alt Hacker NewsNot explaining something is not the same as ignoring it. You can't really explain technology which doesn't exist without risking getting it completely wrong as actual science moves along, or just harming the narrative by focusing on irrelevant details.
If a society has advanced medical technology where changing your body is not just possible but broadly available, then it follows that they have solved any issues with rejection and adaptation. Nanobots constantly tweaking hormones? Your mind and memories simply layered over a virgin clone brain with everything set for whichever sex that body has?
If the writer set out to explore that theme they might delve into it, otherwise all that matters is that it works and sounds plausible from within the context of the story.
Scifi is about 'what if?' and how that affects people. 'What if money could buy a body of the opposite gender?' is all that is relevant.
Similarly, we don't need to know how the huge space station capable of destroying a whole planet in a single shot works (unless you are a rebel princess), just that it does.
Replies
> Not explaining something is not the same as ignoring it.
No, that's pretty much the definition of it.
> If a society has advanced medical technology where changing your body is not just possible but broadly available, then it follows that they have solved any issues with rejection and adaptation.
No, that is just explaining away poor writing. Explaining necessary details makes the difference between good or bad storytelling.
> Scifi is about 'what if?' and how that affects people.
Starting with ignoring the first obvious consequences is not exploring how something affects people, it's just wishful thinking.
> Similarly, we don't need to know how the huge space station capable of destroying a whole planet in a single shot works (unless you are a rebel princess), just that it does.
If Star Wars would be SciFi, then we should get some good enough explanation for this. People are disputing about those details to great lengths for good reasons.
> ... , then it follows that they have solved any issues with rejection and adaptation.
We have solved the issue to travel fast from A to B (by car, train, etc), yet we haven't solved motion sickness. There are treatments, sure, but the underlying issue hasn't been solved.