Talk:Gynoid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

in the film Blade Runner

In the film Blade Runner, there's no gynoids.The replicants are human such as any others.They aren't robots in any sense.Blade Runner is about replicants, not robots.This site: [Deckard meets Rachael] has avideo with Rachael, a replicant.Agre22 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

According to the sources, they are andrids (or gynoids). Our article on androids indicate any artificially produced organism can be an android - even if it is biological, rather than robotic. I agree that such a broad definition is not as useful, but unfortunately, it seems to be the one that has currency. In some ways it makes sense, as there is a large overlap, with many robotic androids having biological parts (eg skin), so separate definitions would cause other problems.YobMod 06:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Revisit the article name

WP:COMMONNAMES recommends, with some exceptions, that article names should follow common usage. Prior discussions mention Gwyneth Jones, Issac Asimov, and Hajime Sorayama as possible original users of the word, but none of them or their relevant texts are cited in the actual article. Still, the word "gynoid" has since been used in the text of 96 WP articles.

The New York Times has apparently used the term a grand total of twice; they use "fembot" without "Austin" about 100. On Google, gynoid robot -blog -blogspot -forums -profile -wiki -wikipedia returns 6,480 results, "female android" robot -blog -blogspot -forums -profile -wiki -wikipedia returns 14,500, and fembot robot -austin -blog -blogspot -forums -wiki -wikipedia returns 20,600 even after omitting "austin". (I omit wiki and wikipedia to avoid circular reporting, blog and blogspot because many blogs simply copy WP, and forums & profile to avoid forum and website usernames. I add robot to avoid the term "gynoid obesity".) The gynoid wiktionary article cites nothing.

The last time the article name was discussed was about 2006-ish. If no source for this name can be cited (and perhaps even then), apart from being a mere root-change of "android", then it should be renamed to "Female android", "Fembot", or something else to avoid promoting neologisms. --an odd name 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the cite for Gwyneth jones creating the term. Most of the reliable sources use gynoid, for both fictional and real life examples. "Gynoid and Fembot" might be worth considering as a title, although it shounds strange in singular.YobMod 10:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Manga/anime

I left the sentence saying there was a long tradition of female orbots in anime and manga, but removed the following, as it needs citing, preferably with a source that discusses the role og gynoids in anime and these examples i particular:

The story line regarding such a character often highlights her personality and value as an individual, and growth away from the stereotypical sex object. Such stories are usually cast as romantic comedies, the plot turning on the love possible between a human male and a female robot. Notable characters are Chii of Chobits, May of Hand Maid May, and Lime of Saber Marionette. In Chobits, one older man tells the story of his marriage to a robot. Type-names for these robots differ between series, and include cyberdoll, persocon, marionette, battle doll, and boomer. YobMod 07:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sourcing on the statement that Hajime is a significant or influential artist? I'm sorry, but if someone said, "Of particular import is the work of X" I'd want some evidence of the fact that X is actually seen as important by any scholar other than the one writing the article. Sure, some people are so famous (Asimov, Spielberg, Myazaki, Da Vinci, etc.) that one doesn't need such sitations, but for lesser known individuals, and I know Japanese Artists and barely know of this guy, without citations it strikes of independant research.70.127.163.50 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Confused. It has citations. More are easy to find though, as he is world famous - just sticking his name into google books finds dozens of scholars discussing his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge to robot

Strong Oppose. Female appearing robots have huge amounts written about them, in scholarly journals, books, magazines. Merging all this info would create massive undue weight in Robot (or android). This is not a 2 line stub - it already has 22 citations (and all the fiction studies use the word gynoid), and that is without the 100's that could be found if investigating an anime perspective. This is neither a new, nor an unknown term in gender studies or science fiction discourse.YobMod 07:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why would Gynoid by the common name rather than Fembot or Female robot? Fembot or Female robot are both much more common terms. The sources listed in the article, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google Web Search show that the word "gynoid" is almost utterly unused in reference to robots. —Centrx→talk • 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of the sources used in this article use gynoid. I know, because i read them all and wrote it, although i didn't choose the name. This is a 30+ year old use of the word that appears in hundreds of science fiction and feminism sholarly works - unless someone is willing to go through the sources individually (instead of a google search), i see no reason to change the years of consensus at this name.

Anyway, this section is discus your proposed merger, not a rename. Why would a different name change whether this article had no content that should not be in robot?YobMod 16:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you know this term is not specific to feminism scholars? It is uncommon in science fiction. Why does this topic warrant a separate article instead of belonging in the short Robots in literature or in an article actually titled Cyborg feminism? —Centrx→talk • 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is common in SF scholarship, and there are books with whole chapters on it - more than enough material to write a wikipedia article. Have you read the article completely? Gynoids have been the subject of vast amounts of discussion due to their special representation of gender and race. It would swamp any related article with the masses of reliably sourced information i could add. This covers gynoids in literature and film and comics and art and feminist theory and real life (there are sources for this also - designing robots to look like women is a studied phenomena)YobMod 16:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues:

1. Does "gynoid" mean "any female robot", regardless of its characteristics? If no, is it correct to include literature that does not use the word "gynoid" and does not have the special properties of the "gynoid" of feminist literature? If "gynoid" means "any female robot", why should the article use the less common term "gynoid" rather than "female robot"? 2. Why is this a distinct article? Doesn't most of the material here belong in Robots in literature, of which this would be a sub-article? Or is this an article about feminist interpretations of robots? —Centrx→talk • 17:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about gynoids, which includes any female-appearing robot. There are semantic and philosphical reasons we cannot call these devices "female". Most of the examples are not from literature, so it is not a sub-article of that. This is an article about all interpretations of female appearing robots - many of the sources are not feminist, including robotics researchers. Please read the article thoroughly. We have sources explaining what a gynoid is, including real life robotic researchers using the word for female-appearing robots (eg. Yazdani, Masoud; Ajit Narayanan (1984). Artificial intelligence: human effects.)YobMod 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I would like to see this moved to become a section in the "android" article. HOwever, merge to robot would be better than the current situation. The word "gynoid" is virtually non-existent outside of wikipedia; it is certainly not well-known in either robotics or science fiction. The fact that the article has many references is not evidence for the strength of the concept, in fact the number of references should be pruned considerably IMO.Callivert (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Remove the feminist propaganda

Every subcategory under "In Fiction" needs to be deleted or radically altered. It's one-sided feminist propaganda. I can't delete it because apparently removing large amounts of texts is somehow vandalism, even if you're removing large amounts of bullshit. 84.230.79.11 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do some research and find anything that disagree with any of it. You will not, because these are mainstream views. And multiple different views are given: gynoids represent objectification of women, or empowerment of women, or are used to parody feminist complaints, or to inspire such activism; they represent the desire for a passive woman, or a powerful agressive woman. Did you even read it all? Deleting cited information because you disagree with it is vandalism.YobMod 18:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I wanted to delete it because it's feminist propaganda. Did you even read what I just said? 84.230.79.11 (talk) 04:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth.YobMod 06:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and factually accurate. 84.230.73.77 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the complaint about bias. There is no comparison to the treatment of male appearing robots and their stereotypical actions. The terminator is a handsome, imposing male with massive musculature. No one comments on how this projects a negative, jockbrained, jackboot mentality about men oppressing women. Bishop (from aliens) is handsome, if bland, clearly designed not to be seen as a threat but likable enough. There is no commentary or common sense reasoning in this article that a) almost everyone in visual art forms is attractive and b) what creator is going to say "Hmmm... let me build a frumpy, middleaged, saggy breasted female robot when I can just as easily build one that people might actually want to look at. People seldom breed or design things to be ugly. First off, symmetry is a key determinant for attractiveness and symmetry in design or contruction implies balance. Most robots are products, thus they are to be sold and will sell better if they are attractive. Take a look at statuary. People don't spend that kind of time and money making and buying ugly works (by and large). I'm not saying this article isn't sourced, I'm just saying that it lacks balance and is heavily skewed without saying that these are merely interpretations... and putting the authors of those interpretations in their proper lights as feminist writers with their own biases. There is, for instance, no mention of Assimov's (the generally acknowledged father of the popular conception of robots) gynoid, Dors Venabili, who is strong, passionate, and far from stereotypical. And, one must admit, the description of Blade runner isn't only biased, it's heavily inflammatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.163.50 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Robots or artificial humans with female attributes can have a lot of different functions depending on the story. In the Iliad, Hepahestos' artificial female servants are just a piece of background one of Homer's ways of showing what marvellous things Hepahestos can make. Presumably they are female only because their function is similar to household slaves and those were mostly female in Homer's times. The metal female Ilmarinen creates for himself is mostly intended to highlght Ilmarinen's ambition, skill and limitations. The female Frankenstein starts to make to please the monster he has created is mostly an expression of the monster's loneliness and Frankenstein's fears. In Isaac Asimov's story female intution, the female, intuitive robot in the story is, at least in the eyes of protagonist Susan Calvin, just an expression of male intellectuals unwillingness to accept that women can be as intelligent as they are. Most "boomers" in the Bublegum Crisis series are heavily gender stereotyped and most of them are just dangerous machines. Some, however, are very human-like victims of brutal sexual exploitation. The T-X in Terminator 3 is just a killing machine that sometimes assumes female shape for tactical and psychological reasons. The fembots in Austin Powers are just, like most things in that film, just a source of a few cheap laughs.

Therefore, whenever someone is claiming that robots or artificial humans with female attributes in all stories all represent the same thing, it is obviously nonsense. This is the type of thing you hear from people who have so many pre-conceived ideas that they are blind to what actually happens in the story.

The article currently reads: "Patricia Melzer writes that gynoids are 'irresistibly linked' to men's lust, and are mainly designed as sex-objects, having no use beyond 'pleasing men's violent sexual desires'". If she really wrote that all female robots are like this, she does not know what she is talking about. (If she did not write that, the current text gives the wrong impression and should be removed or changed for that reason.) I'll remove this, not because it is feminist propaganda (I honestly do not know if it is), but because it is obviously not true. Sourced nonsense is still nonsense. We do not quote Flat Earth Society in an article about geography. Nonsense that labels itself feminism is still nonsense. -Sensemaker

It is obviously true that she thinks that, and she is a notable writer on the topic. Your belief that is nonsense needs to be backed up by research, not just use of a delete button. A section about the protrayal of female robots as sex objects should obviously have critiques from sources that consider them to be sex objects, in the same way our Flat Earth article has sources fropm flat earthers. Please don't delete cited information all because you disagree with it - find reliable sources that disagree with it and add them (although i have searched and not found any disagreeing that female robots almost always have some sexual component)YobMod 09:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not I that disagree with Patricia Melzer (assuming that you have indeed correctly represented her opinion as she thinking that all gynoids represent the same thing). It is simple logic and observable reality that disagrees with her. The fact that the earth is not flat and the sky is not green does not need to be backed up by research. The fact that all gynoids in all stories do not represent the same thing is obvious to anyone who has read more than one story. Flat earthers are quoted in articles about the Flat Earth movement. They are not quoted in an article about geography. Likewise, obviously ridiculous claims by Patricia Melzer might be quoted in an article about Patricia Melzer or possibly in an article about the form of feminism she claims to represent. Her obviously false statement about gynoids should not be represented in an article about gynoids. Find another feminist that says something a little more reasonable, such as "most gynoids in modern stories are designed to be sex objects and are irresistably linked to men's lust". Wikipedia should not have statements that does not make sense. (Unless the point is to demonstrate that it does not make sense).-Sensemaker

It does "make sense", and the source is online at google books if you think i have misrepresented anything. In her opinion, the only reason robots are ever given a female gender is because of sexual desire in the author or character or fans. I disagree (Rosie the Robot is not very sexy, imo), but that doesn't mean her opinion can be ignored. Anyway, the chapter she wrote it in was about dead girls, so i limited the sentence to talking aobut that work onlyYobMod 10:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. If she truly claimed that all gynoids in all stories were like this she is obviously talking nonsense. Homer had Hephaestos artificial people be female simply because most household servants were. To assume that he wanted to have sex with them is ridiculous. He was banging Aphrodite, his wife, the most desirable godess/woman/anything in the world according to Greek mythology. Why on earth would he want to hump a piece of metal? Ilmarinen fails to create sexually desirable wife from metal in Kalevala (she is literally too cold). The female-looking robot in female intuition is designed to look vague female because men find it more appropriate that an intuitive robot is female. No man in the story seriously considers having sex with her. I can give you many, many more counter-examples if you wish. Find yourself a feminist with a little more reasonable opinion or just a more sensible quote from Melzer and I shall let it be. I will remove obvious nonsense. -Sensemaker

I notice that article currently says: "gynoids in Richard Calder's Dead Girls are inextricably linked to men's lust, and are mainly designed as sex-objects, having no use beyond "pleasing men's violent sexual desires" (italics are mine). Melzer does not make the ridiculous point that gynoids are the same in all stories but just says that gynoids in one story fullfill this function. This may be true or not -I do not know (I haven't read the story) but it is not ridiculous or obviously untrue. Thus I declare myself satisfied. -Sensemaker

I think we should delete the feminist propaganda... either that or add some meninist(or whatever the male counter-part of feminism is) propaganda bullshit to match. Agreed? --86.145.209.125 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete this article?

As far as I can tell, the following is true about the word "gynoid." 1. No prominent science fiction author, living or dead, has ever used the word "gynoid" in their fiction. 2. It has never been used in any well-known science fiction TV show or film. 3. It has never been used by anyone who actually builds robots (such as NASA engineers, for example), and they probably wouldn't know what you were talking about if you used the word in a sentence when talking to them. 4. In particular, it has never been used by anyone who builds female androids, which this article claims is called a "gynoid."

Given all of that, the article should not exist.

Furthermore, the article reads like a college essay on feminism in science fiction. It's a decent essay in that respect, but it does not resemble an encyclopedia article at all. For example, it does not discuss the first use of the word "gynoid" (it would be embarrassing to do so, since nobody uses it). As a result, the reference list consists entirely of academic papers, most of which are obscure.

There are plenty of terms that don't have their own article, but instead redirect to other places in wikipedia. This should be one of them.Callivert (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It also says a gynoid is a female android and says rosie the robot is a gynoid which is pretty contradictory in itself also everywhere i have seen a female android they have called her an android not a gynoid. android has nothing to do with gender in reality so i really do not see who came up with this term and why--209.181.16.93 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, the word is definitely not well established -nor any other word for the phenomenon. However, the phenomenon, humanoid robots designed to look female, mimick feminity or simply replace a human female definitely exists in fiction and is substantially different from other robots/androids. Does wikipedia have a policy for a situation where a phenomenon clearly exists but there is no established word to describe it? -Sensemaker

Why must female adroids or robots in the case of some given examples in the article be designated differently from their male counterparts? --209.181.16.93 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When two things are different in any significant way, it is usually convenient to have expressions that differentiate between them. Female-looking or female-imitating robots in stories often have a fundamentally different roles compared to male or gender-neutral robots in stories. For instance, in many gynoid stories they are designed to be wives or mistresses I can only think of one story where a male or gender-neutral robot had a similar role (and "he" wasn't specifically designed for it). -Sensemaker

Not every female android serves these purposes saying we need a different blanket term is like saying we need huwoman or huwomen 209.181.16.93 (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what these phrases mean, nor have I found them in wiktionary or any dictionary I own. Thus I do not understand your point and cannot offer a comment. -Sensemaker

my point was that they do not exist but the logic of seperating male and female in blanket terms would require them 209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I still do not understand -Sensemaker

Changing man to woman for our species as this artcle is insisting is done with androids--209.181.16.93 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. You could argue that the name android should be changed to gynoid (I certainly wouldn't). However, it is not wikipedia's job to try to change how people use language. Wikipedia's job is to try to explain what words mean in the sense people use them now. "Android" should be the name for the article about human-like robots because that word is used much, much more than gynoid. However, gynoids, human-like robots specifically design to mimic females, feminity or a female role should have a separate article because they are sufficiently different from other robots. -Sensemaker

But my point isnt that android could be changed to gynoid it was that calling all female androids gynoids when not used in the context of the literature or tv show or movie is the same as calling a human female a huwoman because they arent a man but are a woman and they want a different name for females over males if gynoid was actually a term used outside of a select group of people that would be different of course but it is very jargony not in general use among scifi authors/readers209.181.16.93 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never actually seen a real-life gynoid. I clearly cannot say if they are sufficiently different from other real-life robots to warrant a different name and/or article. Thus I have no opinion on that matter. -Sensemaker

If something by is called a gynoid by its creator (or in fiction its writter producer or w/e) thats not the problem its when it is not used by anyone in the context of the individual android/robot that it is OR/Synthesis problem--209.181.16.93 (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Use as extension to Sex-dolls article?

The term "Gynoid" is an obsucrity (More often than not SF terms aren't translated the english term is used as loan word, but here look at the other available languages on wikipedia no references, just rushed translations...) This whole entry/discussion has an (unintentional) sexist/chauvinist twist: Androids (or robots) are either males or sex-dolls ("Gynoids") -- Look at the images... However, the article (given some edits) could be used as extension to "Sex-dolls", eg. "Sex-dolls in fiction") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.238.70 (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reverse the polarity!"

As discussed above, 'gynoid' has tenuous bases for its own titled article. "Fembot" has been popularised, and should receive redirects from gynoid, not the other way around.

The word "gynoid" does not morphemically include robotics (or even artifice) at all, and seems to be privileged on the basis of its Greek origins rather than usage or utility; a cup of tea could be gynoid equally as much as a robot.

This content would be better placed as a subsection of 'Android', or an article relating to sexism, or female exploitation in science-fiction and/or escapist narratives. If it deserves its own article, the prevailing term would properly be "fembot." You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Title Change (slight rant)

The term gynoid can refer to objects other than robots that resemble women, yet, this article is about robots that resemble women. It is therefore inaccurate for gynoid to be the primary title, when alternatives exist that only refer to robots that resemble women, such as:

• Robotess
• FemBot
• Female Robot
• Female Humanoid Robot
• Automatoness
• Robowoman

How does one go about changing this? When I can, I will, if no one else does.

Perhaps:

• Robots of Specified or Implied Gender

Yet most of the article is about metaphors for exploitation, or about apparatus for sexual gratification.

Another thing: should we observe the prospect of asian, or transgender, or ADHD robots?

Many of the "real" robots here appear to be asian, should we call them orientoids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by You, Me and Everyone Else (talk • contribs) 05:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the term could describe, but how is it actually used. Do you have any source that uses the term “gynoid” for something else than a female robot? Also, if you just invented the word “orientoids”, we certainly shouldn't use it. Svick (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Another use right here Gynoid lipodystrophy. You, Me and Everyone Else (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Greater recognition of "fembot" due to Austin Powers?

"The tongue-in-cheek portmanteau fembot (female robot) has greater recognition as a result of Austin Powers films."

The line quoted above is, for the lack of a better word, utter bullshit.

Nowhere in the cited text are those movies even mentioned, let alone has anyone made the claim that those movies are source of the phrase OR the reason for its purported "greater recognition".--89.146.140.190 (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Umm... the term Fembot was made popular in the Bionic Woman television series. Anyone who was alive then would think of that before Austin Powers. Austin Powers fembots were a play on the robots from the Bionic series; it was one of many plays on popular culture (such as Domoarigato Mr. Roboto, etc.). People have their information backwards here.

And I don't think I've ever heard the term "Gynoid" before. --DanielCD (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is This The Feminist Encyclopedia?

This entire entry reads as if it were titled "feminist critique of male sexuality through female robots"... and not simply "gynoids". At least 30-40% of the entire entry is written from a feminist, and not mainstream or encyclopedic perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.29.141.144 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

E.T.A. Hoffman's "The Sandman" remains unmentioned?

I find it rather shocking that despite the apparent scholarship evinced in a handful of passages throughout the main body of this article, the highly relevant "Sandman" by E.T.A. Hoffman has garnered no mention whatsoever. Next to Tomorrow's Eve and the classical literary and poetic examples present, it is perhaps one of the most prominently evoked examples of the gynoid theme in all of European letters.

If the tenuously inserted subject of feminism must be included in this article, perhaps the citation of more relevant cultural axioms might be appropriate; such as the explorations of the gynoid theme in Karl Freund's 1935 film "Mad Love" and the works of the 20th century author of macabre and erotic fiction "Sarban". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.200.191 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Addenda: Descartes' Francine

Hi - this is Gabriel M. author of the previous post regarding Hoffman etc. - It slipped my mind - but I just recalled another highly influential / hypothetical / philosophical / literary Gynoid construct which was not once mentioned in this supposedly authoritative article at all: mainly, Descartes' "Francine". All this prattling over "Fembots" and "Feminisim" really have no place in this article whatsoever. If changes aren't forthcoming in the next few weeks - I'm going to petition to rewrite the whole body of text and have the present incarnation permanently deleted. I'm not being negative, but let's stay on the ball people - this is a supposedly academic effort. As it stands - I personally see this whole page as a massive waste of effort. I'm sure most of you agree with me...

Can we try to actually have a conversation on this point? I'm seeing activity, but no collaboration - and that's a bad sign indeed!

99.135.156.124 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Gabriel

Compliments to the chef!

Cudos to everyone responsible for the sentence:

"... it has been derived from the word android in response to its linguistically masculine lexical element andro-, which is perceived as implying a male-styled robot according to some cultural readings."

Hapenstance1 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: this discussion page ...

Saying that discussions of feminism are irrelevant in a wikipage about Gynoids is like telling someone they can't use the word 'red' when describing a fire engine.

Hapenstance1 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article and its content

OK - there is some sort of disjointed discussion going on here, let me try and recap the main points and add some of my own.

• Common usage of the term Android refers to those of either sex and non-sexual humanoid robots - OED "Android - An automaton resembling a human being"
• The page is about Gynoid
• The term Gynoid should probably not be "is anything which resembles a woman" as that would not include Gynoid XXX, a term used often in medicine to refer to medical issues specifically in women and girls. By that definition girls, sculptures and paintings and the pictures on my TV of women are gynoids. It is too broad for modern usage and should be changed.

The complaints raised so far:

1. The article is sexist (also in /archive 1)
2. The article is too much based on sex toys and sex dolls (also in /archive 1)
3. The article is mistitled/misused (as Gynoid can refer to many things to do with female medical issues)
4. THere is not enough scope included for a page with such general title

There was much discussion on the time frame, generally female robots and such were in fiction until more recent times. In todays society there has been an upsurge in the amount of female robots references.

Article title
Wikipedia uses the most common usage. Gynoid is not really just used for female robot, the 7th item on the first page of a google search produces "gynoid fat distribution Distribution of excess fat predominantly around the hips, thighs, and buttocks."

However I would respectfully suggest that the medical terminology is often misused and it should in fact be "Gynecoid XXX" rather than "Gynoid XXX"

Merriam webster gives:

• Definition of GYNOID

gynecoid 2

• Definition of GYNECOID

1 of the pelvis : having the rounded form typical of the human female—compare android, anthropoid, platypelloid

2 : relating to or characterized by the distribution of body fat chiefly in the region of the hips and thighs (Gynecoid obesity)

My OED gives no definition of Gyno(anything). It is all based on "Gynaeco- also (esp. US) gyneco- : woman, female." It also gives "Gyno- reduced form of GYNECO- used chiefly in bot. with the meaning 'pistil', 'ovary'."

Also the terms "Gynarchy - government by a woman or women" - from this it is apparent that there may well be an ENGVAR problem when looking at medical terminology as US often shorten to Gynoid, an abbreviation of Gynecoid and the US version of Gynaecoid.

Article content
Well, Android is the generally accepted phrase for a humanoid robot of either or no sex. I see no real relevence here to using it as a general term for a female robot. Sadly there is a growing tide of terminology using Gynoid to refer to a female robot in a sexual nature - almost entirely by men.

I welcome comments on what people think the title should be as well as what content should be here.

As for Gynoid here perhaps the title should mirror Android (robot) to remove that problem and Gynoid should be the db page?
Personally I would:

1. turn this into a db page (Gynoid obesoity, Gynoid lipodystrophy, Gynoid (robot) etc.)
2. add a small section on the Android (robot) page and "main" to link to Gynoid (robot) and explain these are mainly sexually influenced in modern usage.
3. move the content on female robots onto Gynoid (robot) page and limit that content to a narrow scope.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have rearranged and better defined things, well I think I have and hope people agree. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has an identity problem. Are we talking about Sexbots in Popular Culture? Is this a Feminist reading on heterosexual desire in regards to machines? It seems to be trying to do both, poorly. Why title this Gynoid if the term is so broad as to be meaningless in context of the article? Plus, Gynoid and Female Robot seem to be used inter-changeably, even though the article takes pains to say they are not. But that's not the organizational problem I have; even after reading it I still don't know what the thesis of this article is about. The introduction states, Gynoid has not gained popular usage to refer specifically to female robots . Yet, we immediately jump into talking about female robots, hodge-podge between a feminist critique of hetero-erotic presentation and ... whatever it the rest of this article is trying to tell us, apparently that "Sex with gynoids has been compared to necrophilia"

Frankly, the editors of this article have yet to explain how a Sexbot is different from a Fembot is different from a Gynoid (or any other in-universe term). I'd rather see this titled "Female Robotic Representations in Popular Culture" since 90% of all the examples given are just that, with only a nod to the very complex issue of machines in the real world. Bringing in references to the Actroid, while I understand what the editors are trying to say, I don't feel belongs here, especially since it has its own article. I know we are trying to avoid massive re-writing of established articles nowadays, so I would rather hear back from other editors. Chalchiuhtlatonal (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this page have a reason to exist?

It's been over 6 months since anyone made any meaningful comments on the talk page and this article remains an absolute mess. Would anyone care if I put in an rfd? Rpundurs (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Going once... Rpundurs (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this satire of feminism or real feminism?

Sex with gynoids has been compared to necrophilia. Sexual interest in gynoids and fembots has been attributed to fetishisation of technology, and compared to Sadomasochism in that it reorganizes the social risk of sex. The depiction of female robots minimizes the threat felt by men from female sexuality and allow the "erasure of any social interference in the spectator's erotic enjoyment of the image".

Really?

Is this satire or should we copy paste this passage into articles like Fleshlight?

What about dildos? Surely the dildo article would benefit greatly, if it had the gender-reversed version of this part.

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like someone fears their value as a human being is being threatened, and feel the need to attack a technological concept and it's potential users. Perhaps they envision a diminishing value of their vagina and other womanly attributes thus objectifying herself. Relax, the dildo hasn't replaced men and the Fleshlight hasn't replaced women.