How so? Because it pretty much generalizes everyone into stereotypes.

Ah. No, you're right, that is what they do. They've never been actually sexist, they're just really bad at being gender equal. They play to stereotypes.

And don't get me wrong. There are a TON of don't-need-no-man characters in the games. Seriously. They're really good about that. It's just that they are also simultaneously not so good at it. :p For every female character that defiantly subverts gender roles, of which there are plenty, there are like four that are questionable.

I mean I can't help but notice that Nidoqueen and Latias have the exact same stats as their male counterpart, but with less attack and more defense. And why is that, hmmm? Because ladies are more nurturing? Well, whatever. It's not that big of a deal. But then there's the fact that most Pokémon LOOK male. Blissey and Audino are stereotypes, Lopunny exists, and there's no denying that Flannery and Malva (Malva is like my favorite character in Pokémon by the way,) are supposed to be a pun on "hot girls".

It might just be due to fanservice than anything. (Have you read some of the dialogue in these games? Gamefreak has the occasional Rare-style humor, surprisingly.) And I get that most of the designers etc. are male, but it's just something to think about. They posses both bias and forward-thinking in equal measure.

I've honestly never thought of Pokemon as being sexist. I don't really see it. Maybe I'm just a dummy ;p

Well I've just been to see if anyone else was saying anything about this. I'll quote some other dude.

"The series definitely has some sexist, narrow-minded overtones in how the characters of each gender have certain 'characteristics.' Little boy trainers like bug Pokemon; little girl trainers like cute Pokemon. Male trainers have notably 'cool' Pokemon like Gyarados. Female trainers have feminine ones like Jynx. Almost every male trainer in both the games and the anime has male Pokemon; almost every female trainer has female Pokemon. It's almost like Gamefreak and the anime writers think a trainer using a Pokemon of the opposite gender is a hideous thing; Ash's Bayleef and Aipom (and, again, Aipom eventually got shoved into Dawn's party, and Bayleef stopped showing up after the show left the Johto region) are just about the only explicit exceptions to this unwritten rule.

"Additionally, female trainers are associated with the Normal type (because Normal Pokemon are cute) and the Grass type (because girls like flowers); I think Grass Pokemon have been paired with female characters in almost every major game. The Celadon Gym was 100% women; so was the Eterna Gym. Rosie from PBR was modeled after, and used, Grass Pokemon. Even in the TCG Game Boy game, the Grass Club was all women. Similarly, Bug Pokemon (because girls find bugs 'gross') and Fire Pokemon (because little boys think fire and explosions are 'cool'; not to mention that fire beats plants in general) are associated with male trainers, with almost every major Fire trainer being male (Flannery is the only exception) and the Fire Club in TCGGB being an all-boy's club.

"Pokemon is definitely NOT an explicitly sexist series; indeed, the creators did make sure to include many female characters for both humans and Pokemon alike. However, reading a lot of the things I just posted, it does make you wonder if there's an implicit sexism in the series. That's not entirely impossible: Pokemon is 'targeted' for the fabled 6-12 male demographic in both Japan and in the United States, kind of like the Power Rangers franchise. However, I find this a very interesting topic because, as an American male who was part of both series' target demographic during their respective fad stages, I always found myself not gravitating toward the stereotypically 'male' bits (like using 'cool' Pokemon or liking the male leader of the Power Rangers) but instead toward the more 'girly' parts like the cute Pokemon and the female Power Rangers. "

qwerty go outside

I will stress again that there's a lot of forward-thinking in Pokémon -- Levanny's all nurturing and stuff for example, and Burgh is kinda implied-gay, so good for them -- but it's just really weird how much of a double-edged-sword they are about it.

Absolutely not. (Insert Pokémon Go joke.)

Y'know what, I forgot it's Japanese. Clearly this explains all. Discussion over.

Haha, Pokemon's target demographic is 6-12 years old, I think in terms of boys using male and girls using female Pokemon, it's easiest to understand for a younger mind.

That, and there are so many trainers who don't adhere to that little rule.

Also, about the girls using cute and guys using cool Pokemon thing, that reminded me of the biker with a Cleffa. But it also reminded me that the NPCs are still stereotypes and they're using Pokemon they'd be using to fit the stereotypes, which isn't always indicative of a Pokemon someone would like either.

I mean just like at B2/W2 when all the punk rockers in the beginning of the game used Poison type Pokemon like Koffing. That's because it fit the appearance and stereotype of them.

Just my opinion though, and I'm tired so I can't really fully flesh it out

Pokémon is the one game series where a male character can take a ferris ride with an equally male hiker who very clearly has affections for him and may or may not be doing sexual things during.

It pokémon stereotyping, heck yes. Do I care? Nope :)

Fair enough. I shouldn't have started this topic whilst half-asleep.

I guess the results can be sexist, but really all they're doing is stereotyping because of appearance. And I'm fine with that because there are a whole lot of trainers and I can't reasonably expect the devs to come up with a unique team for every single NPC based on personality (although, thinking about it, what if Trainers also had stats, which influenced what kind of team they raised?). I wish their main characters were a little more fleshed out in general, and I wish there was a more gender-neutral option, but I can't say it's ever felt too sexist to me. Like Brian said, there are a good amount of trainers who subvert gendered tropes too.

I personally love that you can have a trainer for every profession and pokemon to match

I really hate that people use the same damn pokemon online and in tournaments cause there really is enough to fit everyones personallity

I dislike competitive pokémon playing for that reason.

I'd much prefer it if people just made teams of pokémon they themselves really liked, not because of Stats or IVs or natures, but just because they think it's a cool and good pokémon.

thank you yes! the idea of pokemon is fantastic but it's ruined by the competitive scene

I occasionally play competitive when it isn't that...well, competitive, -- because it's fun. But I insist on only using Pokémon that I like and want to play with.

It doesn't work.