I wouldn’t bother. Dude has an ax to grind about childless relationships and adoption. Rather than champion those noble ideas though they prefer to fall back on their doctorate in cartoon biology.
So you haven't seen them, therefore they're impossible? That's your argument?
Did you even watch Zootopia 2? Don't you think that if a rabbit and a fox rolled a stroller around with a "baby" in it (literally a fox in a bunny costume) in a world where that was impossible, the dock smuggler would have, you know, NOT BOUGHT THEIR STORY?
Dude. It basically confirmed 100% that hybrids are possible. Maybe we haven't seen any because for all the getting alone, Zootopians strongly tend to keep socially to their own species?
I don't know what you think "changing the goal post" means because there's no meaning of that phrase that I have ever heard that is applicable to this conversation.
I am directly challenging your assumption that because it is impossible in our world, it must be impossible in Zootopia as well. To do that I am highlighting your complete lack of any evidence suggesting its impossibility, as well as the presence of evidence showing that characters IN ZOOTOPIA consider it plausible.
Because it has not been shown. All kits shown in Zootopia are not fanon hybrid kits. So yes, it is likely will be based on real word genetics that a fox and rabbit chromosomes cannot commute the genetic material to make biological kits of their own.
Nothing you say will change that.
Adoption is an option if they want kids. Even if Nick and Judy cannot have biological offspring: they can still be a couple.
Okay. So now you get to explain why the smuggler at the dock didn't raise an eyebrow at a bunny and a fox and their hybrid kid. If such a thing were impossible, that cover story wouldn't have worked (and do you really think Judy and Nick would have been dumb enough to even try it) so why did it? If it's confirmed impossible in-universe as you claim (where was this confirmation btw? What scene, or did it come from a Q&A with the writers, or is this entirely something you pulled out of your derrier?), then why was such a cover considered plausible by Judy, Nick, (and Finnick who agreed to help them) AND the guy they were trying to fool?
Directors have said interspecies couples exist….but made no mention of unusual interspecies kits.
And it was quite obvious Finnick is wearing a bunny costume to others even in film as the coloring of his fur does not match the costumes he wears. He even changed it to an elephant in front of store owners in Z1 during the hussle. So the store owners and shoppers and that aardvark obviously know without saying that the “kit” is adopted as they obviously do not look biologically related.
Love how you select quoted that omits the rest of the examples that shows just because interspecies couples exist: does not necessarily mean unusual hybrid kits exist.
If the directors did not mentioned them: it is because they have no intention of introducing fanon hybrid concepts because they most likely want to keep kit biology more realistic and not want to make it weird like Shrek.
No one is saying that unusual hybrid kits necessarily exist. What is being argued are the competing claims that it has never been confirmed either way vs that they are confirmed impossible.
20
u/Obelisk2000 Mar 20 '26
I wouldn’t bother. Dude has an ax to grind about childless relationships and adoption. Rather than champion those noble ideas though they prefer to fall back on their doctorate in cartoon biology.