Talk: Hendel Mitra

I'm the one who originally added the comment about Hendel's orientation -- mostly as a point of interest -- but on reflection I agree with the deletion. SpartHawg's comment about irrelevance is correct. --Tullis 12:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but is it really any less relevant than his hair colour or his ancestry? BorderlineWaxwork 19:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. In Mass Effect: Revelation, the author goes into great detail about how humanity has by and large transcended color and culture barriers, resulting in a fairly blended society. He then points to David Anderson as an example of this. In many respects, the description of Hendel Mitra's familial background and physical characteristics is the author further re-inforcing the point, as the two novels were written by the same individual, who was also the lead writer for the game. While background is an important theme throughout (being described in detail for Anderson, Shepard, Wrex, Nihlus, Ashley, Garrus, etc...) sexuality is not, which is why I questioned it's relevance, especially when classification by sexuality is only applied to one person who does not fit the norm. SpartHawg948 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that Hendel's sexuality lies unquestioned in Mass Effect: Ascension is equally relevant. Rather than making a big deal about his sexuality Jiro and Sanders shrug it off as nothing, something unextraordinary. It shows that society has advanced with regards to sexual orientation and gender. Also, human sexuality was touched upon in Mass Effect: Revelation, but in a different way; divorce rates are mentioned to have increased even more and government birth control schemes and DNA data banks are mentioned. The different aspects of family-life and how they have changed between now and the time of Mass Effect are a running theme aswell - not just how race and ethnicity barriers have been broken.

BorderlineWaxwork 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but as it's a maybe, and not a definite like, say, the author's depiction of how race and culture have been blurred in ME, it's speculation. If anything, given that Mitra is the only possible homosexual depicted thusfar (I'll get into the possible bit in a minute), it's quite possible that either nothing has changed (which is likely given that heterosexuality is depicted numerous times in ME as the cultural norm, as it is today), or society has grown less tolerant. And while sexuality is touched on in Revelation, sexual orientation (which is, of course, the subject of this debate) is not. I also don't really see any running theme of different aspects of family life and how they have changed. Really the only clear examples of "family life" are Ashley's and Kahlee's recounts of their lives, and neither of those sounds out of the ordinary. Ashley's could be a retelling of the life of any modern day "military brat" (trust me, I speak from experience) and Kahlee's is about her folks getting divorced. Now, as for the possible bit above, we really have no concrete evidence that Hendel Mitra is even homosexual, just speculation and hearsay from co-workers. After all, many historians believe James Buchanan was a homosexual, but does that mean we should edit his article to state that he was? No, because it's speculation, coming from someone who just doesn't know. The point I am getting at is that there is no relevance to stating that Mitra is a homosexual, any more than there is in stating that Ashley Williams is a heterosexual. SpartHawg948 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean about societal norms and the like. I suppose we'll just have to see what happens with ME2 and Redemption. It's really a big step for a sci-fi writer to address homosexuality in such an unassuming way. That's the reason I questioned the removal of the comment about Hendel's sexuality. Thanks anyways.

BorderlineWaxwork 22:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, they've already addressed it openly and much more directly in both Star Wars and Star Trek, the two biggest in the genre. Actually, ME has thus far been fairly conservative in their approach. We'll have to see, but even if they make more of an issue of it, there will still be the issue of having to identify everyone by their sexuality, which I really don't see as viable or feasable, anymore than identifying everyone by their eye color. SpartHawg948 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know much about Star Wars or Star Track, but creating an entire species of bisexuals is really going the extra mile (in my opinion) and I don't believe it's that conservative. Identifying certain characters by their sexuality may not necessarily be such a minor thing. If the author is trying to show an element in that character character by addressing some trait that it has, even sexuality, might be more crucial to the story line then it seem at first glance.

Earlier you brought the example of Ashley Williams being a heterosexual, but that this trait was not mentioned and focused on in describing that character; on the other hand the author might mention someone having a red hair in implication of how that character operate (temper, past influences, etc.), but he won't necessarily mention another character having black, or brown hair.

To decide if that piece of information should be included, we need to decide how important is that information. If you build a profile of that character, you want to include every detail that you have - you don't want to ignore a piece of information just because it does not, in your (or anyone else) opinion redundant. For my opinion: I don't think that it's redundant, if anything it intensify the character and give it another point of view. And to close my argument, our society focus on what is different and out of the norm, and therefor describing someone as homosexual has more weight and is not like describing someone being heterosexual.

I really hope I made sense in this argument... --silverstrike 06:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not that the asari are bisexuals, it's that they as a species don't have any concepts of gender, as they are all the same "gender" (if you can call it that). I mean that ME is conservative in that you have one character who may be homosexual (I'll go back and re-read, but it seams that the only "evidence" is that his co-workers believe him to be homosexual) whereas in other works like SW and ST you have actual same-sex parent families and actual on-screen depictions where both individuals are the same gender, as opposed to having one of them be a genderless alien. And as for the contention that even it's mere mention makes it more crucial than might be thought, then again, why not mention everyone's sexuality? Because it isn't really relevant. As for hair, as a red-haired individual I find those stereotypes trite and demeaning, and don't see why any objective viewer would differentiate between hair-types when attempting to describe someone's temperament and "past influences". Ancestry, yes, but temperament? Please. And I find your entire argument contradictory. In para one, you state that the mere mention lends someone's sexual orientation more weight than might meet the eye. In para two, you state that sexual orientation in heterosexual characters may not be worthy of inclusion for some reason (even though it is mentioned in the context of Ashley Williams in the game), and in para three, you say we should include every detail possible, which brings me back to one of my objections (other than the relevance issue), do we really need to list everyone's sexual orientations? No, because it IS NOT RELEVANT. Society's views are irrelevant when discussing this, as the argument here is strictly over the relevance of including a rumor that someone is homosexual in an encyclopedic article about that person. SpartHawg948 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't try to enforce a view that we should (or shouldn't) include details like sexuality. I generally try in my arguments to show all points of view regarding the subject - I may have wrote too much that it seems that my point was lost (it happens to me sometimes, sorry) but I'll try to summarize the issue better:

• Sexuality in Mass Effect: From your explanation I see that ST and SW have allot more openness about sexuality then Mass Effect, I didn't know that and I now agree with your previous statement. I think that everyone that played Mass Effect and encountered Liara's explanation focused on three things: 1. The writing of the story and inclusion of different kinds of cultures. 2. How's that suppose to work. 3. Neat, a race of bisexual. Now, depending on the person, those three points will change their order, but most likely most will think about them (that's only to clarify what I wrote previously, I don't try to make a point here).

• Inclusion of sexual orientation in wiki pages: By including it, you state something about the sexuality of said character, It may be positive, or negative, but still the statement carries weight. In one view, you might ask how does it changes the actions of an Alliance Marine soldier, regardless of his tendencies, he would probably acted the same (regarding the acts in Mass Effect: Ascension). Probably it does not add much to the character behavior, and/or personality. In other view, maybe you should include it, to explain something about the character that might happen later on, after all, Mass Effect is a work in progress. And why not to include it? The author gave this piece of information freely and without making a "big deal" about it. You previously stated that Ashley Williams (or any other character, for that matter) tendency was not stated - but on the other hand there was no mention about the tendencies of most of the character in Ascension, so why the author bothered to include Hendel tendency? Just something to think about.

• Stereotypes: I apologize if I offended you in some way, that was not my intention. I may have used a stereotype to illustrate my point, and I now agree with you that it's wrong. I won't try to find another example, I think that what I listed above should suffice. I tried to present all view points (that I can currently think about) and I leave the decision to the admin staff - I truly hope that I made my points clearly and didn't messed things up too much. --silverstrike 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but would like to counter with this: why then, does the article on Pel, for example, not include the fact that he is heterosexual, and felt an attraction to Keo, or that Paul Grayson is heteroesexual (he did, after all, father a child)? Again, it is not striclty relevant. Now, if their sexual orientations had compelled them to perform some significant act, I would agree it should be included. As for the contention that maybe it should be included because it may be significant in explaining some as-yet-unrevealed event in ME2 or another book, well, when that as-yet-unrevealed event happens and Mitra's sexual orientation is shown to have contributed, we can include it. Until then, it is irrelevant. And a couple other points right quick

• First, again, the asari are not a race of bisexuals. They are a gender neutral race whose practices seem bisexual to someone viewing them from a monosexual viewpoint, a viewpoint, btw, that most bisexuals tend to find closed-minded and ignorant. The asari, having no gender themselves, do not see gender with the same significance that gendered races do.
• I did not previously state that Ashley Williams' sexual orientation is not stated. I in fact pointed out that it is. Sorry, I'm a stickler for semantics and not being misquoted.
• Sorry for seeming belligerent in my response, but when you come from a historically oppressed group and someone (knowingly or not) propagates stereotypes that were used by your people's oppressors to justify their actions, you do get a little snippy. The red hair somehow leading to different (and more aggressive) temperament, was one of a number of stereotypes perpetuated by the English about the Irish to justify enslaving and subjugation them for centuries. I understand that you meant no offense, sorry for snapping.

So, I hope you see my point. Other than an off-hand mention, Mitra's sexuality does not come up in the book. It doesn't appear to flavor his actions or interactions at all, and we do not include things in articles based on the assumption that they may become significant in some future work. SpartHawg948 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Now we are having an edit war on sexuality

Geez people, why the big fuss over his sexuality? Teugene 02:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, about that- here's the deal. There was a big 'ol debate over this way back when, which can be read above, and here's the details. 1) Relevance. There is none. 2) He's being singled out b/c of his sexuality when it isn't even known for sure one way or the other. It's based on gossip. And please don't state that "well, he's not being singled out over this any more than he is by having his mixed ethnicity stated" or "well it's no less relevant than his mixed ethnicity". That just doesn't hold water. While no other character (including the ones whose sexual orientation is known, not just gossiped about, such as David Anderson, Kahlee Sanders, Jiro Toshiwa, Jon Grissom, etc) have their sexual orientations mentioned, meaning Mitra would be singled out, there are at least two other major characters (Anderson and Sanders) whose ethnic backgrounds are examined in the books, meaning pointing out Mitra's ancestry has precedent and isn't "singling him out". So, do we really need something that isn't relevant, isn't even fact, but supposition, and that constitutes one hell of a double standard (the kind this enlightened society is supposed to be above, singling people out for sexual orientation) in the article? SpartHawg948 05:06, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I want to see this end as much as anyone. I don't feel too strongly either way about it. Is it worth putting under trivia or something? :/ If, indeed the author put much time in hinting at his orientation isn't it worth mentioning. Then again, Spart is right by saying this page would be singled out. I dunno. Like I said, I care neither one way nor the other, I just think an editing war is ridiculous.--Effectofthemassvariety 18:14, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is going on not for too long and I do agree with SpartHawg948 and Effectofthemassvariety that this article would be singled out jsut because of that fact. Lancer1289 18:20, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it but it sounds like some peoples personal bias is getting in the way of this nformation on this page, on the other hand i dont actually think its relevent. It seems to be pretty obvious in the book, but why not save this information for the people who actually read the book to block preconceptions on hendel. In general i dont think to much personality info should be included in articles, characters are meant to be judged by the people reading the book or experiencing the video game, this is an encyclopedic reference for the mass effect universe, not a study of the characters within the universe. ralok 18:22, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I must ask, what do you mean personal bias?--Effectofthemassvariety 18:31, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, it doesn't matter. I do like the argument that the characters need to be interpreted by the individual readers. You have to ask yourself: does it really matter if he is or isn't? If we are truly as enlightened as we think we are, then it really doesn't.--Effectofthemassvariety 18:50, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

if you point out that he is gay, then you are spoiling a surprise, annd to often homosexuals are judged based solely on that single trait, some people dont understand that homosexuals act however they want to at, that they arent cofninedto usign handbags and acting feminine. It would be like pointing out anderson is black and then saying nothing else about who he is, it isnt a description. If you want to point out that he is gay, then go out of your way to completely dissect every aspect of the mans character aswell, otherwise you could just leave it as a surprise to the people who want to read ascension. ralok 18:58, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good point ralok. People today are often too quick to judge someone based on a rumor and if this information was added then people would see him in a different light. Lancer1289 19:00, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. People would come in with preconcieved notions about him. It would dictract from the story, and it could adversely effect a person's experience.--Effectofthemassvariety 19:15, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Finally this is settled. The current revision is probably the best solution without this going into an edit war for the next who knows how many days, weeks, or even years. Hopefully this will end the debate that has been going on for two days now. Lancer1289 00:15, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the current solution seems workable for now! Teugene 02:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Horay, i helped. Although i was kind of hoping it owuld go on for just a little bit longer, i was preparing a nice big speech that i think would have convinced just about anybod :( ralok 02:54, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wanted to ask, where does it say he is homosexual in Acension? I never got that impression. I just got the impression that maybe he only liked aliens. Considering the list of errors in the Deception novel, there is no proof (to me at least) thta he is attracted to men. It's never necessary for the plot, but it's never been defined. I think people are reading too much into it. (Lone Hunter 20:32, February 24, 2012 (UTC))