• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Writing a three gender society

Malise

Scribe
Argent Hellion

Sex = Hardware
Gender = Operating System

If a Mac computer was sentient, it might choose to use a Windows operating system on its hardware, if it feels that Windows will allow it to fulfill its purpose in life better. However, the Mac computer cannot change itself into a Microsoft computer, but should not make a difference because the Mac computer acts exactly like a Windows computer.

Using that logic, theoretically, there can be a Biomechanical species (called Reychons) that has only 1 hardware but 100 different operating systems. They only asexually reproduce, but their operating system still tells them that they have to go about reproducing and rearing offspring a certain way, which they can also edit based on internal or external stimulus. They're not endangered as a species, as they're giant silicon butterflies with phoenix wings and psionic powers, and are thus the peak of evolution.

A Reychon that chooses to have a V operating system, may only choose to replicate under the full moon, be night-time soldiers (and only night-time soldiers), and only raise their own offspring with a V operating system. They're expected to be macho, hate sunlight, and speak in "Owos" and "Uwus" to intimidate people. However, not all V's follow their programming to a T, and that's fine, they're still V's if they fulfill the role that they have in the hive. Their pronouns are beep, boop, and beepboop.

A Reychon with a B operating system, on the other hand, can replicate whenever they see fit, have roles in a Reychon hive that sees them as hive care-takers, and encourage their children to have operating systems that go from A to U to C4. According to hive society, B's are supposed to be funny, be held to high standards of beauty, and be the voice of authority. B's are more respected than V's in hive society, but it doesn't mean that V's are not as important as B's. They address themselves as git, gud, and gitgud.

If a V Reychon lands in a hive without a moon, this means that they (beep) can no longer fulfill their purposes as V's in hive society. So they (beep) could reprogram themselves to another OS, and that V Reychon who sees themselves (beepboop) as being funny like a B, might change themselves to be a B. Likewise a B might change into a V so they (a gitgud) fight wars at night time, they (a git) have always felt like a beep their (gud) entire lives despite their programming. There even might be a Reychon who sees themselves as someone that's half V and half B, and create programming for an operating system known as VB. Or a V that acts like a B, but refuses to transition to a B, because they (beep) feel that Operating System Roles are just a social construct by the hive.

It all may be confusing for humans, but it makes sense to the Reychons.
 
Last edited:

Chasejxyz

Inkling
Evolution is simple and direct to the point of insanity and anything that veers off even slightly from any of those traits has to be provided with very, VERY good reasoning to justify its very existence, otherwise it will not be taken seriously. Single-gender species rely on copying rather than mating and are therefore far more vulnerable to extinction from imperfect copying or disease. On the other side of the spectrum, any species that relies on more than two genders complicates its mating process, so the benefits of those complications have to outweigh the downsides in order to justify its survival.

I'm honestly impressed by your misunderstanding of evolution. I'm going to give you two real-world examples of life forms that evolution has created.
  1. The peafowl. They show some pretty noticeable sexual dimorphism, with the females being brown and the males being iridescent teal with huge tials (trains). They take a LOT of calories to grow, they keep them from being able to fly very well/far, and they're very visible to predators (also it's hard to run around a forest with a 6' tail knocking into things). But as you know, these are used in sexual selection. The male opens his tail in a display....and the female doesn't look at most of it. They did a study using eye-tracking cameras to learn that the peahen just looks at the bottom edge (the flat line of the semicircle) of the tail to see how big it is. The number of eyespots, or even there being eyespots in the middle, have 0 impact on how sexy she finds him. So he's wasting all this energy and putting extra mass on his body for no reason. If evolution only did things for very simple. very justifiable reasons, why is this so?
  2. Toxoplasma gondii. It is a parasite, so it requires another living thing in order to exist. An "egg" is created in a cat's gut and then shed through feces, then spreading into soil, water, plants etc. A bird or mouse comes by and inadvertently ingests the egg, which then develops into the next stage in their muscles/tissues. The mouse/bird is then eaten by a cat, where the egg turns into a full adult T. gondii and the cycle begins again. Compare this to most cases of parasitic worms, where it sheds eggs and then those ingested eggs turn into an adult. So why does T. gondii need two? It can ONLY turn into an adult inside of a cat, so when livestock get it, it's still immature, and when we eat that livestock it remains immature, so it's not that it needs to go through 2 animals, it needs to go through an animal and then a cat. This is a pretty severe handicap to spreading/reproducing, why does it exist? Why is it making this overly complicated system?
There is some honestly baffling things that exist in our reality that have formed because of evolution, and not all of them are great. Pandas eat only 1 thing, which is very calorie deficient, and they're too stupid to have sex. Koalas also eat only one thing, but they will only eat it from a small number of individual eucalytpus trees, not just any tree. Did I mention those trees are incredibly flammable? Those widespread wildfires killed off such a huge population of koala because they physically cannot live on any other tree, they couldn't even go to another tree farther down the road. It's pretty stupid! If an author designed an elf that could only eat the berries from a small cluster of trees in their forest then you'd say that's pretty dumb, but that would be based in our reality.

The creating of new genetic material wasn't invented alongside sexual reproduction. Evolution is much like the scientific method, it requires many, many small steps made by countless individuals, building upon the work of others. Single-celled organisms were swapping and altering DNA before sexual reproduction. By the way, the entire concept of sexual reproduction shouldn't exist. Asexual reproduction means you only need 1 individual to reproduce, some great cataclysm can happen, but as long as 1 individual remains, the species will survive. Sexual reproduction requires at least 2 individuals, AND they need to be in the right ages at the same time, AND they have to make it happen. There's plenty of species where one of the parents must die as part of process, what if that mating was unsuccessful? Then the population is doomed. And yet sexual reproduction is what most (but not ALL) plants, fungi and animals use. Even if an individual mutates something good, it only has a 50% chance, at best, to pass it down to its offspring.

Evolution creates the fittest population for the specific niche that exists to be exploited, not an objective 'best" individual. There could be an environment that has lots of food/resourcs, but it requires a lot of learned skills to do so, but it's too much for 2 parents to do, along with caring for themselves. A third parent can handle all the education while another hunt/gathers and another creates tools/processes the food. Or maybe the process of giving birth kills/cripples the one parent, so a third parent is needed to be a wet nurse (this was incredibly common in our early history, as the sizes of our heads, to fit our larger brains, doesn't fit very well in our tilted pelvises that allow us to walk upright, which we need to have in order to use our hands, which we only can do because we have big brains, so a high percentage of mothers died giving birth).

Gender is a social construct, like language and the concept of ethnicity/nationality. There is nothing inherently different from a French guy and an English guy but boy did they hate each other for most of history. Societies with more than 3 genders have always existed, there is irrefutable proof of this, they're mentioned in this thread, so sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "no they can't because evolution" is juvenile. There are a lot of really weird social constructs out there, if the ones that only existed were for only the benefit of the species, then there wouldn't be marriage, there wouldn't be laws about the age of consent or forbidding incest or adultery. We would be leaving every premature and sick baby out on a hill to die, but clearly we do not do that. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because life isn't about being as simple and efficient as possible? We are all, ultimately, biological machines, but most of our genetic code is useless and most of our processes are pretty inefficient, but there is no intelligent designer cleaning up our code and patching out the bugs. As Todd Howard says, "It just works!" So trying to find some objective reason as to why more genders than biological sexes exist is like trying to figure out why some ladybugs have 2 spots and some have 7. It just does, there's no deeper explanation, deal with it.
 

Queshire

Auror
We're writers. Considering a character can wiggle their fingers and say some words to toss a fireball then (incorrect) preconceptions of evolution can take a flying flip right into the sun.
 
Gender is a social construct, like language and the concept of ethnicity/nationality. There is nothing inherently different from a French guy and an English guy but boy did they hate each other for most of history. Societies with more than 3 genders have always existed, there is irrefutable proof of this, they're mentioned in this thread, so sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "no they can't because evolution" is juvenile. There are a lot of really weird social constructs out there, if the ones that only existed were for only the benefit of the species, then there wouldn't be marriage, there wouldn't be laws about the age of consent or forbidding incest or adultery. We would be leaving every premature and sick baby out on a hill to die, but clearly we do not do that. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it's because life isn't about being as simple and efficient as possible? We are all, ultimately, biological machines, but most of our genetic code is useless and most of our processes are pretty inefficient, but there is no intelligent designer cleaning up our code and patching out the bugs. As Todd Howard says, "It just works!" So trying to find some objective reason as to why more genders than biological sexes exist is like trying to figure out why some ladybugs have 2 spots and some have 7. It just does, there's no deeper explanation, deal with it.
Exactly. And gender is what this topic is about. Not sex, and certainly not evolution. I'm interested in exploring the possibility of a three gender culture, in fiction. That doesn't require any change to the physical bodies involved.

Speaking of biologically inefficient processes, humans have plenty of sex, but most of it isn't for procreation. Think about it. Hetero couples use preventive measures more often than not. In a couple with healthy appetites for sex and average fertility, not using any form of contraception would result in far more children than they can raise. And that's before considering couples who are not naturally fertile or don't have the right combination of reproductive parts to produce a child. The main function of sex between humans is pleasure and bonding, not procreation.

And when children are born, it always takes way more than two adults to raise them. Even if one or two have primary responsibility, they can't do it all on their own. Others in the community must be involved.

In short, cultural evolution does not revolve around procreation, and procreation and child rearing do not revolve around gender.
 
We're writers. Considering a character can wiggle their fingers and say some words to toss a fireball then (incorrect) preconceptions of evolution can take a flying flip right into the sun.
Not to mention, it's cultural evolution we're really talking about here, not biological evolution. That has even more room for creativity.
 
We're writers. Considering a character can wiggle their fingers and say some words to toss a fireball then (incorrect) preconceptions of evolution can take a flying flip right into the sun.

True, we can always do that, but then we're running the risk of our work not being taken as seriously as we intend it to be. When somebody does that in a horror comedy or a Dungeons and Dragons setting, or anywhere where worldbuilding isn't in the forefront, there's not much of an issue, but if that's done in a somewhat realistic setting that's intended to be taken seriously it can pretty much unravel the whole thing...
 

Queshire

Auror
Carefully spending the audience's willing suspension of disbelief applies to any area of writing. There's no point torturing it into some kind of justification.
 
Carefully spending the audience's willing suspension of disbelief applies to any area of writing. There's no point torturing it into some kind of justification.

That's pretty much how lore dumps are made... but now the main subject is getting a bit side-tracked...
 
On the main subject: I agree with the overall arc of y'all's conversation. Yes, suspension of disbelief is part of fantasy. Yes, it needs to stay realistic enough for the audience to believe it.

But a three gender society shouldn't require as much suspension of disbelief as magic fireballs. In reality, nobody waves their fingers and shoots out fireballs, but gender identities other than male and female exist. Some cultures don't recognize them, some have them fully integrated, and some teeter on the edge.

The way life on Earth is constructed, every being that reproduces sexually comes in two sexes, for the purpose of reproduction. Except when they don't. Slugs, for example, reproduce sexually but only come in one form. All of them have both male and female parts. When they mate, they fertilize each other's eggs. And most flowering plants have both parts on the same plant, but require a pollinating insect for reproduction, to transfer the pollen from one plant to another.

If we were talking about extraterrestrial races, who's to say a more complex kind of reproduction couldn't exist? But I'm not doing that. I'm writing about realistic humans. Realistic, that is, for a world in which feats like shooting fire from your hands are possible, if you have the training for it, but human nature remains the same, human psychology is the same, our ways of being in the world are the same. Culture and worldview may be different--they would logically have to be, in a world like that--but the way people live, they way they identify themselves, the social roles they take, all must be within the realm of actual possibility.

And they are.
 
The way life on Earth is constructed, every being that reproduces sexually comes in two sexes, for the purpose of reproduction. Except when they don't. Slugs, for example, reproduce sexually but only come in one form. All of them have both male and female parts. When they mate, they fertilize each other's eggs. And most flowering plants have both parts on the same plant, but require a pollinating insect for reproduction, to transfer the pollen from one plant to another.
Well actually... There's another flavor out there (which may be interesting for your story). Certain types of fish can change their actual gender, depending on conditions. Some start as one gender when they are young and get the other when they are older. There's also at least one kind (if I recall correctly) where the majority of the population in a given habitat is female, but when the large male dies one of the females changes her gender and becomes the male on that part of the reef. There's a few other types as well. Main point is, that even biological sexes aren't always as set in stone as they appear from the outside.
 
Well actually... There's another flavor out there (which may be interesting for your story). Certain types of fish can change their actual gender, depending on conditions. Some start as one gender when they are young and get the other when they are older. There's also at least one kind (if I recall correctly) where the majority of the population in a given habitat is female, but when the large male dies one of the females changes her gender and becomes the male on that part of the reef. There's a few other types as well. Main point is, that even biological sexes aren't always as set in stone as they appear from the outside.
I've actually used that in writing the scripture for this culture. You see, they have some sacred writings that cover, mostly, how things are to be done, but they also cover the concept of gender. They mention that, while humans may be childbearers or child begetters but are never both at once, some creatures are both, and the third gender is reflective of that in spirit. They also mention that in humans, gender doesn't always align perfectly with biology.
 

WooHooMan

Auror
Under normal circumstances, I would never post in a thread that has gone on for two pages but there's a little detail/question that no one seems to be jumping on that I'm wondering:

Why does your character's gender make it necessary to change a fundamental aspect of your setting's culture? Like; I got gay, trans, asexual, etc. characters in my story but I never felt the need to morph my setting's culture around them or create a fantasy reason for why such people exist in the setting. In fact, I found that making them "outliers" of sorts presented interesting opportunities for characterization and worldbuilding and I would imagine it rings a little more true to the experience of real-life LGBT people.
So, I'm a little curious what your thought process was from going from point A (this one character is third-gendered) to point B (third-gendered people are a core aspect of this culture). Not saying that it's wrong to do but it seems like a pretty big jump and quite a bit more work.
 

Chasejxyz

Inkling
Under normal circumstances, I would never post in a thread that has gone on for two pages but there's a little detail/question that no one seems to be jumping on that I'm wondering:

Why does your character's gender make it necessary to change a fundamental aspect of your setting's culture? Like; I got gay, trans, asexual, etc. characters in my story but I never felt the need to morph my setting's culture around them or create a fantasy reason for why such people exist in the setting. In fact, I found that making them "outliers" of sorts presented interesting opportunities for characterization and worldbuilding and I would imagine it rings a little more true to the experience of real-life LGBT people.
So, I'm a little curious what your thought process was from going from point A (this one character is third-gendered) to point B (third-gendered people are a core aspect of this culture). Not saying that it's wrong to do but it seems like a pretty big jump and quite a bit more work.

I have a question for you: why would you make a setting that has a polytheistic culture? Or one where everyone is vegetarian, or everyone is atheist? I don't think OP is writing a story that is "what if Tudor England had 3 genders?" but something original, where a culture always had 3 genders (and didn't have it destroyed by colonialism like has happened countless times in our world). A culture where magic always existed or there has always been more than one sentient species is going to, fundamentally, look really different from ours, but it's still going to be similar in a lot of ways. The vast majority of the world lives someplace that is culturally monotheistic (and most English speakers live in a culturally-Christian society), so even if the individual is not religious their life and beliefs are still shaped by it. So a society where third genders have always existed and were always accepted is going to lead to cis people who think of and treat gender in a different way than a society that doesn't. Yes, it's more work to come up with that, but it makes something more interesting and it challenges the reader.

Plus, minorities want to read stories where we're just normal people, not "outliers." People of color don't want to read stories that are only about "black pain" (institutional racism, they escaped slavery etc), queer people don't want to read stories that are only about coming out or learning to love yourself, disabled people don't want to read stories that are only about how BRAVE they are just to exist. Trans people have stories that keep on going after they've "finished" transitioning. A society where things like this are normalized means that your queer characters can truly be just like everyone else, they get to go on adventures for the fame or honor or because the evil lord destroyed their village, not because they "need" to learn to accept themselves or have to earn the right for others to respect their identity.
 
Under normal circumstances, I would never post in a thread that has gone on for two pages but there's a little detail/question that no one seems to be jumping on that I'm wondering:

Why does your character's gender make it necessary to change a fundamental aspect of your setting's culture? Like; I got gay, trans, asexual, etc. characters in my story but I never felt the need to morph my setting's culture around them or create a fantasy reason for why such people exist in the setting. In fact, I found that making them "outliers" of sorts presented interesting opportunities for characterization and worldbuilding and I would imagine it rings a little more true to the experience of real-life LGBT people.
So, I'm a little curious what your thought process was from going from point A (this one character is third-gendered) to point B (third-gendered people are a core aspect of this culture). Not saying that it's wrong to do but it seems like a pretty big jump and quite a bit more work.
Excellent question. The reason is, this character is a very well respected person in their society, and no one thinks there's anything terribly odd about them. They're not an outlier, at least not because of any fundamental detail like their gender identity. I'd already established that when the gender puzzle came up. For a genderqueer person not to be considered an outlier requires a culture with an established place for gender queerness. If the culture has an established place for gender queerness, then logically, there must be a significant subset of the population that is genderqueer and recognized as such.

Plus, I didn't set out to tell a story about a genderqueer person, let alone a genderqueer person who's struggling with being an outlier. The character in question is a primary supporting character; I'm actually telling the MC's story. So, when a genderqueer person appeared in the story, and as a major character to boot, that meant this had to be a setting where being genderqueer was unremarkable. Perhaps relatively uncommon, but still unremarkable, like left handedness or red hair.

If that means I'm writing a story where genderqueer people get to see themselves reflected as a norm, great. Now that it has gone that way, I hope that is what it becomes.
 
Last edited:
I have a question for you: why would you make a setting that has a polytheistic culture? Or one where everyone is vegetarian, or everyone is atheist? I don't think OP is writing a story that is "what if Tudor England had 3 genders?" but something original, where a culture always had 3 genders (and didn't have it destroyed by colonialism like has happened countless times in our world). A culture where magic always existed or there has always been more than one sentient species is going to, fundamentally, look really different from ours, but it's still going to be similar in a lot of ways. The vast majority of the world lives someplace that is culturally monotheistic (and most English speakers live in a culturally-Christian society), so even if the individual is not religious their life and beliefs are still shaped by it. So a society where third genders have always existed and were always accepted is going to lead to cis people who think of and treat gender in a different way than a society that doesn't. Yes, it's more work to come up with that, but it makes something more interesting and it challenges the reader.

Plus, minorities want to read stories where we're just normal people, not "outliers." People of color don't want to read stories that are only about "black pain" (institutional racism, they escaped slavery etc), queer people don't want to read stories that are only about coming out or learning to love yourself, disabled people don't want to read stories that are only about how BRAVE they are just to exist. Trans people have stories that keep on going after they've "finished" transitioning. A society where things like this are normalized means that your queer characters can truly be just like everyone else, they get to go on adventures for the fame or honor or because the evil lord destroyed their village, not because they "need" to learn to accept themselves or have to earn the right for others to respect their identity.
Exactly. To be fair, I didn't set out to write a story like this originally, but since it's gone in that direction, I'm happy to contribute to this line of thinking.
 

WooHooMan

Auror
I have a question for you: why would you make a setting that has a polytheistic culture? Or one where everyone is vegetarian, or everyone is atheist? I don't think OP is writing a story that is "what if Tudor England had 3 genders?" but something original, where a culture always had 3 genders (and didn't have it destroyed by colonialism like has happened countless times in our world). A culture where magic always existed or there has always been more than one sentient species is going to, fundamentally, look really different from ours, but it's still going to be similar in a lot of ways. The vast majority of the world lives someplace that is culturally monotheistic (and most English speakers live in a culturally-Christian society), so even if the individual is not religious their life and beliefs are still shaped by it. So a society where third genders have always existed and were always accepted is going to lead to cis people who think of and treat gender in a different way than a society that doesn't. Yes, it's more work to come up with that, but it makes something more interesting and it challenges the reader.

Take it easy - I just thought it would help with the thread if we knew the motivation behind their decisions. If this were a thread about a polytheistic culture, I likely would be inclined to ask their motivation for making the culture polytheistic. Generally, when people make a setting that is polytheistic or monotheistic or vegetarian or carnivorous, I'd assume they have a reason for it. I find you give people better advice when you have some ideas as to their line of reasoning or why they make the decision they make.

Plus, minorities want to read stories where we're just normal people, not "outliers." People of color don't want to read stories that are only about "black pain" (institutional racism, they escaped slavery etc), queer people don't want to read stories that are only about coming out or learning to love yourself, disabled people don't want to read stories that are only about how BRAVE they are just to exist. Trans people have stories that keep on going after they've "finished" transitioning. A society where things like this are normalized means that your queer characters can truly be just like everyone else, they get to go on adventures for the fame or honor or because the evil lord destroyed their village, not because they "need" to learn to accept themselves or have to earn the right for others to respect their identity.

Believe me, I'm well aware of what it's like living as an LGBT person of color.

Excellent question. The reason is, this character is a very well respected person in their society, and no one thinks there's anything terribly odd about them. They're not an outlier, at least not because of any fundamental detail like their gender identity. I'd already established that when the gender puzzle came up. For a genderqueer person not to be considered an outlier requires a culture with an established place for gender queerness. If the culture has an established place for gender queerness, then logically, there must be a significant subset of the population that is genderqueer and recognized as such.

Excellent answer. I now have a much better understanding of your position and some difficulties you may be facing when worldbuilding.
However, as pointed-out in this thread, third gendered individuals have existed in numerous real world societies so I have to wonder if the business with magical auras might be adding an unnecessary complication to your worldbuilding. I think it might be beneficial if you elaborate on this concept a little more. Specifically: what exactly is defined by "masculine and feminine" energies. Instinctively, I assumed you were going with a Taoist style aggressive-passive thing. Is that an accurate assumption?
 
Excellent answer. I now have a much better understanding of your position and some difficulties you may be facing when worldbuilding.
However, as pointed-out in this thread, third gendered individuals have existed in numerous real world societies so I have to wonder if the business with magical auras might be adding an unnecessary complication to your worldbuilding. I think it might be beneficial if you elaborate on this concept a little more. Specifically: what exactly is defined by "masculine and feminine" energies. Instinctively, I assumed you were going with a Taoist style aggressive-passive thing. Is that an accurate assumption?
I never said anything about a magical aura. That was someone else's suggestion. If you read my post, you'll see I nixed it as a gender marker.

FYI, Taoism doesn't have an aggressive/passive thing. Do you mean yin and yang? That's different, and that's not what I mean. Think of the people you know. How do you recognize them as men or women? Sure, there are markers like appearance, voice, and dress, but there's something else to it, too. A certain vibe. A childhood friend of mine described it perfectly: "You know how it feels differently when a mother is in the room than a father?" (My friend had sensed, but not seen, a female ghost. That's what she was describing.)
 

WooHooMan

Auror
I never said anything about a magical aura. That was someone else's suggestion. If you read my post, you'll see I nixed it as a gender marker.

FYI, Taoism doesn't have an aggressive/passive thing. Do you mean yin and yang? That's different, and that's not what I mean. Think of the people you know. How do you recognize them as men or women? Sure, there are markers like appearance, voice, and dress, but there's something else to it, too. A certain vibe. A childhood friend of mine described it perfectly: "You know how it feels differently when a mother is in the room than a father?" (My friend had sensed, but not seen, a female ghost. That's what she was describing.)

Yin and yang are associated with aggressiveness and passiveness but that’s a minor point.
You did mention masculine and feminine energies which can be perceived by others (which I would consider an “aura” but I guess that terminology can be confusing). I was hoping for a little more clarification on that since it seems pretty central to the gender dynamics of your setting.
 

JD Sheridan

Dreamer
Just gonna throw this out there. During my Anthropology studies we covered the Navajo and their idea of "Two Spirits." Reading up on the topic could give you some great ideas to borrow or even expand upon. Technically the Navajo traditionally recognize four genders but the Two Spirits are often clumped into one during basic studies.
 
Just gonna throw this out there. During my Anthropology studies we covered the Navajo and their idea of "Two Spirits." Reading up on the topic could give you some great ideas to borrow or even expand upon. Technically the Navajo traditionally recognize four genders but the Two Spirits are often clumped into one during basic studies.
I'm familiar with the Two Spirits concept. I personally know a few people (Native Americans from various or mixed tribal backgrounds) who identify themselves that way. It's something I'm drawing upon for this three gender idea.
 
Top