Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

[discord]

on female warriors why yes, there still is a 'reason' not to have them as fighters at least in a lower tech setting, same reason why females are not quite as wanted in the workforce in most of the jobs around here today, that being getting pregnant and being unavailable/less effective for quite a few months.

this problem can be addressed with technology, but it is a thing.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Loroi don't use parent groups to raise children. People take vacations that are longer than the time required to give birth and not raise the child one's self.

[Arioch]

on female warriors why yes, there still is a 'reason' not to have them as fighters at least in a lower tech setting, same reason why females are not quite as wanted in the workforce in most of the jobs around here today, that being getting pregnant and being unavailable/less effective for quite a few months.

The hypothetical setting in which a race of warriors is artificially created is not a lower tech setting, and it should be clear by this point that the Loroi females can't get pregnant whenever they feel like it.

[Dirty Yasuki]

What if in a plot twist, the Loroi males are the actual child bearers and ones who get pregnant of the species? That would make sense that access to them is "restricted". I know that's not really the case as Arioch has probably settled this but all this talk about males and females roles about who is the "breeder" of society just reminded me of this.

http://farscape.wikia.com/wiki/The_Flax

The last scene where Staanz the Zenatan professes "her" love for D'Argo was especially funny.

[Arioch]

Cute, but a male that gets pregnant can't really be called a male, since the definition of "female" is the gender that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

And don't say "seahorses." Seahorses don't give live birth and male seahorses don't produce eggs, they just carry them around for a while.

[RedDwarfIV]

Having a 90% female population (and the ability to artificially inseminate) means you can have a pretty much exponentially expanding species, if you can provide supplies for it. That means even a 10% expendable male fighter population will grow exponentially too.

Again, this is an unnecessary specialization -- there's nothing about being able to bear children that precludes you from being an effective warrior. If you want to maintain a 90% reproductive reserve, fine. But you don't gain anything by locking yourself biologically into being unable to change that ratio by making the 10% non-reproductive. What happens if you reach your desired population cap? You've got 90% of your population twiddling their thumbs.

I was going to argue that the stresses of combat and carrying heavy equipment severely affected human female reproductive capability, because it's something I'd heard before. However, I can't find any sources at the moment that actually prove it, so I'll accept that I was basing what I was saying on a flawed assumption.

I cede the point to you.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Definitions of male and female are really not that set in stone. It is hard to find a solid definition that doesn't get blown out of the water by some example or another. I am told that many biologists define male and female by which one has the longer chromosomes, but that doesn't always produce results that everyday people would agree on.

I might even suggest that the terms Male and Female are often trying to incorporate too many concepts into a single word. For the Loroi, I'm assuming that "child-bearer," is the working definition of Female here, but they're clearly different enough from humans that other definitions might not apply.

(I think for things like seahorses, I would want to break their functions up into more than one definition, like "child-bearer," and "newborn caregiver.")

[Absalom]

The "queen" model may superior if you lay eggs, but for live birth you need more bodies to get more babies. Some ant queens can lay tens of thousands of eggs per day, but it would take a seriously freaky body to birth that many live babies.

Yep, I said "grotesquely adapted" for a reason: wasn't helped by the knowledge that at least rat reproduction leaves a scar on the womb for each litter.

Again, this is an unnecessary specialization -- there's nothing about being able to bear children that precludes you from being an effective warrior. If you want to maintain a 90% reproductive reserve, fine. But you don't gain anything by locking yourself biologically into being unable to change that ratio by making the 10% non-reproductive. What happens if you reach your desired population cap? You've got 90% of your population twiddling their thumbs.

Sounds passingly similar to Loroi during peace time already.

hi hi

Definitions of male and female are really not that set in stone. It is hard to find a solid definition that doesn't get blown out of the water by some example or another. I am told that many biologists define male and female by which one has the longer chromosomes, but that doesn't always produce results that everyday people would agree on.

I might even suggest that the terms Male and Female are often trying to incorporate too many concepts into a single word. For the Loroi, I'm assuming that "child-bearer," is the working definition of Female here, but they're clearly different enough from humans that other definitions might not apply.

(I think for things like seahorses, I would want to break their functions up into more than one definition, like "child-bearer," and "newborn caregiver.")

Oh, too much is being shoe-horned into Male and Female alright, and that is demonstrated by the fact that apparently you're treating it as being based on anything other than reproductive function. We may generalize due to laziness, but any definition based on anything other than theoretical reproductive function is foundationally misdirected. Even the distinguishment of heterosexuality, homosexuality, and transsexuality are ultimately based on the reproductive differences, it's the one part of the whole system that can't be evaded. You can swap gender-roles, appearances, hormonal instabilities, and even pull a Spotted Hyena on their genitals, but the proper definitions of Male and Female always come down to reproduction.

[icekatze]

hi hi

So, would you suggest that someone who doesn't have children, or cannot have children cannot be male or female?

[Absalom]

hi hi

So, would you suggest that someone who doesn't have children, or cannot have children cannot be male or female?

The strictest definition would say as much. The more common, lazy definitions would extrapolate out from the strict definition: for example, loss of fertility and infertility due to defects are fairly easy to write off in colloquial definitions as details only. As I said:

any definition based on anything other than theoretical reproductive function is foundationally misdirected.

It doesn't necessarily need to be precisely followed, but if you don't use it as the true point of reference, your control-group-free definition dissolves into nonsensical blather instead of remaining a definition.

And I just described how I can say that, so don't even start. I am long-since tired of emotional objections to simple and logical definitions for these things. If you can't accept this straight-forward of a definition for something sexual-related, then don't even bother replying.


It requires serious birth defects to not be able to extrapolate an identity of Male or Female within e.g. humans, and if you're judging off of a species without such a clear-cut division then you should really ask yourself why you're trying to apply the Male/Female labels (in some cases I think it reasonable enough: it does make sense to apply Male and Female to sex-changing frogs according to their current gender; at the same time, it makes sense to use neither for simultaneous hermaphrodites, and also to use neither for sex-changing frogs while they are mid-transition).

[icekatze]

hi hi

If you are tired of discussing things, why on Earth are you discussing them? If you can't accept that some people might have a different definition than you, why engage in a semantic argument? If you are going to tell people not to speak, why do you feel it necessary to speak yourself?

[Absalom]

hi hi

If you are tired of discussing things, why on Earth are you discussing them? If you can't accept that some people might have a different definition than you, why engage in a semantic argument? If you are going to tell people not to speak, why do you feel it necessary to speak yourself?

I am tired of people not understanding how/from what perspective I can say these things when the perspective in question is part of the statement that they're reacting to. My problem is not people who have a different definition, but instead those who can't accept that others do have a different definition.

[icekatze]

hi hi

Look, all I'm trying to do is establish a working definition here, so that there aren't any misunderstandings. Gamete bearing v gamete providing is as good as any for this discussion, but I figured it would help if everyone was on the same page, especially since dealing with alien biology might make some definitions tenuous.

There are a handful of commonly used definitions, some of which are more rigorous than others, and some of which are probably not what we've been talking about here.
• Reproductive potential. (Ability to provide gametes or develop a zygote.)
• Genetics. (XY chromosomes in mammals, ZW chromosomes in birds, see also Swyer Syndrome)
• Physiology based on an ideal prototype. (skeletal structure, musculature, size, secondary mating characteristics ie breasts or colored plumage.)
• Social and Psychological. (Not a very rigorous definition when dealing with humans, but possibly so when dealing with non-humans.)

Often times all of the definitions will line up nice and neatly, but they don't always, and in those cases it is helpful to know which one(s) we're talking about.

[Absalom]

hi hi

Look, all I'm trying to do is establish a working definition here, so that there aren't any misunderstandings. Gamete bearing v gamete providing is as good as any for this discussion, but I figured it would help if everyone was on the same page, especially since dealing with alien biology might make some definitions tenuous.

There are a handful of commonly used definitions, some of which are more rigorous than others, and some of which are probably not what we've been talking about here.
• Reproductive potential. (Ability to provide gametes or develop a zygote.)
• Genetics. (XY chromosomes in mammals, ZW chromosomes in birds, see also Swyer Syndrome)
• Physiology based on an ideal prototype. (skeletal structure, musculature, size, secondary mating characteristics ie breasts or colored plumage.)
• Social and Psychological. (Not a very rigorous definition when dealing with humans, but possibly so when dealing with non-humans.)

Often times all of the definitions will line up nice and neatly, but they don't always, and in those cases it is helpful to know which one(s) we're talking about.

Sorry about that. As long as you're not planning to go down the "how could you!?!" route, then you're golden. Most of the discussions I've been in that were on the subject of anything resembling this already would have gone primarily down that path already, which I find highly frustrating, as it isn't compatible with discussion.

I would specifically base the conclusion on mobile-gamete + non-gamete-maintaining, vs "immobile"-gamete + possibly-gamete-maintaining (basically, egg vs sperm).

Edited in: Typo, I meant *-zygote-maintaining, not *-gamete-maintaining.

[GeoModder]

Something I wondered about the Highland-Seven departure scene.

On page 102 we see the shuttle appearantly with the nose pointed towards Tempest's bow.
In page 106 we see it with its nose pointed away from Tempest's stern.
Did the shuttle turn 180° after leaving the ship, or was it turned already inside the hangar?
At least, when looking at the position of the illuminated panes inside the hangar bay on page 106, it seems to me the shuttle at some point turned.

[Tamri]

Something I wondered about the Highland-Seven departure scene.

On page 102 we see the shuttle appearantly with the nose pointed towards Tempest's bow.
In page 106 we see it with its nose pointed away from Tempest's stern.
Did the shuttle turn 180° after leaving the ship, or was it turned already inside the hangar?
At least, when looking at the position of the illuminated panes inside the hangar bay on page 106, it seems to me the shuttle at some point turned.

Hangar gallery likely two-sided. In my opinion, there is not enough space that would turn back and forth, and use the thrusters to close space of the hangar can be fraught with consequences.

[Arioch]

On page 102 we see the shuttle appearantly with the nose pointed towards Tempest's bow.
In page 106 we see it with its nose pointed away from Tempest's stern.
Did the shuttle turn 180° after leaving the ship, or was it turned already inside the hangar?
At least, when looking at the position of the illuminated panes inside the hangar bay on page 106, it seems to me the shuttle at some point turned.

Realistically, the shuttle would have dropped tail-first out of the hangar, but that doesn't read well for a comic panel. The balcony runs down both sides of the hangar, but the shuttle was facing forward along the starboard side. So whether it turned around before or after leaving the hangar is probably best left to the imagination.

There's room to turn around inside, but only just.

[icekatze]

hi hi

I suppose some kind of crane or tug could be used to precisely turn a small craft so they don't have to use thrusters while inside the bay.

[GeoModder]

I suppose some kind of crane or tug could be used to precisely turn a small craft so they don't have to use thrusters while inside the bay.

Shhh. It's best left to the imagination.

[cacambo43]

I don't see any reason why backing out and then quickly pivoting just outside the bay wouldn't work. Either way, the less useless obsessing, the faster we can get panels and move the story along before Arioch retires .

CJSF