Talk:Gynoid

Part of a series on Sex in speculative fiction

General articles Sex and sexuality in SF Gender in SF Women in SF LGBT themes in SF Reproduction in SF Genres & works Feminist science fiction LGBT themes in horror LGBT themes in mythology LGBT themes in comics Yaoi & Yuri Slash fiction Sexuality in Star Trek Women in comics Awards & Cons Gaylaxicon convention Gaylactic Network Gaylactic Spectrum Awards      ( Novel nominees)      ( Short fiction nominees)      ( Other work nominees) Lambda Literary Award      ( SF nominees) James Tiptree, Jr. Award WisCon Broad Universe Lists & Categories List of LGBT-themed SF LGBT characters in comics Tropes Male pregnancy Sex in space Single gender worlds Lesbian vampires Woman Warrior Women in Refrigerators Gynoid

E.T.A. Hoffman's "The Sandman" remains unmentioned?

I find it rather shocking that despite the apparent scholarship evinced in a handful of passages throughout the main body of this article, the highly relevant "Sandman" by E.T.A. Hoffman has garnered no mention whatsoever. Next to Tomorrow's Eve and the classical literary and poetic examples present, it is perhaps one of the most prominently evoked examples of the gynoid theme in all of European letters.

If the tenuously inserted subject of feminism must be included in this article, perhaps the citation of more relevant cultural axioms might be appropriate; such as the explorations of the gynoid theme in Karl Freund's 1935 film "Mad Love" and the works of the 20th century author of macabre and erotic fiction "Sarban". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.200.191 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Addenda: Descartes' Francine

Hi - this is Gabriel M. author of the previous post regarding Hoffman etc. - It slipped my mind - but I just recalled another highly influential / hypothetical / philosophical / literary Gynoid construct which was not once mentioned in this supposedly authoritative article at all: mainly, Descartes' "Francine". All this prattling over "Fembots" and "Feminisim" really have no place in this article whatsoever. If changes aren't forthcoming in the next few weeks - I'm going to petition to rewrite the whole body of text and have the present incarnation permanently deleted. I'm not being negative, but let's stay on the ball people - this is a supposedly academic effort. As it stands - I personally see this whole page as a massive waste of effort. I'm sure most of you agree with me...

Can we try to actually have a conversation on this point? I'm seeing activity, but no collaboration - and that's a bad sign indeed!

99.135.156.124 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Gabriel

Compliments to the chef!

Cudos to everyone responsible for the sentence:

"... it has been derived from the word android in response to its linguistically masculine lexical element andro-, which is perceived as implying a male-styled robot according to some cultural readings."

Hapenstance1 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: this discussion page ...

Saying that discussions of feminism are irrelevant in a wikipage about Gynoids is like telling someone they can't use the word 'red' when describing a fire engine.

Hapenstance1 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article and its content

OK - there is some sort of disjointed discussion going on here, let me try and recap the main points and add some of my own.

• Common usage of the term Android refers to those of either sex and non-sexual humanoid robots - OED "Android - An automaton resembling a human being"
• The page is about Gynoid
• The term Gynoid should probably not be "is anything which resembles a woman" as that would not include Gynoid XXX, a term used often in medicine to refer to medical issues specifically in women and girls. By that definition girls, sculptures and paintings and the pictures on my TV of women are gynoids. It is too broad for modern usage and should be changed.

The complaints raised so far:

1. The article is sexist (also in /archive 1)
2. The article is too much based on sex toys and sex dolls (also in /archive 1)
3. The article is mistitled/misused (as Gynoid can refer to many things to do with female medical issues)
4. THere is not enough scope included for a page with such general title

There was much discussion on the time frame, generally female robots and such were in fiction until more recent times. In todays society there has been an upsurge in the amount of female robots references.

Article title
Wikipedia uses the most common usage. Gynoid is not really just used for female robot, the 7th item on the first page of a google search produces "gynoid fat distribution Distribution of excess fat predominantly around the hips, thighs, and buttocks."

However I would respectfully suggest that the medical terminology is often misused and it should in fact be "Gynecoid XXX" rather than "Gynoid XXX"

Merriam webster gives:

• Definition of GYNOID

gynecoid 2

• Definition of GYNECOID

1 of the pelvis : having the rounded form typical of the human female—compare android, anthropoid, platypelloid

2 : relating to or characterized by the distribution of body fat chiefly in the region of the hips and thighs (Gynecoid obesity)

My OED gives no definition of Gyno(anything). It is all based on "Gynaeco- also (esp. US) gyneco- : woman, female." It also gives "Gyno- reduced form of GYNECO- used chiefly in bot. with the meaning 'pistil', 'ovary'."

Also the terms "Gynarchy - government by a woman or women" - from this it is apparent that there may well be an ENGVAR problem when looking at medical terminology as US often shorten to Gynoid, an abbreviation of Gynecoid and the US version of Gynaecoid.

Article content
Well, Android is the generally accepted phrase for a humanoid robot of either or no sex. I see no real relevence here to using it as a general term for a female robot. Sadly there is a growing tide of terminology using Gynoid to refer to a female robot in a sexual nature - almost entirely by men.

I welcome comments on what people think the title should be as well as what content should be here.

As for Gynoid here perhaps the title should mirror Android (robot) to remove that problem and Gynoid should be the db page?
Personally I would:

1. turn this into a db page (Gynoid obesoity, Gynoid lipodystrophy, Gynoid (robot) etc.)
2. add a small section on the Android (robot) page and "main" to link to Gynoid (robot) and explain these are mainly sexually influenced in modern usage.
3. move the content on female robots onto Gynoid (robot) page and limit that content to a narrow scope.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have rearranged and better defined things, well I think I have and hope people agree. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)