Huh, I thought "trans-" meant feeling definitely that your gender is the one opposite what you were assigned.
Don't get me wrong, there's been a lot of discussion, and I'd be lying if I said there aren't people who think that nonbinary =/= trans. But trans meaning "not identifying as the gender you were assigned" is currently a pretty common definition in the community at large, and it's the one I adhere to because I feel that nonbinary people are trans (and, you know ... are real, which is another unfortunate point of debate). I don't agree that male and female are opposites, either, but honestly the current discussion's not really on topic so I probably shouldn't derail it more, eh?
I find it hard to believe that anyone isn't grasping this rather than just being intentionally dense for the sake of arguing. Vulcan, supergirl, etc. arguments are all nonsense. The Bechdel Test is a cultural lens through which gender diversity is viewed. Whether the fictional character might be an alien and, within the context of the fictional universe, be described as other than male or female is entirely irrelevant. The point of the whole thing is what audiences see, and whether a substantial portion of the population sees enough quality representations that are recognized by the audience as female. T'Pol and Supergirl are both seen predominantly by audiences as female. The argument about them being alien is the most asinine thing I've read all day, and I've reviewed over 3000 emails from construction workers relating to a giant document review project.
Are you familiar with the posting history of the person trying to make the arguments? I think "intentionally dense for the sake of arguing" is dead on.
Ironically, I'm actually changing my mind about something I'd said earlier and wondering if one of his points was actually right instead - that the Alien Queen could easily be seen as a sentient person - but the impression that I got from the conversation as a whole (although I could just have been exceptionally dense at the time) was that he didn't want people to talk about non-humans as being people in the same way that humans are, in which case he shouldn't have tried to convince me in the first place that I was wrong about denying the potential personhood of the Alien Queen.
Okay, so you using trans as any diversionary gender identity. I'm pretty sure most people think of it as a solid one gender thing. Otherwise agender people are trans. Demi is the same phenomenon but it's not to the same extent, so it's half-half. Same as bi is on a scale at a half point. Definitions are arbitrary. It's not a set of dot points, we're drawing borders on scales. Therefore, some of those sections are halfway between two end points on their respective scale (sexuality/gender) Therefore, they can be described very effectively as "half" or "both". Neither of these words is dimishing or innacurate.
Yeah, I'm not sure if the Alien queen is sentient, but I am sure that she didn't engage in conversation. I don't think that "Get away from her, you bitch," counts as a two-way conversation, though I am oddly curious now to see if the queen responded to that remark in any way that could be considered communication. Of course, Alien passes Bechdel anyway, so it doesn't need the queen.
I don't think you're using 'diversionary' correctly, or else I don't understand your meaning. Also what do you mean by "a solid one gender thing"? Agender people are trans; that's part of what I'm saying. So are demigender people. Bisexuality isn't 'half a point' - it's a whole point, and that point is labelled 'bisexuality'.
I'm trying to tell whether I understand this, and so I'm going to use a horrible analogy: Is this like saying that a vegetarian isn't half omnivore/half vegan, but is instead, well, vegetarian?
I suppose? Or like saying an omnivore isn't half carnivore/half herbivore, but an omnivore. It's not explicitly wrong, in the most simplistic of terms, but in the real world a bi person isn't going to appreciate being thought of and treated as 'half gay, half straight' when the term 'bisexual' is right there are has its own, correct connotations and definition (eta: though don't get me started on the debate over the exact definition of bisexuality ... ).
Yes, they're not half a point. Because bisexuality isn't a point. It's a section. They're at a point inside that section, somewhere more specific than bi, somtimes leaning in one direction or the other, you can have a weighted bi. And that point is a whole point. And that point is in a whole section. But it is halfway between gay and straight, ergo it is half the degree of either of it's neighbours, and qualities of both. It's not saying it's not it's own thing, this is a strawman. READ what I am saying. All I am saying is to describe it as half gay half straight or as both are devices to explain it's position on a linear scale of attraction. Stop thinking of them as separate, the lines we draw are our own, they are definitional and therefore arbitrary. Bisexuality is the same thing as the others, we are describing a specific variation in that thing, and drawing lines at certain points. Much like colour spectrum, they all flow together.
I do read what you're saying. You're frequently shockingly unclear. You also speak as if you're an authority when you're plainly not one. I am trying to help you understand, and all you want to do is argue. Frankly, it's exhausting, and I don't know why I keep doing it. Sure, there are varying preferences under the umbrella term 'bi'. But they're all bi, not more or less gay or straight. All trans people are trans, not more or less trans or cis. No two bi or trans people are going to feel the exact same way, experience their orientation or gender the exact same way, but they fall under the same umbrellas - the same sections on the spectrum, if you like. If I pointed to orange and said "it's both yellow and red," that would be silly. It's orange. Like I said to Chicken, insisting that calling orange both yellow and red is accurate is a very simplistic way to look at it, and it's not helpful when we have the word orange, which is a more precise label for the thing being described. Sure, it's arbitrary, but we need words for things; we need language to make an effort to classify things because it's the only effective way to communicate. Why would I tell you "yeah I'm somewhere between straight and gay on the spectrum, about %70 on the gay side and %30 on the straight side, most days anyway" when I could just tell you "yeah, I'm bi"? That's absurd. And it's an absurd thing to debate. Why not just give up labeling things at all and start calling chairs "those things you sit on" and forks "those things you stab food with, no not the bladey ones, the ones with tines" if it's so arbitrary? I'm not the biggest on labels myself but we needs words to communicate ideas, and 'bisexuality' is the word that means "attracted to your own and other genders", so it's the one I tell people applies to me. If I were orange, I wouldn't tell people I was kinda red and kinda yellow, because it would be unclear and weird. Colors are separate. At a certain point red stops being red and becomes orange. We might call it red-orange at some point beforehand, but A ) that still implies that it's a reddish orange, and B ) we don't call people gay-bi, because that wouldn't mean anything; you're either gay or bi. The color spectrum isn't your perfect metaphor here.
I'm not insisting you call it that way, merely defending it as a way to describe the quality behind it. It's not a label, it's not the name, it's a descriptive device. I've said that. Just as orange is halfway between yellow and red, it is half red half yellow. The same applies with sexualities. I am an ardent defender of using labels. But I would also be happy to describe where exactly I am on the scale, and that includes comparing my sexuality to a bisexual guy. My point about colours is that red is only red because we say it is. We could draw the line at any other point we want, call any section of the spectrum red. It could be half of what we call green and half of what we call blue. It doesn't matter, as long as it's clearly defined and makes some kind of sense. The lines even when clearly drawn are not exactly crystal. Haven't you ever debated whether a particular border shade was orange or red because it was kind of both but you saw it as red with orange leaning and your friend saw it more as orange? And apologies if I came off as claiming authority. I'm just saying it assertively, and I add so are you.
Just saw this thread. *mutters* keep your blood pressure down, keep your blood pressure down... I agree that woman are just as human, and strong (not in the physical sense), or vulnerable, as males. I agree that it is a good thing to put the focus on females who show this. It helps overcoming centuries of cultural baggage. But the idea, that an agency deliberately disregards any novel which does not conform to this test makes my blood boil. Jerks. My logical side says that they have a deliberate feminist catalogue, and I wouldn't pitch to them in any case, no way - but that is no excuse for them!! To be clear: I would fail the test. I have an almost exclusively male cast, but there is at least one female who influences the storyline in a pretty major way and is quite crucial to the exact way it all falls out. However, she is not a major character (and definitely not a MC). She is definitely one of the 'complex' characters this agency focusses on - but based on that filter alone, I will NEVER pitch ANY novel to this agency - even if it would fit perfectly within their requirements.
Why are there so little female major characters? Because they're all say, government agents? If you have a very strong focus on that then that would make sense. But in a lot of contexts female do come in, especially with the increase in women in masculine jobs i.e government agents. Maybe put one or two more female characters? You should probably consider that. It depends again on who all the characters are, the less realistic it is to have that male dominance the more it becomes an ideological concern.
Thanks a bunch @Oscar Leigh Did I say that I want MORE complexity??? After a bit of reflection, and the collision of your post and yet another research-related pdf my WIP grows. This is an ant-hill. Fire ants, to make it just about perfect *snort*. Still, females will not take lead, due to the character/jobs of my MCS. I am writing mil, and that sets the focus. Sorry mate Thank you (not ironic).
A rose by any other name, right? Sure, but we wouldn't be calling it "sorta like a tulip but with thorns," we'd be calling it a snorfleglap, because things get their own names apart from being referred to by their shared traits with other things. Defining something solely by its relation to something else is diminishing. I'll say again that colors aren't a perfect metaphor, and this line really illustrates why. Somehow I even knew you'd try to use this as some sort of point, but while differences in our eyes/brains cause us to perceive colors differently, there's no opinions or debate over someone's gender or orientation. It's a fact, with a definite answer, that's not open to interpretation. I'm tired of this useless conversation. If it ever actually had a point, I've lost it, and lord knows we're far and away off-topic. Have a good one.
Why does it make you so angry that a single agent has a clear preference for something like this? Does it make you really angry when a single agent says "no hard scifi" or "no graphic violence" or "only Christian-themed books"? Why does this agent's preference make your blood pressure rise?
It's not this specific agent, or indeed that an agency has a preference. Guess I am just tired of the whole feminist debate, and that affects clear judgement. Sorry about this. I am female and I am aware that there is a whole lot of injustice, still, regarding gender. However, the way the feminist debate has been (in my personal opinion) going overboard, in e.g. divorce-courts, has gotten to me. Again, sorry for derailing this topic.
I don't think it was a derail - pretty much the whole thread has been one side raging and the other side being confused by the rage! I was hoping you could help shed some light on the confusion!
I confess I have not read through the thread - the way it went up to 19 pages was a hint that there was a heated debated going on I shall do so now, and if I have a formed opinion about whatever it is that's going on I'll post. Cheers!
Okay.. (I still haven't read through the whole mess) As I see it, there are several topics addressed here: The value of the test itself: As @BayView said (repeatedly), it is descriptive. Just a way of measuring. This is pure science - in judging the value one has to be very careful of what is NOT measured by the test. Artistic license, storytelling, the way a particular story wants to be told falls under this NOT-measuring. This test is not judging the value of a story itself. The way it shows tendencies in society: In adhering to the test one gets a percentage of books who pass, and a percentage who don't pass. Following this trend over time might give an indication of a changing society. A good thing, by all means - this is science, again. To measure advancement, one has to know a trend, and the measurement standard has to be the same through time. It can't be changed, else the whole trend would be corrupted. What is, and what is not covered by the test: I think (personal opinion), that the test is not really strict in stating conclusive measurements. It follows from point 1) and 2) that a test has to be clear, to give measurable results. In my opinion, the test leaves too many interpretations open. Or this thread would be a whole lot shorter. The use of it to weed out stories that don't fit the preferrence of a particular agent: An agent is perfectly fine to represent anything he/she wants. In stating this preference at the start, the author knows, that, if the novel doesn't fit, it won't have a chance of getting accepted and would waste the agent's time even to look at the query letter. This agent is actually pretty considerate The feminist debate: I am not going into that. We are not in the debate room, this is a writing-how-to thread Just my five cents.
I don't think the test is unclear in any way. People project their own political frustrations on it, and/or refuse to accept that it's merely descriptive, but that's their ignorance and not the test's fault.
For me, this statement is not clearly formulated. All my characters interact, be it male or female. I have a female reporter (not lead in any kind of interpretation), who makes her own judgement call on the actions of my male MCs and the political situation outside of my MCs influence or knowledge. Because of this call, the story comes to a pitch. Would this be "supporting"? I honestly don't know. edit: A clear statement might be "It has to have a female MC, who has a clear and critical influence on the storyline."
