- Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575313
I was watching 11001001 the other night and noticed this line of dialogue:
RIKER: And are these gentlemen the Bynars?

QUINTEROS: They're not gentlemen, or ladies, Commander. They are a unified pair. They're always together. This is One Zero. (device on left of head) And this is Zero One. (device on the right) They just finished upgrading the computers on the Wellington. Did a great job.
And 10 and 01's lore has the following:
Paired Bynars from the planet Bynaus...
For as long as I can remember, 10 and 01 have been played as male under the rule that cards that don't clearly indicate gender in lore/image are male. I think this made 10 and 01 unambiguously male, until the November gender rule update, which allows for more genders than male/female/"neuter", but instead "If a card specifies its gender in lore, it has that gender -- even if that gender is not defined in the rules or used by any other card."

So, is "paired" in their lore indicating gender, along the lines of Quinteros's quote from the episode when he corrects Riker's mis-gendering by explaining that they are a "pair" and not "gentlemen" or "ladies?"

On the one hand, we have a solid precedent that the game needs to be playable just with the cards, without requiring you to memorize every episode script. On the other hand, the new gender rule allows for genders which would only be knowable if you had seen particular episodes. For example, the article announcing the rules change mentioned "cogenitor" and "thaan" as potential card genders, but if (hypothetically) those words appeared in lore there's no way to know that those indicate genders without being familiar with various Trek media. Is "paired" indicating such a gender? Or is it not a gender at all -- perhaps Quinteros's statement should be interpreted as them being genderless; but since the card does not indicate it they are played as male.

This is clearly not a huge rules crisis demanding immediate answers. I'm just curious what you all think...
User avatar
 
By Takket
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
#575314
out of curiosity I looked it up, both these characters were actually played by women.

and memory alpha officially lists them as genderless: The Bynars were shorter in height than most humanoids and were genderless.

from the gameplay sense they default to male, which is incorrect for the character. question is just whether CC wants to divert resources to an errata effort
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#575319
Rachmaninoff wrote: Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:52 pmSo, is "paired" in their lore indicating gender?
What a fascinating (and canonically attractive) interpretation of the current rule!

(This comment does not constitute an answer to your question, yea or nay. More of a compliment for thinking of the question at all, which had not occurred to me.)
User avatar
 
By Armus (Brian Sykes)
 - The Center of the Galaxy
 -  
Regent
Community Contributor
#575323
Huh.

So does this mean that the new gender rule is adding bad complexity to the game?

Maybe we need another rule (or Design guideline?) that if a card specifies an "outside the norm" gender like cogenitor, thaan, etc. That it identify that characteristic as a gender on the card.

As such, maybe 10 and 01 need the word "genderless" added to lore as a clarifying errata, as that would align gameplay with trek sense and also keep everything on the card.
User avatar
 
By Dukat (Andreas Rheinländer)
 - Gamma Quadrant
 -  
1E European Continental Quarter-Finalist 2023
1E German National Runner-Up 2024
#575325
So their gender is not ... binary? :D


Sorry, had to bring that one.
Other than that: I didn't notice the complexity of the new gender rule.

The assumption that anything not specified is male is MUCH easier.
Last edited by Dukat on Fri Apr 15, 2022 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575326
Armus wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:20 am So does this mean that the new gender rule is adding bad complexity to the game?
I view it more as there being "no such thing as a free lunch." The original gender rule was awkward by forcing everything into male/female/neuter. This was never fully compatible with the Star Trek universe, since not all species fall into that neat categorization.

The pro of the new gender rule is that it brings the game closer into alignment with Trek canon, and miraculously only required one errata and no substantial gameplay changes to make it happen. The other side of that coin is that perhaps it assumes more familiarity with Trek canon. On balance, I think the rule is a clear win (even if there is an edge case like this, and perhaps others.)

As a compromise, perhaps the glossary could include a list of genders currently in the game, so that in the future a player could see that "cogenitor" is a gender and not a rank or title, for instance. Then there's an option in case they haven't seen the episode.

I suppose my original question had 2 parts to it:
1. Generally, how would we clearly indicate that a word in lore refers to gender, if it is a gender unique to the Star Trek universe?
2. Specifically, are the Bynars an instance of such a gender? (Or are they in fact genderless or something else.)
I'm still forming my opinions on both questions and wanted to get others' thoughts. For now it's mainly a hypothetical, but perhaps something to consider if Design explores this space some more.
User avatar
First Edition Rules Master
By BCSWowbagger (James Heaney)
 - First Edition Rules Master
 -  
Community Contributor
#575354
Rachmaninoff wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 7:55 am 1. Generally, how would we clearly indicate that a word in lore refers to gender, if it is a gender unique to the Star Trek universe?
Been thinking about this overnight. I think the card should specify that an unusual gender label (anything other than male or female) is actually a gender label and not something else. We have occasionally had to do this with species. (For example, on Tosk, whose name and species are both Tosk.)

So a hypothetical cogenitor card should say, "Vissian of cogenitor gender" or "Vissian, gender cogenitor."
2. Specifically, are the Bynars an instance of such a gender? (Or are they in fact genderless or something else.)
If the above is the correct answer, then Bynars are still legally male. You can argue that "paired" is a gender, but you can also argue that it is not a gender -- and the card doesn't make clear that it is a gender. That makes it ambiguous. In the absence of a contrary Glossary ruling, the ambiguity is resolved in favor of the legal default: male.

10 and 01 have been on a clarifying errata list for a long time, though, and this thread at least introduces a fresh idea on how to errata them.
User avatar
 
By VioletBlaze (Violet Edgar)
 - Beta Quadrant
 -  
#575402
I personally think that yes, "paired" could be considered a gender, but no, I don't think we should treat the personnel as having that gender as the card is written today. I feel like that's asking too much Trek (and non-Trek) knowledge for people to have to know for one single card.
I do support the idea of erattaing the card to specify a gender less ambiguously, but I think defaulting it to male is a fine solution for the card and rules as written.
User avatar
 
By Professor Scott (Mathew McCalpin)
 - Delta Quadrant
 -  
Trailblazer
1E Cardassia Regional Champion 2023
#575408
10 and 01 for those of you keeping score at home.
1EFQ: Game of two halves

Honestly, I don’t think I’ve re[…]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!

Happy birthday to @Takket ! :D :thumbsup: […]

Opponents turn

Remodulation