Mutant Rights In the Real World

[greyman24]

I'm a big fan of WNYC's Radiolab podcast. It's an NPR podcast that covers a variety of news and human interest stories.

I was very surprised, however, when their most recent "shorts" episode was titled "Mutant Rights," and the description mentioned the X-Men.

Turns out it has to do with tariff laws. If a child's plaything looks like a human, it falls under the category of "doll." If, however, it does not, it falls under the category of "toy" and its taxation is much lower.

So Marvel Entertainment Group went through a series of law suits trying to get the US government to categorize mutants as NOT human.

Pretty trippy. Includes interviews with Bryan Singer, the lawyers involved in the suit and others.

[Navarre]

Is the question then if mutants are humans?

The taxonomic classification of non-mutant humans is Homo sapiens but mutants are typically listed as Homo superior.

There is a debate over Neanderthals as to whether or not they are a separate species. If they are Homo sapiens neanderthalensis then they are a sub-species of humans. But if they are only Homo neanderthalensis then they would be a separate species.

So if Marvel wants mutants to be a separate species then they only need to declare, in canon, that mutants are Homo superior and not Homo sapiens superior, correct?

[Beta Ray Bill Cosby]

So if Marvel wants mutants to be a separate species then they only need to declare, in canon, that mutants are Homo superior and not Homo sapiens superior, correct?

Not quite, what we have here is an issue of in-universe reasoning vs. out-of-universe bureaucracy. That would be like saying "Malibu Barbie is not a doll, because as you can see in Barbie's Dream Vacation DVD she absorbs the magic of friendship into her heart, thus briefly becoming a goddess, and the Malibu model clearly has the same eye shadow color and accessories she had at the time. Therefore not human, therefore not a doll."

mechanically speaking your kitty pride action figure hits every point for the 'doll' classification. They are saying that because the story-line says otherwise it should count.

[greyman24]

But the funny part is that, if they want to convince people that Wolverine, for instance, isn't human, you need to use in-universe explanations. You have to show how his claws and everything else makes him more of a "monster" (this is part of the definition of "toy" vs. "doll" within the legal documentation) than human.

I mean, I don't think they need to change anything within the stories. They need to highlight those parts of the stories that show these characters as non-human.

Apparently, they almost had to fight character-by-character. They convinced the court early on, for instance, that Beast wasn't human.

[Navarre]

Then they are going by appearance and not genetic taxonomic classification. That isn't right.

That's like saying the guy with a strange deformity isn't human. The ACLU would sue for that.

But Malibu "goddess" Barbie was never declared to be anything more than a human to whom something extraordinary happened, right? The doll of her would be the human doll, as far as we know. Either way, that isn't a separate species.

If an elephant toy is a toy and not a doll because it is known to be a non-human species, then a mutant would have to be taken as the same if it could officially be declared a non-human. And, as Marvel gets the say on what taxonomic classification applies to their mutants, I think my statement is still valid.

mechanically speaking your kitty pride action figure hits every point for the 'doll' classification.

Are you referring to my fully-articulated life-size Kitty Pryde doll?....

[greyman24]

Not quite, what we have here is an issue of in-universe reasoning vs. out-of-universe bureaucracy. That would be like saying "Malibu Barbie is not a doll, because as you can see in Barbie's Dream Vacation DVD she absorbs the magic of friendship into her heart, thus briefly becoming a goddess, and the Malibu model clearly has the same eye shadow color and accessories she had at the time. Therefore not human, therefore not a doll."

mechanically speaking your kitty pride action figure hits every point for the 'doll' classification. They are saying that because the story-line says otherwise it should count.

Thinking about this more.

I think you're right in that you couldn't just turn Barbie into a goddess and then retro-actively make the existing Malibu Barbie be considered a "toy" rather than a "doll." However if you turn Barbie into a fairy and issue a new Fairy Barbie "toy," you can then say "THIS Barbie is not human. Therefore, it is a toy."

[greyman24]

Then they are going by appearance and not genetic taxonomic classification. That isn't right.

That's like saying the guy with a strange deformity isn't human. The ACLU would sue for that.

Actually, you're sort of right. They are NOT going by genetic taxonomic classification. Whether it's right or not is subjective, but I agree.

The piece does mention Oscar Pistorius, the sprint runner who uses prostheses in place of his lost legs, and how, by the judgement, an action figure depicting him would fall under the category of "toy."

[Navarre]

The piece does mention Oscar Pistorius, the sprint runner who uses prostheses in place of his lost legs, and how, by the judgement, an action figure depicting him would fall under the category of "toy."

That seems tantamount to saying "Oscar Pistorius is not a human."

I find that decision narrow-minded, and insulting.

[Gaumer]

Cool conversation and I also *heart* NPR and all its free goodness.


As far as real-world rights for mutants: I don't think mutants should be classified differently in taxonomical terms. Humans and mutants only share one gene difference. Its like saying fat people or redheads should be classified as something besides homo-sapien. Mutants are sort of arrogant that way and do themselves more harm than good with this sort of thing IMHO.

But, we don't give full rights to people in America for things like being gay or, up to very recently, for being a different color or sex. I have no doubt that in a RL situation that homo sapiens with an active "X" gene would run into the same shit, much like the comic but with the politics of the thing becoming a horrible mashing of Second Amendment/People's Rights/Terrorism all rolled into one issue. In today's atmosphere of ALL of these things being at the forefront of politics in ways never before seen, I think the introduction of the "mutant issue" could act as a unifying catalyst. Surely we'd be so far outside the hero aspect that we have become a part of through the comic books, that a greater swing in public opinion would be seen. Cyclops and Deadpool having a Twitter account would be way more compelling and moving than a comic book.


The real story with the dolls and such is much less interesting But shame on them! Scumbag Marvel: Writes stories that make comparisons to mutant rights and human rights that has become a historical context. Sues to keep mutants as non-humans.

[Navarre]

I agree that mutants are only a type of humans. Having heterochromia is a genetic mutation but Kate Bosworth is still a human. So is Kitty Pryde.

[Alisha Mynx]

I'm gonna go with mutants are not human, because I don't want to be grouped in with the rest of you inferior creatures.   

But that is an interesting thought and discussion, though.

[Navarre]

Why do you think that mutants are not human?

[Alisha Mynx]

Why do you think that mutants are not human?

I don't think that, actually, not in such clear cut black and white terms.  But I do think that mutants are something else than simply "human".  Not better or worse, just something else.  

Like, I dunno, "Human+".

[Gaumer]

Simply Human

As big of an oxymoron as I've ever seen

[Navarre]

Once we start delineating humanity on a scale we are in dangerous territory.

When Hank McCoy was a boy he was human, right? When he grew huge feet was he still human? I'd say yes.

How about once he developed blue fur and fangs? No? Hard to prove to me.