She was a perfect model for this. She did turn out lovely as she brags. But... She also bears (bares) more than just trace elements of his testosterone. The RaRa pep talk was all guy, taunting the reader about fearing her pussy and the Death Star reference - LOL, yep - still layers of boy therein. Not to mention the spread-legged, laid-back, having-a-beer look in the second shot. A good one. Thanks.
Yeah, this is definitely one where the pictures inspired the text. But... and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you so much as playing devil's advocate - is it 'all guy'? She's still the same person she was before she changed, still has all the same memories. Would living in a world where most women were male until adolescence result in a world where being competitive and knowing about Stars Wars were actually female traits? Is it that she's still a guy deep down... or is it that what we mean by feminine has changed in the light of the Depopulation event? Is this a semantic argument? Is it just a cheap rhetorical tactic to just keep firing out questions without ever stating anything outright? :)
Yes to you last question, but that's what I really like about you. I could answer my point of view to some of your other questions, but we'd first have to nail down a few more params, like is it now, 2017, but re-imagined like you did in the last series, or is it a sci-fi future that demonstrates a possible outcome from where we are in reality today or am I not now asking the questions without answering. I can say this: it is entertaining as is, for me. ~Lake
This cap is (although unlabelled) set in the Depopulation Event Universe. I originally intended The Depopulation Event as a novel or novella, which would explore all the details of this world in a way a cap couldn't. But the idea is that sometime around NOW the female birth rate drops by a factor of ten, and after about 20 years they invent a way to turn guys into fertile women. From there, the problems are more sociological than technological, namely - how do you convince young men to become women? This poster is part of that world, and an attempt to recruit men to become women, and (perhaps) in the longer term, to redefine femininity in a way that is more appealing to potential recruits. Does that make sense?
Hm... realistically you'd probably have to largely kill the female gender role. Or at least make people accept that most women aren't actually women. If they're male socialised and male brained the best you can and should ever try to get out of them is basically guys with vagina, boobs and womb.
That adds another problem though, how do you get heterosexual guys interested in dick? If the result is just more lesbians (or rather heterosexual guys with female genitals) that's not solving anything.
If female hormones made you automatically interested in guy pure lesbians wouldn't be a thing.
So either you've got a way to alter sexuality on top of altering the sex or you'd basically be forced to transform most of the guys into female or shemale bodies simply so they'd have someone they'd be sexually attracted to.
Though that's going to be fun for the biologists. Keep male reproduction organs viable while under bombardement of female hormones, or alternatively make bodies look female under male hormones.
That's an interesting take on things. I guess my point of disagreement with you - and I could be wrong - is that you seem to think that sexual identities are very concrete things. Even though people have been having same sex relationships throughout history 'gay' and 'lesbian' are modern cultural constructs. In (some periods in and some areas of) Ancient Greece, it was basically normal for guys to have sex with their buddies and have a nice wife back at the villa (who were, IIRC, usually busy getting their Sappho on with their pals). Similarly, according to a *fascinating* book called 'Sex at Dawn' people were basically polyamorous for 90% of human history. So I'd argue that 'gay' and 'lesbian' are just boxes we put people into rather than a genetic thing. Culture and context makes a big difference - for example, see 'situational homosexuality'. So, I think if you were to change someone physically, a lot of ex-guys would be... at least willing to experiment with not-ex-guys? A lot would try and adapt to the cultural expectations that come with their new bodies. I could be wrong though. It just feels right to me. Might have to write a cap or two on that though. Hmm...
Well, I'm not convinced it's all that easy. Greek culture was fucked up on many levels, like women being rated slightly above animals, arranged marriages being standard (and those aren't nice for guys either) and I'm not sure how their concept of love between men actually translates into sexual relationships.
I certainly never had the desire to dick my buddies so to speak. Not something I suppressed for social reasons or something. I think that's actually why a lot of guys freak so hard about homosexual relationships. Because it's not actually a "forbidden fruit" for them, but something seriously alien.
No clue if you've got siblings, but my attraction to guys is about the same as to my sister. They don't really register as sexual partners.
Not sure if culture can actually influence that.
I think something else might help though. What transitioned people described is that the sexuality of young transitioners actually changed, but basically stayed the same for older ones. Though that's an annecdote not statistics.
I think it'd be a huge problem for these volunteers though. And something I wouldn't underestimate if you'd really needed to organise something like that.
That's ignoring the problem that you'd have to make many guys who haven't been fantasizing for years about having female bodies comfortable with having female bodies. That'd be the other big issue. There's a good chance you'd induce body disphoria in most of them. Even ignoring the gender expression/expectation issues.
Agreed that (ancient) Greek Culture was 'fucked up on many levels'... but surely it does indicate sexual behaviour is - at least partly - culturally conditioned? You say you have no same sex desire, but can you honestly say with absolute certainty that that wouldn't be different if you grew up in a society with completely different rules and without the constant drumbeat of heteronormativity? I'm not saying you're wrong - it's one the BIG debates in science, nature vs nurture, but I tend to believe that nurture (environment) is slightly more powerful. I know that studies of things like personality traits usually say 30-40% genetic, and I tend to use that as a rule of thumb in these things. I'd not heard that about the young transitioners changing sexual preference - that's really interesting. There's been a few books out recently about 'the adolescent brain' and how much it changes through adolescence, so I can believe that. Your argument about (the first?) volunteers ending up with gender dysphoria is interesting, and a difficult one to argue with. It could be that the treatment programme they receive would help them adapt - rewiring their brain as well. It's something I'd like to address in future DE work...
Honestly, if it was that easy gay conversion therapy would work and transgendered people wouldn't be a thing. While more people may be latently bisexual than we're currently assuming, I'm pretty sure that's not the case for everyone.
In humans it's usually safe to assume some degree of nurture, but I'd be careful assuming such about anything involving the human sex drive. It's easiest affected by evolution and thus nature. Culture can do lots of things, but I wouldn't overestimate it either.
Anyway about rewiring the brain to change the gender... ignoring the moral problems with this I'm not sure if this is even possible at all or at least without the tech level where you can literally upload people into computers.
If you can do that kind of thing you can also use iron-wombs to make children and just make people gay to deal with the lonelyness.
She was a perfect model for this. She did turn out lovely as she brags. But...
ReplyDeleteShe also bears (bares) more than just trace elements of his testosterone. The RaRa pep talk was all guy, taunting the reader about fearing her pussy and the Death Star reference - LOL, yep - still layers of boy therein. Not to mention the spread-legged, laid-back, having-a-beer look in the second shot. A good one. Thanks.
Yeah, this is definitely one where the pictures inspired the text.
ReplyDeleteBut... and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you so much as playing devil's advocate - is it 'all guy'? She's still the same person she was before she changed, still has all the same memories. Would living in a world where most women were male until adolescence result in a world where being competitive and knowing about Stars Wars were actually female traits? Is it that she's still a guy deep down... or is it that what we mean by feminine has changed in the light of the Depopulation event? Is this a semantic argument?
Is it just a cheap rhetorical tactic to just keep firing out questions without ever stating anything outright? :)
Thanks for commenting so deeply on my comments.
DeleteYes to you last question, but that's what I really like about you. I could answer my point of view to some of your other questions, but we'd first have to nail down a few more params, like is it now, 2017, but re-imagined like you did in the last series, or is it a sci-fi future that demonstrates a possible outcome from where we are in reality today or am I not now asking the questions without answering. I can say this: it is entertaining as is, for me.
~Lake
This cap is (although unlabelled) set in the Depopulation Event Universe. I originally intended The Depopulation Event as a novel or novella, which would explore all the details of this world in a way a cap couldn't. But the idea is that sometime around NOW the female birth rate drops by a factor of ten, and after about 20 years they invent a way to turn guys into fertile women. From there, the problems are more sociological than technological, namely - how do you convince young men to become women?
ReplyDeleteThis poster is part of that world, and an attempt to recruit men to become women, and (perhaps) in the longer term, to redefine femininity in a way that is more appealing to potential recruits.
Does that make sense?
Hm... realistically you'd probably have to largely kill the female gender role. Or at least make people accept that most women aren't actually women. If they're male socialised and male brained the best you can and should ever try to get out of them is basically guys with vagina, boobs and womb.
ReplyDeleteThat adds another problem though, how do you get heterosexual guys interested in dick? If the result is just more lesbians (or rather heterosexual guys with female genitals) that's not solving anything.
If female hormones made you automatically interested in guy pure lesbians wouldn't be a thing.
So either you've got a way to alter sexuality on top of altering the sex or you'd basically be forced to transform most of the guys into female or shemale bodies simply so they'd have someone they'd be sexually attracted to.
Though that's going to be fun for the biologists. Keep male reproduction organs viable while under bombardement of female hormones, or alternatively make bodies look female under male hormones.
That's an interesting take on things. I guess my point of disagreement with you - and I could be wrong - is that you seem to think that sexual identities are very concrete things. Even though people have been having same sex relationships throughout history 'gay' and 'lesbian' are modern cultural constructs. In (some periods in and some areas of) Ancient Greece, it was basically normal for guys to have sex with their buddies and have a nice wife back at the villa (who were, IIRC, usually busy getting their Sappho on with their pals). Similarly, according to a *fascinating* book called 'Sex at Dawn' people were basically polyamorous for 90% of human history. So I'd argue that 'gay' and 'lesbian' are just boxes we put people into rather than a genetic thing. Culture and context makes a big difference - for example, see 'situational homosexuality'.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think if you were to change someone physically, a lot of ex-guys would be... at least willing to experiment with not-ex-guys? A lot would try and adapt to the cultural expectations that come with their new bodies. I could be wrong though. It just feels right to me.
Might have to write a cap or two on that though. Hmm...
Well, I'm not convinced it's all that easy. Greek culture was fucked up on many levels, like women being rated slightly above animals, arranged marriages being standard (and those aren't nice for guys either) and I'm not sure how their concept of love between men actually translates into sexual relationships.
ReplyDeleteI certainly never had the desire to dick my buddies so to speak. Not something I suppressed for social reasons or something. I think that's actually why a lot of guys freak so hard about homosexual relationships. Because it's not actually a "forbidden fruit" for them, but something seriously alien.
No clue if you've got siblings, but my attraction to guys is about the same as to my sister. They don't really register as sexual partners.
Not sure if culture can actually influence that.
I think something else might help though. What transitioned people described is that the sexuality of young transitioners actually changed, but basically stayed the same for older ones. Though that's an annecdote not statistics.
I think it'd be a huge problem for these volunteers though. And something I wouldn't underestimate if you'd really needed to organise something like that.
That's ignoring the problem that you'd have to make many guys who haven't been fantasizing for years about having female bodies comfortable with having female bodies. That'd be the other big issue. There's a good chance you'd induce body disphoria in most of them. Even ignoring the gender expression/expectation issues.
Agreed that (ancient) Greek Culture was 'fucked up on many levels'... but surely it does indicate sexual behaviour is - at least partly - culturally conditioned?
ReplyDeleteYou say you have no same sex desire, but can you honestly say with absolute certainty that that wouldn't be different if you grew up in a society with completely different rules and without the constant drumbeat of heteronormativity?
I'm not saying you're wrong - it's one the BIG debates in science, nature vs nurture, but I tend to believe that nurture (environment) is slightly more powerful. I know that studies of things like personality traits usually say 30-40% genetic, and I tend to use that as a rule of thumb in these things.
I'd not heard that about the young transitioners changing sexual preference - that's really interesting. There's been a few books out recently about 'the adolescent brain' and how much it changes through adolescence, so I can believe that.
Your argument about (the first?) volunteers ending up with gender dysphoria is interesting, and a difficult one to argue with. It could be that the treatment programme they receive would help them adapt - rewiring their brain as well.
It's something I'd like to address in future DE work...
...and so the universe grows :)
ReplyDeleteHonestly, if it was that easy gay conversion therapy would work and transgendered people wouldn't be a thing. While more people may be latently bisexual than we're currently assuming, I'm pretty sure that's not the case for everyone.
In humans it's usually safe to assume some degree of nurture, but I'd be careful assuming such about anything involving the human sex drive. It's easiest affected by evolution and thus nature. Culture can do lots of things, but I wouldn't overestimate it either.
Anyway about rewiring the brain to change the gender... ignoring the moral problems with this I'm not sure if this is even possible at all or at least without the tech level where you can literally upload people into computers.
If you can do that kind of thing you can also use iron-wombs to make children and just make people gay to deal with the lonelyness.