Sir Blew

Now that's more like it! https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-164355/bricks_fan_uy/wizards-magical-workshop/

Wow. Here I was thinking that this was a (relatively) cordial and (somewhat) interesting discussion about Lego's policies on character genders. Far from a "flame war". It probably deserves a thread of its own, but the conversation just developed here. You've missed my point entirely, and appear to have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I was not debating whether Lego should include female characters. I've never said that a woman shouldn't be a knight in a Lego set. I said it's not historically accurate, which is true, and that I want the option to make the knight male. I, and many other Lego customers, personally prefer to represent characters such as warriors and knights as male, as they have historically been overwhelmingly male in both recorded history and the folklore which these sets are inspired by. That's my personal preference, and that's ok. Other people have different preferences, and that's ok too! The original non-gendered smiley faces of the original Castle figures allowed us to play the characters as whichever gender we wanted them to be, but is not possible nowadays with the gendered painted faces. Lego has taken that ability away. So, I'm questioning why Lego doesn't simply include the option for us to swap male and female heads on the minifigures by including reversible or alternate male/female heads in the set. It appears to me to be such an easy way for Lego to please everyone, but for some reason they don't do it! By not doing so, Lego are enforcing genders, and often swaps genders on historical gender roles. That is to say, they are limiting the playability of Lego, which is contrary to the concept of Lego. It's also less inclusive, not more! Yes we can source heads elsewhere, but that involves a lot more cost and effort than needs be when Lego could just include them in the sets. For extra context, I feel I should also mention that I am a father of two young girls who I'm actively encouraging into Lego. The eldest is 6 and loves building many of these sets with me, the latest being the Viking ship. I am actively supportive of her playing with them in whichever way she wants to, with whichever characters and genders she wants to. If she wants every knight in her set or scene to be female then I'd support that 100%, because it's her choice, and that's what Lego is all about. As it happens, she's not as keen on Castle or Space themes as she is on Pirates and Vikings (anything with sailing ships apparently), but that's ok too. So, I have my own sets setup the way I like them, including male heads on characters that I prefer to be male, while the sets that we build together are the default 50/50. If "hate" is how it reads to you then I can only suggest that you're reading it wrong. If you're going to wave the ban hammer on a public forum at anyone who says anything that contradicts your own personal views then you will find it becomes a boring echo chamber where users are too fearful to share opinions. It's not a good look either. The irony is that you're also arguing about printing on a plastic cylinder!

Try to keep up. You previously claimed "This set is not based on medieval times. It is fantasy." I'm glad that you now agree 😉

The comment was regarding this Lego set and characters, not other fantasy stories or hop pickers. The set is undoubtedly mediaeval based, and the knight is undoubtedly historically a male role. The original set was non-gendered, but this one is. An alternate face or head would be such an easy way to please everyone at very little extra cost. After seeing the pictures and the minimum purchase price, I won't bother getting this set anyway. I just hope Lego listens to what their customers are asking for in future instead of imposing PC interpretations on everyone.

Do you have any statistics on that? Or did you just make it up?

Mediaeval fantasy is based on mediaeval legends and folklore from mediaeval times. It's mediaeval based regardless of how many wizards and dragons it has in it.

Not necessarily, just where it makes sense. Eg characters representing traditional roles. Eg I wouldn't expect alternate bearded heads for the medieval maidens, but a bearded head on a nurse character makes sense. These are not insermountable problems. You're overcomplicating it. I'm sure they are perfectly able to make sensible decisions on these. Alternate gendered heads can be used where there are exposed heads. Visible hair is already gendered. Alternate hair is a great idea too. If the price of Lego goes up by $0.10 per extra piece to account for the extra head pieces then that's fine by me. Is box art gendered? Some of it may lean that way (eg Friends), but in the case of Castle it appears pretty non-gendered to me. A mix of genders on the box is fine (and good). Again, this is about not about having a mix of genders, it's about enforcing non-traditional genders on historic roles or characters. Keep in mind that we're primarily discussing updated retro sets here. Sets which were previously non-gendered and are now gendered. That's a strawman argument. Nobody is "mad that there are women" in the sets. Storybook worlds which were mostly derived from historical legends and folklore, not from modern gender equality idealism. The fantasy is impeded by imposing modern standards on the folklore. Again, that's fine if you prefer it that way, but that shouldn't mean the rest of us be forced to as well. The point about spacemen is relevant to the question on where the fantasy begins and ends. Absolute accuracy is impossible to achieve in Lego, therefore everything will have some element of fantasy. Your argument uses fantasy as a reason to impose non-traditional genders on characters or roles by arguing that, if there is any fantasy element, then we must extend that to gender fantasy. Why must we, when instead we could achieve the same goal by including alternate heads/faces for those who prefer them? Not in the roles or characters in question here. That's a key point that you're missing. This is more argument that's basically arguing that, if you have some fantasy, then you must have gender equality fantasy. Providing alternate heads or faces doesn't take away anything from those who prefer equal gender representation, or even Wheel of Time style mostly female representation, if that's what you prefer. What does Lego explicitely prioritise for retro sets labelled "18+" and "Adults Welcome"? It's not true to the genre of the theme at all. Again, I have no problem with improving the play experiences of girls who want to see themselves, but I do have a problem with Lego enforcing non-traditional gendered roles on historical characters, particularly with retro sets which were non-gendered to begin with. More than anything else, I'm mostly annoyed that I have to seek and purchase a bunch of male heads every time I buy a retro style set. A problem that's easily solved by alternate heads and/or faces.

Including alternative or reversable heads allows us to choose our preferred gender for the characters. The original heads in classic Castle sets were not gender specific, which allowed us to choose what we wanted them to be. Lego didn't impose genders until the first Pirates sets of 1989, although some characters were obviously suggested by the torso prints. I personally prefer to have male characters for knights and warriors, as that's more accurate. Others may prefer to have them as females, but that's up to them. Lego could easily please everyone by including reversible or alternate heads. I'd gladly swap most of the junk spare pieces included in most sets for that option. You could take that argument all the way to include Space characters in Castle sets.

Agreed. I wish Lego would at least include alternative male heads, or even revesible male/female heads to accommodate everyone. Even the original non-gendered basic smiley face would be prefereable to making everyone female.