Trope Description Improvement Drive

And grammatically incorrect, or at least it sounds bad to my ears.

I'm okay with Amathieu's suggested rewrite.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 10th 2023 at 12:40:04 PM

Rewrote the sentence based on the above-mentioned rewrite. I do think there's something interesting about live-action works getting less TAI because there's less visual distance between character and (usually cisgender) actor, so fans feel more comfortable projecting like that, but it's hard to put that into succinct words that don't accidentally sound like "well they don't look trans."

Feels related to I Am Not Spock, in that a character and their live-action actor are more intertwined than if they're just a voice actor, so there's less assumption on things not stated in-universe?

Edited by Malady on Mar 11th 2023 at 6:51:26 AM

Honestly, I'm not even convinced that's true. My sense has always been that it's more common with media aimed at younger people because younger people are just more accepting towards being trans in the first place.

I'm in agreement with Malady. I do think animation does offer more flexibility towards headcanons in general, less because the age of the target audience or the ambiguity of the character designs (although I do think Generic Cuteness does make it easier to provide alternative interpretations in various directions) and more to do with the fact that live-action characters are tied to a real person's face and makes them feel a little more off-limits with certain things. Sexual orientation is one thing because it's between two characters and not about interpretations of the one, but you also are comparatively less likely to see things like disability headcanons or racebends with live-action characters, for example. And when they do happen they tend to involve fancasting a different already-existing actor in that character's place.

Bumping something.

I agree, using tropes as euphemisms just confuses the reader. Better to state it outright.

So, apparently Hermaphrodite has issues with its description not reflecting the actual definition and how the trope should be used. Right now, it comes off as "hermaphrodites exist," which isn't what the definition is and per this discussion it's supposed to be "any species with functional M/F genitalia." The description mostly uses the terms humans and people even after the expansion, with only one line about fictional species. I think the description should focus more on the portrayal of intersex characters in fiction rather than being so useful notes-y like it is. Any ideas on how to fix it since I'm not well-versed on this subject?

Yeah, I vaguely remember mentioning it elsewhere and how it fails to make distinctions between fantastical true hermaphrodites, which don't really exist among real-life humans, and intersex people, who are very real and who don't manifest in the same way that fictional hermaphroditism often depicts them as.

(x3) Thanks for responding. EDIT: But, what about the other pottholes to Coitus Ensues? Would it be ok to remove those?

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Mar 11th 2023 at 2:40:30 AM

^ I'd removed them if they aren't being used correctly or are unclear.

As for Hermaphrodite, I don't think we need to do much so I just removes the bits of the discussion that mentions intersex people.

For most fictional purposes a hermaphrodite is an individual that's both male and female; specifically, one that has both male and female genitals. Biologists don't use the word that way, but this is fiction, not biology.

The word Hermaphrodite comes from the Greek deity Hermaphroditus. This child of Hermes and Aphrodite was born a hermaphrodite according to Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE). According to Ovid he was a very handsome young man with whom the nymph Salmacis fell madly in love. He rejected her advances, but Salmacis clung to him and prayed fervently to never be parted from him. The gods granted her prayer by merging the two of them into a single being, half male and half female. Be Careful What You Wish For.

Hermaphrodites tend to pop up in hentai anime and manga (where it's called futanari, literally "dual form" — "futa", as anime fans call it for short, is a very well known fetish), western erotic comics, and Science Fiction and fantasy erotica (almost Always Female in appearance save for the obvious extra appendage). Sometimes entire alien species or fantasy races are hermaphroditic One Gender Races, thanks to Bizarre Alien Sexes. Hermaphroditism is also a popular way to explain Mister Seahorse situations.

See also Fetish, Gender Bender, Wrong Genetic Sex, No Biological Sex, Otherworldly and Sexually Ambiguous, and Intersex Tribulations. If said character is highly sought after, see Everybody Wants the Hermaphrodite.

For characters that can actually change their sex (better fitting the biological term that shares this trope's name), see Sex Shifter.

Edited by MacronNotes on Mar 11th 2023 at 6:06:07 AM

Thanks and your tweaked version looks good to me.

About the Eunuchs Are Evil comment, it actually does say childless people are more inherently selfish/don't care about the future, although it also said that they have. more time to plan things.

"that much more time to scheme and plot, and that much less incentive to ensure they didn't destabilize the empire for future generations".

That's the part I feel should be changed because of Unfortunate Implications.

I mean;j if that's how the real life eunuchs acted and thought...

I don't mind changing it to make it less icky, though.

That line is connected to the lack of a family because the reason why an eunuch wouldn't care about the empire in the long term is because they don't have blood related heirs to inherit or at least benefit from their power, which means they can do whatever they want without any repercussions, as long as the consequences set in after death.

That's why there's less incentive to keep it stable.

Edited by CardboardBot on Mar 13th 2023 at 2:25:06 PM

I doubt we know how real life eunuchs in political positions acted and thought and whether it was actually common for them to be careless about the future because they didn't have children, all I know is that kind of rhetoric of "people who don't have children (often gay people, this can be a homophobic trope) are inherently selfish and don't care about the future" has been used to discriminate against people, so I feel it's kind of uncomfortable to have it repeated here.

Whatever the view of the eunuchs themselves, it's fairly well documented that the dynasties they served believed they would be more loyal because they couldn't usurp power for their own descendents.

Wikipedia cites a few sources on this.

Again, it doesn't say childless people are inherently selfish; it was accusing the eunuchs of that, who historically did tend to be selfish and apathetic, but it doesn't say that this is universal for every childless person. Just that it was the mentality of these eunuchs. You also have to remember that in historical China, family was extremely important, so it makes some sense that the lack of kids would result in people being less inclined to help the future be good - their future would've already ended because their line did. That logic wouldn't apply in modern day in a culture that's much less family oriented.

Look, how would you write this part?

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 13th 2023 at 3:13:50 PM

The description at Eunuchs Are Evil seems indeed to imply that childless people are more likely to be evil.

We also have a "myriad" of historical reports about "ruthless and power-hungry" kings, emperors, governors, generals, viziers etc who weren't eunuchs. Why hold eunuchs to higher standards?

How does that make selfish eunuchs who scheme and plot to enrich themselves alone worse than selfish officials who scheme and plot to enrich themselves and their families? Why does a corrupt eunuch in a high position destabilize an empire more than an corrupt non-eunuch in a high position? Obviously the writer of these lines suggests that there is an inherent connection between not being able to procreate and socially harmful selfishness.

A quick solution would be to chop off the entire second half of the middle paragraph, and also to get rid of the hyperbolic word "myriad". The bit about "castrato singers who behave like Prima Donna celebrities" also seems irrelevant; a "Prima Donna performer" suggests an arrogant and obnoxious person, not an "evil" one. So the entire paragraph would be this:

Edited by LordGro on Mar 13th 2023 at 11:19:05 AM

Looks good.

I'd be tempted to add some sort of "in practice, although they didn't found dynasties, in the shorter term they could still be just as selfish and corrupt as anyone else".

I don't think we should overstate the evil, but it's worth keeping something about the flaws in the original thinking.

Puts it better than I did

Edited by Mrph1 on Mar 13th 2023 at 10:21:11 AM

Chopping that part off sort of ruins the point of even bringing it up, though. The fact is that the eunuchs this trope is based on weren't trustworthy and still sought power. So cutting that bit implies that this isn't the case and doesn't really provide any basis for why the eunuchs would be a type of evil chancellor.

Look, the trope is based on a stereotype about eunuchs that dates back to these empires and the sort of eunuchs who did fall into said stereotype. I'm not against making it more clear that this isn't a universal rule, but erasing that bit makes the paragraph nonsensical in context.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 13th 2023 at 6:21:24 AM

I dont see anything wrong with the description as written. It's not trying to imply that childless people are inherently evil or selfish. It's just describing the social perceptions that were held about eunuchs and how some were seen as particularly ruthless which was how the stereotype of the "evil eunuch". The description doesn't imply that eunuchs are inherently evil just because they're eunuchs either.

Would using some as a modifier for eunuchs in this sentence be better?

"As it turned out, the lack of a family to enrich didn't stop eunuchs from seeking to enrich themselves..."

As a matter of fact, I question whether the trope is based on historical "evil eunuchs". If the ancient empires had so many bad experiences with eunuchs in positions of power, then why did they keep using them for so long? The answer is, of course, that the system worked well enough to be kept. Obviously eunuchs can be selfish schemers; everybody can. Ancient empires also made good experiences with eunuchs; they also made bad experiences with non-eunuchs.

I say the trope really exists because of three factors:

1. Eunuchs are not masculine, and masculinity, As You Know, means to be courageous and honorable. Hence Eunuchs are cowardly and dishonorable. Since they are not women either, they also don't have feminine virtues, like empathy or care for their subordinates. They are beings entirely defined by a lack of something.
2. Eunuchs are very often slaves or former slaves (turns out few people volunteer to be castrated). In slave-holding societies, slaves are well-known for being cowards, opportunists, and notorious liars. They have bad character. A person with bad character in a position of power (especially if they have power over decent, free-born citizens)? Evil almost by definition.
3. Eunuchs can "scheme" against kings or emperors, but they cannot be kings or emperors themselves. Pepin the Short was a selfish and scheming majordomus, because he double-crossed King Childeric and locked him up in a monastery for life. Pepin was also a reputable and competent king, because he then ascended the throne himself, ruled successfully, and passed the kingdom on to his son. If he had been an eunuch, he could probably not have taken the throne, and definitely could not have passed it on to his son; hence he would only be a selfish, backstabbing schemer, no matter how competent at governing. Put differently, eunuchs get a bad reputation in history because they necessarily fail in the long run. History has plenty of kings who behaved ruthlessly and power-hungry, destabilized their kingdom by ruling badly or spending irresponsibly, did cruel and unjust things, or usurped the throne from their predecessor; and yet there is no Kings Are Evil stereotype. Kings get away with many things eunuchs don't.

Edited by LordGro on Mar 13th 2023 at 1:34:40 PM

Stereotypes aren't always based on something being exceedingly common, and the "evil chancellor" stuff had to come from somewhere. Nobody has said that every eunuch was untrustworthy, but the ones that were did contribute to the overall stereotype. That's the point of that paragraph. If this is untrue, then that entire paragraph should go, not just the "untrustworthy" part.

I agree. Also, the word eunuch has such a specific meaning, that I doubt anyone would immediately associate it with childless people or think that the paragraph implies that all childless people are "Evil Eunuchs". The two groups don't have much in common other than childlessness.

Edited by SoyValdo7 on Mar 13th 2023 at 7:29:31 AM