WHO IS LINK FIGHTING IN THE LEGEND OF ZELDA (NES) DUNGEONS?

     I was playing the original Nintendo "The Legend of Zelda" the other day and I walked away wondering just who was Link fighting throughout the majority of the game?

     The creatures in the overworld are very likely Ganon's minions, but what of the dungeons? The story presented in the game is that Ganon stole the Triforce of Power and wanted to get his hands on the Triforce of Wisdom but Princess Zelda (somehow) broke apart the latter Triforce into eight pieces and hid them away in monster-infested dungeons before being captured by Ganon.

     Are the creatures in the dungeons just random monsters or are they loyal to the ruling family of Hyrule and just never got the message that Link actually intends to defeat Ganon (somehow) using the Triforce of Wisdom? It's obviously not clear nor does it help that many of the enemies you've fought in those dungeons are also present in Ganon's level (with the exception of the Lanmola and Patra which I can assume are the only definite servants to Ganon in the dungeon levels of the game).

     If it's the former, then damn Zelda's got some skills, right? She evaded being slain by all that shit and managed to hide the fragments away. But somehow I doubt that. Not because I think Zelda is just a girl or something sexist like that but because the Triforce pieces are clearly being guarded. The rooms the pieces are in are preceded by intimidating monsters like the Manhandala and Gleeok dragons (maybe not so much Aquamentus...).
     Zelda II strongly gave the impression the palaces Link fought in to undo the binding spell on the Great Palace were patrolled by parties loyal to Hyrule and tried to kill Link because, well...that's what they do (all while being unaware that by doing so, Link's blood will be used to restore Ganon to life making things even worse...nice job breaking the kingdom, guards!). They're certainly not going to take Link on his word that he's only trying to help and Zelda obviously couldn't vouch for him because she had been rendered magically comatose (apparently there's no King or Queen of Hyrule who could tell these guards to stand down).

     Therefore, it's possible to assume that the creatures in the original game's dungeons are loyal to Hyrule and not Ganon. It would then make sense that Ganon kidnapped Zelda in an effort to use her extortionately to have someone else gather the pieces of the Triforce because I guess Ganon is not powerful enough (despite being able to turn invisible) or brave enough to tackle Hyrule's dungeons himself (seriously, what's SUPPOSED to be in those dungeons when they aren't being used to house Triforce fragments? What kind of society is Hyrule?).
     Instead he's holed himself up in Spectacle Rock and barring anyone from entering his palace unless they've come bearing the Triforce of Wisdom. Then, he would betray the bearer by sicking his minions on him/her. When the bearer died, Ganon could simply take the Triforce and rule. I'm sure Zelda's fate would not be a desirable one.
     Also logic would dictate that if they were loyal to Ganon, why aren't they just taking the pieces of the Triforce to him to begin with? Ganon needs that Triforce to cement his rule. It wouldn't behoove him to leave them lying about for some dickwad like Link to recover.

     The only trouble with this scenario is the presence of those same enemies in prior dungeons. Even the entrance is guarded by an old man like the one who gives you a (shitty) sword at the start of your quest. Maybe they're formally loyal servants who have been seduced by Ganon...or more likely, it's the memory limitations of the NES in 1987.
     It may have also been an oversight.
     But they could have also very well, despite those limitations, put the enemies of the overworld inside that final dungeon and thus not added to the game's memory burden. It could've been guarded by a Moblin instead of an old man demanding the Triforce before letting you enter. Hell...it could've taken the Triforce from you to let you pass (in the same manner as the hungry Goriya and for extra tension, the entryway gate could've slammed shut as the other three sealed doors opened, letting you know you've been tricked and that you're "supposed" to die here).

     A lost opportunity...

     I also can't imagine the guilt trip Link must have to live with knowing that, over the course of two games, he's slaughtered loyal servants to Hyrule in order to save a single princess. That's gonna be some costly therapy...

OVERTHINKING THINGS THEATER PRESENTS: EXPRESSION

     With Caitlyn Jenner (she/her) in the entertainment news yesterday, I've once again been thinking about the often maddening encounters with people talking about gender, etc. online. It seems we, as a society, are now at that point where we need to come to a consensus on how to use English's various binaries because if the internet (stereotyped through Tumblr) shows anything, it's that there exists a significant group of people pontificating on these very things but either using the terminology inconsistently, unscientifically, or even illogically.
      The basis for these thoughts lies in biology, specifically with how life is classified into various kingdoms, phyla, families, orders, and so forth. I would not expect the following proposed usages to take over common everyday speech, but instead to act as a technical reference.
      The way I see it, there are certain fixed things about us and certain constructed things about us with former being biological in nature and the latter being largely made up by society over the course of history.

      My aim, in this decidedly unscientific presentation, is to attempt to bring some order to the mess that's been created through millennia of assumptions.

      From my various readings online which come primarily from comments sections, comedy articles, social issues sites, linguistic pieces, and from the occasional actually scientific piece I would gather that there are four broad categories to human expression: sex, gender, orientation, and identity.
      Allow me to explain how I've come to perceive the difference between all four.

SEX:

     Of all the categories, sex is the most scientific (in that it can be objectively determined) and it is fixed (i.e. it cannot be changed). Its basis is your genes, something we presently have no way of altering wholesale after birth. Your sex is your XY or XX designation. Biologically, this is male and female respectively. So to refer to oneself as male or female is to refer to one's genetic definition only regardless of any subsequent categories.

      In life, the XX and XY combinations are the ideal and are also by far the most frequently occurring. However, there are rare births featuring XXY and XXX combinations for instance. Additionally there are rare births for those born with both types of genitals (though I'm not aware if only one, both, or neither are functional) and those biological males (XY) with androgen insensitivity syndrome who develop like women but have no ovaries or uterus. For those rare births, the term intersex might be most appropriate. Whether to use the terms intermale or interfemale, however, I do not know. That would require more discussion.

      Finally, there are those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery. While this does not change their genetic sex, for the sake of compassion, I think we can allow the prefix trans- to be appended to either male or female to describe such a change with trans-, in this case, to carry the meaning "made into". Thus a transmale would be a genetic female who underwent that surgery.

GENDER:

      Gender, of all the categories, is the most socially constructed one. It's probably also the most confusing one to read about online as it will be used interchangeably to refer to sex, gender, and identity (as I will be using those terms in this essay). Because I've studied Linguistics, I would suggest taking a page from that discipline and use the terms "masculine" and "feminine" to label the respective poles of the spectrum.

      It is here that I will mention that gender is not a binary, but a spectrum. For a psychological analogy, I refer to introversion and extraversion. When you learn about the Myers-Briggs types, you learn that people are predominantly either introverted or extraverted, but they are not only one or the other. Also, when one is stressed, they will tend to behave in the opposite manner (that is, a introvert under stress will exhibit extraverted tendencies). Overall, gender is a lot more like a probability.
      For instance, my test results put me at 85% introverted thus making it very safe to assume that in any given situation, my behavior will exhibit introversion. Extraversion is possible, but unlikely. I imagine I would behave rather extravertedly if I were to find myself in an involved conversation about Babylon 5, for instance :-)

      I've come to see gender the same way. There are typically masculine things/ideas/activities and there are typically feminine things/ideas/activities (as well as a whole suite of neutral things/ideas/activities I'm sure). If one were to make a list of those things and have a person check off what they like and don't like, you would surely find "manly men" selecting typically feminine things and "girly girls" selecting typically masculine things. These things/ideas/activities have nothing to do with one's sex, orientation, nor do they have anything to do with one's identity but as with introversion and extraversion, one will find that their preferences are predominantly one or the other and that gender expression is ultimately a bit fluid as one encounters new things/ideas/activities and as culture redefines those things/ideas/activities over time (pink used to be a masculine color for instance).
      I don't believe the fluidity of one's gender is very great but I do believe the line that defines our masculinity and femininity is ultimately fuzzy the more you try to focus in on it. From a distance the line will look sharp, but as you draw closer to it, the fuzziness of its true nature will show. Philosophically this also means I don't believe anyone could be perfectly balanced between the two genders because it would be, by nature, unstable. Though I suppose if the fuzziness of one's gender line were close enough to the masculine/feminine dividing line, the linguistically consistent "neuter" or "neutral" would be appropriate, or perhaps the more common term "androgynous". Again, a matter for debate.

      It is, though, because of this belief that I find the terms "bigender" and "genderfluid" to be as ridiculous as the term "ambivert" (to describe someone who feels both introverted and extraverted). Genderfluid is redundant because the very nature of gender is that it is fluid, though unlikely by more than a small amount over any given time. Bigender, like ambivert, reveals a misunderstanding of the spectral nature of the term. We're all "bigendered" as we are all "ambiverted".

      Gender, like light, is a spectrum with its poles labeled. On one side there is violet (masculine) and on the other, red (feminine) with a whole rainbow in between.

ORIENTATION:

      Like sex, this is a fixed quality but unlike sex, I don't think there's any way to objectively test for it that I'm aware of so one must accept the interpretation given by the person experiencing it. Orientation describes one's sexual attraction only and for the sake of clarity, sexual is referring to sex in the biological sense.
      Orientation from what I can tell is a pair of binaries, the largest of which is heterosexual (attracted to the opposite of one's biological sex) and homosexual (attracted to the same as one's biological sex). The less common two would be bisexual (attracted to both sexes, though not necessarily equally) and asexual (attracted to neither sex).

      Anecdotally, it seems when one is heterosexual or homosexual, they are very strongly that orientation, like practically 100% so. The question for me is, how much overlap in terms of sex and intimacy would be permitted before one is considered bisexual by the population at large?
      I remember reading in the New York Times about a man who was bisexual but who admitted his attraction to women was much more fully formed making male intimacy difficult. But I also wonder if, for the sake of example, a man told a woman he had sex with 100 people, 5 of whom were men, would he be bisexual? What if it were 2? Or 10? It seems to me, whatever the number, it must be low because the idea (speaking for myself only) of having sex with a man is a never-go and being sexually intimate with a man is incredibly uncomfortable to even think about. From watching porn, the closest thing to male intimacy I could imagine being even remotely acceptable to me would be participating in a train (2 men, 1 woman) and the most gay heat-of-the-moment type thing that wouldn't necessarily freak me out would be if the woman in that scenario sucked on both our dicks at the same time for a moment. But anything lingering would skeeve me out quickly. Double penetration (one dick in the vagina, the other in the asshole, a.k.a. DP) also feels very gay to me. Not sure if even the heat of the moment could overcome that (the difference being the former was not my choice/out of my control and the latter would most certainly be). But even holding a man, stuff like that...no, I'm very very heterosexual. I'm diverting quite a bit, but I'm hoping you see what I mean.

       I don't know what the incidence of asexuality is in humans nor do I know what the psychological threshold for such a label would be. I'm looking at it from a heterosexual (i.e. a clearly defined orientation) viewpoint when I say even if I weren't attracted to any females (or males for the sake of completeness), that if asked, I would still say I'd rather be with a woman than with a man thus making me heterosexual even if I have no plans on doing anything about it. In other words, I'm treating the idea of asexuality like celibacy. But I'm going to assume unless medical evidence is presented to the contrary, that like transgender, asexuality is a thing even though my mind can't grasp it.

      One final note. I've also read the term "pansexual" used online. I don't know precisely what the current users of that term are getting at, but I think the term could be co-opted here. As I stated before, I'm heterosexual thus meaning I want to have sex with women. However this does not include women resulting from genital reconstructive surgery. I want to have sex only with women whose parts were factory installed. Therefore, I would take the term pansexual to mean someone who would have sex with those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery (transsexuals). The prefix pan-, though, would probably have to be appended to hetero- and homo-.
      So, for me, if I would have sex with a transsexual, it would make me panheterosexual. A panhomosexual would be the "sex with same" counterpart and a pansexual would be a bisexual person who would have sex with transsexuals. I think that makes sense.

      Additionally, undergoing genital reconstructive surgery would necessarily change your orientation. A female heterosexual after surgery would be a transmale homosexual. I think that follows logically.

IDENTITY:

      Identity would be how you present yourself regardless of the previous referents. The simple binary in common speech would be you're either a man or a woman. For labeling purposes you'd either be cis- or trans-. If you are cis-, your identity conforms to your sex and if you are trans-, your identity does not.
      Oversimplifying, a cisman is a male (by sex) who feels male, thus identifying with his biological sex and a transwoman is a male (by sex) who feels female, thus not identifying with his biological sex. This, until recently, has been considered a mental disorder but medical consensus has come to realize that trans- is merely a variant, albeit an uncommon one, and thus should not be treated as though insane.

      For proper labeling, one should always use either the prefix cis- or trans- (cisman, ciswoman, transman, transwoman). Man and woman without any label would be common speech and an assumption borne by the speaker based upon his or her analysis of your social presentation. In other words, "how you look" to the speaker. I guess one might think of the difference as how words like "chemical" have both proper and common uses. Using man and woman without prefixes would be the rough equivalent of using chemical to refer to man-made compounds and with the prefix would be like using chemical to refer to substances which cannot be physically separated into components.

      I suppose, like for orientation, if a person undergoes genital reconstructive surgery, then their trans- identity would necessarily shift to a cis- one. It feels internally consistent even though I'm unsure if it's "correct" or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I think this covers all the major bases. The results are a mouthful but I'm not looking to replace common speech. No, my goal is to create a consensus-driven consistent technical description for proper classification of basic human expression. It is by no means complete, but I am hoping, rather, is for it to be a start from which debate may flow and help bring about codification.
     As for which pronoun group to use, in regular conversation I would suggest that if you don't know, that you politely ask which pronouns the person you're addressing would prefer.
     In writing, keep pronouns internally consistent and use basic compositional techniques like an initial parenthetical for clarity.
     For example, in writing, when one first uses a common organization name, it is first spelled out and then followed by how it is more commonly known or will be subsequently referred to as in parentheses. "The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for collecting income taxes". So, when writing, when the subject is introduced, it may be followed immediately in parentheses with the person's preferred pronouns. "Mary Smith (she/her) likes to play basketball." or "Jake Jones (she/her) tells us that her favorite band is Green Day."

SUMMARY:

Sex = male/female, optional inter- (for atypical sexes) and trans- (for those who have undergone genital reconstructive surgery)
Gender = masculine/feminine, optional neutral or androgynous (for those whose gender is very close to the masculine/feminine divide)
Orientation = hetero-/homo-/bi-/a- (appended to -sexual), optional panhetero-/panhomo-/pan- (for those whose attraction includes transsexuals)
Identity = cis-/trans- (appended to either -man or -woman)

Examples:
--- A masculine male heterosexual cisman would be the prototypical "man" in common speech. He is male by sex (that is, XY), masculine by gender (shows greater propensity for liking things/ideas/activities typically associated with men), heterosexual by orientation (sexually attracted to his opposite, i.e. females), and identifies with his sex (i.e. male).
--- A feminine female heterosexual ciswoman would be the prototypical "woman" in common speech.
--- A feminine male heterosexual cisman is the same as the first example except that his gender shows a propensity for things/ideas/activities typically considered feminine by society.
--- A masculine female heterosexual transman would be a genetic female who identifies as male, is sexually attracted to males, and shows a propensity for things/ideas/activites typically considered masculine by society.
--- A masculine transmale homosexual cisman would be the same as above except the person would have undergone genital reconstructive surgery.