Talk:Wyman/@comment-30826682-20181002015829/@comment-1500935-20181002205156

@Geist: I definitely agree, mostly because I wrote a good chunk of that page while dodging the definite pronouns.

I get that the writers of the series wanted to show that the Empire didn't have the same bias on marriage and relationships due to a different religion, or any other reason. It was their choice to focus on other social problems, I can respect that. Still making Emily's only love interest genderless adds nothing. Worse, it creates a distraction on a character that could have been given a more interesting role.

Imagine for example that Wyman ends up next in line to be King or Morley, but decides to keep his (semi-public?) relationship with the Empress despite his obligations as monarch of a different state? It could have been a moment of discord for the xenophobic Gristol aristocracy and a way for Emily to finally solve the social rift between the four nations. It could even have the opposite effect and finish to achieve the Empire itself. But no, Wyman is stuck in the role of a template so that any "fan" can have the romance fantasy of their choice. Romance "à la carte", because suuuure that's what this series is about...

EDIT: Sorry for ranting out. I saw a similar situation recently. I just can't stand how people can fixate on genders in a discussion that has nothing to do about it. Just let the authors pick their choice and comment on the impact rather than the ifs and whys.

EDIT EDIT: This clip illustrates the Wyman situation for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYOzUHnPJvU