How are single-gender pokemon determined?

[Fabioman3]

So, i have been wondering what is the criteria for a pokemon species to be entirely male or entirely female. Some examples make sense right away, like Miltank, Kanghaskan or Chansey line being entirely female, but not exactly everything is so easy...

Being aesthetically masculine or feminine doesnt seem to enough, as the Machamp line can be female while the Gothitelle line can be male, and there are more examples of generally masculine or feminine-looking pokemon being able to be both genders

I searched far and wide but couldnt find any video or post somewhere talking about this, so maybe there is no reason at all? I was basically wondering if there is any hard rule as to what makes a pokemon species be entirely male or entirely female? Of course i know there are different reasons for every single one of them, but is that a reason they do not share with another pokemon that does not receive the same treatment? (Like saying Throh is fully male because its masculine-looking while the same doesnt apply to the likes of Machamp or Conkeldurr)

 

[Lordecoxinha]

Wooper learns Ice Punch. Some things just make no sense in Pokémon.

I think they must somehow make some sense though. Maybe they want some sort of breeding limitation to some species?

Tbh, Gardevoir should be female-only now that Gallade is a thing. Or Gallade should've been evolvable from female Kirlias as well. Same with Froslass and Glalie, but the other way around.

 

[Fabioman3]

Wooper learns Ice Punch. Some things just make no sense in Pokémon.

I think they must somehow make some sense though. Maybe they want some sort of breeding limitation to some species?

Tbh, Gardevoir should be female-only now that Gallade is a thing. Or Gallade should've been evolvable from female Kirlias as well. Same with Froslass and Glalie, but the other way around.

Breeding limitations are normally done by the 7/1 gender split though (Like Starters, Fossils or Eevee)

The pokemon i am mostly concerned with are:

Males: Hitmons, Throh and Sawk
Females: Jynx line, Lilligant line, Florges line, Tsareena line and Alcremie line

All the other pokemons have reasons, some are good (Kanghaskan and Chansey line being related to motherhood), some are alright (Gender-specific evolution like Vespiqueen or Mothim/Wormadam), and some are outright bad (Braviary and Mandibuzz apparently being counterparts despite... Not really having much to do with each other, other than being birds), but at least its a reason

What could make those pokemon be only one gender, other than their appearance being masculine or feminine? I did read somewhere that the Hitmons are male-only because of the Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan connections (Or their respective japanese ones, which are also based on true martial artists), i was originally not very convinced but i am almost tricking myself into thinking it might be that just because i want it to be something more than just randomness 😛

 

[faf]

How I see it, the opposite genders of said Pokemon could either be extinct, a certain species could just be an abundance of that gender but the opposite hasn't been seen yet, or there are specific reasons to why that Pokemon cannot evolve into a gender locked Pokemon (i.e. male Salandit tend to be malnourished from giving their food to females and therefore cannot evolve into Salazzle).

 

[EmTheGhost]

For the Lilligant, Florges and Tsareena lines, it seems like it just became a trend for some reason to have all-female Grass types, specifically ones that turn from less-humanoid first stages to humanoid final stages. Like Pikaclones or route-1 mammals, but on a smaller scale. I don't know why that's a trend, but it's a reason.

Jynx...well, its gender ratio was assigned in 1999. True, there were female Machamps and such from the beginning, but Jynx goes a little farther - heck, maybe, at the time, nobody at the Pokemon company even thought about giving it a 50/50 gender ratio.
(This is only vaguely related, but I've had the thought before that it'd be cool if Jynx was genderless instead. You know, like how Gardevoir is in the Amorphous egg group - a small, subtle detail that nonetheless gets across that there's more to this Pokemon than what we see...)

I agree with your explanation for the Hitmons, so - maybe Throh and Sawk have the same ratio to make them seem more like Unovan counterparts to the Hitmons? But then again, Audino was a counterpart of Chansey and didn't have the same ratio...I dunno.

No idea for Milcery and Alcremie. (Although perhaps we should be grateful it's all female - you just know people would feel the need to get every form in both genders...o_O)
EDIT: Wait, I just thought of something - with the way Pokemon games are currently programmed, would it be any more of a strain on programming to code in male and female forms? Are male and female models stored separately in the code, even if there aren't any gender differences? I don't really know enough to say, but it's something to consider...

One that I'd add to your list is Cresselia. Its counterpart, Darkrai, is genderless, and as far as I know it's not based on any specific female character from mythology or anything - why is it necessary for it, out of all other legendaries and mythicals, to be female? Because it's elegant and pink? There are other legendaries and mythicals like that, and all of them are genderless - even Diancie, who's actually deliberately designed to resemble a stereotypical princess! I don't get it.

 

[Meister_anon~Master_o f_None]

So, i have been wondering what is the criteria for a pokemon species to be entirely male or entirely female. Some examples make sense right away, like Miltank, Kanghaskan or Chansey line being entirely female, but not exactly everything is so easy...

Being aesthetically masculine or feminine doesnt seem to enough, as the Machamp line can be female while the Gothitelle line can be male, and there are more examples of generally masculine or feminine-looking pokemon being able to be both genders

I searched far and wide but couldnt find any video or post somewhere talking about this, so maybe there is no reason at all? I was basically wondering if there is any hard rule as to what makes a pokemon species be entirely male or entirely female? Of course i know there are different reasons for every single one of them, but is that a reason they do not share with another pokemon that does not receive the same treatment? (Like saying Throh is fully male because its masculine-looking while the same doesnt apply to the likes of Machamp or Conkeldurr)

From my experience there's usually a strong background lore reason for the things that gamefreak does.

So it could tie in to the create the pokemon is referencing or inspired by. Like you said pokemon like milktank make sense a cow is a female a bull is the male.

The only one I could never figure out, is why hitmonchan is a male only pokemon, that clearly should have been a gender evo split instead of a stat thing, very weird.

I mean hitmonchan's look is clearly meant to invoke a the look of a tank top/sports bra and skirt.

It even has "chan" in its name.



But back on topic you mentioned the pokemon Throh, while I didn't look that up I looked up its counterpart sawk and this what came up.

Sawk is based on Mas Oyama, a well-known karate expert and the creator of Kyokushin karate, and oni.


So like I said lore, Sawk is a male only pokemon because its designed and inspired by an actual guy.


edit: took a look at himonchan while I was at it, and it appears the case is the same, that is also inspired by a guy, this time a world class boxer.

So it seems the problem is just an unfortunate English name? idk, that pokemon will always be female to me that's my headcanon.

 

[Ara456]

Maybe because of the eye lashes?

 

[Sheep]

Honestly, I do feel like the staff have reasons for which Pokémon can only be a set gender, even if some of them are hard to figure out. I found this comment on Reddit when researching:

And Lilligant, I think, is a play on "Belle of the Ball" It might have been designed on a Southern Belle, but I don't really think of dancing when I think of a southern belle, so it might be based on the original French Belle.

Not something I'd have thought of myself. The reasons are probably too specific for me to figure out without some heavy research. @_@