Needs Help: Rule Sixty Three

Rule 63. Most of the examples are "Here's Rule 63 fanart of X." Almost none of the examples are literal in-work examples.

Either get it cut, or rename it. Better names do exist (Gender Flipped Fanart).

The name's not the problem. The fact that nearly every example is fan-made is.

Why?

Is this page supposed to be about when it occurs in-universe? Because I thought that belonged in Gender Bender. If fanart and other fanon examples are out, then the trope doesn't have anything left. When an actual character gets sex-flipped it's Gender Bender, when a different character (in the same work or another) is a sufficiently obvious sex-flipped variation it's Distaff Counterpart, an when a character in a new version of a work is the opposite sex, it's Gender Flip. What else is left but fanon?

It's a rule of the internet, so by the nature of the trope, it'll be mostly fan made.

What she said. This is a fan art/fan fiction trope so of course all the examples will be that.

Other than the occasional "official art" examples like Hetalia, that is. It's not fanon if a creator makes it, but it's not part of the work either.

Yup, this is fine. It says right at the top: "They may be canonical. Most of them aren't." That's exactly right. This is one of the rules of the Internet, and has nothing to do with canon. Fan art is supposed to be most of the examples.

The actual problem with this page, historically, has been more the opposite - someone putting in generic Gender Bender or Gender Flip examples.

The general idea is that, even if the sex-changed version originated in an official source (which it usually doesn't), it somehow seems to spark fan imaginations and takes on an "independent" life. "Claire Kent, Super-Sister" is a good example of this.

Another good example, from Pokemon: In the first season, Ash Ketchum dressed up as 'Ashley', a little blonde girl in an orange dress. She's still drawn by the fans, has her own fan clubs, and some people consider her a different character.

So if this is a fandom trope, would it qualify as Audience Reaction?

Not strictly, actually. For instance, El Goonish Shive has a canon example in Ellen, who's the female version of Elliot. Ranma One Half has at least one plot that builds on it. Mahou Sensei Negima also has a canon example. DC Comics and Marvel probably have several examples as well.

As a trope, it does frequently overlap with Opposite-Sex Clone (actually, I'd say that's a subtrope of this). In my opinion, Distaff Counterpart is more or less the same trope (or at least a huge overlap), but perhaps with a slightly bigger difference between the characters.

Maybe we could split the examples based on whether or not they're derived from cannon? Might make the examples easier to read through.

This is a clear fanon trope, so it's no problem, that's most of the is from fanfic/art.

Also, since it's about works that fans actually create, not just how they feel about the parent work, it isn't only a reaction.

With 13,560 inbounds, I would say that this article is working amazingly well. I don't see any need for changes.

I suggest we clarify that the article only applies to out-of-canon examples (even if done by the author). May I also suggest that we try to outline what sorts of characters or genres invite this treatment most? A list of examples doesn't work for such a pervasive phenomenon.

I like the idea in @18. We do already have tropes for in-canon examples (Ranma One Half gets covered under Gender Bender, Mahou Sensei Negima gets covered in Opposite-Sex Clone, and so on). There's still plenty of cases of non-canon art by the original creators (like for One Piece - that still somewhat confuses me).

If we limit it to non-canon, then I think the name no longer fits, since the internet rule is simply a declaration that such characters will exist, somewhere. I suppose we could change it to Rule Sixty Three Fanart or something. But I'm not entirely sure I see the point. This could be a broad supertrope, and we could say that canon examples go in one of the subtropes, not because they're not part of this trope, but because that's how subtropes work.

Actually, by definition, Rule 63 states that said characters will exist somewhere on the Internet. After all, it isn't Rule 63 of Existence, it's Rule 63 of the Internet.

I think, by default, most instances would thus be non-canon.

Are you saying you think there are canon examples that won't be found on the Internet, somewhere? Seems implausible to me!

Still, I won't insist on the point. Just seemed like it might be a good opportunity to solve another Missing Supertrope problem.

But the supertrope isn't missing. It's Gender Bender.

That's a different trope. This isn't necessarily the same character who changed gender, which that trope is. If anything, this is the supertrope of Gender Bender.

Actually, if you don't look at the "on the Internet" part, both Opposite-Sex Clone and Distaff Counterpart would also be subtropes, as they're different ways of creating the opposite-gender character. Rule 63 just states that there is one, but nothing about its origin or relation to the original character.

edited 19th Jun '12 1:59:20 PM by Feather7603

Right, and many if not most examples are more in the realm of Gender Flip ("What if Sherlock Holmes had been born a woman?") than Gender Bender ("What if Sherlock Holmes turned into a woman as part of a dastardly plot by Professor Moriarty?")

It's kind of a weird trope, granted, but I think it needs to stay pretty much as it is. Cross-pollination between "official" and "unofficial" is part of the phenomenon.