Vaarsuvius is genderfluid?

[Wackd]

So there's a Tumblr post going around* claiming V is genderfluid and the joke about their gender being ambiguous is permanently dead. I think that's great! The only problem is I'm finding no evidence that this actually happened. I've searched any number of keywords and scrolled through two massive threads (discussion thread for 959 and the Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS thread from 2013) trying to find it it and come up with nothing.

Given that the rest of the stuff the post lists--Bandana being a lesbian, Haley giving her old self crap for gendered insults, and Hinjo being colorblind--actually happened and are fairly easy to track down, I'd be surprised if the post contained one random falsehood. Still, it never hurts to double-check.

* I cannot post links until I hit ten posts. Perfectly reasonable. The post in question is at the blog pangurbanthewhite, and is (at time of writing) the most recent post tagged oots.

[Gift Jeraff]

Please put a trigger warning before your posts. Thank you.

[jere7my]

So there's a Tumblr post going around* claiming V is genderfluid and the joke about their gender being ambiguous is permanently dead. I think that's great! The only problem is I'm finding no evidence that this actually happened. I've searched any number of keywords and scrolled through two massive threads (discussion thread for 959 and the Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS thread from 2013) trying to find it it and come up with nothing.

Given that the rest of the stuff the post lists--Bandana being a lesbian, Haley giving her old self crap for gendered insults, and Hinjo being colorblind--actually happened and are fairly easy to track down, I'd be surprised if the post contained one random falsehood. Still, it never hurts to double-check.

* I cannot post links until I hit ten posts. Perfectly reasonable. The post in question is at the blog pangurbanthewhite, and is (at time of writing) the most recent post tagged oots.

I believe it's specified in the author commentary for Blood Runs in the Family.

[DaggerPen]

It's in the Blood Runs in the Family commentary - "genderqueer" is the exact term used. The quote is:



In this way, Tarquin is also symbolic of an older time when stories were likely to be more formulaic or cliched - and less diverse. It's no accident that he's a wealthy old straight white man losing his marbles over the fact that the tale he is experiencing doesn't focus on the other straight white man at the expense of the black man, the woman, the genderqueer person, and even the Latino guest star.

[Ruck]

BRitF explicitly says "genderqueer."

As I understand it, "genderqueer" is not the same thing as "genderfluid", right?

V may have a self-identified gender that simply isn't one we consider normative or part of our binary M/F dynamic, but "fluid" suggests a gender identity that changes regularly, and we don't know that.

I'd appreciate if anyone who understands the terms better could clarify.

[DaggerPen]

BRitF explicitly says "genderqueer."

As I understand it, "genderqueer" is not the same thing as "genderfluid", right?

V may have a self-identified gender that simply isn't one we consider normative or part of our binary M/F dynamic, but "fluid" suggests a gender identity that changes regularly, and we don't know that.

I'd appreciate if anyone who understands the terms better could clarify.

You're more or less correct - "genderqueer" is a more general umbrella term for nonbinary identities (though some people kind of bristle at it because "queer" was used as a slur, and while we've largely reclaimed it - to the point where I feel way more comfortable calling myself "queer" than getting into the eternal bisexual vs. pansexual semantics debate - it's something some people still have bad associations with, which is fair), and may be used for a variety of nonbinary identities, while "genderfluid" refers more specifically to people whose sense of gender varies at different times.

[Darth Paul]

Thank you, DaggerPen. You've identified exactly what it was about that term that's been making me uncomfortable.

When I grew up, "queer" was transitioning from the old-time meaning "odd" into an insult for someone whose sexuality you disagreed with. I've never liked the word since then (and wow, that's almost 40 years now) even when it's in combination with something else.

I'm glad to know that "genderqueer" is a construction I can use without feeling guilty.

[Wackd]

Thanks, all! I appreciate the help.

[Ward.]

Thanks, all! I appreciate the help.

What's interesting to note is that as androgynous elves have been the centerpiece of stories for decades therefore disqualifying xer from drawing tarquins ire and isn't directly named as the genderqueer/fluid individual; that authors commentary could be referring to someone else.

Did durkons strong mother figure impact his development to the point that his perceived machismo in times of great stress is merely imitation or has the vanpire soul been misgendered?

[DaggerPen]

What's interesting to note is that as androgynous elves have been the centerpiece of stories for decades therefore disqualifying xer from drawing tarquins ire and isn't directly named as the genderqueer/fluid individual; that authors commentary could be referring to someone else.

Did durkons strong mother figure impact his development to the point that his perceived machismo in times of great stress is merely imitation or has the vanpire soul been misgendered?

Roy is also pretty much the main character, but he was still listed among Tarquin's grievances. Roy, Haley and V were all getting a lot of focus at this point - Roy as, well, the leader, Haley for the deal with her father and her related issues (that Tarquin promptly attempted to subsume into his and Elan's story, I just realized), and V for the Familicide and deal with the IFCC.

[Ruck]

What's interesting to note is that as androgynous elves have been the centerpiece of stories for decades therefore disqualifying xer from drawing tarquins ire and isn't directly named as the genderqueer/fluid individual; that authors commentary could be referring to someone else.
I find your logic and your conclusion dubious.

[Ward.]

Roy is also pretty much the main character, but he was still listed among Tarquin's grievances. Roy, Haley and V were all getting a lot of focus at this point - Roy as, well, the leader, Haley for the deal with her father and her related issues (that Tarquin promptly attempted to subsume into his and Elan's story, I just realized), and V for the Familicide and deal with the IFCC.

Yeah I left a sentence out of my original post while trying to cover bases.
V as a character in no way intrudes upon tarquins narrative, as andro elves are a fantasy staple.

Also haleys issues had a great deal to do with the big T, as he was the one imprisoning her father who had been a collosal pain in his ass.

[Ward.]

I find your logic and your conclusion dubious.

The commentary says that it's no coincidence an old, rich straight white male is losing his mind over the narrative not being focused on another stright white male at the expense of x, y and z.
V, all androgynous elves like him and their shenanigans have been present for decades and as a result isn't something that would ruffle an old guard like tarquin.

Edit: also not being able to identify someones gender does not automatically make them genderqueer or fluid.

[Keltest]

The commentary says that it's no coincidence an old, rich straight white male is losing his mind over the narrative not being focused on another stright white male at the expense of x, y and z.
V, all androgynous elves like him and their shenanigans have been present for decades and as a result isn't something that would ruffle an old guard like tarquin.

Edit: also not being able to identify someones gender does not automatically make them genderqueer or fluid.

While you may be technically correct, I find it far more likely that Rich was talking about V rather than subtly preparing us for the reveal that some other member of the Order (say, Belkar) is actually genderqueer, though that would itself possibly be an interesting development.

[Professor Gnoll]

It just seems like pretty normal Tumblr discussion to me. V doesn't appear to actually know what gender is, judging by of a few of their comments. Tarquin can be villainous without pointing out that he's straight white male- that's really quite far down on his list of crimes, especially given that the dominant race of the area is actually lizard people, who would not typically be considered 'white'.

[KorvinStarmast]

The commentary says that it's no coincidence an old, rich straight white male is losing his mind over the narrative not being focused on another stright white male at the expense of x, y and z.
V, all androgynous elves like him and their shenanigans have been present for decades and as a result isn't something that would ruffle an old guard like tarquin. Your stereotyping and bigotry regarding straight white males is noted. I guess they all look alike to you.

Tarquin's role and personality type is a bit deeper than the shallow bigotry you present in your post. (Rich has presented a self centered jerkoff beautifully, IMO).

[Razade]

Your stereotyping and bigotry regarding straight white males is noted. I guess they all look alike to you.

Tarquin's role and personality type is a bit deeper than the shallow bigotry you present in your post. (Rich has presented a self centered jerkoff beautifully, IMO).

Except Ward. is quoting what Rich said in the commentary in Blood Runs in the Family. He refers to Tarquin as a rich, straight, white male.

[Keltest]

Your stereotyping and bigotry regarding straight white males is noted. I guess they all look alike to you.

Tarquin's role and personality type is a bit deeper than the shallow bigotry you present in your post. (Rich has presented a self centered jerkoff beautifully, IMO).

Not that I necessarily agree with Ward, but Rich is the one who called out Tarquin's race, sex and age as being important. Personally I didn't see them as being remotely relevant, especially given that they were decided well before the OOTS even had a plot. Ward pretty definitely seems to be focusing more on Tarquin's obsession with stories than his biological characteristics, and he isn't wrong when he says that V's role in the story is fairly traditional for characters like him.

[jere7my]

Your stereotyping and bigotry regarding straight white males is noted. I guess they all look alike to you.

Tarquin's role and personality type is a bit deeper than the shallow bigotry you present in your post. (Rich has presented a self centered jerkoff beautifully, IMO).

Speaking as a straight white male, I can say it is not controversial to point out that the people losing their boogers about increased representation in stories tend to be straight white males (who also happen to have by far the most representation in western media). I can do a statistical sample of the Facebook threads that erupted after J.J. Abrams suggested there might be gay characters in future Star Wars movies, but I don't think I need to.

Choosing to make it a straight white male who loses his boogers when a diverse group of heroes intrudes on "his" story only shows that Rich (another straight white male) has been paying attention.

[Wackd]

Frankly, I'd also seen Tarquin's gender and skin tone as irrelevant, but largely because OOTS up to that point simply hadn't overtly made statements about identity politics--beyond, of course, making its characters more diverse than most fantasy stories. That said, I'm glad Burlew brought it up, as it makes a ton of sense and adds a new layer to proceedings.

Also, as a white dude*, I can say that yes, generally speaking, the folks most likely to get mad about diversity look like me. And while androgynous elves have been around for a long-ass time, genderqueer elves haven't, so. Take it from an asexual in the Doctor Who fandom, folks love it when queerness is some made-up blanket fantasy wackiness but hate it when it becomes an actual identity for real individuals.

* UPDATE 2019-09-17: My views on my gender, as well as my views as whether Ashkenazi Jews are white, have changed fairly dramatically over the past three years. Doubt anyone's gonna drag this up but I was going through my post history and felt it was worth addressing.

[Ruck]

The commentary says that it's no coincidence an old, rich straight white male is losing his mind over the narrative not being focused on another stright white male at the expense of x, y and z.
V, all androgynous elves like him and their shenanigans have been present for decades and as a result isn't something that would ruffle an old guard like tarquin.

Edit: also not being able to identify someones gender does not automatically make them genderqueer or fluid.
Yes, the fact that you repeated the bolded does not make it any less dubious.

Edit: I suppose I should explain myself. Since Tarquin IS, plainly, freaking out, and it's ALSO clear Rich is referring to Vaarsuvius, your logic is essentially saying "Nuh-uh, the author isn't talking about who he's talking about."

In other words, you can say it wouldn't "ruffle an old guard like Tarquin" all you want... and yet, there Tarquin is, ruffled.

[Mastikator]

Yes, the fact that you repeated the bolded does not make it any less dubious.

Edit: I suppose I should explain myself. Since Tarquin IS, plainly, freaking out, and it's ALSO clear Rich is referring to Vaarsuvius, your logic is essentially saying "Nuh-uh, the author isn't talking about who he's talking about."

In other words, you can say it wouldn't "ruffle an old guard like Tarquin" all you want... and yet, there Tarquin is, ruffled.

Is there any evidence that Tarquin is annoyed at V in particular and that this alleged annoyance is about Vs ambiguous gender? Because I haven't seen it.

[jere7my]

Is there any evidence that Tarquin is annoyed at V in particular and that this alleged annoyance is about Vs ambiguous gender? Because I haven't seen it.

Apart from the word of the author? Not really.

[Ward.]

Yes, the fact that you repeated the bolded does not make it any less dubious.

Edit: I suppose I should explain myself. Since Tarquin IS, plainly, freaking out, and it's ALSO clear Rich is referring to Vaarsuvius, your logic is essentially saying "Nuh-uh, the author isn't talking about who he's talking about."

In other words, you can say it wouldn't "ruffle an old guard like Tarquin" all you want... and yet, there Tarquin is, ruffled.

I'll explain myself, I'm taking the discussion beyond it's original borders.

It's only ironclad to you because you think androgynous is synonymous with genderqueer. Ditto for not conforming to traditional gender roles, what ever they may be for elves in the oots-verse.
What makes this topic of conversation possible is riches use of four descriptors in regards to a group of seven.

Maybe the belkster was the genderqueer individual, his memories of exclusion when ever the other halflings would pair off seem consistent enough and issues regarding gender identity are common amongst serial killers, aka buffalo bill who also skinned people to make "hats".

[jere7my]

I'll explain myself, I'm taking the discussion beyond it's original borders.

It's only ironclad to you because you think androgynous is synonymous with genderqueer. Ditto for not conforming to traditional gender roles, what ever they may be for elves in the oots-verse.
What makes this topic of conversation possible is riches use of four descriptors in regards to a group of seven.

I disagree that this topic of conversation is possible.

Rich is trying to communicate with his readers in his commentaries. That means he's putting words together in sentences that make sense to an audience. If he says someone in the party is genderqueer, without specifying who, it means he expects his readers to know who it is. He's not presenting us with a puzzle. He's talking about the character who's spawned eight thousand debates about their gender identity, who's textually been playing with gender issues since strip #0006 or so, not one of the other characters whose genders have never been in the least ambiguous.

Am I really using my valuable time on earth explaining this? Apparently.


Maybe the belkster was the genderqueer individual, his memories of exclusion when ever the other halflings would pair off seem consistent enough and issues regarding gender identity are common amongst serial killers, aka buffalo bill who also skinned people to make "hats".

Aaaand we're done.

[Ward.]

Am I really using my valuable time on earth explaining this? Apparently.

M8, we both know your times not all that valuable.
Now if you meant limited, then I'd understand.

The topic of conversation is possible because rich used a term which is not synonymous with v.
If you don't enjoy easter egg hunting and can't debunk an easter egg hunt with anything other than insistence upon your word as law then this might not be the right place for you.

[jere7my]

M8, we both know your times not all that valuable.
Now if you meant limited, then I'd understand.

"M8." How surprising. 4chan slang.


The topic of conversation is possible because rich used a term which is not synonymous with v.
If you don't enjoy easter egg hunting and can't debunk an easter egg hunt with anything other than insistence upon your word as law then this might not be the right place for you.

Grownups attempting to communicate plainly do not generally hide Easter eggs in their speech. It is a waste of time and precious electrons to look for them.

Unless you'd care to back away from your claim that genderqueerness is linked to serial killing, that's the last response you're getting from this M8.

[alaalba_123]

The overt hostility in this thread is disconcerting. Can we at least try to be civil, people?

That being said, I do think it's pretty obvious Rich was referring to V when he said "genderqueer," and I'd think that's largely because V doesn't seem to care one way or the other about their gender identity. That could be described by any number of terms in the genderqueer umbrella, but probably not genderfluid.

As for the specifically calling out Tarquin as a straight, white male, well, I'd prefer if I didn't see so much hate against straight white males on the internet and in the LGBT community, considering I spend most of my time passing as one even though the only one of those I actually identify as is white.
Seriously, I've dealt with less hate from straight white males over my pansexuality (which I'm very open about should sexual topics come up,) and genderfluidity, (presented by wearing women's clothing) than I have from other LGBT individuals who incorrectly assumed I was a straight white male.

[SaintRidley]

Furthermore, there's only one character Rich does not use a definitively gender-exclusive pronoun for: V. V is always referred to as Vaarsuvius, V, or he/she (in the nominative, him/her in the dative/accusative, and his/her in the genitive) in the commentary to BRitF. Every other character, including Belkar (who is been quite assertive about his masculine identity in the past), has no ambiguity in the commentary. Reading the commentary as saying some character other than V is genderqueer is an act of futility that will only succeed when the reader ignores the words on the page in favor of their own flights of fancy.

[Mastikator]

M8, we both know your times not all that valuable.
Now if you meant limited, then I'd understand.

The topic of conversation is possible because rich used a term which is not synonymous with v.
If you don't enjoy easter egg hunting and can't debunk an easter egg hunt with anything other than insistence upon your word as law then this might not be the right place for you.

Genderqueer means that a person does not subscribe to gender conventions and identifies are either neither or both. That's Vaarsuvius. The only other person that might be considered genderqueer is V's spouse, another elf.

[jere7my]

As for the specifically calling out Tarquin as a straight, white male, well, I'd prefer if I didn't see so much hate against straight white males on the internet and in the LGBT community, considering I spend most of my time passing as one even though the only one of those I actually identify as is white.

I haven't seen any hate directed against SWMs generally in this thread, nor in Rich's commentary. Pointing out that the bulk of the people who complain when diversity invades "their" stories are straight white men isn't a matter of hate; it's a matter of observation. Making a character who complains about a diverse group of characters taking over "their" story a SWM isn't a matter of hate; it's a matter of social commentary. Noticing a social phenomenon and using it in fiction is 100% legitimate; no hate needed.

What I have seen is someone directly linking being genderqueer to being a serial killer, which has zero basis in fact and seems a lot more hateful than anything straight white men like me have had to suffer here. I apologize for the hostility, but that ticks me right off.

[Ward.]

Grownups attempting to communicate plainly do not generally hide Easter eggs in their speech. It is a waste of time and precious electrons to look for them.

Unless you'd care to back away from your claim that genderqueerness is linked to serial killing, that's the last response you're getting from this M8.
You have me at a cross roads here, I want to correct you on how grownups hide the dissemination of easter eggs and point out that I made no such claim, Merely pointed out that problems with gender identity and serial killers are commonly linked. Such as the overly assertive machismo that belkar displays and his hate boner.
Yet at the same time I don't particularly value you as a human being or partner in conversation, since nothing you've stated has gone further than "it's not because I said so".


Genderqueer means that a person does not subscribe to gender conventions and identifies are either neither or both. That's Vaarsuvius. The only other person that might be considered genderqueer is V's spouse, another elf.

V is androgynous, as in vs gender is not readily identifiable to those around him, this has no impact on how her relationship with her own gender is. Eschewing traditional gender roles does not make V less of a man or more of a woman and vice versa.
Edit: to really drive this home, just because you can't tell what someones gender is does not make it okay assume they're genderqueer.


Reading the commentary as saying some character other than V is genderqueer is an act of futility that will only succeed when the reader ignores the words on the page in favor of their own flights of fancy.
The words on the page are flights of fancy, discussion based on extrapolation is never an act of futility unless a variable makes discussion impossible.

[Mastikator]

Genderqueer (GQ), also termed non-binary or gender-expansive, is a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine—identities which are thus outside of the gender binary and cisnormativity.
V is androgynous, as in vs gender is not readily identifiable to those around him, this has no impact on how her relationship with her own gender is. Eschewing traditional gender roles does not make V less of a man or more of a woman and vice versa.
Edit: to really drive this home, just because you can't tell what someones gender is does not make it okay assume they're genderqueer.

Eschewing traditional gender roles is exactly what makes V genderqueer. Being genderqueer does not make V less of a man or of a woman, unless you only count the traditional gender roles as being masculine or feminine, in which case V is a little of both.

And it's perfectly fine to make assumptions of people based of how they choose to present themselves.

[Murk]

The problem I see with this discussion is that there's thousands of unknowns, and one known.

We don't know Vaarsuvius' anatomy. We've never heard Vaarsuvius talk about her own gender identity. We've never heard Vaarsuvius talk about gender conventions. We've never heard anything about the elves' gender, sex or anatomy. Heck, for all we know, elves only have one gender, are all hermaphroditic, or they have sixteen genders - for all we know from the comic, Lirian was the genderqueer one by identifying as female while all normal elves have at least three genders they use interchangeably.
There's so many things we don't know here.

One thing we do know: the Giant, as author, has stated Vaarsuvius is genderqueer.



I'm all for speculation and hypothesising. I don't think we have to be polite towards the feelings of fictional characters. I really enjoy farfetched theories. But searching for dubious prove to contradict the author - in this case, with so many unknowns - seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Themrys]

Eschewing traditional gender roles is exactly what makes V genderqueer. Being genderqueer does not make V less of a man or of a woman, unless you only count the traditional gender roles as being masculine or feminine, in which case V is a little of both.

And it's perfectly fine to make assumptions of people based of how they choose to present themselves.

Not all people who eschew traditional gender roles want to be called "genderqueer". They might just be radical feminists, who do not believe in gender. Like, gender-atheists.

To me, Vaarsuvius reads like a gender atheist. Remember, back when Roy changed into a woman - V didn't even recognize that the mop on Roy's head was meant to look like long hair, a feminine gender marker, while the disguise fooled a number of other people.

It is my headcanon that the elven tribe V hails from doesn't have genders. And to be genderqueer or genderfluid, or gender-anything, one has to have a concept of what gender even is. V's motherparenttongue doesn't even know gender in the original meaning of the word; in language.

[Mastikator]

A spade might not like to be called a spade. But calling a spade a spade does not make you a bad person, or rude or malicious or wrong or even insensitive.

And the fact is that V was called genderqueer by the giant and fits the definition of what genderqueer is.

[Psyren]

What's interesting to note is that as androgynous elves have been the centerpiece of stories for decades therefore disqualifying xer from drawing tarquins ire and isn't directly named as the genderqueer/fluid individual; that authors commentary could be referring to someone else.

It certainly could be - but the "Latino guest star" is almost certainly Julio Scoundrel, and the specific appellation of "guest star" only to him implies therefore that the previous three descriptions belong to non-guest-stars, i.e. main characters. As all the other main characters in the Order identify as cisgendered (Belkar emphatically so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0140.html)), that leaves V.

[Ruck]

I'll explain myself, I'm taking the discussion beyond it's original borders.

It's only ironclad to you because you think androgynous is synonymous with genderqueer. Ditto for not conforming to traditional gender roles, what ever they may be for elves in the oots-verse.
What makes this topic of conversation possible is riches use of four descriptors in regards to a group of seven.

Maybe the belkster was the genderqueer individual, his memories of exclusion when ever the other halflings would pair off seem consistent enough and issues regarding gender identity are common amongst serial killers, aka buffalo bill who also skinned people to make "hats".

No, it's ironclad to me because it's obvious who Rich is talking about, and your logic seems like you've decided to come to a different conclusion and then bent the evidence to fit it.

Your last paragraph is just something else altogether.

[Themrys]

It certainly could be - but the "Latino guest star" is almost certainly Julio Scoundrel, and the specific appellation of "guest star" only to him implies therefore that the previous three descriptions belong to non-guest-stars, i.e. main characters. As all the other main characters in the Order identify as cisgendered (Belkar emphatically so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0140.html)), that leaves V.

I am pretty sure V is "cisgendered", if by "cisgendered" you mean "comfortable with the biological sex of hir body".

If by "cisgendered" you mean: "Happy with the gender role others force on hir", then V is not cisgendered when spending time with a drunk Belkar, but totally cisgendered in Belkar's absence, which would be rather confusing, and also mean that most women in the real world are not cisgendered by your definition, which I doubt is what you mean to say.


@Ruck: The Giant only said that Tarquin perceives V to be the genderqueer person. That does not have to mean that V is genderqueer. I doubt Julio considers himself Latino, especially as Latin America does not exist in this comic ...

[Markozeta]

Thanks, all! I appreciate the help.

Shouldn't this have been the last post in this thread?

[Ruck]

@Ruck: The Giant only said that Tarquin perceives V to be the genderqueer person.
I don't have my copy of BRitF handy, but I don't recall the phrase "what he perceives to be" to appear in the relevant quote.

edit: Let me clarify myself. I don't believe Rich is telling us that Tarquin has a specific prejudice against genderqueer elves; I believe that Tarquin is freaking out because the story isn't going the way he thinks it should, and Rich is saying part of that freakout is that the main characters of the story aren't people who look like him. And then Rich goes to identify those main characters.

I find the argument that Rich is not deliberately and accurately identifying Vaarsuvius to, frankly, be rooted in the hope that there is a puzzle to solve regarding the identity of a different genderqueer elf in the comic. And I believe "Tarquin wouldn't freak out over [people who aren't like him taking the lead in a story]" is an even worse argument, given that we plainly see him freaking out over that.

[Psyren]

I am pretty sure V is "cisgendered", if by "cisgendered" you mean "comfortable with the biological sex of hir body".

I don't - by cisgender I simply mean "not transgender" i.e. "does not self-identify as falling somewhere on the trans spectrum" - which genderqueer does, and which I take to be V's identification until proven otherwise since it came from Voice of Author. Being trans doesn't mean you have to be more or less comfortable with your identity (biological or otherwise) than being cis; you don't have to be uncomfortable to be trans. You can in fact be perfectly happy with your expression, or even how others perceive that expression (whatsoever that may be), even if different people perceive said expression differently. For example, V himself/themself has displayed no objection or preference toward pronouns of any kind.

[Razade]

Not all people who eschew traditional gender roles want to be called "genderqueer". They might just be radical feminists, who do not believe in gender. Like, gender-atheists.

To me, Vaarsuvius reads like a gender atheist. Remember, back when Roy changed into a woman - V didn't even recognize that the mop on Roy's head was meant to look like long hair, a feminine gender marker, while the disguise fooled a number of other people.

It is my headcanon that the elven tribe V hails from doesn't have genders. And to be genderqueer or genderfluid, or gender-anything, one has to have a concept of what gender even is. V's motherparenttongue doesn't even know gender in the original meaning of the word; in language.

Gender atheist makes no sense as a term. Agender perhaps but Gender Atheist? Really doesn't comport.

[Keltest]

Gender atheist makes no sense as a term. Agender perhaps but Gender Atheist? Really doesn't comport.

Did you understand what was meant?

[Mastikator]

Did you understand what was meant?

Somebody who does not believe that gods have genders?

[Themrys]

Somebody who does not believe that gods have genders?

Somebody who is of the opinion that gender is a human invention and not an actual thing that exists in the real world.
I would use "agender" but that's already used for people who believe that gender is a real thing but that they don't have one. Which is slightly different.

Atheist simply was the first thing that came to mind, and most people understand that kind of metaphor.

[littlebum2002]

Somebody who is of the opinion that gender is a human invention and not an actual thing that exists in the real world.
I would use "agender" but that's already used for people who believe that gender is a real thing but that they don't have one. Which is slightly different.

Atheist simply was the first thing that came to mind, and most people understand that kind of metaphor.

It's called Gender Nominalism (http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=8601). The idea is, that is, not the person who believes in that idea. I imagine they would be a Gender Nominalist.



Not all people who eschew traditional gender roles want to be called "genderqueer".

That is literally the definition of Genderqueer

gen·der·queer
ˈjendərˌkwi(ə)r/

noun
noun: genderqueer; plural noun: genderqueers; noun: gender-queer; plural noun: gender-queers
1.
a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.
"a younger generation of self-proclaimed genderqueers explicitly reject ‘transgender’ as an identifier"


"Not subscribe" is another way of saying "eschew", so in other words you recited the definition of genderqueer practically word-for-word then said "that's not the definition of genderqueer"

According to the definition of the word genderqueer, V is genderqueer. Whether V is genderqueer because V is agender or because V is a gender nominalist is irrelevant. Whether V self-identifies as genderqueer is irrelevant. V does not subscribe to conventional gender roles; therefore V is genderqueer. Genderqueer is an umbrella term, kinda like how "queer" is sometimes used in non-offensive way to describe anyone in the LGBT community.

If another character in the OOTS was trans or somehow else did not subscribe to traditional gender roles, the commentary would have mentioned two genderqueer characters, but it didn't.

[Legoshrimp]

Somebody who is of the opinion that gender is a human invention and not an actual thing that exists in the real world.


Just like cars right?

Being a human invention doesn't mean it isn't something that exists in the real world. It just means it might not be a very accurate or good way to describe things. Which means it can change. I don't think many people think that gender is an unchanging universal law. Hence why it is expanding to be able to include people who didn't fit into it before.

Also it seems like that definition doesn't actually have much to do with what gender someone is. Thinking gender is a human invention doesn't mean you aren't part of it. I think names are a human invention and I still have a name.

By your definition I would guess most of us are gender atheists. At least if we ignore the implication that human inventions aren't real.

Also you seem to think that a human invention can't also be a real thing. At least you don't think social constructs are real things.

[Studoku]

Gender atheist makes no sense as a term. Agender perhaps but Gender Atheist? Really doesn't comport.
Gender agnostic maybe?

[martianmister]

How about Gender Deist?

[littlebum2002]

How about Gender Deist?

You believe gender exists, but that it doesn't actually affect our lives?

[martianmister]

You believe gender exists, but that it doesn't actually affect our lives?

Exactly. :smallbiggrin:

[Mx56]

Gender ignosticism seems like a term whose time has come ;)


That is literally the definition of Genderqueer

gen·der·queer
ˈjendərˌkwi(ə)r/

noun
noun: genderqueer; plural noun: genderqueers; noun: gender-queer; plural noun: gender-queers
1.
a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.
"a younger generation of self-proclaimed genderqueers explicitly reject ‘transgender’ as an identifier"


"Not subscribe" is another way of saying "eschew", so in other words you recited the definition of genderqueer practically word-for-word then said "that's not the definition of genderqueer"

According to the definition of the word genderqueer, V is genderqueer. Whether V is genderqueer because V is agender or because V is a gender nominalist is irrelevant. Whether V self-identifies as genderqueer is irrelevant. V does not subscribe to conventional gender roles; therefore V is genderqueer. Genderqueer is an umbrella term, kinda like how "queer" is sometimes used in non-offensive way to describe anyone in the LGBT community.
The definition you cite refers to *distinctions* not *roles*. Somebody can reject traditional gender roles while still strongly identifying as one gender or the other (and indeed many people do).


If another character in the OOTS was trans or somehow else did not subscribe to traditional gender roles, the commentary would have mentioned two genderqueer characters, but it didn't.
Not all trans people are genderqueer. In fact, I'd guess that most aren't, since in my (strictly anecdotal) experience most trans people identify as either female or male.

[jere7my]

How about Gender Deist?

Can I be a Gender Lutheran?

[Mister Loorg]

Can I be a Gender Lutheran?

Come on, man, if you're going to be Gender Christian, go with Gender Catholic. It's the original non-binary Christian gender religion!

[jere7my]

Come on, man, if you're going to be Gender Christian, go with Gender Catholic. It's the original non-binary Christian gender religion!

No, I have a lot of complaints about the genderpope's sale of gender indulgences that I want to nail to their door.

[Oakianus]

It's quite obvious that Rich was referring to the flumphs, who identify as a single genderqueer individual.

...I mean, at least nothing in the text straight up contradicts it, so it's slightly better than the Belkar theory. :P

I just want to chip in as a straight white male myself and chime in with those who are of the opinion that there's nothing bashing straight white males in pointing out that some straight white males lose their mind at the idea of greater inclusiveness in stories. That's not the entire point of the storyline by any stretch of the imagination, but it's still an important part of the discussion and part of what makes OotS one of the greatest stories currently running, frankly. It's an important and relevant look at aspects of our culture that deserve a lot more focus than they've gotten.

[Themrys]

Gender ignosticism seems like a term whose time has come ;)


The definition you cite refers to *distinctions* not *roles*. Somebody can reject traditional gender roles while still strongly identifying as one gender or the other (and indeed many people do).


Not all trans people are genderqueer. In fact, I'd guess that most aren't, since in my (strictly anecdotal) experience most trans people identify as either female or male.

What would one base one's gender identity on, if not traditional gender roles? What does gender consist of, if not gender roles and grammar?

[littlebum2002]

The definition you cite refers to *distinctions* not *roles*. Somebody can reject traditional gender roles while still strongly identifying as one gender or the other (and indeed many people do).


Not all trans people are genderqueer. In fact, I'd guess that most aren't, since in my (strictly anecdotal) experience most trans people identify as either female or male.


After seeing all the head-butting on this thread, I have done a little research, and apparently (surprise) there are multiple definitions of the word genderqueer.

The definition I am familiar with is "anyone who is not cisgender". However, it seems that it can also be used to mean "anyone who does not identify with a strictly male or female gender, regardless of their Sex Assigned at Birth".

The funny thing is though, "people who don't believe in gender roles" would fall under the term no matter which definition you use, so I still fail to see a definition of Genderqueer in which V would not be identified as such. Maybe there's a 3rd definition out there that Themrys is using.

[Mx56]

What would one base one's gender identity on, if not traditional gender roles?
I'm simply stating a fact. Plenty of people don't accept traditional gender roles but still identify as either male or female.


What does gender consist of, if not gender roles and grammar?
You tell me. I'm at most 90% joking about being a gender ignostic.

[Mx56]

After seeing all the head-butting on this thread, I have done a little research, and apparently (surprise) there are multiple definitions of the word genderqueer.

The definition I am familiar with is "anyone who is not cisgender". However, it seems that it can also be used to mean "anyone who does not identify with a strictly male or female gender, regardless of their Sex Assigned at Birth".
To be honest, I've never heard the term used in the former sense (familiar with queer as an umbrella term for anybody who is either not cisgender or not heterosexual, but that's not quite the same thing), but fair enough that does explain some of the cross purposes being talked at.


The funny thing is though, "people who don't believe in gender roles" would fall under the term no matter which definition you use
I'm not so sure about that. I don't want to stray into discussing real world politics on here because thems the rules, but somebody might reject gender roles as being socially harmful while still not themselves being cisgender (identifying with the binary gender assigned to them at birth), they "don't believe in gender roles" in the sense that they don't like them and don't seek to adhere to them, but they still have a binary gender and are not genderqueer in the sense that I would use it and are cis so not genderqueer in the sense that you would use it.

[DaggerPen]

What would one base one's gender identity on, if not traditional gender roles? What does gender consist of, if not gender roles and grammar?

That's a good question, isn't it?

I'm a cis queer woman. I feel very comfortable in my identity as female, and can feel a little uncomfortable when perceived otherwise, something that happens surprisingly often based on my... less than endowed frame, short hair and tendency to prefer multiple layers of loose androgynous clothing because that's way comfier than the paper thin really tight shirts that plague women's clothing.

At the same time, I definitely do not remotely conform to my own culture's conception of female gender roles. I like computers, science and comics. I can't cook to save my life. I despise clothes and shoe shopping and only barely tolerate shopping if it gets me books or games/game paraphernalia. I have short hair. Oh yeah, and I am sexually and romantically attracted to other women (as well as to men and nonbinary folks.) So where does my identification as a woman come from?

Gender roles, certainly, vary wildly by time and culture. And yet, though a lot of original traditions have been sadly destroyed by colonialism, making it hard to be sure, it seems like most cultures at least have had some conception of gender. The fact that it's typically associated with genitalia implies that whatever gender is, there is some correlation between gonads, sex chromosomes, and gender.

The existence of trans people and the fact that many cultures have had some form of third gender (and not necessarily ones associated with being intersex, though the construction of sex as a binary thing is in and of itself an interesting topic) implies that, while related, gender is not wholly reducible to physical sex.

The existence of sexual and romantic orientations by gender, and the history of third genders as including attraction to particular genders, indicates some tie between orientation and gender as a concept, and yet the current framework of orientations in which we can distinguish gender identity, sexual orientation and romantic orientation indicates that they are not innately the same thing.

Gender roles are culture dependent. The particular configuration of gender categories is something that does vary by culture but that does have some commonalities between them. It's related to sex, sexual orientation and romantic orientation, but is not wholly synonymous.

So what exactly is gender? Probably, it's the lens through which different cultures categorize broad variations in gonads, hormone levels (probably prenatal), various body feelings, and roles that people within those categories may fall into due to broad cultural trends. Will it stay the same over time, even within cultures? Probably not! Will we ever be entirely rid of it? I doubt it.

Basically - gender: heck if we know what it means, but we know it when we feel it.

[littlebum2002]

I'm simply stating a fact. Plenty of people don't accept traditional gender roles but still identify as either male or female.


Eddie Izzard, for example



I'm not so sure about that. I don't want to stray into discussing real world politics on here because thems the rules, but somebody might reject gender roles as being socially harmful while still not themselves being cisgender (identifying with the binary gender assigned to them at birth), they "don't believe in gender roles" in the sense that they don't like them and don't seek to adhere to them, but they still have a binary gender and are not genderqueer in the sense that I would use it and are cis so not genderqueer in the sense that you would use it.

That makes sense, not everyone who believes in Gender Nominalism is genderqueer. I'll rephrase my statement:

"I can't think of any definition of genderqueer which would not include Vaarsuvius"

[Mx56]

That makes sense, not everyone who believes in Gender Nominalism is genderqueer. I'll rephrase my statement:

"I can't think of any definition of genderqueer which would not include Vaarsuvius"
I think we can agree on that, aye :)

And quibbling over terminology aside, I appreciate the fact that Rich included a non-binary character in his story, given how rare that is in fiction, and a non-binary character whose story and character traits don't centre around their gender at that, which is rare as rocking horse dung.

[Themrys]

And quibbling over terminology aside, I appreciate the fact that Rich included a non-binary character in his story, given how rare that is in fiction, and a non-binary character whose story and character traits don't centre around their gender at that, which is rare as rocking horse dung.

I don't think it's that rare. It's just that most fictional characters who don't identify as masculine or feminine gendered are easily identifiable as belonging to the female or male sex, and it is just assumed that they are therefore identifying with the gender role commonly assigned to their sex, even if they never say so.

According to the definition of "doesn't identify as any gender in particular" probably lots and lots of fictional characters are "genderqueer" without people even noticing.

As for characters explicitly stated to be genderqueer ...

Without even looking something up, the webcomic Blindsprings has a genderqueer character that is explicitly described as such, and the novel Ancilliary Justice has a protagonist who comes from a culture that has no gendered language, and no concept of gender, making the main protagonist and a lot of side characters about as non-binary as Vaarsuvius.

And let's not forget that Pratchett's dwarves discovered femininity only very recently. Which might mean that they also fall under the umbrella term of "genderqueer". (If there is no feminine gender, does that not make the masculine gender a non-binary one, then?)


I could mention more, but I don't want to derail this into a book recommendations thread. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

After seeing all the head-butting on this thread, I have done a little research, and apparently (surprise) there are multiple definitions of the word genderqueer.

The definition I am familiar with is "anyone who is not cisgender". However, it seems that it can also be used to mean "anyone who does not identify with a strictly male or female gender, regardless of their Sex Assigned at Birth".

The funny thing is though, "people who don't believe in gender roles" would fall under the term no matter which definition you use, so I still fail to see a definition of Genderqueer in which V would not be identified as such. Maybe there's a 3rd definition out there that Themrys is using.

All of this, and also - while I personally was using the first definition you have here - the second one is important too, specifically the clause "does not identify," which can have multiple meanings itself. It can mean that the person disagrees with/actively opposes any attempts to label them, or it can mean that they are simply apathetic and don't care about/oppose the perceptions and pronouns of others (except when those others press the issue or express frustration at being unable to fit them into a neat box.) Vaarsuvius is clearly the latter of those two, even to the point of explicitly telling Roy to write whatever he feels like writing into the gender box on V's application form because it matters so little.

[dps]

Yes, the fact that you repeated the bolded does not make it any less dubious.

Edit: I suppose I should explain myself. Since Tarquin IS, plainly, freaking out, and it's ALSO clear Rich is referring to Vaarsuvius, your logic is essentially saying "Nuh-uh, the author isn't talking about who he's talking about."

In other words, you can say it wouldn't "ruffle an old guard like Tarquin" all you want... and yet, there Tarquin is, ruffled.

But the Giant didn't say that Tarquin was freaking out over V being, genderqueer or whatever V is, he's freaking out over the other straight white male not being the focus of the narrative. Quite a different thing. There's not any evidence that Tarquin has any particular problem or animus towards non-straight people--see his reaction to Roy and Belkar pretending to be gay.

[Mastikator]

I don't think it's that rare. It's just that most fictional characters who don't identify as masculine or feminine gendered are easily identifiable as belonging to the female or male sex, and it is just assumed that they are therefore identifying with the gender role commonly assigned to their sex, even if they never say so.

According to the definition of "doesn't identify as any gender in particular" probably lots and lots of fictional characters are "genderqueer" without people even noticing.

As for characters explicitly stated to be genderqueer ...

Without even looking something up, the webcomic Blindsprings has a genderqueer character that is explicitly described as such, and the novel Ancilliary Justice has a protagonist who comes from a culture that has no gendered language, and no concept of gender, making the main protagonist and a lot of side characters about as non-binary as Vaarsuvius.

And let's not forget that Pratchett's dwarves discovered femininity only very recently. Which might mean that they also fall under the umbrella term of "genderqueer". (If there is no feminine gender, does that not make the masculine gender a non-binary one, then?)


I could mention more, but I don't want to derail this into a book recommendations thread. :smallwink:
Considering that fraction of any population of people who identify as nonbinary is less than 1/1000 one could argue that genderqueer characters are as overrepresented as white people.

[Fey]

Considering that fraction of any population of people who identify as nonbinary is less than 1/1000 one could argue that genderqueer characters are as overrepresented as white people.

As a genderqueer person, I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree with your analysis.

I identify as two-spirit (a person with both a male and female identity coexisting at the same time), and I am in a relationship with someone who identifies as nonbinary and genderfluid (her presentation and self-identification are constantly in flux, making it impossible for her to fit into a single label).

I've researched a number of gender-related topics before, and I think it can be important to use actual statistics instead of guesstimates.

This paper (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09540261.2015.1106446) quotes several gender-based population studies. One that says "4.6% of people assigned male at birth and 3.2% of people assigned female at birth reported an ‘ambivalent gender identity’ (defined as equal identification with the other sex as with the sex assigned to them at birth) and 1.1% of people assigned male at birth and 0.8% of people assigned female at birth reported an ‘incongruent gender identity’ (defined as stronger identification with the other sex as with the sex assigned to them at birth)." Another that says "the prevalence of ‘gender ambivalence’ or non-binary gender was 1.8% in natal men and 4.1% in natal women."

And when it comes to "wider gender experience and expression, rather than specific identities," they found that "35% felt that they were to some extent the ‘other’ gender, ‘both’ genders, and/or neither gender."

Then there's this study (http://practicalandrogyny.com/2014/12/16/how-many-people-in-the-uk-are-nonbinary/), which states "Reliable figures show that at least 0.4% of the UK population defines as nonbinary when given a 3-way choice in terms of female, male or another description. That’s about 1 in every 250 people."

Furthermore, your claim that nonbinary people are "over represented" would require an analysis of the percentage of characters (whether in OotS or other media) who are represented as nonbinary. To the best of my knowledge (and please correct me if you have better information), Vaarsuvius is the only character in OotS who has an uncertain gender identity, and even that is ambiguous...I would argue that V doesn't even count as "nonbinary representation" because their presentation in the comic has always been deliberately vague and ambiguous, which is not the same as being nonbinary. But even assuming you take the Giant's word as a clear definition rather than as a general comment, V would still not consist of "over representation" since there are hundreds of binary characters in the comic. If we use the 1 in 250 statistic I posted above (which is the smallest figure; based on the other study, it could be more than that), there would need to be at least 1 nonbinary OotS character per every 250 total characters in the comic. The "Number of Character Appearances (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276152-Number-of-Character-Appearances-V)" thread lists well over that number of characters.

[Mastikator]

Vaarsuvius is not the only genderqueer character in the comic. Vaarsuvius has a spouse who is also genderqueer.

The list you gave had 65 nonminor characters and 112 minor characters. A grand total of 177 characters, of which 2 are genderqueer.

[Porthos]

Since most works of fiction don't have hundreds of characters of any real importance arguing statistics is a GREAT way of turning under-repesented folks into never-represented folks.

Just sayin'.

[Ruck]

But the Giant didn't say that Tarquin was freaking out over V being, genderqueer or whatever V is, he's freaking out over the other straight white male not being the focus of the narrative. Quite a different thing. There's not any evidence that Tarquin has any particular problem or animus towards non-straight people--see his reaction to Roy and Belkar pretending to be gay.

OK? I think you are taking this post out of context, and should read my other posts on this subject.

[Vinyadan]

Just like cars right?

Being a human invention doesn't mean it isn't something that exists in the real world. It just means it might not be a very accurate or good way to describe things. Which means it can change. I don't think many people think that gender is an unchanging universal law. Hence why it is expanding to be able to include people who didn't fit into it before.

Also it seems like that definition doesn't actually have much to do with what gender someone is. Thinking gender is a human invention doesn't mean you aren't part of it. I think names are a human invention and I still have a name.

By your definition I would guess most of us are gender atheists. At least if we ignore the implication that human inventions aren't real.

Also you seem to think that a human invention can't also be a real thing. At least you don't think social constructs are real things.

I think it has more to do with humour theory in medicine, by which I don't mean Patch Adams, but the belief in the influence of certain bodily fluids on a man's behaviour (blood, bile, mucus and so on). It is a much better comparison, because cars are physical objects which can be directly studied, while a theory of humours or a theory of genders are attempts to develop a reference system for phenomenons (an abundance of phlegma, the presence of a gender or orientation) which can only be observed through results (behaviour).

Btw, wouldn't "gender skeptic" be a better definition than gender atheist? Gender atheist sounds weirdly like an oblique attack to the intransigence of gender theorists. Gender nominalist would bring us back to the times of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas and the problem of universals.

Vaarsuvius is not the only genderqueer character in the comic. Vaarsuvius has a spouse who is also genderqueer.

Do we know that? Inky could really be anything.

[martianmister]

Vaarsuvius is not the only genderqueer character in the comic. Vaarsuvius has a spouse who is also genderqueer.

Kyrie is obviously a Pansexual. :smalltongue:

[Mastikator]

Kyrie is obviously a Pansexual. :smalltongue:

One does not preclude the other :smallwink: