The more time passes, the more I'm compelled by Creek. Because he's actually a foil to Sato, of all characters.
Yumi Sato is our example of a thriving trans person in the world of 2086. She's a successful coroner with a strong personal style and plenty of profitable work to do, who gets to enjoy all of the technological progress that's been made between current year and 2086. In her little bonus scene it's strongly implied that she's a trans woman, and that advances in modding have made it easier than ever to alter her body to her needs. Indeed, she passes flawlessly, and nobody in the cast ever misgenders her, or likely even suspects she might be trans. She then laments how trans people are less visible than ever, and posits the question of whether that's a good or a bad thing, but leaves it open to interpretation. By all accounts it's a very hopeful vision for trans people in this world, a stark bright spot in what's otherwise a very cynical piece of cyberpunk.
But then, in episode 2, we go down to the lower wards. After spending most of episode 1 palling around with the rich and powerful, the opening scene of episode 2 draws a stark contrast by showing us the people this gleaming future leaves behind. And Creek stands out for one thing: the "pronouns: any" in their bio.
Lakers "Creek" Kristoff is, by all accounts, poor. He lives in the lower wards, is the leader of her own little gang, and desperately wants more money, so they can gain greater influence in the larger criminal organization she belongs to. And notably, only two sets of pronouns are ever used for Creek. People who don't know them assume from Creek's appearance that she is a man, and use he/him, while those few characters who knew them personally or are written to be more progressive will use "they/them." The glaring omission here, of course, is "she/her." A lot of characters in the episode have access to Creek's profile, which lists her pronouns. But in the entire script, not a single time, is Lakers "Creek" "pronouns: any" Kristoff EVER referred to as a "she." And I do think that's intentional.
Transmisogyny is alive and well in 2086. All those advances in transition care, that bright spot in the darkness, they only go to those who can afford them. The divide between those who can transition and those who can't is wider than it's ever been, both sides now invisible. It doesn't matter that you can mold flesh like clay if it's still prohibitively expensive and doesn't reach the poor and disenfranchised. Not when a masculine-looking person is still defaulted to as he/him. MAYBE they get a they/them from those who are woke enough. But never a she/her.
I'm sorry, Creek. I saw your pronouns.
