Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Johnny1360]

Fair enough, I generally just buy the sets/parts I like without trying to be to critical. I mean there is so much out there and I feel no need to have everything, so I am okay with stuff I could care less about but I do enjoy hearing others perspectives and ideas.

I am happiest with LEGO in hand and like many here, I have more sets/parts than a normal person should have. For me it's all about fun and building, everything else is secondary and I can take or leave it.

With so much out there though I believe, perhaps a bit naively, that there is something for everyone.

[Lego David]

2 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But conversely, when I mention stuff that I actually do feel disappointed or uncomfortable about (such as the lack of overt LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets and media), a lot of the responses tend to treat those desires like some unattainable, pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and suggest there's no reason for LEGO to change anything they're doing in that regard. As a trans lesbian with a passion for the sort of inclusive storytelling that my own childhood lacked, that sort of response can be… disheartening, to say the least.

No offence, but if LEGO wants to maintain their family friendly brand image, then they would be better off not doing that. In the same way they opt not to include anything religious or political in their products and media, they shouldn't include LBTQ either. LGBTQ already has more than enough representation in other media (just look at how many Netflix shows have it) but asking LEGO to also have that representation is a little to much in my opinion. 

I am sorry if this response sounds disheartening for you, but this is the reality. Netflix already shoehorns in LGBTQ characters into most of their original shows, and I really do not want to see LEGO start doing the same thing. 

Edited April 8, 2021 by Lego David

[Stuartn]

4 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But conversely, when I mention stuff that I actually do feel disappointed or uncomfortable about (such as the lack of overt LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets and media), a lot of the responses tend to treat those desires like some unattainable, pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and suggest there's no reason for LEGO to change anything they're doing in that regard. As a trans lesbian with a passion for the sort of inclusive storytelling that my own childhood lacked, that sort of response can be… disheartening, to say the least.

Solely in terms of set offering (not Lego associated media):

I think Lego made a mistake sort of recently when they released the wedding set and Lego wedding bride and groom brickheadz, as it explicitly threw 'non-LGBTI' customs at consumers. There is nothing wrong with that, but by doing so, it destroyed (outside of licenced themes) the lack of anything related to romance or marriage (besides the Parisian restaurant but I don't think it would count).

There was a discussion on the city forum about the benefits of minifigures being yellow, as, while probably meant to originally represent white, shows no racial inclination. This means anyone can use minifigures but all minifigures are the same, so no ethnicity or group is excluded.

Inclusivity is hard to represent unless it is obvious, such as the recent trend of minifgures with different physical capabilities. I am all for inclusivity in sets and if it doesn't impact the set or build (which I don't think it would), I see no issue personally.

What Lego will do is different though. They will do what they see best for their business. Including diversity is difficult because it is difficult to depict everyone in a sensitive and respectful way in a limited number of sets, and I think it would be a step backwards if sets depict diversity in a tokenistic or stereotypical way.

I can think of a lot of subtle and respectful ways Lego could show this sort diversity in its products, however to avoid being hypocritical (in terms of stereotyping) I won't list them here.

2 hours ago, Lego David said:

No offence, but if LEGO wants to maintain their family friendly brand image, then they would be better off not doing that. In the same way they opt not to include anything religious or political in their products and media, they shouldn't include LBTQ either

I don't think family friendliness would be impacted, and if such inclusions are done in a way that is offensive to families then I anticipate it would be equally offensive to, and stereotypical of, LGBTQI people.

But I agree in a way that not including such references in sets may be better in the end, they should just stop selling bride and groom sets which alienate other groups.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Stuartn

[1974]

26 minutes ago, Stuartn said:

.. minifigures being yellow, as, while probably meant to originally represent white ..

No, it's a neutral colour. TLG had a limited colour palette back then and I for one am thankfull that my minifigs back then weren't blue-faced

I did have the indians and a few black heads from Home Maker

[CaptainSerMig]

2 hours ago, 1974 said:

No, it's a neutral colour. TLG had a limited colour palette back then and I for one am thankfull that my minifigs back then weren't blue-faced

I did have the indians and a few black heads from Home Maker

But let's be honest, they probably stopped doing yellow heads for licensed theme because representing non-white, especially black, characters with a yellow head wouldn't look that great. Just imagine a yellow Lando Calrissian...

If they continued doing what they did with Cloud City in 2003, so representing black characters with brown heads and white characters with yellow heads, it would be pretty terrible. I'm not a fan of thinking that EVERY SINGLE minifigure in non-licensed themes is white.

Edited April 8, 2021 by CaptainSerMig

[1974]

They did that becuase those are specific real life characters

[MAB]

2 hours ago, CaptainSerMig said:

I'm not a fan of thinking that EVERY SINGLE minifigure in non-licensed themes is white.

You can also think that LEGO City and so on exists in a racially pure world where everyone is yellow.

[Fuppylodders]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

You can also think that LEGO City and so on exists in a racially pure world where everyone is yellow.

Which someone somewhere will find racist because it excludes every other race in the world....

11 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But conversely, when I mention stuff that I actually do feel disappointed or uncomfortable about (such as the lack of overt LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets and media), a lot of the responses tend to treat those desires like some unattainable, pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and suggest there's no reason for LEGO to change anything they're doing in that regard. As a trans lesbian with a passion for the sort of inclusive storytelling that my own childhood lacked, that sort of response can be… disheartening, to say the least.

 

Entirely my opinion:
I feel TLG should carry on as they are regarding LGBQT.
You can buy the groom and bride brickheadz separately. So, buy 2 males. Or females. Or don't give them hair. Or give them both long hair. Or w/e you want. the blank slate palette is there for you already.
Got a lego set with what appears to be a male, female, and kid?
Use your imagination.
One is a genetically born male dressed up as female. The other is a hermaphrodite with feminine features transitioning to a man.
You got a small kid that looks like it could be a boy? Congrats, you have yourself a girl dressed as a boy. 
But wait! There is another adult fig that looks like it could be a female. Well congrats. Its a weekend, so it's a man in drag.
Oh, there's a dog? It is whatever gender you imagine it to be.

Use your imagination.
TLG don't need to represent that community because it's already represented if you so wish it to be. Just because it's not spelled on the box 'Trans lesbian non binary fluid intersex pangender racecar set' doesn't mean it's not representative.

There are still plenty of minifigs that appear to be sexless. Therefore, there is your non male/female gender representation as well. It's all there. But you want proper representation?
You relalise how many genders there are. If you start representing properly, there will always be some gender that will be offended and claim discrimination because they aren't represented. It's a can of worms that is best left shut, and for the customers to do what you're meant ot do with Lego. Use your imagination. It's up to the parents of their kids to teach them the possibilities of gender. That CAN be done using Lego. If you use your imagination.
I imagine the female minifigs with waistlines are females because they have the subtle underboob shaping and slim waistlines with makeup and long hair.

You want representation or to educate your kids on non male/female genders? Cool. Now imagine that female looking minifig is simply a man with turkey fillets and a naturally slim waistline wearing makeup and a wig (or grew it's hair long). 
Job done.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Fuppylodders

[ShaydDeGrai]

14 hours ago, Aanchir said:

But conversely, when I mention stuff that I actually do feel disappointed or uncomfortable about (such as the lack of overt LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets and media), a lot of the responses tend to treat those desires like some unattainable, pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and suggest there's no reason for LEGO to change anything they're doing in that regard. As a trans lesbian with a passion for the sort of inclusive storytelling that my own childhood lacked, that sort of response can be… disheartening, to say the least.

I won't even pretend to have a clue as to what it must have been like (or still is for that matter) to walk in your shoes.  I've had friends over the years share stories regarding the lack of representation and role models, but obviously, it's one thing to hear about it, it's quite another to live it.  I'm about as SWASP-y as they come so I can offer sympathy and cringe at the lack of enlightenment so often exhibited by my fellow SWASPs but I fear I'll always have an outsider's perspective.  Growing up, my world was divided along lines of class, creed and ethnicity moreso than race or gender identity (probably because where I lived wasn't particularly diverse in those latter demographics so people had to find other arbitrary distinctions to draw lines in the sand between "us" and "them").  But being one of "them" more often than not, I'm not unfamiliar with knowing that there's an "in crowd" and what it feels like to not be part of it.

That said, I'm really of two minds when it comes to the issue of "representation" in Lego.  On the one hand, I can see kids finding it easier to relate to a figure that looks like, acts like or represents something in themselves.  My daughter, who has curly hair, latches onto dolls and minifigures, Duplo figures, etc. relating best to the ones with curly hair (regardless of skin tone or hair color).  There's simply a natural gravitation to finding that "something" which she relates to and takes personally that draws her into a world where _she_ controls the narrative.

On the other hand, we, as a species, are diverse enough such that the simple act of including one demographic calls attention to the fact that we've yet to include another.  And, so long as _we_ try to dictate the narrative, we'll always be at risk of omission/exclusion, perhaps consciously, more likely through shear ignorance.

My first "mini-figures" were "slabbies" (no arms, rigid legs, yellow heads with no face printing).  In their own way, i thought there was something utopian about them, maybe it was just the fact that I'd recently read Ursula K. Leguin's The Lathe of Heaven where, in an effort to end racism, the dreamers' power turned the entire human race gray.  Nobody in real life had bright yellow skin, and to little kid me, maybe that was the point.  It was an abstraction telling me not to make assumptions based on surface details.  My yellow slabbies couldn't literally represent me, or my friend Paresh from India, or Yung from China; they represented what my friends and I had _in common_ with each other.  Maybe under the skin we were all faceless yellow slabs and it was our actions and our values that defined us.  It's not the worst interpretation one could embrace, Lego wasn't really representing US, but we were presenting ourselves in Lego form.

I didn't like it when they added the arms and posable legs.  When they came out with fleshies, I preferred my yellows and thought they were over-constraining the narrative.  Mini-dolls (complete with backstories) took it to a whole new level (and that level did not allow for a lesbian, a homeless vet and a priest to walk into a bar together - Heartlake City isn't ready to entertain any of the above).  Maybe I'm just old and cranky, but it seems to me that the more they try to make mini-fig/mini-dolls reflect a realistic society, the more apparent and polly-anna-ish their sins of omission become.   I know it's a kids' toy and should embrace a safe, G-rated world where kids can learn and grow, but sometimes it feels like they are trying a little too hard to have their cake and eat it too.

Or maybe I just miss my generic yellow slabbies...

[KotZ]

Here's my thoughts on the above regarding the LEGO representation: who cares (in regards to LEGO)?

Now before people slam me for saying that, let me explain. They're LEGO minifigures. They can be whoever/whatever you want them to be. I know I probably come from a place of privilege (and dear god do I hate that word/term, because depending on the environment, culture, etc., people can be privileged in different ways), but until flesh-toned minifigures arrived in licensed sets, basically me and all of my friends only aw minifigures as the solitary color they were. Now did some yellow-figures definitely look stereotyped (the Native American faces come to mind here)? Yes. Did they look horrible on the minifigures? Depends on the context or figbarfing you would do.

I personally had quite a few friends of different skin colors (I'm white) and we all played with LEGO and Playmobil. Playmobil was a little more racially based due to them having figures that were skin-toned. For LEGO, it was a free-for-all. We would take any character head/body and make sigfigs or other people. Minifigs were just minifigs. There wasn't any color. I distinctly remember a black friend of mine using an Episode II Obi-Wan head for his sigfig. Keep in mind, that figure is based off of Ewan McGregor from a specific movie. And my friend was neither white nor did he have a beard. But we all went with it as that was the guy who was him.

Now this is the part where I'm going to try to have my cake and eat it too, tying back to my original statement: as much as I love all the different minifigures we've gotten over the years, be they fleshtoned or yellow, be they having hearing aids or different hair, all the prints we have, the representation angle has gone too far because everything is so much more detailed now nobody can be happy.

While yes, I am happy licensed minifgs get flesh colors, I almost feel annoyed with it, as now people start saying yellow=white and the other colors are minorities (minorities in the American perspective), so then people feel like they have to pick that specific minfigure part/color to represent them or people in their worlds. And then you get to the problem of having (due to just the cost of making these parts) not enough representation. For example, "This person's hair isn't right." or "this head doesn't look like me down to the stubble o scar." Of course those are extreme examples, but I've definitely felt it myself. I mean, I'd love to see a minifigure who kinda has the face look of me and the hair color and everything else. But I know it's not realistic. And this is only on the race side.

Touching on Aanchir's post, my original comment still stands: who cares (in regards to LEGO)? This goes back to my idea that representation in LEGO sets should be up to the consumer. I mean I loved Bionicle, and I loved Adventurers, but who's to say Johnny Thunder isn't gay? Who's to say Agent Bolt isn't Trans? And so on and so on. Partially why I hate comics on LEGO (although I will fight you on Bionicle).

So I guess my thesis is this: The more LEGO has diversified, the more it has become susceptible to accusations of being not inclusive. Because your "Stereotypical" audience is annoyed that thy don't have people look like them, the people you're trying to expand to complain you have minifigs that don't look like them, etc.

I will say LEGO has done better (but can still do better) on feminine looking faces. I need more of those in my town, at least if we're staying away from the classic smiley.

[The Brick Boss]

Aanchir brings up very valid points. However, I will disagree about LGBTQ representation in Lego. Especially when it comes to generic themes like City. I think Lego keeping generic themes race/class free is doing the right thing. We don't need class representation in sets by default. Like @Fuppylodders said, those are things that Lego obviously seems worth the builders imagination and unnecessary for sets by defaul. Now if you wanna speak in regards to the Lego City Adventures television program, then I'd say there is room to an LGBTQ character. Just like I think there is room for a train driver character. 

[BrickG]

There was a whole other discussion involving fleshies vs yellows. Lando pretty much showed people yellow does not represent darker toned skins in many people's eyes. I don't think yellow works anymore and don't think going colorblind is a good answer. I grew up in a very diverse place with kids of all races around me and simply having that exposure ensured I didn't end up racist. And I actually don't buy that the yellow helps kids in any real way. I think it's an old fashioned, kind of bad idea these days and stuff like skin color should be faced head-on and at least acknolwedged instead of basically ignoring it.

My exposure to kids and cool characters of all races (looking at you Geordi LaForge!) did 100x more to help me not be racist and/or ignorant than playing with the yellow LEGO did which simply pushes the issue aside.

Plus freakin' LEGO DUPLO for even smaller kids has gone fleshie...

I mean there's some real awkward difficulties if you were to convert everything to have fleshies. Like the cops and robbers sets, the second you have a set where the robber is black and the cop white, you're going to make the news! I'm not saying it's easy or that everything has a clear answer. But I really think no matter the darned age, the best thing kids can do is BE EXPOSED to characters/people of all types and the yellow skin/colorblindness does absolutely nothing to help that and just sidesteps the issue (and again, DUPLO oddly doesn't).

 

Over time I've come to believe that yellows are too old fashioned more and more. Had a ton of debates and maybe last year I was more on the fence and open to whatever. But I really think.. it's just not helpful. And I kind of believe it's a duty for kids toys to address things like that in the best way possible.

The best arguement for yellows is they're iconic. But I think every other arguement is becoming less and less true. Meaning, in the past the yellow arguement was MUCH better due to the times, due to the state of the world and culture. So it fit, and it was good. But I think the world is outgrowing it and I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO adopted a new fleshie standard some day. I mean even the LEGO movie had Emmit and all the non-black characters yellow then Vesuvius was black when he could have been yellow too. I'm not saying that's racist. I'm not saying LEGO is doing bad. I'm saying I just think it's time for a change and if I have kids I'll probably be buying them fleshies instead of the "lets pretend everything is the same" when celebrating and acknoweledging the differences is IMO more important. And LEGO has historically done EVERY WELL but that doesn't mean a change wouldn't ever be necessary.

Again, I cannot overstate enough how historically the yellows WORKED. A lot of the arguments I've seen worked. It's just it works less and less in the current environment and I think it's more helpful to have fleshies right now. And me saying I think they should move to fleshies from yellows, is NOT me saying LEGO = bad/racist but just me saying, maybe it's time for another change and evolution.

[Aanchir]

20 hours ago, Lego David said:

No offence, but if LEGO wants to maintain their family friendly brand image, then they would be better off not doing that. In the same way they opt not to include anything religious or political in their products and media, they shouldn't include LBTQ either. LGBTQ already has more than enough representation in other media (just look at how many Netflix shows have it) but asking LEGO to also have that representation is a little to much in my opinion.

Are you joking right now? I recognize we live in something of a "golden age" of LGBTQ-inclusive media, but even so, the vast majority of pop culture stories and brands (for kids and adults alike) remain focused on straight and cisgender characters and narratives. When's the last time you saw a Disney, Marvel, DC Comics, Star Wars, or Dreamworks movie with an openly LGBTQ+ main character? How about the last time before that?

Perhaps you think LGBTQ+ characters in Netflix shows are "shoehorned in", but in reality, we're a normal part of the world you live in, and it'd honestly feel weird and unnatural for people like us NOT to be part of the fictional worlds you enjoy as well. Unfortunately, more often than not, people like us either don't exist in these fictional worlds, or never seem to play any sort of important roles in them.

If anything, I'd argue that straight and cisgender people are the ones with "more than enough" representation in both LEGO themes AND other media. Trust me, I understand if you're used to LGBTQ+ characters being sidelined, because that's been the norm for most of my lifetime. But that's no reason to act like it's "a little too much" to want more than just a handful of shows that grant the same emphasis and dignity to LGBTQ+ characters as they always have to others.

As for "family friendly brand image", I recognize there are still a lot of ignorant people who think that diversity is not "family friendly" and should be hidden away from children. But LGBTQ+ people have families too. And it makes a world of difference for kids to grow up knowing that those families are just as legitimate and deserving of respect as any other. Do you really think it'd be a bad thing for LEGO to show LGBTQ+ families that their experiences are valued?

18 hours ago, Stuartn said:

Solely in terms of set offering (not Lego associated media):

I think Lego made a mistake sort of recently when they released the wedding set and Lego wedding bride and groom brickheadz, as it explicitly threw 'non-LGBTI' customs at consumers. There is nothing wrong with that, but by doing so, it destroyed (outside of licenced themes) the lack of anything related to romance or marriage (besides the Parisian restaurant but I don't think it would count).

References to romance and marriage have been present in LEGO themes for decades, though, even outside of licensed themes. After all, are we expected to imagine that the numerous mother and father figures in themes like Duplo, Homemaker, Friends, and City do not actually love one each other? What about the king and queen figures from themes like Castle and Belville? For that matter, sets depicting a bride and groom go back as far as the People Set from 1978.

Certainly, ALL sets and figures are open to re-interpretation (even licensed ones). But that doesn't somehow negate the intent behind their designs. And anyway, how would a rule against LEGO sets portraying romance actually improve anything for anyone? Part of what makes LEGO great is that it can be used to create so many different types of models and stories, and that includes ones with a romantic component. Getting rid of "bride" and "groom" figures or models entirely doesn't do anybody any favors, regardless of their sexuality.

Also, it's odd you should mention the bride and groom BrickHeadz as a "mistake", because those ARE honestly one of the rare examples of an instance where LEGO specifically made a choice to be LGBTQ-inclusive. The design lead of the BrickHeadz theme, Marcos Bessa, is openly gay, and he pushed for the bride and groom BrickHeadz to be sold separately (rather than together, as had been the case in the various minifigure-scale wedding favor sets) so that it was just as easy and affordable to purchase a pair of brides or a pair of grooms as it would be to purchase one of each.

 

I don't have enough patience right now to reply to everybody who's responded to me, especially when some of these responses feel mocking in tone. I should mention that I appreciate those of you who are making an effort to understand and respect my perspective, even if it's far removed from your own.

And let me clarify: I understand that a lot of y'all feel like LEGO characters in general should ideally be as generic as possible, without specific identities besides those the individual builder assigns to them. But the reality is that they're not. Even outside of licensed themes, there are decades' worth of sets and themes featuring characters with specific names, personalities, genders, ethnicities, lifestyles, relationships, romantic interests, etc.

And believe it or not, I already DO use my imagination to interpret or re-interpreted certain characters as LGBTQ+ when I so choose. Jet Jack and Heavy Metal from LEGO Ninjago are definitely a lesbian couple, in my eyes, even if they haven't actually had any overtly romantic interactions in the official storyline. Azari from LEGO Elves is transgender, and she and Emily Jones have a crush on one another (I have even dabbled in writing Elves "fan fiction" that includes some of those details, even if all I have so far are rough drafts that may not ever be completed to my liking).

Just for a second, let's flip the "imagination" argument around: if you really don't think LGBTQ+ characters in LEGO themes are a good idea, couldn't you just "pretend" they're all straight and cisgender? That those two dads in a hypothetical future City set are just a dad and his younger brother? That the two girls going to the school dance together in a hypothetical future Friends set are just BFFs enjoying a fun, non-romantic outing together? That the "Nellie" character in a hypothetical future Ninjago set who resembles a female version of Lil' Nelson is just a twin sibling who was never mentioned before?

Needless to say, I don't understand how the present lack of openly LGBTQ+ characters can be both so insignificant that it's not worth caring about, but also so significant that the current status quo must be preserved at all costs. Believe me, I'm painfully aware of the reasons LEGO and other large companies have been so hesitant about creating openly LGBTQ+ characters in the past. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, nor that I should assume better things just aren't possible. Because there are already plenty of signs that that the world we live in is changing. And truth be told, I don't know if I'd have ever felt comfortable enough to "come out" if it wasn't.

Regardless, it seems we've effectively proven the point I was making in the first place pretty nicely: regardless of the reputation I often seem to have for being too defensive or uncritical about LEGO's decision making, all it took was mentioning one significant change I'd like to see from LEGO in the future (in a topic specifically for sharing our unpopular opinions) to generate several different replies explaining why the issue I brought up doesn't actually matter, and LEGO would be better off keeping things as they are.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Aanchir

[danth]

8 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Regardless, it seems we've effectively proven the point I was making in the first place pretty nicely: regardless of the reputation I often seem to have for being too defensive or uncritical about LEGO's decision making, all it took was mentioning one significant change I'd like to see from LEGO in the future (in a topic specifically for sharing our unpopular opinions) to generate several different replies explaining why the issue I brought up doesn't actually matter, and LEGO would be better off keeping things as they are.

Damn. I get frustrated when that happens to me, and that's just in regards to Lego not catering more to my specific toy preferences. Can't imagine how it feels when it's something actually important like representation.

2 hours ago, BrickG said:

There was a whole other discussion involving fleshies vs yellows. Lando pretty much showed people yellow does not represent darker toned skins in many people's eyes. I don't think yellow works anymore and don't think going colorblind is a good answer. I grew up in a very diverse place with kids of all races around me and simply having that exposure ensured I didn't end up racist.

100%! I really think Lando demonstrated how full of crap Lego was with the whole "yellow represents all races" thing.

[MAB]

8 hours ago, BrickG said:

There was a whole other discussion involving fleshies vs yellows. Lando pretty much showed people yellow does not represent darker toned skins in many people's eyes.

 

6 hours ago, danth said:

100%! I really think Lando demonstrated how full of crap Lego was with the whole "yellow represents all races" thing.

That is one way of looking at it. An alternative way of looking at it is that LucasFilm did not want Lando to be done that way and insisted on using another colour for better recognition. Then once they had done that for some licensed figures, it made no sense to keep using yellow for the other characters so that was eventually phased out in favour of more realistic skin tones for all of them.

Imagine if we lived in a different reality and most Star Wars actors were brown skinned and they started making sets with the traditional yellow. Then a white actor played a character that appears in the theme later on and a different colour is needed to differentiate him or her from the others. Yellow would have then meant brown skin instead, with a lighter colour used for white people.

[1974]

6 hours ago, danth said:

how full of crap Lego was with the whole "yellow represents all races" thing.

If yellow represents white, why didn't TLG not just use white? A colour that was in production since before the introduction of the minifig

In fact, TLG did indeed use white for figure faces as far back as 1976 with the DUPLO line, but instead they chose yellow for the fancy new minifigs (and the stiffs before them)

[The Brick Boss]

@1974 Ah the yellow minifig. The most race free thing that a toy company has ever done. 

[Fuppylodders]

9 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Just for a second, let's flip the "imagination" argument around: if you really don't think LGBTQ+ characters in LEGO themes are a good idea, couldn't you just "pretend" they're all straight and cisgender? That those two dads in a hypothetical future City set are just a dad and his younger brother? That the two girls going to the school dance together in a hypothetical future Friends set are just BFFs enjoying a fun, non-romantic outing together? That the "Nellie" character in a hypothetical future Ninjago set who resembles a female version of Lil' Nelson is just a twin sibling who was never mentioned before?

.

Regardless, it seems we've effectively proven the point I was making in the first place pretty nicely: regardless of the reputation I often seem to have for being too defensive or uncritical about LEGO's decision making, all it took was mentioning one significant change I'd like to see from LEGO in the future (in a topic specifically for sharing our unpopular opinions) to generate several different replies explaining why the issue I brought up doesn't actually matter, and LEGO would be better off keeping things as they are.

I never said it wouldn't be a good idea. I said they should carry on as they are (regarding sets at least). 

No need to flip it, I already use my imagination to give them whatever genders or life roles I want them to have. I don't need TLG to spoonfeed me labels, I create my own. As it is, didn't TLG dip their toes in the water with creating a more diverse inclusion with the hidden side 2 main characters, specifically Parker? (I didn't get into the storyline side of it so I don't really push to ultimately find out. Jack and Parker are just genderless buddies as far as I'm concerned). 

All the Friends sets with sooo many females... Sure the theme is called Friends, but that is easily open to interpretation. Girlfriends? Who's not to say that they're all just a bunch of lesbians, and the parents aren't a pre op and post op couple? 

Like I said, the representation is already there if you want it to be. 

As for media, that's entirely different. It'll happen, it'll change. We're all aware lgbqt is so much more widely accepted now than it was before. 

But, you also can't be ignorant to the fact, that TLG is a business. To make money. And there are still the generations of parents that were brought up by anti-lgbqt (or blind eyeing lgbqt) people who will be mindful of what they expose their kids to. TLG can't just dive in balls deep instantly. Because it *will* spark outrage from the 'anti lgbqt' people, and it'll lose them profits. 

It's difficult to tell how mu h of their profit comes from the anti and pro. They might be able to do a sneak survey that doesn't straight up ask your gender but they might be gathering the info in the background to keep an eye on things so they know when it's safe to start dipping toes. 

You think it's a representation, to them, it's their kids life. *Their* kids. Not yours. Kids minds' are a minefield of uncertainties and flippantisms. Kids will learn about genders at some point in their life and will be free to be what they want. It's happening. There's no going back.

There are 2 sides to the argument of giving kids exposure. Sure, it's great to give them freedom. But school years is a shit show without having gender issues to lump onto them too. Kids get bullied for all sorts, without adding gender to it too. Why? Because kids are kids. Teachers turn blind eyes and allow it to happen and then deny all knowledge. Parents think their kids are angels and wouldn't do such a thing. Or, parents are just as bad. You can't expect to be teaching a kid at a young impressionable age that if he really wants to, he can lob his sausage off and become a daughter? Or that the daughter can turn her pocket into a hotdog. That's life changing stuff. That's essentially the stuff TLG will be exposing kids to, because that's part of it. That's-not-their-place to be teaching that. 

In a time when cyber bullying is also an unaccepted norm, suicide rates among young people have doubled. Throw gender issues freely at kids right now, and you'll see that suicide rate go up even more because society still hasn't evolved enough for it. You want more suicides? Or do you want those people alive to help promote lgbqt issues later in their life when they've gone through the ropes. 

Regardless, the world is a very judgy one. And TLG will get judged regardless. 

But for TLG to still be at the basics of man and woman is a cautious safety for them. TLG will move with the times in their media and will catch up, as they have done with their products hence why they're so popular. Because they sell what's popular. Once lgbqt becomes popular, that's when they'll go for it. Because money. 

Time. Time needs to go by. Generations need to be watered down to it. That's the only way it'll finally become a true norm. Yes, all the pop culture and recognition has helped, but the nail in the coffin for it will be the generations holding out on it. As those get watered down, it'll become accepted everywhere. But watering down generations takes time. That's something you can't rush. 

Surely you're not incensed that your opinion is somewhat unpopular, given you posted an opinion in the unpopular opinion thread...? You effectively proved that your opinion fits in this thread is all. 

 

[Peppermint_M]

Can we all agree that we can Fanfic the heck out of named characters and leave it on AO3 where it belongs. (I am unashamed shipping trash. but that is for fanfic sites, not LEGO sites.)

Minifigures are little plastic humanoids and kids can and will apply whatever they want to the character of the figure. 

No one has a universal experience, nothing can fully represent the scope of humanity in a mass produced object. LEGO as a toy is magnificently customisable, so you can encompass whatever you like. 

Oh, people also have to remember to keep things polite. Keep in mind that while some members are better placed to articulate their thoughts and muse in an empathetic manner, others struggle with English as a second language or a cultural/ life experience far divorced from an individual's personal one. The flip side: some people hold dearly to their opinion, position and experience, try not to tread on any toes. 

Cheers.

[MAB]

There is already representation in sets in you want to find it...

Remember that scene from The Office:

 

Kenny (yellow) is testing Lenny (pink) with his new gaydar. The result came back green for positive.

 

 

[1974]

2 hours ago, Poodabricks said:

@1974 Ah the yellow minifig. The most race free thing that a toy company has ever done. 

No, a yellowfaced minifig clearly represents yellowfaced humans, however, no such humans live on this planet

We can circlejerk this forever. Personally, I couldn't give a flying fvck

[MAB]

13 minutes ago, 1974 said:

No, a yellowfaced minifig clearly represents yellowfaced humans, however, no such humans live on this planet

Well, there was this woman a couple of months ago ...

https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/08/woman-puts-turmeric-mask-on-and-whole-face-turns-yellow-14040615/

 

[1974]

Works great on transparent LEGO parts as well

[Fuppylodders]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

There is already representation in sets in you want to find it...

Remember that scene from The Office:

 

Kenny (yellow) is testing Lenny (pink) with his new gaydar. The result came back green for positive.

1 hour ago, MAB said:

Well, there was this woman a couple of months ago ...

https://metro.co.uk/2021/02/08/woman-puts-turmeric-mask-on-and-whole-face-turns-yellow-14040615/

 

 

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

Can we all agree that we can Fanfic the heck out of named characters and leave it on AO3 where it belongs. (I am unashamed shipping trash. but that is for fanfic sites, not LEGO sites.)

I feel kinda lame saying this... But I literally can't figure out what any of that means. I mean, I see the words, but it's like I'm seeing another language in English  I'll Google these things after I've typed this, but never heard of (I'm assuming it's a saying?) fanfic, where named characters comes into it, what you mean by you're unashamed shipping trash, nor any idea what AO3 is 

 

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

Oh, people also have to remember to keep things polite.

@AanchirI apologise if my opinion/view is typed in an empathy lacking manner or impolitely. 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Fuppylodders said:

I feel kinda lame saying this... But I literally can't figure out what any of that means. I mean, I see the words, but it's like I'm seeing another language in English  I'll Google these things after I've typed this, but never heard of (I'm assuming it's a saying?) fanfic, where named characters comes into it, what you mean by you're unashamed shipping trash, nor any idea what AO3 is 

Fanfic is fiction made up by fans about characters from other people's movies or books or other IP, and AO3 is the "Archive of our own", a repository for that sort of stuff. So the meaning is you can write whatever the heck you like about copyrighted characters but it deserves to stay only on that repository as none of it is "true", in the sense of what the copyright owner thinks. So if you want to write a story about Johnny Thunder being gay or that the female inhabitants of Heartlake kill most of the males at birth and only keep some for future breeding, then it is fine to do so there as long as it is not present here.