Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

[Shadowknight12]

This may actually have some justification and attached mechanism, according to this.

That was the most depressing thing I've read all month. Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to spread it around.

Ah, so this is how my posts were coming across. I actually think everything in the story requires justification - a writer is already asking their audience to invest considerable time and energy into their work rather than something else, they should respect that and leave out irrelevant details.

Then it's a question of "What is the story I want to tell and what is beneficial to that story?" - obviously the question of "Should I even be telling this story?" should be asked first, and at that stage certain other queries like those about "where ARE the black/gay/female/guys-in-dresses hiding anyway?" should be answered, hopefully by putting them in reasonably prominent positions.

Out of curiosity, did you see Stardust? If so, what did you think of Robert DeNiro's character?

If you require the same justification for straightness and cis-genderedness as you require of LGBTQ+ people, I have no problem with that. If you ruthlessly examine and question every single aspect of your story, including things that most straight white men take for granted (such as, why is this character straight, why is he male, why is he white), then that's devoid of prejudice as well and perfectly fine. The thing is, obviously, that not all writers are like that, and a significant degree only question the "Other" and unquestioningly accept established patriarchal, heteronormative, racist conceptions in their story.

Stardust: I thought it was horrible and cringe-worthy, perpetuating harmful stereotypes, heteronormativity and gender constructs. You know, standard Hollywood treatment of LGBTQ+ characters.

Also, it may come as a surprise, but treating an LGBTQ+ person nicely while still reinforcing pretty much every harmful stereotype in the book, is bad. This is why Glee is bad. Treating an LGBTQ+ person nicely and giving them pathos, character development and time in the spotlight shouldn't be something praiseworthy. It should be the standard, because that's what straight characters get and we take it for absolutely granted. Saying "you should forgive harmful stereotypes because the LGBTQ+ character is portrayed positively!" is evidence of how terrible LGBTQ+ depiction and representation is, in the media at large.

I am not a determinist, but I guess that depends on your exact definition of it.

For example, I am going to say that, if you consider a number of human tribes, the pack leaders of those tribes (a position that tends to be grabbed by the individual who can best beat the crap out of the tribe's other individuals) are likely to be mostly men.

(I'd call that statistics, not determinism, but it's still rooted in biology...)

If you believe that such biological traits (the ones that make men most likely to beat the crap out of everyone else) are unchangeable, you're a (biological) determinist.

And, as an author (which I'm not), if I were going to write a story in which a fantasy tribe of humans appears, I'd probably choose to have it have a male Pack Leader unless the story calls for a female one.

In other words... if the overwhelming majority of Brits were black, then Harry Potter would probably have been a straight black kid. And if the overwhelming majority of Brits were gay, then Harry Potter would probably have been gay. If you're going to tell a story about an average dude (which most stories are) to which not-so-average things happen... then that's what you pick for your main character. Sure, nothing would prevent you from instead going with a black female lesbian in a wheelchair if you wanted to, and the story would still be generally as good, but it'd make the story be slightly gratuitously weirder to the readers, and I believe most authors would rather avoid that.

You're appealing to demographics. I've argued that before in this thread. Just like everyone would get up in arms and shout "WE WILL NOT LET YOU DESTROY OUR FREEDOM!" at the top of their lungs if we suggested that writers should include marginalised groups, whether they like it or not, then I urge you to please stop assuming that everyone must write the same stories, with the same formulae, and the same conventions.

It's entirely possible to write fantasy stories without following the conventions you're listing.

It might be deplorable, but authors still have to put bread on their tables.

If you choose to ignore cultural inertia, fine for you, but know that many creators of cultural products likely don't have that luxury.

That's appealing to demographics too, only in a more roundabout way. Firstly, readers of fantasy and sci-fiction are actively expecting to have their perceptions of reality defied in one way or another. See: the flying lizards. Saying that some perceptions of reality are more okay to defy than others is completely arbitrary.

Secondly, that's not the purpose of art. If you do that, as a writer, you lose your right to call your work a work of art. The purpose of art, as most academicians understand it, is to provoke thought and feeling in the person who experiences it, to send some sort of message to the audience, to challenge cultural inertia, not to perpetuate it. Art, by its very nature, cannot be safe, unremarkable or perpetuate cultural inertia. Works that do so are not art. If you are telling me that writers are choosing to vomit some sort of forgettable, vacuous form of entertainment for the sake of making a quick buck, that is most certainly valid, but it's not art.

Art IS, at its essence, about risk. You cannot do art by playing it safe.

No, the difference is not arbitrary between what does have a long history of being documented in the genre, like massive sentient lizards who can fly and talk, or elves, or magic, and what does not, like oviparous humans.

And regarding the risk, it's each author's own call. Which is why I used words like "probably" and "likely". Can't speak for anyone but myself.

You're appealing to cultural inertia again. Your argument boils down to "because a lot of people have done this in the past, doing this is okay, but doing differently is not."

Yes, it's every author's call. That's my point. I have nothing against an author who takes no risks. I do not seek to tell them what to do with their work. However, I resent your implication that I should stop trying to educate people because cultural inertia is okay. I respect an author's freedom to write what they will. Conversely, they should respect my right to educate others in matters they might be ignorant about.

Sorry, but it's a fact that it's "out of the box" (i.e. nonstandard; the majority of people out there are not that) and it's another fact that sexual orientation often has no or little added story value (goes either way; being straight is also something that has no added value).

But seriously, you don't think OotS would be at least slightly weirder if Roy had been born out of an egg laid by Eugene?

No, I don't. I don't know, maybe liking other dudes gives me Resistance to Weirdness 10. Maybe that's the entire reason I like the fantasy genre, because I want to see weird things.

As for the "little to no added story value": yes, that's my point. All sexualities and gender identities add the same amount of story value to the table, and giving straightness and cis-genderedness a free pass while demanding that everyone else justify their existence IS discriminatory.

On the "representation of women in society" topic:
There actually was a reason, why men are overrepresented especially in military (and as a result in leading positions there) - think of a small tribe with 100 people, 50 men and 50 women, which is about to engage in combat. If many of the men die, but the women survive, the tribe will recover - if the men survive while many of the women die, the tribe will parish. But if leadership of a tribe is gained by being a great warrior, this leads to men leading tribes.

Been there, argued that. Any society with a significant loss of males had the same fertility/procreation problems as a society that lost a significant portion of females (I don't think I can give you real life examples under the rules of the board, so just take my word for it or shoot me a PM).

That type of thinking is actually why The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. The idea that men are disposable and women are precious is sexism perpetuated by the patriarchy (benevolent sexism if you look at it from a woman's point of view).

[SaintRidley]

Men are stronger for a reason, certainly. I don't know exactly what that reason is, but there must be a pretty strong reason because it is true of most mammals. I'm not making any point or trying to insinuate anything by this post, by the way, except to say that 'men are stronger than women,' isn't necessarily an invalid point in many arguments. Though its usually a pretty weak argument if used by itself.

To further this line of thought:

To say "men are stronger than women" may not be a completely invalid point, but it is an incomplete one. Obviously, there are a range of heights to both men and women, and a range of strength and strength capacity. In humans, and many (but not all) other mammals, the average male of the species is larger and stronger than the average female of the species. To take this as saying anything other than the average human male is stronger than the average human female of the same level of physical activity and nutritional intake, however, does not work.

These ranges overlap, and the strong end of the female range is stronger than the average of the male range, and far stronger than the weak end of the male range. The difference, when comparing between similar points of each range, is not altogether a terribly great difference, at least in humans. It is, of course, a case of overgeneralization which is at work, taking the average case and applying it (particularly in absolutist ways which strip out any modifiers which might make the comparative 'stronger than' appear less certain or stark) universally. Thus, men are assumed to be stronger not because they work to be stronger, but because of generalizations which ignore or erase physically stronger women from the cultural consciousness.

Ultimately, the difference between a man and a woman at identical parts of their respective ranges is unimportant. Any narrative function which calls for strength can just as easily be filled by a woman as a man. Even if the function calls for a level of strength which an 'average' man possesses, a woman with 'slightly above average' strength can just as easily perform that function, and there is really no reason aside from cultural intertia (or going against cultural inertia) for one to be picked over the other. If your function requires superhuman strength (such as catching an airplane), you're basically throwing away all possible excuses, because a superhuman woman is just as capable as a superhuman man of fulfilling that function.

[Shadowknight12]

*snip*

Also, it's not set in stone. Women can be just as strong as men, assuming different child-rearing habits. If we assume a fantasy world where monsters exist and warfare is so common, it's perfectly believable to imagine cultures raising their women just like they raise their men, and both ending up with comparable strengths.

The main crux of the matter, of course, is gender segregation, which is the main reason changing child-rearing habits are so difficult to change. We segregate children from the moment they're born, and saying to people "hey, maybe you should raise your girl the way you'd raise a boy" would be taken as the words of a madman, given how deeply ingrained gender segregation is.

[Bird]

In other words... if the overwhelming majority of Brits were black, then Harry Potter would probably have been a straight black kid. And if the overwhelming majority of Brits were gay, then Harry Potter would probably have been gay. If you're going to tell a story about an average dude (which most stories are) to which not-so-average things happen... then that's what you pick for your main character. Sure, nothing would prevent you from instead going with a black female lesbian in a wheelchair if you wanted to, and the story would still be generally as good, but it'd make the story be slightly gratuitously weirder to the readers, and I believe most authors would rather avoid that.

It might be deplorable, but authors still have to put bread on their tables.

If you choose to ignore cultural inertia, fine for you, but know that many creators of cultural products likely don't have that luxury.

Is Roy being black at all "gratuitously weird"?

[Shadowknight12]

Is Roy being black at all "gratuitously weird"?

I didn't want to touch that with a ten-foot pole, but yeah, it's actually kind of incredibly hard to talk to someone who genuinely believes that marginalised groups are The Other and not only sees nothing wrong with this, but actively argues that this should be left alone and accepted.

It's incredibly depressing, I'll tell you that.

[SaintRidley]

Also, it's not set in stone. Women can be just as strong as men, assuming different child-rearing habits. If we assume a fantasy world where monsters exist and warfare is so common, it's perfectly believable to imagine cultures raising their women just like they raise their men, and both ending up with comparable strengths.

The main crux of the matter, of course, is gender segregation, which is the main reason changing child-rearing habits are so difficult to change. We segregate children from the moment they're born, and saying to people "hey, maybe you should raise your girl the way you'd raise a boy" would be taken as the words of a madman, given how deeply ingrained gender segregation is.

Quite. I was taking the human as abstract without a society there. You are quite right that different ranges emerge when you separate humans into different social structures.

I added another section to the post, and though it doesn't touch on childrearing practices, it hits on your point about cultural inertia.

[Shadowknight12]

Quite. I was taking the human as abstract without a society there. You are quite right that different ranges emerge when you separate humans into different social structures.

I added another section to the post, and though it doesn't touch on childrearing practices, it hits on your point about cultural inertia.

I read that, and it's an excellent point, particularly when we take into consideration fantasy's penchant for being all about empowered people who do impossible things. Restricting that empowering to straight white men is exactly the reason why we need more inclusion in the media.

[SowZ]

To further this line of thought:

To say "men are stronger than women" may not be a completely invalid point, but it is an incomplete one. Obviously, there are a range of heights to both men and women, and a range of strength and strength capacity. In humans, and many other mammals, the average male of the species is larger and stronger than the average female of the species. To take this as saying anything other than the average human male is stronger than the average human female of the same level of physical activity and nutritional intake, however, does not work.

These ranges overlap, and the strong end of the female range is stronger than the average of the male range, and far stronger than the weak end of the male range. The difference, when comparing between similar points of each range, is not altogether a terribly great difference, at least in humans. It is, of course, a case of overgeneralization which is at work, taking the average case and applying it (particularly in absolutist ways which strip out any modifiers which might make the comparative 'stronger than' appear less certain or stark) universally. Thus, men are assumed to be stronger not because they work to be stronger, but because of generalizations which ignore or erase physically stronger women from the cultural consciousness.

There's some validity to that, but using 'men are stronger than women' as an argument doesn't necessarily come from ignorance. Averages can be used effectively. Looking at male and female strength, a strong woman can definitely be stronger than a weak man. But it is highly unusual to take two people, one man one woman, both physically fit, both who work out regularly, and have the woman be stronger. If an average man is about 40% stronger than the average woman, you would need a woman nearly twice as strong as the average woman to surpass that mean. Twice as strong is big deviation.

In 17 years, there has not been a single ROTC female cadet who has ever scored even the male average on the APFT test, (the physical readiness test.) That's pretty indicative when no woman has been able to do it. At least none prior to 2009, when the study was done.

Now, especially for physical conditioning, a woman who works out can outrun a man who doesn't fairly consistently. But when you compare people who work out a reasonably similar amount and you study strength at large, the numbers are difficult to debate against male strength superiority. In the ROTC numbers, for example, for a woman to land in one standard deviation below the male mean, she would have to be four standard deviations above the female mean.

Based on this data, taking 75,000 physically fit men and women over a course of 17 years, only one in a thousand women surpassed the bottom 16% of men. Well over 99.9% of women fall 2 or more standard deviations below the male average. And that is comparing a lot of women who likely comprised about 15,000 of that number.

If we extrapolated this data to the populace at large, that would be a division of five deviations. Also known as five sigma, a one in two million chance, also known as the deviation at which a discovery in particle physics can be declared. Now, this study is nowhere near comprehensive enough to declare that number applicable to the general populace. There is too much margin for error and just extrapolating deviations that way over a whole populace doesn't really work that way. But it still goes to show that the odds of a healthy, fit woman being stronger than a healthy, fit man assuming similar factors in lifestyle would be really, reeeallly uncommon based on this study.

Yeah, the male and female sample sizes were different. But we are still talking large numbers, and we are talking means, not modes or totals or anything else, so past a certain point increasing the sample of one group will only skew the data a little. 15,000 women is enough to account for women raised or given a diet in a way to reduce their strength, (even unintentionally.) If achieving that male average had more to do with the womans attitudes or lifestyle, how she was reared, etc. etc. at least one woman should have been able to do it.

These numbers change when you take the population at large, but then you aren't really comparing the male vs. female predispositions, because the women who do well are probably people who work out being compared to people who don't. You get better data, scientific method wise, comparing people of like circumstance whose largest variable is gender.

I am purely listing numbers here. I am not making any judgement calls based on this data except to say what the data indicates. If it upsets you, explain the data, don't accuse me of sexism or anything. Because I am just listing statistics.

Note: If anyone responds to this in the next day or so, I'll try and respond. Otherwise, I'll probably bow out of the discussion for a while. Stuff I gotta do and all.

[thisisnotspam]

Is Roy being black at all "gratuitously weird"?

Well he's the only black guy yet he leads 5 whites.

1 of those whites is prone to stealing, another is prone to violence third is pious and allways calling his god's name, the fourth one never shuts up and the last one's an uninteligent talented musician who grew up without a father.

Yup, he's leading a party of black stereotypes in disguise.

OR

As the author is an American, their racial composition could acitullay mean that they're the fantasy equivalent of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

OR

He knew back in 2003 that it will soon be representatiove of all Americans to be lead by a black guy.

OR

Roy's skin color is irelevant to most Americans (who were, i presume the main target audience in 2003) and he liked the design of the character as black.

[Water_Bear]

SowZ, those statistics sound fascinating, can I get a link to them?

[jere7my]

(My example with the eggs was indeed really out of the box, but it was for the sake of the discussion.)

But seriously, you don't think OotS would be at least slightly weirder if Roy had been born out of an egg laid by Eugene?

(It's fantasy, so why not?)

It is perhaps worth pointing out that this is the premise of the hugely popular, Hugo-winning Vorkosigan books, if you admit mechanical eggs to the definition. And Bujold illustrates exactly why a fantasy writer might want to play with that premise: to disentangle being female from gestation, and see how that affects gender norms.

[oppyu]

Adding more characters to the list later tonight, here's what I've got so far.

Mr. Jones
Mr. Phil Rodriguez
Julia Greenhilt
Ancient Black Dragon
Shadowdancer
'Kaboom' Redaxe
General Chang
Sangwaan
Amun-Zora
Grand Larcenist
Chief
Rookie Cop
Jenny
Hieronymus Grubwiggler
Old Blind Pete
Cleric of Loki
Sara Greenhilt
Horace Greenhilt
Julio Scoundrél
Inkyrius
Hobgoblin General

Anyone else people feel is important enough to be included on the list?

[SowZ]

Adding more characters to the list later tonight, here's what I've got so far.

Mr. Jones
Mr. Phil Rodriguez
Julia Greenhilt
Ancient Black Dragon
Shadowdancer
'Kaboom' Redaxe
General Chang
Sangwaan
Amun-Zora
Grand Larcenist
Chief
Rookie Cop
Jenny
Hieronymus Grubwiggler
Old Blind Pete
Cleric of Loki
Sara Greenhilt
Horace Greenhilt
Julio Scoundrél
Inkyrius
Hobgoblin General

Anyone else people feel is important enough to be included on the list?

If this is as much a study of sexuality representation in OOTS as anything else, people with established sexual orientations should probably always count. The Mustachioed Cliffport Prison Guard should count, since he is the only openly gay character I can think of. He has six lines or so.

[oppyu]

If this is as much a study of sexuality representation in OOTS as anything else, people with established sexual orientations should probably always count. The Mustachioed Cliffport Prison Guard should count, since he is the only openly gay character I can think of. He has six lines or so.

By that logic, we would have to include every single straight person in the strip...

There are a lot of straight one-off characters in this strip.

[Raineh Daze]

I think he also existed pretty much solely to foil... one of Elan's illusions? It's been a while.

[SowZ]

I think he also existed pretty much solely to foil... one of Elan's illusions? It's been a while.

The other guard had a girlfriend. It would have been just as easy to say, "I have a girlfriend." "I have a wife." Whenever homosexuality has come up in comic, the world treats it as normal.

By that logic, we would have to include every single straight person in the strip...

There are a lot of straight one-off characters in this strip.

Well, when people argued about listing Haley as a leader of a prominent group, people said it would be disingenuous for various reasons. Many of those reasons would apply here. We're not doing the comic justice as far as orientation. If someone read the list, it is disingenuous to imply there aren't any gay people in OOTS. Many works of fantasy have zero mention of homosexuality and no homosexual characters, even bit ones.

If there was a gay couple out on a date in a pub in The Eye of the World, and each one had maybe two lines, then no one could say, "There aren't any gay characters in Wheel of Time." The pub date couple would always be the proper counter example. You could argue they aren't prominent, but not that they aren't there.

Lots of characters don't have any evidence of sexual orientation. They wouldn't bear mentioning.

Also, we have as much evidence that Thog isn't straight as we do that Lien is straight. Lien has a boyfriend, so we assume she is straight, but she could be bi. Thog doesn't have interest in women from everything we've seen. Evidence indicates he is gay or asexual.

[Cavelcade]

By that logic, we would have to include every single straight person in the strip...

There are a lot of straight one-off characters in this strip.

There are a lot whose orientation is never specified - I can't think of that many one off characters who have an indication either way.

[Water_Bear]

Also, we have as much evidence that Thog isn't straight as we do that Lien is straight. Lien has a boyfriend, so we assume she is straight, but she could be bi. Thog doesn't have interest in women from everything we've seen. Evidence indicates he is gay or asexual.

The impression I got, based on Thog's characterization, was that his fear of cooties was more about immaturity than a statement about his orientation. In his case a lack of sexual desire for women indicates about as much as the lack of sexual desire evident in your average eight year old.

[SowZ]

The impression I got, based on Thog's characterization, was that his fear of cooties was more about immaturity than a statement about his orientation. In his case a lack of sexual desire for women indicates about as much as the lack of sexual desire evident in your average eight year old.

Yeah, me too. I think this would qualify as Asexualness, since an adult Thog does not have and probably never will have any interest in sexuality one way or the other.

[oppyu]

There are a lot whose orientation is never specified - I can't think of that many one off characters who have an indication either way.

Off the top of my head...

The happily married CPPD guardsman, Trigak, those rogues making out behind a tree at bandit camp, that teenage goblin who kidnapped Haley, those geniuses selling potions for less than it costs to make them, Thor, that goddess Thor got pregnant, that chick who invited Elan back up to her room, the dirt farmers, the couple who gave Roy his belt of Giant Strength, the gnome who made a joke about gawking at boobs before Elan asked them about the Draketooth clan...

[Raineh Daze]

Most of the Draketooth clan as indicated by its vast size, too. Tarquin's wives (well, the most recent one and the one that mysteriously died).

[Water_Bear]

Most of the Draketooth clan as indicated by its vast size, too. Tarquin's wives (well, the most recent one and the one that mysteriously died).

Actually, we don't really know if any of Tarquin's wives other than Penelope and Elan's Mom were attracted to him. After all, at least one of them was tortured into marrying him.

-Edit-

Yeah, me too. I think this would qualify as Asexualness, since an adult Thog does not have and probably never will have any interest in sexuality one way or the other.

It makes a lot of logical sense, but it makes me uncomfortable because of the implicit "asexual = immature" message that would get sent if we put that label on him for those reasons. Maybe asexual with a * or something after it?

[SowZ]

Off the top of my head...

The happily married CPPD guardsman, Trigak, those rogues making out behind a tree at bandit camp, that teenage goblin who kidnapped Haley, those geniuses selling potions for less than it costs to make them, Thor, that goddess Thor got pregnant, that chick who invited Elan back up to her room, the dirt farmers, the couple who gave Roy his belt of Giant Strength, the gnome who made a joke about gawking at boobs before Elan asked them about the Draketooth clan...

I'd have to check, but do the dirt farmers or the goblin child have more screen time than any of the currently listed characters?

There haven't been established standards of acceptance, and since it doesn't accept everyone with an orientation, the list isn't really fair in that regard.

Actually, we don't really know if any of Tarquin's wives other than Penelope and Elan's Mom were attracted to him. After all, at least one of them was tortured into marrying him.

-Edit-


It makes a lot of logical sense, but it makes me uncomfortable because of the implicit "asexual = immature" message that would get sent if we put that label on him for those reasons. Maybe asexual with a * or something after it?

Whatever's needed to make people comfortable with it, sure. But he isn't heterosexual so the list should reflect that.

[Astrella]

@SowZ; is there an equal amount of female cadets? And it's still a bit iffy to call a self-selecting sample a good representation of society.

(And that's without going onto different societal attitudes towards strength for both genders.)

Edit; We don't know anything about Thog's sexuality and the whole cooty thing just fits in with him being infantilized.

[Raineh Daze]

Actually, we don't really know if any of Tarquin's wives other than Penelope and Elan's Mom were attracted to him. After all, at least one of them was tortured into marrying him.

'Most recent' being 'the one that isn't married to him... yet'. Who had a husband. He's dead, now, but hey, irrelevant to the point.

[JustWantedToSay]

I wonder how many Left-handed persons there are.

[Zmeoaice]

Now, especially for physical conditioning, a woman who works out can outrun a man who doesn't fairly consistently. But when you compare people who work out a reasonably similar amount and you study strength at large, the numbers are difficult to debate against male strength superiority. In the ROTC numbers, for example, for a woman to land in one standard deviation below the male mean, she would have to be four standard deviations above the female mean.

Based on this data, taking 75,000 physically fit men and women over a course of 17 years, only one in a thousand women surpassed the bottom 16% of men. Well over 99.9% of women fall 2 or more standard deviations below the male average. And that is comparing a lot of women who likely comprised about 15,000 of that number.

So you're basically saying 99.9% of the women were weaker than 97.7% of the men.

[Rakoa]

So you're basically saying 99.9% of the women were weaker than 97.7% of the men.

He isn't "saying" that 99.9% of the women are weaker than 97.7% of the men. He is stating a set of statistics. You are saying that.

[oppyu]

I'd have to check, but do the dirt farmers or the goblin child have more screen time than any of the currently listed characters?

There haven't been established standards of acceptance, and since it doesn't accept everyone with an orientation, the list isn't really fair in that regard.

This isn't a thesis or academic paper, this is a list compiled by a bored forum poster in their jammies. While I could try to include every single character in OOTS to present a completely accurate depiction of gender and sexuality representation, that would take an enormous amount of time and not be fun. So sure, I could dramatically adjust the standards of 'characters relevant enough to be on the list' merely to accept that ONE single gay character who appeared once that one time, once, announced their sexuality, and then left the strip forever, but I really don't want to.

Also, if any of the characters on the list are less relevant than the dirt farmers, that's not a sign to include the dirt farmers, it's a sign to get rid of anyone less relevant than them. I'm looking at you, eyepatched and knot-topped resistance leaders.

[Shadowknight12]

There's some validity to that, but using 'men are stronger than women' as an argument doesn't necessarily come from ignorance.

On the contrary, the argument is most often used based on empirical evidence, as you have provided in abundance yourself.

The actual problem comes when people cannot abstain from drawing conclusions (and dictating societal mores) based on those facts as though they were unchangeable and therefore deterministic.

The evidence itself is not restrictive. It is predictive, up to a point, but neither prohibitive nor prescriptive.

When it comes to fantasy, all of that is thrown out the window, because we can make anything happen. That's the entire point of the genre. Literally. It's right there in the word used to describe it. Fantasy. Speculative fiction in general fits the same bill as well, and the matter too is in the name. Speculative. Fiction.

And even outside that, we know, for a fact (and yes, I have evidence, I've been passing the studies around via PM to whoever requested them) that all this biological evidence is descriptive not prescriptive. Descriptive evidence is irrelevant to fiction, by the very nature of fiction itself. See, the entire point of fiction is to portray stories that are untrue. That's the reason they're fiction. If we were shackled to descriptive evidence in our writings, fiction would flat-out not exist, because if I wanted to sit down and write a story about Jack Dynamite, Private Eye, I would need to provide evidence of the existence of Jack Dynamite, Private Eye, and his exploits.

And the reason I take such a dim, dim view of the gross misuse of biology that always pops up in this sort of discussions, is because I know my biology and I know that any current empirical evidence is meaningless when speaking of future societal changes. Just because something is, right now, doesn't mean it must be.

Biology is not a justification for societal mores or social change. Bringing up statistics is both irrelevant and meaningless.