How Come Gardevoir Can Be A Boy?

That has always annoyed me! Before the 4th gen I didn't actually mind Gardevoir being male since the majority of Pokemon don't have a different Pokemon for each gender like Nidoran for example. When they came out with the male version Gallade, then I had an issue. Why did they keep a male Gardevoir in the newer games when there is already a male variant? And why does a Dawn Stone even need to be involved? They should change is so that after Ralts evolves into Kirlia, it will evolve into either Gardevoir (female) or Gallade (male). Or if not that at least make a female version of Gallade. The way it is now does not make sense.

Cross dressing exists. Maybe that's why they didn't bother to make it female-only.

Why are you worrying about Gardevoir? We have female Machamp...

Pokémon genders are all over the place.

But then again, by reproducing sexually, they'd have to have separate genders.

At least normally, anyways.

But with 'mons, I suppose that- with Mew being the common ancestor- perhaps their DNA retains certain genes common to most species of Pokémon- which is how they are able to cross-breed and produce viable offspring.

No wonder why there are so many Pokémon Professors- you could write up reams of thesis upon various aspects of Pokémon biology/physiology/psychology.

Kinda veered off-topic, there.

Anyways- yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. Gardevoir definitely should have be retconned to being Female-only after Gallade was introduced.

Ditto with Glalie and Froslass. It onl makes sense that if a 'mon has a gender-exclusive evolution- might as well make the other one the counterpart.

There's really nothing objective feminine about gardevoir's design. There's no visible sexual characteristics anywhere on its body. It's all preconceived notions we as players have about sexuality in our real world.

How can Machamp be a girl? It's not even wearing a shirt!

You have to remember that while some Pokemon do have humanoid appearances, they're still Pokemon, so just because a Pokemon may look masculine or feminine doesn't mean it necessarily is. This holds true to our own animal kindgom as well, where we might assume that an animal is one gender, but actually isn't.

Sure, male Gardevoir may not be as necessary since the addition of Gallade, but if you started with a male Ralts and prefer the special attack of Gardevoir, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use it.

Where is it written that a man can't be beautiful?!

...although I have to admit, my mental image of Wally mega-evolving his Gardevoir is a little weird as a result...

Actually, Gardevoir's Japanese name is Sir Knight. I'm guessing its supposed to look like it's wearing a robe-like thing, instead of a dress... :P

Jamais said:

How can Machamp be a girl? It's not even wearing a shirt!

You have to remember that while some Pokemon do have humanoid appearances, they're still Pokemon, so just because a Pokemon may look masculine or feminine doesn't mean it necessarily is. This holds true to our own animal kindgom as well, where we might assume that an animal is one gender, but actually isn't.

Sure, male Gardevoir may not be as necessary since the addition of Gallade, but if you started with a male Ralts and prefer the special attack of Gardevoir, I don't see why you shouldn't be able to use it.

Click to expand...

Basically, Brendan nailed everything here. While some Pokemon may look human in terms of body shape, they are still Pokemon and while Gallade's addition might make it weird to still have male Gardevoir, but remember Gardevoir was the only final stage of Ralts at the time the line first debuted, in 3rd Gen. Gallade wasn't added until 4th Gen.

And as Kyora said, Gardevoir's Japanese name (Sirknight) might make you suggest that "dress" might actually be a robe or something.

Because they are Pocket Monsters, not humans?

Gardevoir can be both female and male but unlike what the Pokemon community has done to it, I believe that Japan meant for it to be based as a masculine Pokemon.

Its name in Japanese is Sirknight and ironically, what you consider a "dress" is actually supposed to represent a magical knight outfit. There are no breasts or feminine areas that could be taken as feminine body parts either. It looks like it can be taken as either gender, not just a female as it's known for on the internet today.

Say what you want but to me, Gardevoir looks more like a male Pokemon than a female Pokemon.

Eevee said:

Gardevoir can be both female and male but unlike what the Pokemon community has done to it, I believe that Japan meant for it to be based as a masculine Pokemon.

Its name in Japanese is Sirknight and ironically, what you consider a "dress" is actually supposed to represent a magical knight outfit. There are no breasts or feminine areas that could be taken as feminine body parts either. It looks like it can be taken as either gender, not just a female as it's known for on the internet today.

Say what you want but to me, Gardevoir looks more like a male Pokemon than a female Pokemon.

Click to expand...

The exact same argument can be used on people who believe delphox should be a female-only species. ;P

Do not forget that the Ralts line is in the amorphous egg group, meaning that they are probably more like some kind of blob monster. It is quite possible that they are just taking a form humans are the most comfortable with while having no sense of human sexual characteristics.

Otherwise, androgynous is probably the word we would use, not necessarily clean cut female.

Actually, I think Gardevoir's design is pretty androgynous. The dress looks like it could also be a cape (maybe that's a bit of a stretch, but look at how it's open in the front), and in the games it doesn't act particularly feminine or carry itself in a feminine way. Personally, I could see it going either way, male or female.

Homura Akemi said:

Why are you worrying about Gardevoir? We have female Machamp...

Click to expand...

This.

Call me an old-fashioned, conservative fool- but I disagree with the blending of genders.

I've nothing against non-traditional sexuality, sex changes, or alternate lifestyles- but I do think that men and women should retain some amount of distinction.

Being different and being equal are not mutually exclusive.


I see nothing wrong with "brutish" being a predominantly male characteristic, and "graceful" being predominantly female; while you can certainly have graceful guys (ballet) and brutish girls (WWE), it is certainly not the standard.

The Machamp line just looks Male. And Gardevoir (for the majority of people, I'd wager) looks feminine.

Of course, Asian cultures tend to be more comfortable about the crossdressing thing- but that's a different topic.

Upon that note, Gardevoir's Japanese name of "Sanaito" is not a particularly convincing one- being a simple phonetic ape of "Sir Knight". Rather than infer gender, it is entirely possible that it was simply chosen to allude to it being just and noble. And that the Japanese just ruv their Engrish.

I could be wrong, of course- and that the next stage of human evolution is indeed one of hermaphroditic nature, where gender simply doesn't matter.

But we evolved into a sexual species with two sexes, and thus developed the notion of genders that identify us and aids us in our social interactions and finding potential life partners.

Blur that line too much, and it can become a rather uncomfortable guessing game.

Pardon the tirade, but the discussion seemed to be rather one-sided. Healthy and well-rounded discourse should address all possible angles of approach.