I feel as if a major misunderstanding in your post comes from a lack of understand of what gender is.  Gender is an abstract construct that provides a basis for your psyche.  For example, a masculine person might be more aggressive, less emotive, more assertive, protective, etc.  A feminine person might be more inclined to be compassionate, intuitive, emotional, etc.

 

It is because of this link to psychology that gender is not exactly an issue of biology.  The word you were looking for was "sex" which does have a basis in biology as it is the type of sexual organs you were born with: male organisms are born with a penis and testes and female organisms are born with ovaries and an uterus.

 

In this case, yes, the gems are sexless beings and, as far as we know, have no concept as gender, despite the fact that all of them present as female archetypes.  In the canon, this is not explained.  Outside of the canon, however, at least one of the writers for the show (I can't remember his name) has expressed his contempt towards the idea of a masculine gem.  Jasper and Ruby are the closest the show will probably come to a "male" gem.

I feel as if a major misunderstanding in your post comes from a lack of understand of what gender is.  Gender is an abstract construct that provides a basis for your psyche.  For example, a masculine person might be more aggressive, less emotive, more assertive, protective, etc.  A feminine person might be more inclined to be compassionate, intuitive, emotional, etc.

 

It is because of this link to psychology that gender is not exactly an issue of biology.  The word you were looking for was "sex" which does have a basis in biology as it is the type of sexual organs you were born with: male organisms are born with a penis and testes and female organisms are born with ovaries and an uterus.

 

In this case, yes, the gems are sexless beings and, as far as we know, have no concept as gender, despite the fact that all of them present as female archetypes.  In the canon, this is not explained.  Outside of the canon, however, at least one of the writers for the show (I can't remember his name) has expressed his contempt towards the idea of a masculine gem.  Jasper and Ruby are the closest the show will probably come to a "male" gem.

I understand the difference between gender and sex. But without sex gender is irrelevant. Gender is still important to humans because we have sex. We reproduce sexually. Yes socitally what specifically is expected of genders can change. But there are still natural roles that are a part of our biology. When we where still HUNTER gathers human beings where very muscular and lean. Nobody was over weight. Which is why we find the hour glass figure for women attractive. It's how we evolved.

 

Now for humans it makes sense why that aesthetic exists. It was a part of our ancestry. Gems? They have no ancestry. There completely artificial beings. There have no purpose for sex or gender. Also why do gems still have breasts? It all of them do obviously. But Amthyst does. Why would she ate her form that way? They serve no purpose. There there for aesthetic s.

 

More so because that's how they animated her. Not because it's logical for her to exist that way. Beings who are created artistically, and who's sole purpose is to serve there master do not require gender. Gender is only meaningful in reference to physical sex. Otherwise is meaningless.

I assume you included this because some feel that Steven Universe characters are transgender? This doesn't make sense. If they where transgender they could just change there form. When there poofed they could just come back in male bodies. They don't though. So I don't see w they are transgender. Unless them being transgender is just wishful thinking or speculation.

If you want to get really particular about lore or whatever, why do all the gems speak English? It isn't just Garnet and the main gems who do, it's every single one, even those who have never been to Earth at all.

 

Now, if you want to explain this away, you could hypothesize that gems have some sort of built-in feature that translates everything they say into the language that the listener understands. This would make sense for a race that operates on a galactic level, colonizing, conquering, etc. If this is the case, then the gems all using female pronouns could just be an artifact of how the English language works. People traditionally refer to themselves with pronouns, and out of all the options, that label most accurately describes /to humans/ what gems are. It's true that an alien warrior race might not really have any use for the concept of a gender within their own society, but when interacting with humans, who fixate on it and use it to determine how they interact with people? Very important.

If you want to get really particular about lore or whatever, why do all the gems speak English? It isn't just Garnet and the main gems who do, it's every single one, even those who have never been to Earth at all.

Now, if you want to explain this away, you could hypothesize that gems have some sort of built-in feature that translates everything they say into the language that the listener understands. This would make sense for a race that operates on a galactic level, colonizing, conquering, etc. If this is the case, then the gems all using female pronouns could just be an artifact of how the English language works. People traditionally refer to themselves with pronouns, and out of all the options, that label most accurately describes /to humans/ what gems are. It's true that an alien warrior race might not really have any use for the concept of a gender within their own society, but when interacting with humans, who fixate on it and use it to determine how they interact with people? Very important.

Yes but the gems don't solely interact with humans. Even gems who have never been to Earth are female.

Yes but the gems don't solely interact with humans. Even gems who have never been to Earth are female.

 

I don't see why this would refute my idea. They're just behaving in ways that seem natural to them, and humans (including the audience) perceive those behaviors to be feminine. Aliens looking and behaving like women really isn't any more far-fetched than aliens looking and behaving like giant bugs, or whatever other concepts are more common in sci-fi.

I don't see why this would refute my idea. They're just behaving in ways that seem natural to them, and humans (including the audience) perceive those behaviors to be feminine. Aliens looking and behaving like women really isn't any more far-fetched than aliens looking and behaving like giant bugs, or whatever other concepts are more common in sci-fi.

Yes but they look like human women. Which is illogical for a race that doesn't have sex.

Yes but they look like human women. Which is illogical for a race that doesn't have sex.

 

What should they look like?

What should they look like?

There designed to be slaves to there masters. Whose only goal is conquest. The only reason the gems should look like women is for aesthetics. Which would only make sense if organic life created the gems.

There designed to be slaves to there masters. Whose only goal is conquest. The only reason the gems should look like women is for aesthetics. Which would only make sense if organic life created the gems.

 

What's to say inorganic aliens can't have an appreciation for aesthetics?

What's to say inorganic aliens can't have an appreciation for aesthetics?

Nothing I guess. But what would be the point?

Nothing I guess. But what would be the point?

 

For the heck of it, and because their culture seems to value strict attention to detail, which often goes hand in hand with caring about appearances and presentation. Isn't that a big plot point with Pearl, how she was designed to be pretty and a status symbol?

For the heck of it, and because their culture seems to value strict attention to detail, which often goes hand in hand with caring about appearances and presentation. Isn't that a big plot point with Pearl, how she was designed to be pretty and a status symbol?

I suppose. But they where designed for conquest. Why would aesthetics matter?

I suppose. But they where designed for conquest. Why would aesthetics matter?

 

Not all of them, as Pearl proves. And military organizations pay a great deal of attention to cosmetic details, like how you wear your uniform, your posture, how you salute a commanding officer, all that stuff. Doesn't seem all that ridiculous for gems to do the same even down to the appearance of their troops, since that's a thing they can control.

Not all of them, as Pearl proves. And military organizations pay a great deal of attention to cosmetic details, like how you wear your uniform, your posture, how you salute a commanding officer, all that stuff. Doesn't seem all that ridiculous for gems to do the same even down to the appearance of their troops, since that's a thing they can control.

Yes but Pearls serve no combat purpose. They are slaves designed to serve elites. Why would there aesthetics matter?

Yes but Pearls serve no combat purpose. They are slaves designed to serve elites. Why would there aesthetics matter?

 

The elites have emotions and can appreciate aesthetically pleasing things, so they presumably prefer good-looking servants to less good-looking servants.

The elites have emotions and can appreciate aesthetically pleasing things, so they presumably prefer good-looking servants to less good-looking servants.

But wouldn't they focus all there time on combat? Why design inorganic beings with emotions? Beings whose sole purpose is conquest.

But wouldn't they focus all there time on combat? Why design inorganic beings with emotions? Beings whose sole purpose is conquest.

 

Firstly, where did you get this "sole purpose is conquest" thing? We've seen plenty of gems who aren't designed to fight or conquer anything. And even though war is extremely important to gems, there are tons of jobs in any military that don't involve fighting.

 

As for the gems' emotions, I can only infer that they aren't capable of designing intelligent gems that don't have feelings.

 

Finally, even if every gem is designed for combat, I see no reason why it would be somehow illogical for gems to look like women.

Firstly, where did you get this "sole purpose is conquest" thing? We've seen plenty of gems who aren't designed to fight or conquer anything. And even though war is extremely important to gems, there are tons of jobs in any military that don't involve fighting.

 

As for the gems' emotions, I can only infer that they aren't capable of designing intelligent gems that don't have feelings.

 

Finally, even if every gem is designed for combat, I see no reason why it would be somehow illogical for gems to look like women.

But what functional purpose besides aesthetics would there be to make them all female. Unless the explanation is that the gems creators prefer the female form.

But what functional purpose besides aesthetics would there be to make them all female. Unless the explanation is that the gems creators prefer the female form.

 

Well, if the Gems' creators were the Diamonds (who all look female) then it doesn't seem unusual for them to make female followers. And really, you don't need a justification for them all looking female any more than you would need a justification for making them look like robots, or any other more generic sci-fi alien appearance. It doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs one way or another, and they have to look like /something/. So again, we return to the question, what should they look like?

Well, if the Gems' creators were the Diamonds (who all look female) then it doesn't seem unusual for them to make female followers. And really, you don't need a justification for them all looking female any more than you would need a justification for making them look like robots, or any other more generic sci-fi alien appearance. It doesn't affect their ability to do their jobs one way or another, and they have to look like /something/. So again, we return to the question, what should they look like?

Like There creators. But who created the diamonds. There inorganic life. They had to 've a creator. Unless they abandoned there physical forms long ago. Which would make them functionally the same as A.I. at east in the sense that they would be stored as data on there gems.

 

 

Like There creators. But who created the diamonds. There inorganic life. They had to have a creator. Unless they abandoned there physical forms long ago. Which would make them functionally the same as A.I. at east in the sense that they would be stored as data on there gems.

 

We can't really know for sure. But, if somebody else created the diamonds and the other gems, perhaps that person (or species) liked the idea of making them look the way they do. Still not seeing anything illogical here.

We can't really know for sure. But, if somebody else created the diamonds and the other gems, perhaps that person (or species) liked the idea of making them look the way they do. Still not seeing anything illogical here.

I see what you mean. I guess they just liked female aesthetics better than male ones. Of course if the diamonds did have a creator it still doesn't explain why they have emotions. Emotions lead to mistakes and irrational thought. It would make more sense to have them act like robots. That way they could never inadvertently sympathise with there enemy.

I see what you mean. I guess they just liked female aesthetics better than male ones. Of course if the diamonds did have a creator it still doesn't explain why they have emotions. Emotions lead to mistakes and irrational thought. It would make more sense to have them act like robots. That way they could never inadvertently sympathise with there enemy.

 

We don't really know if they had a creator or not, but yeah. Still, fiction's full of examples of artificial intelligences developing emotions, so perhaps that happened with the gems too. Maybe we'll find out someday.