Non Kid-Friendly sets

[GregoryBrick]

4 hours ago, leafan said:

I don't think he was missing your point because you hadn't made it. You said "in Lego set and themes", which includes City. So your argument would be more with the television show and supporting media rather than Lego sets themselves.

I also noticed that you said LGBT ('Q' and '+' missing). Maybe you had reason for that? Well that would depend on your beliefs (or personal truths) - which is exactly why this stuff should be kept out of media and toys aimed at kids; and like @MAB said, if a kid wants to imagine a gay relationship or whatever, then there is literally nothing stopping them.

The point was made just fine: What counts as ‘kid-friendly’ is variable. We know this because you are arguing about should and shouldn't be in kids' toys. The rest was simply example: Some people say that LEGO sets with figures which represent characters who in other media are found to be LGBT, are not kid-friendly. Other people disagree.

As for ‘this stuff should be kept out of media and toys’ - what’s ‘this stuff’? Toys and media are never neutral; they are one of the primary ways in which children learn about the world and what’s normal, possible, and what's good and what's bad. The fact that children can hypothetically imagine anything avoids finding out how specific toys influence children's play, and about the assumptions that children are or aren't likely to make about their toys. Are the characters in a wedding set getting married? How do children understand the figures in a valentine's set? What about characters who live together (e.g. Friends' parents)? This can only be answered by studying how children play with these toys, not by saying 'children can imagine anything no matter what, therefore the nature of a toy is irrelevant (but also it shouldn't have two dads)'.

[leafan]

3 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

As for ‘this stuff should be kept out of media and toys’ - what’s ‘this stuff’?

You know exactly what I'm referring to, I made it clear in my first post, so save the baiting for someone else.

3 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

Toys and media are never neutral; they are one of the primary ways in which children learn about the world and what’s normal, possible, and what's good and what's bad.

They absolutely are neutral in most cases in the context to which I was referring, and should stay that way.

3 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

The fact that children can hypothetically imagine anything avoids finding out how specific toys influence children's play, and about the assumptions that children are or aren't likely to make about their toys.

All of which no kid cares about. They just want cool toys. Stop trying to make it sound weird.

3 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

Are the characters in a wedding set getting married? How do children understand the figures in a valentine's set? What about characters who live together (e.g. Friends' parents)? This can only be answered by studying how children play with these toys, not by saying 'children can imagine anything no matter what, therefore the nature of a toy is irrelevant (but also it shouldn't have two dads)'.

Kids don't learn about weddings and valentines day from Lego sets. Do you have kids? They learn from parents and other kids.

Also, are there a lot of Lego wedding and/or valentines sets that kids are lapping up?

3 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

(but also it shouldn't have two dads)'.

I didn't say that, but the fact that you did says that you did infact infer that from what I said; proving my earlier baiting comment.

[Aanchir]

9 hours ago, leafan said:

I don't think he was missing your point because you hadn't made it. You said "in Lego set and themes", which includes City. So your argument would be more with the television show and supporting media rather than Lego sets themselves. 

It's a slippery slope. I mean, what would you do to add a (for example) gay character to a set to indicate that he's gay? Add a more fabulous dress sense?

I don't understand the fascination in modern times of having 'representation' in all forms of entertainment. I didn't identify with B.A. Baracus from the A Team as a kid, but I loved him as a character and wanted to have certain traits like that (minus the jewellery perhaps).

I also noticed that you said LGBT ('Q' and '+' missing). Maybe you had reason for that? Well that would depend on your beliefs (or personal truths) - which is exactly why this stuff should be kept out of media and toys aimed at kids; and like @MAB said, if a kid wants to imagine a gay relationship or whatever, then there is literally nothing stopping them.

I don't feel like this is a very strong counter-argument. The characters in the sets are typically the same characters as in the media, and the media is just as much a part of the theme as the sets are. Just as an example, Ray and Maya are husband and wife, as well as the parents of Kai and Nya, in the Ninjago TV series. So doesn't make any sense to act as though their minifigures in the Dragon's Forge set are NOT husband and wife or the parents of Kai and Nya. It would be no more difficult for the sets and media to work together to establish that two male characters or two female characters are married, in love, etc.

Also, even in sets, it'd be downright easy to add a rainbow flag as a decoration in a bedroom from a LEGO City or LEGO Friends set, have a genderfluid character wear both masculine and feminine coded clothes in different sets, etc. There are way more ways for LGBTQ+ people to be visible besides caricaturing them based on stereotypes.

It's also rather insulting that you would insinuate that I used the term LGBT and not LGBTQ+ because of some exclusionary "beliefs or personal truths" and not just because the terminology has evolved within my lifetime and I'm no more used to seeing one than the other. You're correct that more inclusive terminology is better, and I'll go back and edit my post accordingly, but it's both deceitful and petty to call my values into question on those grounds.

And of course kids can imagine characters however they like regardless of whether there's official media supporting or contradicting it, but it's preposterous to act as though that somehow would make it entirely meaningless to officially establish any characters as having a particular trait. I mean, it's the same as how a kid who was adopted might relate to that aspect of Jay's character in LEGO Ninjago, or a kid who loves coding and computer games might relate to that aspect of Ava's character in Nexo Knights, or a kid who loves studying myths and ancient history might relate to that aspect of Samantha Rhodes' character from LEGO Atlantis, even if none of those things are obvious in the sets themselves. These are the kinds of things enrich kids' experiences with these themes, and make it even more exciting to include those characters in their creations and stories.

Just because you didn't care about feeling represented in media as a kid doesn't mean that people who do are just making unreasonable demands. And being able to appreciate fictional characters who you can't relate to isn't the same as not having characters in stuff you love who you CAN relate to. I've enjoyed plenty of LEGO themes that don't have any canon lesbian couples or transgender character… but I might enjoy them more if they DID have a canon lesbian couple, and certainly wouldn't enjoy them any less, because I'd be seeing parts of myself reflected in something I already enjoy.

I doubt anybody who's ever wanted to feel represented has felt like the entirety of pop culture is unpleasant unless they're represented in it. But simply put, being able to relate an aspect of yourself to an aspect of a character in a work you enjoy feels validating, and that's ultimately something that few people can understand who HAVEN'T experienced that thrill of seeing a character who's "like them" in a way that they've seen rarely or not at all in other works.

1 hour ago, leafan said:

You know exactly what I'm referring to, I made it clear in my first post, so save the baiting for someone else.

They absolutely are neutral in most cases in the context to which I was referring, and should stay that way.

Wow! So what do I have to do to be one of the people who gets to decide which contexts LEGO ought to stay neutral in and which they don’t, or what “neutral” means in any of those contexts?

I mean, as I understand it, your country's largest independent toy store chain, The Entertainer, has refused to stock a considerable range of sets and themes because they perceive them as promoting the occult. Sets from themes like Harry Potter, Minifigures Series 14, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Monster Fighters, Pharaoh’s Quest, Pirates of the Caribbean, certain versions of Castle, etc.

If LEGO simply chose not to make any theme with wizards or the undead, would you be praising them for becoming neutral? Because that’s about how much sense it makes to act as though excluding same-sex couples from LEGO sets and themes entirely (thereby pandering to some potential buyers’ irrational prejudices) is “neutral” and including them in even a small capacity is not. After all, kids can always just imagine that the characters in their City and Friends sets are undead or have magic powers…

Edited February 12, 2019 by Aanchir

[iLego]

On 2/10/2019 at 9:29 PM, Lego David said:

sometimes we get sets that are not nececerly kid friendly.

It's outrageous that Lego allows minifig heads to be decapitated (i.e remove head from body) !! One can even put 2, 3 or more heads on the body ! Kids can attach pants the wrong way around and giggle !

Sorry for joking. I don't mean to undermine your feelings or your topic, but just want to illustrate that inappropriateness depends a lot on context and perspective.

We, as a society, should take things in a stride and avoid being oversensitive.

In fact, learn from the kids. They are hardly ever  judgemental or critical. They just go with the flow and have fun.

 

[jimmynick]

12 hours ago, Lego David said:

They are a little... realistic... in a not very kid-friendly way in my opinion...

They're obviously shoulder blades and not boobs; stop reaching so hard.

In generic City sets, as @MAB has pointed, out, the characters are just people, and the possibilities are endless, but @Aanchir's original point was clear enough - that sets from themes such as Ninjago and Star Wars cannot exist outside their media tie-ins. Fanon is and always will be important in any medium, but having a TV show based on the theme makes a character's gender identity and sexual orientation canon, and that is how one would have a definitively gay character in a set. Representation in media and toys is an important part of childhood, and (no joke) that's why all my minifigures have always been left-handed: to be just like me.

12 hours ago, leafan said:

which is exactly why this stuff should be kept out of media and toys aimed at kids;

Care to define "this stuff"? Do you mean perhaps normal and harmless interpersonal relationships, which we can contrast with guns, swords and other weapons that feature in many LEGO themes? If we can accept the latter with the mindset of "calm down, it's just a toy", then surely we can do that for the former?

[JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)]

This may seems to be an interesting topic to touch, but when looked at the bigger picture of why this thread exist....it's just another reason for you to bash on licensed themes and also adding on why they shouldn't exist, is it not?, Lego David.

Edited February 13, 2019 by JJ Tong (zfogshooterz)

[MAB]

10 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I don't feel like this is a very strong counter-argument. The characters in the sets are typically the same characters as in the media, and the media is just as much a part of the theme as the sets are. Just as an example, Ray and Maya are husband and wife, as well as the parents of Kai and Nya, in the Ninjago TV series. So doesn't make any sense to act as though their minifigures in the Dragon's Forge set are NOT husband and wife or the parents of Kai and Nya. It would be no more difficult for the sets and media to work together to establish that two male characters or two female characters are married, in love, etc.

1

I'm not sure media is necessarily as much part of a theme as the sets, as in many countries the media is not very widespread. It is perfectly possible for a child to want and play with the sets without knowing anything about the storyline that is portrayed in a cartoon that is not on TV in their country. In that case, why would they necessarily make the link. The box doesn't indicate the storyline, although if the child reads the description of it on the lego website or elsewhere, they can see that they are the parents. However, there is no reason to believe they are married based on knowing they are the parents. Plenty of people live together and are parents of children without being married. I don't follow the media for Ninjago. Do they get married in the show or is it stated that they are married, or is it just a cultural thing, making the assumption that they are married as they have children together?

[Lego David]

3 hours ago, JJ Tong (zfogshooterz) said:

This may seems to be an interesting topic to touch, but when looked at the bigger picture of why this thread exist....it's just another reason for you to bash on licensed themes and also adding on why they shouldn't exist, is it not?, Lego David.

No, I made this topic with no intention to "bash at licensed themes" as you said. 

I think this topic has gone a bit to far. I created this with the intention of people sharing sets that ex. represent violent scenes from movies, not to get into discussing all that has been discussed so far.

Back on topic, here is another set in preticular which shows a violent scene:

The scene where Anakin is buring almost to death is not something I would show to a young kid...

[MAB]

Would you show them the rape and pillage that is about to go on here?

[TeriXeri]

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

The scene where Anakin is buring almost to death is not something I would show to a young kid...

I just see 2 minifigs with plastic lightsabers, no blood or limbs flying. Not much different from any Castle or Pirate set with swords.

Pirates even have peg legs and hook hands starting way back in 1989 , TLM2 benny has a robot arm in some of his minifigs, just an example that Star Wars isn't the only theme with amputated limbs.

LEGO had plenty of Star Wars video games as well.

Even if you'd remove the head or legs (arms aren't officially removable as lego parts) it's nothing a kid shouldn't see in the LEGO set.

Even TLM2 Rex Dangervest has obviously a lot of bigger guns in sets:

One of his guns actually uses an official part named Submachine Gun Ø3.2 Shaft, first time that's seen in an in-house theme as gun. (even tho TLM2 is still semi-licensed just like Nexo Knights was called Licensed in some cases)

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by TeriXeri

[leafan]

13 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I don't feel like this is a very strong counter-argument. The characters in the sets are typically the same characters as in the media, and the media is just as much a part of the theme as the sets are.

Yes of course they are the same characters as in the media, but the toy isn't inextricably linked to that in the eyes of a kid. Not every kid watches Ninjago and most adults don't, so to them the set is just a cool set with characters - whom are whatever the kid or adult wants them to be.

13 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Also, even in sets, it'd be downright easy to add a rainbow flag as a decoration in a bedroom from a LEGO City or LEGO Friends set, have a genderfluid character wear both masculine and feminine coded clothes in different sets, etc. There are way more ways for LGBTQ+ people to be visible besides caricaturing them based on stereotypes.

So you're saying that they need visible indicators of their sexuality and/or "genderfluid" state. Riiiight.

13 hours ago, Aanchir said:

It's also rather insulting that you would insinuate that I used the term LGBT and not LGBTQ+ because of some exclusionary "beliefs or personal truths" and not just because the terminology has evolved within my lifetime and I'm no more used to seeing one than the other. You're correct that more inclusive terminology is better, and I'll go back and edit my post accordingly, but it's both deceitful and petty to call my values into question on those grounds.

I didn't insinuate anything. I asked you a straight question because, if it were true, then that would mean you had a belief that those weren't a thing, and therefore any Lego set that pushes that narrative would be counter to your beliefs.

You imply that it was mere oversight that it wasn't included - ok then. But you do realise that the average person on the street doesn't believe in made up genders, right?

It's also strange that you take offense when your opening post in this thread labelled anybody who doesn't agree with this political stance as "homophobes and transphobes".

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Just because you didn't care about feeling represented in media as a kid doesn't mean that people who do are just making unreasonable demands. And being able to appreciate fictional characters who you can't relate to isn't the same as not having characters in stuff you love who you CAN relate to. I've enjoyed plenty of LEGO themes that don't have any canon lesbian couples or transgender character… but I might enjoy them more if they DID have a canon lesbian couple, and certainly wouldn't enjoy them any less, because I'd be seeing parts of myself reflected in something I already enjoy.

Well we disagree. I think that is an unreasonable demand.

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I doubt anybody who's ever wanted to feel represented has felt like the entirety of pop culture is unpleasant unless they're represented in it. But simply put, being able to relate an aspect of yourself to an aspect of a character in a work you enjoy feels validating, and that's ultimately something that few people can understand who HAVEN'T experienced that thrill of seeing a character who's "like them" in a way that they've seen rarely or not at all in other works.

I understand perfectly. I hadn't seen myself until I watched Max and Paddy's Road To Nowhere. If it hadn't existed I think I'd have been fine.

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Wow! So what do I have to do to be one of the people who gets to decide which contexts LEGO ought to stay neutral in and which they don’t, or what “neutral” means in any of those contexts?

Well you'd need to be a decision maker at Lego. Thank me later for the advice.

And remaining neutral is what we've been discussing. Politics in toys.

This is one of the reasons Lego don't make military sets. I could identify with military sets by the way. Just saying.

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I mean, as I understand it, your country's largest independent toy store chain, The Entertainer, has refused to stock a considerable range of sets and themes because they perceive them as promoting the occult. Sets from themes like Harry Potter, Minifigures Series 14, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, Monster Fighters, Pharaoh’s Quest, Pirates of the Caribbean, certain versions of Castle, etc.

Did it? News to me. Pretty sure they had Harry Potter sets last time I was in there, but I could be wrong.

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

If LEGO simply chose not to make any theme with wizards or the undead, would you be praising them for becoming neutral? Because that’s about how much sense it makes to act as though excluding same-sex couples from LEGO sets and themes entirely (thereby pandering to some potential buyers’ irrational prejudices) is “neutral” and including them in even a small capacity is not. After all, kids can always just imagine that the characters in their City and Friends sets are undead or have magic powers…

How exactly would you represent a Wizard or an Undead without showing them as such? Now I ask you what the difference is between a plain gay minifigure and a plain straight minifigure? The answer is that there's no difference, visually.

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

After all, kids can always just imagine that the characters in their City and Friends sets are undead or have magic powers… 

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

11 hours ago, jimmynick said:

Care to define "this stuff"? Do you mean perhaps normal and harmless interpersonal relationships, which we can contrast with guns, swords and other weapons that feature in many LEGO themes? If we can accept the latter with the mindset of "calm down, it's just a toy", then surely we can do that for the former?

Care to read my previous posts before asking a loaded question? ta.

[Tariq j]

3 hours ago, Lego David said:

Back on topic, here is another set in preticular which shows a violent scene:

The scene where Anakin is buring almost to death is not something I would show to a young kid...

Well for starters, neither of the sets in question show Anakin being burned, they depict the duel that happens before hand. And it’s two characters having a lightsaber duel. Is that any different to two characters from Ninjago having a fight? Or two knights from the castle theme having a sword fight? Or a Policeman trying to stop a robber from escaping in the City theme? 

And the Ultimate Lightsaber Duel set is designed so that kids can have their own lightsaber fight using the rods, not to mention it’s littered with play features and the light up lightsabers. Heck this set could not be MORE kid friendly if it tried. 

 

[Agent Kallus]

I'm gonna regret posting this but what the hell.

As has been said there is no visual difference between a 'gay' minfiigure and a 'straight' minifigure and I don't see why we need to put them in theses boxes anyway, orientation does not define a person so why should it matter here. 

Where Lego perhaps could do better in this regard is if there was say a friends set where there was 2 dads or 2 mums rather than a mum and dad for example, however I think there is a more unsettling reason why lego doesn't do this, which not that TLG is homophobic but perhaps they do not want to upset some of their customers who are such as the Russian government. Of course this only applies to original themes not licensed themes. As for Tv shows such as ninjago idk they could give cole a boyfriend but honestly I'd rather he stay single because not everybody has to be in a relationship, I mean not many TV shows touch on this, even the legend of korra which is touted as being progressive doesn't really have anything gay until the last episode, there are a lot more straight people in the world than gay people and fiction tends to reflect reality. If you do want more representation in lego then lego Steven universe is definitely something I could get behind.

Quote

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Nah mate sarcasm is bloody brilliant.

1 hour ago, leafan said:

But you do realise that the average person on the street doesn't believe in made up genders, right?

I think you may have gone a little far, whilst I don't really comprehend more than male, female, both or neither doesn't mean I think people who claim to be something else are making stuff up, just let people be who they want to be, unless they want to hurt other people but you know what I mean.

Quote

Did it? News to me. Pretty sure they had Harry Potter sets last time I was in there, but I could be wrong.

Nope they don't sell Harry Potter products, it made finding the collectable minifigures harder. But they're Irish not English so both of you are wrong.

Is it bad to say that I don't really care either way? At the end of the day lego is a children's toy and most children don't care about relationships. Representation does matter but designing a toy should be more about creativity and fun, if it happens to tick the boxes then that's a good thing but if doesn't then it's not the end of the world.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Agent Kallus

[Lego David]

26 minutes ago, Tariq j said:

neither of the sets in question show Anakin being burned,

Are you sure about that?

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by Lego David

[jimmynick]

3 hours ago, leafan said:

Care to read my previous posts before asking a loaded question? ta.

Well, really, my point was that "this stuff" is a dismissive way of referring to LGBT issues, which makes me think that the subject just makes you feel a little bit uncomfortable, but sure, we can look at your posts, including the one where you said "this stuff":

On 2/12/2019 at 9:01 AM, leafan said:

I don't think he was missing your point because you hadn't made it. You said "in Lego set and themes", which includes City. So your argument would be more with the television show and supporting media rather than Lego sets themselves.

I think we agree here.

On 2/12/2019 at 9:01 AM, leafan said:

It's a slippery slope. I mean, what would you do to add a (for example) gay character to a set to indicate that he's gay? Add a more fabulous dress sense?

As @Aanchir pointed out, a character in City or another theme could have a pride flag on their bedroom wall, or we could have two male (or female) coded minifigures pushing a pram, say outside a modular building. It would be stereotyping, as you and many others have pointed out, to make every character look like Liberace.

On 2/12/2019 at 9:01 AM, leafan said:

I don't understand the fascination in modern times of having 'representation' in all forms of entertainment. I didn't identify with B.A. Baracus from the A Team as a kid, but I loved him as a character and wanted to have certain traits like that (minus the jewellery perhaps).

If representation weren't important, we wouldn't have things like minidolls. Considering minidolls still exist, I will assume that they're good for business. Even among the more "adult" crowd, we get AFOLs complaining that the Modular Buildings are "too American" and they want their own cultures to be represented. Also, in responding to @GregoryBrick, you said

19 hours ago, leafan said:

Kids don't learn about weddings and valentines day from Lego sets. Do you have kids? They learn from parents and other kids.

You're right that kids learn about weddings and valentine's day from their parents and other kids, but from the angle of representation in media and toys, it would be nice for children who have gay parents, and slightly older children exploring their own sexuality and relationships, to receive the reassuring message that being gay is normal.

On 2/12/2019 at 9:01 AM, leafan said:

I also noticed that you said LGBT ('Q' and '+' missing). Maybe you had reason for that? Well that would depend on your beliefs (or personal truths) - which is exactly why this stuff should be kept out of media and toys aimed at kids; and like @MAB said, if a kid wants to imagine a gay relationship or whatever, then there is literally nothing stopping them.

What does it matter if someone says "LGBT" instead of "LGBTQ+" or "LGBTQIAP"? Is it that things that are contentious should be kept out of toys for children? Then why do we have things like the Indiana Jones theme, which has Nazis and modern warfare? Should LEGO not have made the Ecto 2 from the reboot of Ghostbusters, because feminism is considered contentious in certain circles? Why should LEGO make Lunar New Year sets, if they cater largely to a non-European audience? Why even have women minifigures, that perpetuate toxic norms such as childbearing, prescriptive body types, and hairstyles? This, I think, is a real slippery slope, and I think you differentiate LGBT issues from other gender-based and cultural because the thought makes you feel icky. A century ago in the UK and America, the thought of women voting made people uncomfortable, but people got over it. In due course, people can accept LGBT identity and relationships as truly normal, too. In my opinion, achieving that end means telling kids it's OK to have 2 dads, or it's OK to have a crush on the boy who sits next to you in class (but he might not fancy you back!)

3 hours ago, leafan said:

And remaining neutral is what we've been discussing. Politics in toys.

How do we define "neutral"? Everything is political. The status quo might be just fine for you, but it isn't for others. We already have heterosexual pairings, from Han & Leia to Emmet & Wildstyle, and man & woman pairings in domestic situations in the Creator theme. You seem to take the position that gay people are OK but you don't think they should be explicitly included in toys. Holding that position is a political choice, and holding that position is not neutral when there are already plenty of straight couples on display in these toys. Leaving out gay minifigures is only neutral when there are no minifigures at all.

2 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

Is it bad to say that I don't really care either way? At the end of the day lego is a children's toy and most children don't care about relationships. Representation does matter but designing a toy should be more about creativity and fun, if it happens to tick the boxes then that's a good thing but if doesn't then it's not the end of the world.

It's also not the end of the world to make the choice to tick boxes.

Edited February 13, 2019 by jimmynick

[Aanchir]

5 hours ago, MAB said:

I'm not sure media is necessarily as much part of a theme as the sets, as in many countries the media is not very widespread. It is perfectly possible for a child to want and play with the sets without knowing anything about the storyline that is portrayed in a cartoon that is not on TV in their country. In that case, why would they necessarily make the link. The box doesn't indicate the storyline, although if the child reads the description of it on the lego website or elsewhere, they can see that they are the parents. However, there is no reason to believe they are married based on knowing they are the parents. Plenty of people live together and are parents of children without being married. I don't follow the media for Ninjago. Do they get married in the show or is it stated that they are married, or is it just a cultural thing, making the assumption that they are married as they have children together?

 

1 hour ago, leafan said:

Yes of course they are the same characters as in the media, but the toy isn't inextricably linked to that in the eyes of a kid. Not every kid watches Ninjago and most adults don't, so to them the set is just a cool set with characters - whom are whatever the kid or adult wants them to be.

it's true that sets are often enjoyable without the context of the media, but likewise the media is often enjoyable without the context of the sets. But both are a big part of the theme's overall strategy: the sets and characters are designed with the intent of fitting into the larger narrative, and the narrative is written with the intent of utilizing and promoting those sets and characters. It's a whole give-and-take, and each side of that equation heavily informs the development process on the other side. So the fact that some kids might make up their own identities for the characters doesn't mean that they don't have identities of their own.

Plus, if you really think the supporting media is that irrelevant to the minifigures' identities in the sets themselves and the way many kids play with them, then why would it be a problem to have LGBTQ+ characters in the media? Couldn't people who want all LEGO characters to be straight and cisgender just continue to imagine that they are?

One of the first LEGO Ninjago chapter books established that Kai and Nya's parents were married, and that their marriage was a big part of why they retired from fighting alongside Wu… but that said, this was before a lot of care was taken to ensure that the books and the TV show maintained a consistent canon, and some elements of those books have indeed been declared non-canon, so you make a good point that it may not still hold true. That said, it's established clearly in the series and heavily implied in the Dragon Forge set that they remained a devoted couple, married or not.

1 hour ago, leafan said:

So you're saying that they need visible indicators of their sexuality and/or "genderfluid" state. Riiiight.

Quit putting words in my mouth. All I was stating there is that it's ignorant to act as though caricature and stereotypes are the ONLY way for characters — or real people — to visually communicate these aspects of their identity. Personally, I often wear barrettes in the colors of the transgender flag (pink+white+light blue) or paint my nails in rainbow colors, and I know many other LGBTQ+ people who communicate their identity in similar ways.

That doesn't mean you can reliably tell if somebody's LGBTQ+ by looking at how they look or dress or decorate their space… sometimes these symbols can be coincidence, and other times people can pretend they're coincidence even if they aren't, whether in reference to a fictional character or a real person — but that's the nature of all sorts of symbols, and it doesn't negate their power to communicate meaning.

1 hour ago, leafan said:

You imply that it was mere oversight that it wasn't included - ok then. But you do realise that the average person on the street doesn't believe in made up genders, right?

Oh, guess you showed your hand, then. Yikes, that's embarrassing. None of the discussion we've been having about LGBTQ+ representation has to do with "made up genders", at least no more made up than the entire socially constructed concept of "gender"… all the way back to its origins as a grammatical mechanism to classify nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and articles. And by the way, even in that usage, many languages like Latin have words with a "neuter" gender and others with both "masculine" and "feminine" genders!

2 hours ago, leafan said:

It's also strange that you take offense when your opening post in this thread labelled anybody who doesn't agree with this political stance as "homophobes and transphobes".

I don't see what's so strange about it. Thinking that heterosexual and cisgender people are more moral, more kid-appropriate, more natural, or more deserving of rights and positive representation than gay or transgender people pretty neatly falls under the categories of homophobia and transphobia by definition, same as how thinking that one race or sex is more moral, intelligent, emotionally stable, or deserving of rights pretty neatly falls under the categories of racism and sexism. And while it's kind of disgraceful that people hold any of those perspectives, it's just as much a "political stance" to agree with them as to disagree with them.

2 hours ago, leafan said:

How exactly would you represent a Wizard or an Undead without showing them as such?

Kind of a silly question. There are plenty of examples of fictional wizards, witches, ghosts, and vampires who look and dress pretty much the same way as ordinary people, and just happen to have supernatural abilities, limitations, and/or origins.

1 hour ago, Agent Kallus said:

As has been said there is no visual difference between a 'gay' minfiigure and a 'straight' minifigure and I don't see why we need to put them in theses boxes anyway, orientation does not define a person so why should it matter here.

I mean, it's a part of a person's identity. Just because it doesn't define them in their entirety doesn't mean it's not a part of them that matters. As for "putting them in boxes", we do that because the alternative is leaving the playroom a mess because like all language, it makes it easier to talk about the world and about ourselves. I would think LEGO fans of all people would understand the value of having ways to identify and categorize characteristics, considering how many ways we categorize LEGO sets, themes, parts, minifigures, and even fans or how heavily invested some people are in how they define those categories.

Most of us don't identify in part as fans of particular LEGO themes because we want to isolate ourselves from people who don't identify as fans of those themes, but because it allows us to identify people we relate to on those levels, and communicate that aspect of ourselves. LGBTQ+ identities, national identities, racial identities, ethnic identities, etc. serve a similar purpose. It means that even though all people (real and fictional alike) have their own unique and individual life experiences, they can put a name to some of the similarities and differences between their experiences and others', which makes it that much easier to talk about the many things that make us who we are.

1 hour ago, Agent Kallus said:

Where Lego perhaps could do better in this regard is if there was say a friends set where there was 2 dads or 2 mums rather than a mum and dad for example, however I think there is a more unsettling reason why lego doesn't do this, which not that TLG is homophobic but perhaps they do not want to upset some of their customers who are such as the Russian government. Of course this only applies to original themes not licensed themes.

I agree this would be a good thing to see, and I agree that worries about hurting the company's sales and reputation in places that view LGBTQ+ people in a negative light are probably a bigger part of LEGO's hesitation to embrace that kind of representation in their original themes than The LEGO Group's decision makers actually being homophobic or transphobic themselves. After all, their VP of design in the Play Themes 1 department, Matthew Ashton, is openly gay. That said, I think there will come a point at which LEGO can be a little more open to that type of representation in their products and media, and I'd like to see them continue moving towards that point… whether that means risk-taking on LEGO's part or just keeping a finger on the pulse of how the world is becoming steadily more accepting of LGBTQ+ people.

1 hour ago, Agent Kallus said:

Is it bad to say that I don't really care either way? At the end of the day lego is a children's toy and most children don't care about relationships. Representation does matter but designing a toy should be more about creativity and fun, if it happens to tick the boxes then that's a good thing but if doesn't then it's not the end of the world.

I think that's quite a bit to generalize about kids… now, it has been conventional wisdom for a long time that BOYS tend to be disinterested or even grossed out by the idea of romance, but I feel like on some levels even that can be something of a misleading stereotype, especially considering how much cultural norms surrounding romance vary around the world.

And when you bring girls into the equation, it's easy to see how many stories and toys related to romance (many Disney Princess movies and toys, for example) have become very popular even with kids so young that they may not have even experienced their first crush. I've also certainly noticed that some of the kids at the LEGO Ninjago Q&A sessions at past Comic-Con events have expressed considerable interest in which characters happen to be in love or whether other characters will fall in love in the future.

Plus, regardless of their personal feelings on romance, a lot of kids DO relate to stories involving familieis, and as you noted, the relationship between parents is a part of how many families live and interact. So as you noted earlier, couples could certainly appear in those contexts.

4 hours ago, Lego David said:

No, I made this topic with no intention to "bash at licensed themes" as you said. 

I think this topic has gone a bit to far. I created this with the intention of people sharing sets that ex. represent violent scenes from movies, not to get into discussing all that has been discussed so far.

Back on topic, here is another set in preticular which shows a violent scene:

The scene where Anakin is buring almost to death is not something I would show to a young kid...

That may be your feeling, but I think on a wider scale it depends on the discretion of the parents, the maturity of the kid, and the norms and taboos of the culture.

Specifically, Revenge of the Sith has a U (all ages) rating in Malaysia and France; an "All" (all ages) rating in South Korea; a G (all ages) rating in Japan, the Philippines, and Quebec; a PG (all ages, but parental discretion advised) rating in the rest of Canada and Singapore; an M/6 (ages 6 and up) in Portugal; a 7 (ages 7 and up) rating in Spain; a PG (ages 8 and up, with parental discretion advised) rating in Ireland; a 10 (ages 10 and up) rating in Austria, Brazil, Iceland, and South Africa; etc. As you can see, a lot of countries' perceptions vary in how much violence kids can handle and how much of that decision ought to be at the parents' discretion.

And usually even for more intermediate level media ratings like PG-13, T, FSK-12, etc, parents are granted a lot of leeway when it comes to deciding whether their kid can handle a movie that the ratings board thinks is more suited to older viewers. Same as how many parents might allow their kids to build LEGO sets aimed at teen or adult builders (Star Wars Ultimate Collector Series, Creator Expert, Ninjago City, bigger Technic sets, etc) if they think the kid's demonstrated enough building proficiency to handle them.

After all, even among us adults, there are many of us who might find movies with a lot of sexual content, gore, profanity, etc. extremely upsetting or even traumatic, and others of us who are hardly fazed by such content. It depends a lot on our upbringing, our personal experiences, our skill at managing unpleasant emotions, etc. So I don't think it makes sense to assume kids have some kind of universal benchmarks of when they're prepared to see or hear about such content without it negatively impacting their development.

On a side note, I also think that the idea of different media presenting the same stories in different ways applies here. Several of the LEGO video games and animated specials have used cartoonish graphics and tongue-in-cheek humor to tone down the gravity of some movies' darker or more mature content. And there are plenty of other examples of Star Wars media aimed at making the story more palatable to a younger audience… much like how many of LEGO's original themes like City, Friends, and Ninjago have also been released as 4+/Juniors builds, allowing younger builders than the typical target audience of those themes to experience them in a more age-appropriate level.

[pombe]

One is included or one is excluded.  There is no in between state.

On 2/11/2019 at 8:06 AM, Aanchir said:

...Jay+Nya, Kai+Skylor, Zane+PIXAL, Lloyd+Harumi, Emmet+Lucy, Tidus+Sira, Macku+Hewkii, Roodaka+Sidorak, and most characters' parents regardless of theme.

Which are all cis-gendered couples.  Overtly so.

Pop quiz!
Are non cis-gendered couples overtly included in any LEGO theme or sets?

Answer: No.
That means they are excluded.

There may be marketing reasons why TLG has decided to exclude them.  But in my opinion, they are currently on the wrong side of history.

[MAB]

2 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

Where Lego perhaps could do better in this regard is if there was say a friends set where there was 2 dads or 2 mums rather than a mum and dad for example, however I think there is a more unsettling reason why lego doesn't do this, which not that TLG is homophobic but perhaps they do not want to upset some of their customers who are such as the Russian government.

1

I would imagine it is more to do with sales in the US Bible Belt.  Any City or Friends type set (that is, non-licensed, so not story based) that contained two dads would be likely jumped on as a political statement and would have a portion of the world up in arms about it, while another portion would be buying it up even if they have no interest in the contents to show support that Lego have made a set with gay men in it.

 

[koalayummies]

10 hours ago, JJ Tong (zfogshooterz) said:

This may seems to be an interesting topic to touch, but when looked at the bigger picture of why this thread exist....it's just another reason for you to bash on licensed themes and also adding on why they shouldn't exist, is it not?, Lego David.

I think you're onto something here; every set cited by the OP is from a licensed theme. And the respondents point out similar things in non-licensed sets and are ignored.

[koalayummies]

Edited for off topic.

Edited February 13, 2019 by koalayummies

[pombe]

Off topic...

15 minutes ago, koalayummies said:

If they haven't seen the movie then that's completely fine, but if they have seen the movie and are doing that then there might be some psychological issues.

@koalayummies 

Spoiler

Check out Predestination with Ethan Hawke.  

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by pombe
inserted spoiler tag

[Robert8]

About the licensed vs in-house discussion, the issue here is clearly the licensed sets, because LEGO has 100% control over their original themes. For instance, Chris Miller and Phil Lord wanted ClockWork Orange characters/references in The LEGO Movie, but TLG said no. And that was it.

 

In case of the licensed sources, TLG approved Terminator and Hot Tub Time Machine references because what appeared wasn't R-rated: it was taken out of context. 

With the Obi Wan vs Anakin fight set, you can say the same: It's taken out of context, so it works. You know what follows next, but that's because you watched the movie. There is nothing about it in the set. The Anakin minifigure has some printing depicting what happened in the scene, but it's clearly tuned down compared to the movie: he is not missing any limbs, his eyes are not red, etc... 

 

And the same applies with most of the sets mentioned here. And yeah, the issue is mostly with licensed sets because LEGO doesnt have any control over the source material

 

But why do they choose movies that have scenes that can be considered non kid-friendly like the Anakin vs Obi Wan fight? Well because of money. TLG is a business company. They are trying to make money. And they know that scene is well-known among AFOLs which also part of the target demographic of Star Wars. 

 

I won't talk about the other issues mentioned here, but it's the same: TLG is a business company,  not a NGO. Why wasn't the Grindelwald/Dumbledore relantionship openly shown in Fantastic Beasts? Well, because that would mean an instant ban on China and Russia, and that's a lot of $$$$$$$$$$$$. The same applies here. 

[koalayummies]

Edit, off topic continued in PM.

Edited February 13, 2019 by koalayummies

[MAB]

48 minutes ago, Robert8 said:

But why do they choose movies that have scenes that can be considered non kid-friendly like the Anakin vs Obi Wan fight? Well because of money. TLG is a business company. They are trying to make money. And they know that scene is well-known among AFOLs which also part of the target demographic of Star Wars.

3

The scene is also an important one - it marks Anakin's turn to the dark side. As for licenses vs non-licenses, the SW scenes are no worse than, for example, two knights fighting.

 

Edited February 13, 2019 by MAB

[leafan]

5 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

I think you may have gone a little far, whilst I don't really comprehend more than male, female, both or neither doesn't mean I think people who claim to be something else are making stuff up, just let people be who they want to be, unless they want to hurt other people but you know what I mean.

I don't think I've gone too far; and I'm not saying that people can't believe what they want. But they're not going to make me believe it.

5 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

Nope they don't sell Harry Potter products, it made finding the collectable minifigures harder. But they're Irish not English so both of you are wrong.

Ok, well like I said, I could be wrong. Either way it doesn't matter to me because as I understand it, the owner is religious and applies some of those values to his business, which I think should be allowed so long as it's not hurting anybody.

People can simply buy them from Tesco or wherever.

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

Well, really, my point was that "this stuff" is a dismissive way of referring to LGBT issues, which makes me think that the subject just makes you feel a little bit uncomfortable, but sure, we can look at your posts, including the one where you said "this stuff":

No it's not, but I am dismissing those "issues" because I don't care about them.

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

If representation weren't important, we wouldn't have things like minidolls. Considering minidolls still exist, I will assume that they're good for business. Even among the more "adult" crowd, we get AFOLs complaining that the Modular Buildings are "too American" and they want their own cultures to be represented.

Well I'd say the want for (example) gothic style buildings of the Czech Rebpublic vs wanting minority sexualities and (in *my* opinion), imaginary genders, isn't comparible at all.

A building needs to look a certain way to be that thing, where a persons sexual interests or 'identity' do not need to be represented visually. I am specifically talking about Lego sets here, mind, not tv shows etc, which I've already established are separate.

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

You're right that kids learn about weddings and valentine's day from their parents and other kids, but from the angle of representation in media and toys, it would be nice for children who have gay parents, and slightly older children exploring their own sexuality and relationships, to receive the reassuring message that being gay is normal.

Well I think we fundamentally disagree here, because I don't think it's the job of a toy company to reassure kids about their home life; I think that should be family and friends and toys should remain simply toys that are there to be built, played with, and destroyed.

You know what though... It would be interesting to see Lego produce a range of sets specifically designed to do the things you and others talk about here, just to see how well it sells. I'm betting not well - but I suppose that'd be written off as some sort of prejudice.

4 hours ago, jimmynick said:

What does it matter if someone says "LGBT" instead of "LGBTQ+" or "LGBTQIAP"? Is it that things that are contentious should be kept out of toys for children? Then why do we have things like the Indiana Jones theme, which has Nazis and modern warfare? Should LEGO not have made the Ecto 2 from the reboot of Ghostbusters, because feminism is considered contentious in certain circles? Why should LEGO make Lunar New Year sets, if they cater largely to a non-European audience? Why even have women minifigures, that perpetuate toxic norms such as childbearing, prescriptive body types, and hairstyles? This, I think, is a real slippery slope, and I think you differentiate LGBT issues from other gender-based and cultural because the thought makes you feel icky. A century ago in the UK and America, the thought of women voting made people uncomfortable, but people got over it. In due course, people can accept LGBT identity and relationships as truly normal, too. In my opinion, achieving that end means telling kids it's OK to have 2 dads, or it's OK to have a crush on the boy who sits next to you in class (but he might not fancy you back!)

It doesn't matter to me at all. I was asking because, if that was intentional, then it just goes to show that depending on your beliefs or politics, what you may deem as acceptable in a toy will differ. You then have a lot of different questions which I'll answer quickfire style:

"Is it that things that are contentious should be kept out of toys for children?" - Context is everything. So in your example of Indiana Jones/Nazi's, I'd say that WW2 an important historical event that should be taught to kids on a high level. There's no disagreeing about that, even if you're a literal Nazi. The lesson may be different depending on your view of it all, but it's important to learn, so yes I think it's good that kids are taught about that stuff, although I think Lego sets based upon a film set in that era are irrelevant and most kids don't care about the historical content there, they just want to shoot the "bad guys" or drive the cool jeep. It goes no deeper than that. Lego themselves though kind of broke their own rules about modern warfare there, but that's another topic.

"Should LEGO not have made the Ecto 2 from the reboot of Ghostbusters, because feminism is considered contentious in certain circles?" - How are the characters identified as feminists based on the set alone? Otherwise it doesn't matter. I do however think that it shouldn't have been made because the film is shockingly bad.

"Why should LEGO make Lunar New Year sets, if they cater largely to a non-European audience?" - Maybe not? I don't really care because there's no overt agenda and I'm not Chinese.

"Why even have women minifigures, that perpetuate toxic norms such as childbearing, prescriptive body types, and hairstyles?" - Are you projecting? You can write this sentence because of a "toxic norms such as childbearing".

"This, I think, is a real slippery slope, and I think you differentiate LGBT issues from other gender-based and cultural because the thought makes you feel icky." - Slippery slope, yes I agree. I even said that in my earlier post. But please don't try to make me look like I'm a minority in that I don't want to see LGBTQ+ issues visually portrayed in Lego sets, or kids toys in general. I guess we can't prove that either way though.

5 hours ago, jimmynick said:

How do we define "neutral"? Everything is political. The status quo might be just fine for you, but it isn't for others. We already have heterosexual pairings, from Han & Leia to Emmet & Wildstyle, and man & woman pairings in domestic situations in the Creator theme. You seem to take the position that gay people are OK but you don't think they should be explicitly included in toys. Holding that position is a political choice, and holding that position is not neutral when there are already plenty of straight couples on display in these toys. Leaving out gay minifigures is only neutral when there are no minifigures at all.

I'd love to debate you on this, but frankly, I can already feel the moderators breathing down my neck and I've already been threatened with punishment once for voicing my opinion. I will say that yes, there is nothing wrong with the cultural norm being portrayed in toys.

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

it's true that sets are often enjoyable without the context of the media, but likewise the media is often enjoyable without the context of the sets. But both are a big part of the theme's overall strategy: the sets and characters are designed with the intent of fitting into the larger narrative, and the narrative is written with the intent of utilizing and promoting those sets and characters. It's a whole give-and-take, and each side of that equation heavily informs the development process on the other side. So the fact that some kids might make up their own identities for the characters doesn't mean that they don't have identities of their own.

I didn't say that it did mean they don't have an identity.

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Quit putting words in my mouth. All I was stating there is that it's ignorant to act as though caricature and stereotypes are the ONLY way for characters — or real people — to visually communicate these aspects of their identity. Personally, I often wear barrettes in the colors of the transgender flag (pink+white+light blue) or paint my nails in rainbow colors, and I know many other LGBTQ+ people who communicate their identity in similar ways.

Another thing I didn't say. Of course it's not the only way to indicate these things, but the other ways don't matter in terms of the visual representation in a Lego set.

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Oh, guess you showed your hand, then. Yikes, that's embarrassing. None of the discussion we've been having about LGBTQ+ representation has to do with "made up genders", at least no more made up than the entire socially constructed concept of "gender"… all the way back to its origins as a grammatical mechanism to classify nouns, adjectives, pronouns, and articles. And by the way, even in that usage, many languages like Latin have words with a "neuter" gender and others with both "masculine" and "feminine" genders!

It's not embarrassing for me because I'm not arguing that this made up stuff should be visually represented in Lego sets and that anybody who disagrees is a "transphobe" or whatever other phobe.

The fact that you've indicated that you were waiting for my "hand" to be shown, shows that you're not really interested in civil discussion but rather showing how my beliefs are wrong so that you can point the finger and say "Haha, gotcha! Transphobe".

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I don't see what's so strange about it. Thinking that heterosexual and cisgender people are more moral, more kid-appropriate, more natural, or more deserving of rights and positive representation than gay or transgender people pretty neatly falls under the categories of homophobia and transphobia by definition, same as how thinking that one race or sex is more moral, intelligent, emotionally stable, or deserving of rights pretty neatly falls under the categories of racism and sexism. And while it's kind of disgraceful that people hold any of those perspectives, it's just as much a "political stance" to agree with them as to disagree with them.

Ok well obviously I haven't seen these Facebook conversations, but you didn't frame it that way, so do a better job at communicating at why you label people that way:

" I mean, I've had homophobes and transphobes on Facebook try and tell me that LGBTQ+ characters in LEGO set or themes would not be "kid-friendly". "

None of that touched upon individuals rights or morality.

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Kind of a silly question. There are plenty of examples of fictional wizards, witches, ghosts, and vampires who look and dress pretty much the same way as ordinary people, and just happen to have supernatural abilities, limitations, and/or origins.

So the set would be normal looking people doing whatever they would be doing if they were designed visually as such? That would change the nature of the set because they effectively wouldn't be those things. This doesn't compare to what we're discussing.

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I would think LEGO fans of all people would understand the value of having ways to identify and categorize characteristics, considering how many ways we categorize LEGO sets, themes, parts, minifigures, and even fans or how heavily invested some people are in how they define those categories

Catagorising Lego sets and parts isn't the same thing because you need to separately identify these things to use them.

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I agree this would be a good thing to see, and I agree that worries about hurting the company's sales and reputation in places that view LGBTQ+ people in a negative light are probably a bigger part of LEGO's hesitation to embrace that kind of representation in their original themes than The LEGO Group's decision makers actually being homophobic or transphobic themselves. After all, their VP of design in the Play Themes 1 department, Matthew Ashton, is openly gay. That said, I think there will come a point at which LEGO can be a little more open to that type of representation in their products and media, and I'd like to see them continue moving towards that point… whether that means risk-taking on LEGO's part or just keeping a finger on the pulse of how the world is becoming steadily more accepting of LGBTQ+ people.

Or it could be that they understand that most people don't want that from a set. Most people want a cool set, to either play with or display.

That said, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. They didn't want violence of any sort in their sets but their own research said that young boys liked playing with guns and enjoyed playing games with mild playful violence, so they allow room for that in themes like Castle, Space etc. because it sells.

In the end, this all boils down to people arguing against opinion; and people's opinions on subjects like this are very emotive and, I hate to use this word but, divisive, so that is ultimately why I don't think this should be in Lego sets. Otherwise, I still wouldn't agree and wouldn't buy the sets, but I'd be ok with it existing in sets.

Any discussion here about the deeper meaning behind why I feel like I do or vice versa just seems like gnawing for an opportunity to label the other as some negative; and that isn't productive for discussion.

Off-topic - why does the boards time you out? It's a real problem if you forget when typing a long response like this. Luckily I had a backup plan. If it happens to you, open a new tab without closing the original, sign in again and you should be good to post on your original tab. If not, copy contents from original tab to the new one and paste it.