Lit Ignorance is Bias: The Diversity Manifesto

Interestingly, the TCW novel said that some Hutts - including Jabba, procreate without benefit of partner. Like a self-fertilizing plant, or various types of insect (greenfly spring to mind).

 

IIRC, they use parthenoogenesis, which is not unheard of for many animals.

Plus, considering Hutts often don't trust anyone, the ability to self-reproduce is a handy one.

The reason they keep slave girls was deftly explained because they are symbols of status...which is funny because I just watched an episode of VICE on HBO that dealt with the large demand for white people in Communist China to do everything from be door greeters to pretend to be doctors touring medical facilities because having access to white people is seen as a status symbol there.

 

I think my headcanon at this point is that Hutts are whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to be it. Post-Ziro, it's very easy to accept that they're not overly concerned with how their gender reads to others.

 

Seems reasonable. "Gender-changer" was how Crispin seemed to be handling it:


"Foolish human! Can you not see that Lord Jiliac is now Lady Jiliac?"

 

I always thought it was kind of homophobic/transphobic that the Hutts were the queerest species in Star Wars anyways. Outside of a handful of minor characters all out of continuity except for the one new lesbian, the Star Wars universe is very very cis and heterosexual. Except for the vile disgusting Hutts, they're totally queer.
Jabba having female slaves as a status symbol but not really being attracted to them is an interesting idea, but Jabba seemed genuinely attracted to them in his behavior. He could be faking, but why would he?

 

Some of EU novels painted it as a tendency that a lot of members of Jabba's family (Desilijic) had, to a greater or lesser degree. James Luceno's Agents of Chaos NJO books spring to mind.

 

From what I understand, it is Hutts in general who do it for status.

Jabba personally was a huge pervert by Hutt standards. But you can get away with that when you are the most ruthless gangster of an entire culture of ruthless gangsters.

 

Given Ziro and Sy Snootles- maybe, as Luceno seemed to be suggesting, attraction to non-Hutts is a Desilijic thing?

 

Okay so, I hear you. Like, 110% I hear you on this.
But I kind of feel like the solution is "put in a bunch of other queer characters" not "make all the Hutts all monogender and het-reproducing somehow despite them being not-at-all-humanoid slugs". Because honestly that was really interesting in a biological way, and opened up some interesting social aspects like Patch mentioned. And I think it's pretty TROUSERS on the part of the Story Group or whoever that they decide Hutts can't be asexual hermaphrodites because we see a couple that're interested in other women. That's a bunch of TROUSERS that doesn't really understand gender, reproductive asexuality vs aromanticism...or the general fact that aliens (especially giant talking slugs) are going to have different gender and romantic concepts than humans. But Lucasfilm's people have been TROUSERS over queer people/characters/concepts from days one, so not like that's any surprise.

 

I just saw a thing on Wookepeedia that says Ziro was shown being interested in women in his final appearance? I take it that was human or twi'lek women?

Ziro was just...jeez, I mean, I don't know what GL was thinking there, especially the explicit instruction to have him speak like Truman Capote and speak Basic. If you're going to play around with gender and sexuality...maybe the Hutts aren't the best place to do so? It's hardly surprising that Ziro only indirectly appears in the novelization.

And it's also strange that in such a large galaxy with such strange and wonderful creatures in it we haven't seen more genderless, genderchanging, or flat out genderqueer characters. Mos species code directly onto human gender roles and socialization unless they're being played for laughs.

 

Pa'lowick woman, in this case:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Sy_Snootles/Canon

Also, the episode introduced Ziro's mother and showed us his deceased father.

 

That makes sense given Humanity is the frame basis the creatives are working from.

 

My memory of the episode is fuzzy but wasn't Ziro using Snootles, leaving his sexuality up in the air?

(I remember interpreting it as Snootles having shot him for basically making her his beard.)

 

Wasn't Ziro basically played by Snootles to profit from selling his diary? It definitely seemed he genuinely thought they were together.

 

It's been a long time since I've seen it, but I think she had genuine feelings for him at one time, but he used her for so long that she got tired of it and turned the tables on him. It was clear, however, that he thought he had her affection and could use it to his advantage. IIRC, there are several classic tells that show Ziro is selfishly manipulating the relationship, and that Sy is getting revenge in the end. Such a story fits Lucas' style more than Sy simply playing him all along and coldly executing him in the end, I think.

 

Classic Film Noir

 

Yes! That's why I may have a little bit of relief they threw that idea out?
But I also doubt we'll be getting anything else exploring different concepts on the gender spectrum, so...
I hope LFL/TSG don't think that who you're attracted to determines where you "land on" (for lack of a better phrase) the gender spectrum

 

I'm happy to speak on behalf of the "no white men at all" demo.

 

The thing is, there's stuff even on that very site which contradicts the premise of that article. Just in the related links, you can find articles like this which are frighteningly doctrinal, to the point of the religious. I don't think anybody thinks that's about man-hating, but that doesn't mean it's practical (not to mention coming off as so completely lacking in humor that the average young person is unlikely to be attracted to it).

I'm not claiming feminism is monolithic, but the fact that young women are beginning to get those "false" impressions is precisely one of the reasons I've been saying there are problems; feminism can't do anything if it burns out, which is why millennials are behaving quite selfishly when they indulge extremist views and social networking witchhunts. It's like the religion comparison I made earlier. Imagine two completely different sects of Christianity: a crazy one, and a down-to-earth one. But let's be honest: you're probably not gonna be thrilled about having to listen to either... and why is that? Well, it's almost unequivocally because of the crazy ones, or really the risk that the down-to-earth ones could turn out to be crazy ones. If you were to close the door on the down-to-earth ones and they got upset and said to you, "Hey! We're not all crazy!" what would you think? I don't think you'd think much better of them; even if they knew they were being honest and it was only an emotional reaction, you'd still hold them accountable for that outburst, wouldn't you?

I know the morality of feminism seems absolute to you, but so does the morality of Christianity to them; it's only a difference in point of view, but that's big. Nobody can afford to take it as a given, no matter how right they know they are.

 

True Christianity isn't the awful thing many here paint it as. The fact that so many distort Christianity is.

 

You know U.S.A. and Europa, or at least Sweden, seems to have rather different ideas what feminism mean because what you are talking about is rather alien to me