Source: https://tfviews.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1667
Also, some background:
So, Simon Furman is a writer of Transformers comics who has some obvious issues when it comes to women and gender. He has publicly stated that Transformers shouldn't have a gender (despite almost all of them having male voices and pronouns), and had previously explained the origin of Arcee (a girl Autobot) as she was created by the Autobots to appease angry feminists, which is absolutely bizarre. After this, in the 2000s someone had the bright idea to let this guy write a whole story centered around her, and what he came up with then was even worse. According to what he wrote, she was kidnapped and had a forced gender reassignment against her will, which made her go insane and turn violent. So, he basically replaced a misogynistic origin story with one that is both misogynistic and transphobic. Mairghread Scott, a later Transformers comic writer, made a good attempt at salvaging that dumpster fire while trying to maintain some level of continuity. She made a post about it not even calling this guy out directly, and of course he takes it personally and freaks out, which is what that forum discussion is about.
Yeah yeah, this is all extremely nerdy and there are probably much more important things I could be doing with my time, but I just thought this... uh... Transformers redpill sort-of-eugenics rant was amusing and wanted to share.
The implication, of course, is that only males have a purpose.
Or I think maybe the implication is that the sole purpose of women is reproduction, and since Transformers don't reproduce biologically, there's no point in having Transformers who are women
Hardly an either/or thing. Man strong, man have purpose. Woman weak, woman make baby. No baby, no purpose.
Also, definitely male default too. In the beginning there was man and then god made woman from man, etc.
I thought the purpose was to move a continually cycling cast of toys.
The "Transformers Generation XXX" is gonna be really hard to watch isn't it?