u/Astral59

Hello everyone. Recently I came across some opinions about Xenoblade 1 on another social media platform that felt as if Melia's reaction to most of the High Entia becoming telethia is too subdued and doesn't showcase enough grief. In particular, the perspectives felt that even with Melia's more stoic and reserved personality, she should have had a more defined breakdown over how colossal of a loss it was for the high entian people.

I personally don't think I fully agree with this opinion; I think Melia is given a good amount of closure on the issue during he brief reunification with Kallian after Lorithia is killed, alongside her getting to reflect more on her duty of sending off the telethia during the Melancholy Tyrea quest. I also think that the existence of Future Connected challenges Melia a lot with her struggles of trying to rebuild the high entians.

However, I am curious to know if other people here also felt that Melia didn't have enough of a breakdown or reaction to the telethia event, or if it felt fitting for her character arc?

Hello everyone!

I haven't played xenogears in a good few years and haven't had much of a chance to replay it, but I was hoping I could find some clarity on a plot detail I was stuck on, namely in relation to Grahf.

So, from what I recall, due to the intense despair Lacan had over the death of Sophia (his version of Elly), the powerlessness he felt in the moment sought him to want to seek power. Through this desire, alongside Miang's own guidance, he made incomplete contact with the Zohar, effectively birthing the personality of Grahf, which wishes to end human suffering by utilising Deus to destroy all of humanity before destroying Deus along with it.

My question is, Grahf did know about the wave existence, right? Because, if such, was there a 'logical' reason that Grahf didn't seek the same goal as Fei eventually comes to, that being freeing the wave existence from the Zohar? As that would have ended (most of) humanity's suffering without destroying the world.

I do understand that a lot of Grahf's motivations here comes out of his despair, and if that is the main reason for his disconnect, then fair play (I really enjoy him as an antagonist as it is already), but I guess what I'm asking is that (from his warped perspective) if there was a logical/knowledge based process that led to him concluding that destroying humanity = freeing humanity, rather than freeing wave existence = freeing humanity.

Hoping that this post makes sense, my apologies if it's a bit confusing.

Edit: Spelling fixes

Pretty straightforward question here. We see after the party kills Consul K, Noah and Mio make the decision to offsee him despite the protestations of Lanz and Taion, largely due to Noah feeling the lingering desires/fears of K to continue living.

However, after this point, Noah and Mio never offsee a consul afterwards, side quest or otherwise (barring the mud puppets of J in chapter 3). In fact, Lanz even brings this up with Noah in Chapter 4 after the O and P fight, where Noah says that offseeing them 'would have been a bit much'.

I guess what I'm wondering, was there any particular reason as to why Noah was so adamant about offseeing K but was less willing to do so for the others? You could maybe argue O and P were somewhat worse than K on a personal level for the party, but K was still a shithead of an individual.

The best explanation I can think of is either A) that Noah's empathy for most of the consuls wears thinner and thinner as they continue to show no remorse for their actions or B) Noah was doing it out of some semblance of lingering obligation/duty, which fades out more as the game continues.

Really curious to hear some perspectives on this as I do know there are a couple people I've seen around that aren't the biggest fans of the offseeing of K.

Hello all! I hope everyone in this sub is doing well. I just wanted to preface this by saying that I am not here making this post under any guise of trolling or transphobic bigotry. I am a vocal advocate for trans people, as I myself am somewhat gender questioning, have a network of close trans friends and have a non-binary romantic/sexual partner, just to give a premise of where I am coming from. I also am based in an Australian context.

I was doing a bit of research regarding certain LGBT topics as it is an area of interest for me, and I stumbled across this study regarding the prevalence of gender affirming chest re-construction amongst trans youth (13-17) in the United States between 2016-2019. Whilst looking through this study, I noticed that within this period, 42 trans individuals aged 14 or under (I'm assuming the cap off is 13 but I could be wrong) received some form of reconstruction during this time according to one of the tables provided.

This question isn't to fear monger over this at all; in fact within the scope of the overall sample (keeping in mind that surgeries for trans people under 18 are already very rare as is) it is a very small percentage, making up less than 0.04% of the overall cases, which does indicate it is an extreme minority within an already noticeable minority. However, it does appear to occur.

My main question here is, for trans youth that are this young, what exactly are the circumstances for these procedures to be approved? Don't get me wrong, I am well aware of the several debilitating and horrific effects of gender dysphoria, which absolutely is present within people at that age.

However, considering how difficult it is for trans surgeries to be accessed as a baseline already and EVEN MORE SO for those under 18, I guess I'm just curious as to how this happened at all, both in terms of how serious the situations would be medically speaking, and how these get approved at all, if anyone is able to provide me a better picture.

TLDR: In the extremely rare cases where gender affirming surgeries are approved for trans youth under 15 years old, what are the circumstances that have to be present for such a thing to be approved, both in terms of legal + health barriers and the severity of the situation said trans youth have to be in?

Reference:
Das RK, Perdikis G, Al Kassis S and Drolet BC 'Gender-Affirming Chest Reconstruction Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents in the US From 2016 to 2019', JAMA Pediatr, 177(1):89-90, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3595