Gender-neutral stick figures

[jack]

I've been playing a lot of draw something[1] and this has led to drawing lots of stick figures.

And I realise that I fell into the traditional trap of using an unadorned stick-figure for for a generic person, but also for "man", and using a stick figure with a skirt for "woman", because those are the most recognisable.

And I really don't like doing that. What SHOULD I do?

One thing is to find some way of indicating "male stick figure", even if it's still gender-stereotypical, eg a hat. That way, at least I'm not contributing to the assumption that generic stick figures are men, even if I'm not fighting it.

Another would be always draw a stick figure with a gender marker, so at least I send a message of "stick-figure world contains people of all genders". But in some ways that makes it worse, making it look as if (a) gender were important for stick figures and (b) there were only two genders of stick-figures.

Probably the best would be to draw stick figures with a coloured rectangle instead of a line for a body, because that way you can vary the drawing a bit without being ostentatious about it. But I'm worried that it stretches my art skills too far :)

Is there a "right" way of drawing stick figures?

I also find it difficult to draw vikings without drawing helmets with horns on them, but I'm sure most people I know know the truth of the viking helmets, so I'm not perpetuating misinformation (and even if I am, it probably doesn't matter as much).

[1] As "cartesiandaemon". Anyone else want to play, tell me your username!

Comments

[jack]

I assumed the prominent XKCD characters were male, alas...

And yeah, beard is another (etymologically-approved! :)) marker of male-ness.

[simont]

Yes, I expect the Hat Guy is male (though I don't recall whether that name for him originates with Randall). That wasn't the point: my point is, if you put a hat on your stick figure I don't assume it to mean generic male, I assume it to mean specific character from xkcd about whom we know lots of stuff unrelated to gender and that probably confuses my idea of whatever you were trying to represent with the figure!

[jack]

Ah, sorry!

I guess I could draw a different hat? Does "fedora" convey "stereotypically male" more than "hat guy" or "well-dressed style icon"? :)

[kaberett]

I feel quite strongly that using beards to indicate gender is just as wrong as using skirts to indicate gender.

In re gender symbols, I would point out that you can also use trans symbols and various other combinations so that you're not relying on a binary.

[liv]

Using non-binary symbols is a good idea! The issue is that this is a Zynga game; they quite often ask you to draw "fireman" or "princess" or indeed "brother" or "wife", but never ask you to draw "transgender person" or "stone butch". Most of the time, if what I want to convey is "person", I am happy that a stick figure can be whatever gender the viewer wants them to be, they're just a generic example of a person. Eg a stick figure playing football is a footballer, not a male footballer. But what to do if the word I'm trying to illustrate is explicitly male or female? There's no reason that a fireman wouldn't also be a trans guy, but I would feel weird including his birth-assigned sex in a simple, symbolic drawing of a hypothetical person.

[kaberett]

With "fireman", I'd make the argument that that's "man" in the older, gender-neutral sense ;)

(And yes, I object to masculine pronouns as ~gender-neutral~, but am actually okay with arguments being made for "man" as gender-neutral. I prefer to use terms that are more recognisably neutral, and I'm typically uncomfortable with arguments from etymology rather than usage - prescriptivst rather than descriptivist, I suppose - but the -man suffix is one I will shrug about.)

[momentsmusicaux]

At least beards are biological. Skirts, bowties, hairbows (the last two suggested elsewhere on this post) are just social convention.

But then that won't work for drawing child stick figures.

[kaberett]

No.

Just No.

You do not get to gender me based on your perceptions of my biology.

[dreamatdrew]

ERROR: Argument not based in fact.
I know Generally-Reguarded-As-Male persons who could not grow a beard to save their life, and I know Generally-Reguarded-As-Female persons who at the end of the day have a 5-o-clock shadow to contend with. The presence, absence, or quantity of hair growing from a person's body does not count as an actual reliable gender marker, even if one sticks to the binary categories.

[momentsmusicaux]

Well in that case, stick figures shouldn't have arms or legs. Not everybody has those.

[kaberett]

Okay, for serious, this is not okay. The things you are saying? They are really shitty, and really hurtful, and have resulted in me getting nauseous and choked up and adrenaline-spike-y every time I think about them.

I strongly suggest you do some more reading before you keep talking about this topic. Relevant keywords include "biological essentialism", "binarism", and "cissexism". Julia Serano's blog is excellent, as is CN Lester's. You should also consider reading disability rights activism blogs - for example, the archives at FWD/Feminists With Disabilities - because seriously, I cannot believe you thought it was acceptable to pull that out as ~stunning counterargument~.