Caption:
[Person 1: WALL-E and EVE are both nonbinary.
Person 2: What are you talking about? Keep your… Liberal politics out of my kid’s movie. WALL-E’s a boy and EVE is a girl.
Person 1: But they’re… they’re robots. They don’t have genitals.
Person 2: Yeah but like WALL-E is square and does construction and EVE is like feminine and sexy looking.
Person 1: So, gender is a matter of presentation and expression, not a matter of biology.
Person 2: No! Gender’s just about your genitals.
Person 1: Then, WALL-E’s nonbinary. He doesn’t have genitals.
Person 2: No, WALL-E’s a boy.
Person 1: Then gender is a matter of expression an-
Person 2: No! Gender is just biological!
Person 1: Then WALL-E doesn’t have a gender
Person 2: No! He’s a boy robot!
Person 1: Look I don’t have anything going on. I can do this all day.]
However, this is a fallacy.
Gender coding in media is a thing. Ultimately you can have non-human characters that are not portrayed with genitals or sexually at all, and yet still have a gender coded character.
I’m sorry do you hear yourself? If you think this is contradicting the point then you haven’t understood what the person in the video is trying to say
I’m talking about basic character design principals. In art, when dealing with characters, particular design choices are oft made to convey the character as a particular gender. How do we assume that goofy bastard from lost in space is male? Because a set of behaviors and design choices were made in order to help the audience infer this. Gender coding, and indeed ‘coding’ is a really facinating concept in design.
As well, I never stated that the point being made was “contradicting”, I said it was a fallacy. The point is false, and mostly ignorant. Not in that its offensive or salacious, but in that it seems to be made with a lack of understanding of design and even writing to a degree.
Also, I just seen your tags, and I'd like to point out that I'm not arguing on the gender = expression bit. I'm saying that the point they used to illustrate that, even if it was made if the right intentions and motive, is ignorant of character design. The intent was good, the example used was not so.
