This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Espeon can be male or female; it's not always a her, damn it!

#111pokemon2poker(Topic Creator)Posted 4/21/2013 11:43:40 AM
Are genwunners casuals?
---
Dick Tracy
#112LordYggdrasilXXPosted 4/21/2013 12:08:20 PM
I always refer to the whole Ralts line, mostly Kirlia and Gardevoir as FEMALE. Thank goodness they made Gallade.
#113dwdwdw6Posted 4/21/2013 12:15:32 PM
Twilight_Sonata posted...
Mewtwo_soul posted...
Like I said before you may not think like that, but it's not beyond belief others do... It's just a perception reference. It's no different than an opinion in such a case, considering the key concept of perception.

Just because somebody believe something, perceives something, or has an opinion does not mean that they should be respected for it or that they should not be corrected if they are wrong.
(EDIT: Also, I accept and appreciate your apology. Thank you.)

ReachOutToTruth posted...
First of all, some of you people take this stuff WAY too seriously.

This is the topic. If you don't like it, then get out.

Through life, people will begin to associate certain traits with either masculinity, femininity, etc. When identifying something, then, it stands to reason they will use those traits to extrapolate a sex or gender, regardless of whether or not it has been defined.

And doing so can easily lead then to be wrong, in which case they should be corrected.

There's no need to be upset or offended by it.

It's not about being upset or offended, and characterizing the conversation that way is missing the point. It's just about correcting people who are wrong. It is that simple. I'm not upset or "offended" by your referring to all Jolteon as generally male, but I'm still going to correct you, because you're wrong.


You've got issues man.
#114XxWontonxXPosted 4/21/2013 12:18:36 PM
Dat female Machamp. And my Espeon is female, IMO it seems more like a female anyway.
---
Palutena, Micaiah, Shulk, Chrom, Lucina, Female Pokemon Trainer, Roy, Ashley, Mona, and Mega Man for SSB4.
#115FatReuniclusPosted 4/22/2013 1:43:22 PM
MetalMew posted...
Dat male Gardevoir.


They are the shemales of Pokemon...
---
I wish Reuniclus was my dad...
#116NessEggmanPosted 4/22/2013 1:48:22 PM
It annoys me when people call Jigglypuff "she." Because I don't think there's anything inherently feminine about Jigglypuff at all. I mean it's just a circle.

I also think furries would have nothing to do with it at all... Furries enjoy all sexes and genders, and the idea that there's a lot of fluidity to work with.
---
"Earth is a silly place. Half the world has no clean water. And the other half has so much, they poo in it."
#117Emerald_MeliosPosted 4/22/2013 1:54:34 PM
Lexifox posted...
It's just the sexist humanocracy enforcing its stereotypes onto Eevee and its ilk.


Damn them all!
#118Blues255Posted 4/22/2013 2:12:58 PM
You guys should just refer to each Pokemon as the gender that is displayed in your game. Referring to an entire species with one gender is just wrong (unless it's an only-male or only-female species) -- there can be male and female Espeon.

A Pokemon professor would refer to genderless Pokemon as "it." Legendaries included.



Oh, and, this was annoying me, but...

jar·gon1 [jahr-guhn, -gon]
noun
1.
the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon.
---
Chocobos. Chocobos everywhere.
#119NessEggmanPosted 4/22/2013 2:16:02 PM
Blues255 posted...
You guys should just refer to each Pokemon as the gender that is displayed in your game. Referring to an entire species with one gender is just wrong (unless it's an only-male or only-female species) -- there can be male and female Espeon.

A Pokemon professor would refer to genderless Pokemon as "it." Legendaries included.



Oh, and, this was annoying me, but...

jar·gon1 [jahr-guhn, -gon]
noun
1.
the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group: medical jargon.


But what if the Pokemon identifies as the gender other than the one displayed in the game?
---
"Earth is a silly place. Half the world has no clean water. And the other half has so much, they poo in it."
#120ReachOutToTruthPosted 4/22/2013 3:54:36 PM
Twilight_Sonata posted...
...

You seem strangely defensive about this point. That's what I meant by taking the matter too seriously. Whether or not you feel offended, you have used the words "annoying" in the topic to refer to the habit of arbitrarily assigning genders, and "stupid" to refer to the people who do so. You obviously feel very strongly about the issue.

As for correction, those people don't need to be corrected. They know full well a Pokémon can be either sex. By correcting them, you're simply being antagonistic for its own sake. It's like is somebody uses the phrase "that feel". You could "correct" them by saying the proper conjugation of the word would be "that feeling" but they already know full well that's what it is.

And finally, it's not wrong to refer to a Pokémon by a specific sex, for a number of reasons. In fact, I'd argue that it is correct. The primary reason being that they aren't real. Their only identity is the one assigned to them by whoever is perceiving them.

When a person says:
"I like Espeon, she's so cute!"

YOU believe it to be incorrect because in the games, Espeon can be either sex. To the SPEAKER, it is actually CORRECT, and here is why.

The SPEAKER is in fact, referring to a specific Espeon. This particular Espeon is the particular characterization of Espeon they have developed in their own mind. They are not referring to the species as a whole, but to a particular idea of Espeon.

"I like shorts, they're comfy and easy to wear!" could be considered incorrect for the same reason you believe assigning genders and sex to be. It is not a universal truth that accounts for all possible instances of shorts. But the speaker is referring of course to their own idea of shorts.

Let's take another example. I know a user on these boards who has referred to Cloyster as a "jerk". As far as I know, Cloyster has received no such characterization in any canon. Yet the speaker still thinks of Cloyster is a jerk.

This also is correct. When they speak of Cloyster being a jerk, they are speaking of a particular idea of Cloyster. Whether or not canon Cloyster is always a joke holds no weight against the fact that the speaker is referring to ONE SPECIFIC idea, or interpretation, of the character.

That is the magic of imagination when combined with a series of characters and iconography as rich as Pokémon. These creatures aren't real, their existence and their identity is malleable, clay within the hands of a fan who grows attached to them.

Unless, for some reason, you are assigning sex and gender to a Pokémon in a setting where objectivity must be adhered to (perhaps in writing a player's guide, or in some weird research article on the species as a whole) then to simply say, "no, in the games, a Pokémon can be either sex, that's the end of it" is a gross dismissal of the fandom and the bonds fans forge with their favorite characters and Pokémon.
---
<3 and (/|\) !
http://i.imgur.com/khPxrAW.png