Title: Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)
Reason: User Banned (1 month) Repeatedly entering the 'Why Women Criticize etc.' thread to make bad faith arguments and be dismissive of the issues despite a previous warning and ban for the same behaviour. Ban extended after review.
The few snippets of zero two's behavior I've seen are quite ludicrous. The thing is gender /= biological sex. And there are people who don't subscribe to either gender. Unless you're doing something like deepfakes, or mimicking the face of some real person, it is fiction don't think nonexistent character representation has anything to do with respect, it only deals with representation of biological sex which is distinct from gender, women /= biological female bodies. The same issues could be brought against future sex bots, once they pass the uncanny valley. But again, I do not think objects with female bodies in and of themselves are disrespecting anyone. If you see the statue of David, in what way does that disrespect men? I don't think it does. I think this idea is an attempt at trying to use the "misappropriation" idea again, to misuse it, that is to say you can't portray a certain race, a certain sex, a certain class, a certain group, a certain political group, a certain religion without permission. But in fiction, you don't need to ask neo-nazis or kkk or surviving nazis how to portray them. In satire you don't need to ask a political party if they'd like to be made fun off. Irrespective of the group, freedom of expression allows you to represent any group any class. Of course if you do tasteless things, you will offend, you will provoke, and you will have to deal with the result of that.
Archive.is (legacy): https://archive.is/UfQ3y