive it or not falls under one of the seven key criteria for life. It falls under the criterion of Response to stimuli, in this case, an emotional response. Therefore, Hi-Q's determination falls under the seven scientific criteria for life.[/list]

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:18 am

No, it isn't canon. Blaster isn't doing the splits, because there's nowhere for his schlong to go. Wingsaber splits PERFECTLY in half, and as I said, the combiners have a plate which goes squarely across their groins. You never said anything about Arcee, as I predicted, and it's like Glyph said. If it doesn't match your imagination, it's not fact. Your manga doesn't mean anything, since it's not offical canon in Japan or the US, since the points in it are never otherwise discussed in arguments, except for this one, which you keep bringing no new, concrete evidence into, and I love the fact you contradict yourself by calling Override female a few sentences after, which proves Glyph's point of you picking and choosing from multiple continuities.

And the cracks about Arcee having a removable plate or whatever, and your excuse for Wing Saber just prove that you've thought about this a lot. Which means you REALLY need a life. You just said they don't "Have to have their ports in their groin", where else would be a logical place, ya loon? What, one kick to the shoulder and it's a shot to the balls? That's the most pisspoor excuse for an argument yet. You're getting desperate, arent' you?
And you know where you can shove your poopy points of life. They hold no relevance in cartoons.

Comics in Japan involving Transformers are just about as Relevant as Starscream being a chick in France.

by **Tramp** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:49 am

Damolisher wrote:No, it isn't canon. Blaster isn't doing the splits, because there's nowhere for his schlong to go. Wingsaber splits PERFECTLY in half, and as I said, the combiners have a plate which goes squarely across their groins. You never said anything about Arcee, as I predicted, and it's like Glyph said. If it doesn't match your imagination, it's not fact. Your manga doesn't mean anything, since it's not offical canon in Japan or the US, since the points in it are never otherwise discussed in arguments, except for this one, which you keep bringing no new, concrete evidence into, and I love the fact you contradict yourself by calling Override female a few sentences after, which proves Glyph's point of you picking and choosing from multiple continuities.

And you point is? First off yes, the manga is canon. Who ever told you it isn't? What actual autority ever said it wasn't? You cannot make that determination. It was fully authorized by Takara under license, or even published by Takara itself. Therefore, it is fully canon. Deal with it.
Secondly, your assumption is that they would have external genitals, and that is not necessarily true. Reptiles, birds, fish, and even some mammals have internal genitalia; both the males and females, kept sheathed in a cloaca. More logically, transformers would be the same way. Their interfaces would be kept inside under a plate that slides back for mating. Therfore, there is nothing hanging to get in the way. Try again.

And the cracks about Arcee having a removable plate or whatever, and your excuse for Wing Saber just prove that you've thought about this a lot. Which means you REALLY need a life. You just said they don't "Have to have their ports in their groin", where else would be a logical place, ya loon? What, one kick to the shoulder and it's a shot to the balls? That's the most pisspoor excuse for an argument yet. You're getting desperate, arent' you?
And you know where you can shove your poopy points of life. They hold no relevance in cartoons.

Comics in Japan involving Transformers are just about as Relevant as Starscream being a chick in France.

Yes, these pojnts regarding what is life do have relevance in a cartoon. They have relavance in science fiction, which is what TransFormers is. They are the standard upon that which determines what is or is not life. That makes it relevant. You can't arbitrarily say, that is alive and that isn't without a scientifically accepted set of criteria that is applied universally to all life.

Secondly, So what if Starscream is a "chick" in France, not that I ever heard of that. And can you show proof? To my knowledge, Starscream is a guy everywhere. Regardless, it isn't that much of a stretch, considering his personality. They guy was pretty effeminate to begin with. Whiney, lisping, a high-pitch voice, prissy, flamboyant, etc. It strill does not make the japanese material any less relevant. You simply want to eliminate any evidence that doesn't fit your narrow-minded view of what is possible in the TransFormers.

Third, yes, I have thought a lot about this. So what. I have a vivid imagination. I am an artist by trade. In particular, I'm a freelance graphic designer and illustrator, as well as aspiring cartoonist, working on my own book. So, yes, I do think about things like this. IF you consider that having too much time on my hands, so be it. Frankly I don't care.

And, as for where, locically would they be? I have already said. The interface plug of the male could be in the groin, in the abdomen, in the chest, in the hand, in the foot. Almost anywhere. IT doesn't have to be between the legs. The socket of the female also does not need to be between the legs. It could be in the side, in the back, directly in the abdomen, even in the chest. Once again, it does not need to be between the legs. Yes, that is where humans and most land-based animals have them, but it isn't absolutely necessary for them to be located that particular region.Most likely it would be, but it isn't a necessity.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:25 am

Yeah, that's cute. See, it's 10 o' clock at night here in Good Ol' NZ, so I'm not gonna read through your usual science class essay and pick apart your crappy argument. I'm not narrow minded, I'm smart enough to know a machine when I see one. I don't see an object that can have sex. And you just said you have an active imagination. Well done, you just admitted what your claims of Transformer pregnancy are. Stop trying to force your rampant ignorance and inability to know what a machine is on us, just because you have fantasies about Transformers screwing each other.

Most people scoff at the idea of Transformers reproducing because they're machines, they're robots, they're made of metal, they're built, and they Transform. Going by your crappy definition, a robot which breaks its programming and gains an independant personality should be able to breed, correct?

P.s, if you actually open your eyes, you'll see I said it's ridiculous for the interface to be anywhere else, since you'd be getting hit in the balls in the stupidest areas. Another reason your argument is a steaming pile of bullcrap.

p.p.s, I know I'm bing even ruder than before. But screw being polite. Shadowman was right. You don't see logic, and trying to talk intelligence and common sense is an exercise in futility.)

by **Tramp** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:31 am

Damolisher wrote:Yeah, that's cute. See, it's 10 o' clock at night here in Good Ol' NZ, so I'm not gonna read through your usual science class essay and pick apart your crappy argument. Most people scoff at the idea of Transformers reproducing because they're machines, they're robots, they're made of metal, they're built, and they Transform. Going by your crappy definition, a robot which breaks its programming and gains an independant personality should be able to breed, correct?

You would be surprised at how man people do not scoff at it. The ones who do seem to be in the minority here, and considering the sheer volume of fan fiction out there that deals with this particular subject matter, a lot of other people have speculated on this as well and came to the same conclusions. Secondly, a robot which breaks its programming is still not alive. If it meets all seven criteria for life, then, and only then can it be considered truely alive. Transformers are robotic life forms, not simple robots. They aren't like robots here on Earth. They are living, robotic organisms, Robotic life forms that evolved on a world with an ecology that is machine-based rather than organic. That is the only real difference between them and us.

by **Tramp** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:33 am

Damolisher wrote:Yeah, that's cute. See, it's 10 o' clock at night here in Good Ol' NZ, so I'm not gonna read through your usual science class essay and pick apart your crappy argument. Most people scoff at the idea of Transformers reproducing because they're machines, they're robots, they're made of metal, they're built, and they Transform. Going by your crappy definition, a robot which breaks its programming and gains an independant personality should be able to breed, correct?

You would be surprised at how many people do not scoff at it. The ones who do seem to be in the minority here, and considering the sheer volume of fan fiction out there that deals with this particular subject matter, a lot of other people have speculated on this as well and came to the same conclusions. Secondly, a robot which breaks its programming is still not alive. If it meets all seven criteria for life, then, and only then can it be considered truely alive. Transformers are robotic life forms, not simple robots. They aren't like robots here on Earth. They are living, robotic organisms, Robotic life forms that evolved on a world with an ecology that is machine-based rather than organic. That is the only real difference between them and us.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:35 am

Ah, but it is alive. It's capable of independent thought, is it not? How is it different to a Transformer? It's a robot. It's capable of independent thought and action. It's sentient. Transformers don't meet all 7 criteria since they can't breed. These stupid criteria are some crap some sexless geek made up to give lunatics like you hope of seeing robots screw each other. Show me these so called "Criteria" in the bible, and I'll start believing you're not falling back on a load of arse to argue with we non-delusional people.

by **Tramp** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:45 am

Damolisher wrote:Ah, but it is alive. It's capable of independent thought, is it not? How is it different to a Transformer? It's a robot. It's capable of independent thought and action. It's sentient. Transformers don't meet all 7 criteria since they can't breed. These stupid criteria are some crap some sexless geek made up to give lunatics like you hope of seeing robots screw each other. Show me these so called "Criteria" in the bible, and I'll start believing you're not falling back on a load of arse to argue with we non-delusional people.

Independent thought has nothing to do with being a life form. Responding to an enviroinmental stimulous is just one critereion. Secondly, How do you know for certain that they can't? One source from one writer nearly twenty years ago says so? There is more than enough evidence from all the other sources from other writers, which suggests that they can. Secondly, the Bible has nothing to do with this, because the Bible only deals with what is on Earth, and was written from nearly 2000 years ago and back a few thousand years. The concept of robots or life on other planets, wasn't even thought of back then. Those seven criteria were established by scientists in biology, astrobiology, and other related fields after years and years of observation and study, and apply to all life, no matter the source or what that life is composed of.

Your whole argument is that they are robots. So what. They are alien, not Earth robots. They are life forms. Earth robots are not. There are huge differences between Transformers and Earth robots. TransFormers are extraterrestrial, robotic life forms, not just robots.

News Credits: 3 · by **Damolisher** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:48 am

Show me the bible proof. If there were certain "Criteria" to being alive, I think God wouldn't have neglected to inform those of us who you know, aren't as amazingly informed such as yourself. And I'm gonna jump on the nearest plane I can to the States and slap the piss out of you if you tell me they can reproduce one more time, because they have never been shown to be born from a "Pregnant" MACHINE, they're shown to be built. Next thing you'll know, you're gonna tell me Lego Star Wars characters count as reproducing "Lifeforms", because they meet the sexless geek's guide to life too?

by **Tramp** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:58 am

Damolisher wrote:Show me the bible proof. If there were certain "Criteria" to being alive, I think God wouldn't have neglected to inform those of us who you know, aren't as amazingly informed such as yourself. And I'm gonna jump on the nearest plane I can to the States and slap the piss out of you if you tell me they can reproduce one more time, because they have never been shown to be born from a "Pregnant" MACHINE, they're shown to be built. Next thing you'll know, you're gonna tell me Lego Star Wars characters count as reproducing "Lifeforms", because they meet the sexless geek's guide to life too?

Come on over. Remember, the Bible is not a science book, and people back then had no knowedge of science. Secondly, just because you haven't seen them pregnant, does not make it impossible. We have never seen extraterrestrial life, but does that mean it does not exist? No. We simply haven't discovered it yet. It is the same thing here, No we haven't seen a pregnant female Cybertronian before, but we have seen them engaged in courtship and marriage, we have seen them with children. We have seen them as Boyfriends and girlfriends, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. These are evidence that they very well could indeed have sexual reproduction capability. The fact that you choose to disregard any possibilities simply because you cannot get past the notion that they are mechanical and not organic shows just how closed-minded you are, and I am not the first person to see this.

As for Lego SW characters, the characters themselves aren't Lego's, they're based upon the actual characters from the movies and books made to look like Legos. So that is a very poor example.