So basically, if you have an artistic preference towards more masculine things, you are obviously a sexist? You do realize how idiotic this is? I guess my artistic preference to post-apocalyptic landscapes and rather dark looking paintings must mean I exude all kinds of anti-social, nihilist and plain psychopathic behaviors, because, you know, a man liking things that are more masculine must mean they are sexist. I also guess liking more feminine qualities must obviously mean you're objectifying women and thus are still sexist (because this is quite common in small groups of people I have seen; the doublethink is ridiculous). But you know, it seems like you would be the type to say that considering that all you're doing is ignoring the argument that post was a part of as an excuse to call anyone in the "out-group" sexist.
Also, you are ignoring the context of the post you had quoted, as it had distinctly quoted someone who was arguing about that ratio, and thus strawmanning the argument by stating that the post was talking solely about a preference.
Again, while yes, it is OK for a male Pokemon to look feminine by our standards, you are also ignoring past arguments from others saying that Pop3 should be more based on the masculine traits of Pinnipeds, which is applying the behaviors of male seals/sea lions/walruses on a Pokemon with a high rate of being male. Is that sexist? Are biological facts regarding a pre-sentient species magically sexist now? You are completely ignoring the argument that post is a part of so you can cop out to call anyone with opinions dissenting from your own sexist, which, for one, is a basis for Fascist thought (in-group vs out-group mentality).
This is about my view of some of the discussion going on here.
It's fine if people want to not care about feminine/masculine qualities on genders not normally associated with them, and think it odd and pointless to care about human concepts of femininty and masculinity in regards to fictional species,
and it's also fine if people don't really care for their male pokemon to be in female drag or their female pokemon to have ginormous humanoid muscles on a very humanoid form and shorts with a questionable belt and no shirt, or to prefer more elegant and "cute" designs seen as more feminine over those that are more monstrous and "buff"looking that are seen as more masculine, or vice versa.
People have different preferences. I hate liften for a variety of reasons, including dissapointment about what could have been and the fact that I really don't like the buff-man with spandex shorts and flame-shooting belt with a cursory tiger head design. That doesn't make me sexist. I didn't like poppliolovely at first either, not least because of the overtly human-feminine features, and it's still not my favorite though I've come to be okay with it.
I also think the people who say that, if you're not totally supportive of things such certain procedures that change your outward appearance in certain ways to fall more along the norm for one gender or the other (among other things), you're a horrible and bigoted person (sure, there are those who are just plain hateful and discriminatory who hold these views, but not everyone who does is), are actually more narrowminded than those who take a moral objection for one reason for another but are fine with others having their own views and even friends those with radically different ideas on these subjects, and recognize these things as complex issues for which there are many views that could be argued with points of various degrees of validity on both sides. We're all entitled to our own religious and ethical beliefs, as long as we're not harming anyone else, and to trash those who hold some of these views that some of you are calling "outdated" is to devalue a very large percentage of those who are living or who have ever lived.
Personally, I think it's a bit inane to deny that liften and poppliolovely have feminine/masculine attributes. They pretty clearly take some attributes (like eyeshadow on poppliovely) from common cultural indicators of femininity and masculinity, which, while you can argue shouldn't in an ideal society be taken as such, do actually exist. Also, since pokemon as a concept are created by people, the idea that human standards aren't related to them because they're not human is nonsense, and as some pokemon are clearly stated in their dex entries as being as or more intelligent than the average person, it's quite possible that they might have cultural concepts like masculinity and femininity themselves, although these concepts could differ quite a lot from human ones. Aside from cultural characterizations of masculinity and femininity, which do play a substantial role in forming societal concepts of gender identity, it is also not true that males and females are the same. We have this problem in modern society where we think that to be "equal" or "equitable" that means we must deny any differences. People can be different while still being equal. As much as I might not like it, on average
(of course there are deviations from the average, as in any real-life samples of anything), females who work out a physically equal amount to males are not quite
as strong, and current research suggests there are also some (usually small, but significant) differences in some mental functions in men and women, some where women do better and some where men do better. Considering we have differences in average levels of hormones--among other genetic differences--which affect many biological processes, that some average differences do exist should not be surprising. However, this does not mean that one gender is superior or more valuable than others, or that it's wrong for a man to like sewing and show emotions (it's healthy to allow people to cry sometimes) or a woman to like video games like Skyrim (like me). Same thing with people with various "disabilities". I have a form of autism, and so my brain works somewhat differently than the majority of the population. While this can cause some problems in a societal structures are set up primarily for "neurotypicals", it does not mean I am innately inferior. It's more a case of different ability than disability, and a lot of the "disabliing" aspects come about when people ignore that there are differences and expect me to fit the same mold as everyone else. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiUx_GlXEAQYIFg.jpg
I do...not so well at things that most people can do relatively easily, but I also can do some things a lot better than the average person. Because we have these differences, though, whether from masculinity or feminity, typical ability or different ability, we can complement each other and accomplish things as a species that we could not if we all came exactly the same.
Sorry for the wall of text here, but can we just all agree to disagree and respect each other and each other's opinions and move on?
If I recall, I'm pretty sure Delphox's feminine qualities were also complained about quite a bit as well (not so much for Serperior as it does look kind of gender neutral).
I don't have anything against Delphox because I see it as "feminine", I have something against it because it's completely hideous... I also don't particularly care for overtly humanoid starters, but it could at have at least gone the elegant enchantress fox-in-kimono-pretending-to-be-human instead of the more haggish one... I like a variety of pokemon along the cute to the monstrous/cool spectrum, but some designs I just can't see why they thought it was a good idea... but other people are free to love them if they want.