she's a mutant...she has powers that her dad doesn't, like controlling the binding forces between things, that is how she sticks to walls. she can also fire projectiles back at people...for example if someone shot a bullet at her, she could instantly send it back and it would hit him. once she has even stuck the thing to a metal pole with these powers.
Originally posted by Marcus4600
It's kinda the same thing with Franklin Richards. It's speculated whether he's a mutant or not. He's definately more powerful than any living mutant, considering he's an Omega level.
He's not the only Omega-level mutant.
Phoenix (she has produced a feat far beyond that of franklin by toying with an alternate dimesion)
Kid omega.
Iceman.
Elixir.
and considering Franklin has lost his powers he is no longer the strongest.
but back to the thread spider-girl got her powers from radiation and not the x-gene.
Beast got his powers because radiation gave his father the x-gene and he passed it on or something like that.
and it's still seen in the future that Franklin has his powers. I guarantee that he'll just get them back at one point or the other. Also, the X-gene is found in Spider-Girl, and Franklin Richards. Something in the parents has to mutate anyway, it's just in Mayday and Franklin's cases the mutation wasn't as subtle.
she's a mutant...she has powers that her dad doesn't, like controlling the binding forces between things, that is how she sticks to walls. she can also fire projectiles back at people...for example if someone shot a bullet at her, she could instantly send it back and it would hit him. once she has even stuck the thing to a metal pole with these powers.
namor was later shown to be affected by an energy attack that only targeted the x-gene, making him an official mutant. namor, being the first marvel superhero, came from a time where the definition of mutant had not yet been pinned down. spider-girl, however, comes from a time where the definition is steadfast. to be a mutant, you need the x-gene. without it, she's not a mutant.
Originally posted by Disappear
namor was later shown to be affected by an energy attack that only targeted the x-gene, making him an official mutant. namor, being the first marvel superhero, came from a time where the definition of mutant had not yet been pinned down. spider-girl, however, comes from a time where the definition is steadfast. to be a mutant, you need the x-gene. without it, she's not a mutant.
and to be born with powers usually means that you have an x-gene.
Originally posted by Disappear
usually doesn't mean always. usually doesn't mean jack, actually, in a comic sense. unless it's said, it's not canon.
the only logical conclusion is that she is a mutant, unless you can explain why she would have powers that her dad doesn't, or provide examples of people who don't have an x-gene but are born with powers that develop during puberty, just like a mutant, then she is a mutant. somethings don't need to be said to be canon, it's just a logical conclusion.
logical conclusions are not canon. logical conclusions are subject to being made inconclusive. for example, the dark riders apparently killed mesmero. a logical conclusion would've been that he was dead. turns out he wasn't. him being dead is not canon.
without it saying may is a mutant, may is not a mutant. virtually every non-mutant superhero has a genetic quirk that needed only a catalyst to develop superpowers. bruce banner, without said quirk, would've died due to the gamma radiation. peter parker, without the quirk, would've been royally ****ed after his spider-bite. may's quirk can be something besides an x-gene. no proof means it's not canon.
Originally posted by Disappear
logical conclusions are not canon. logical conclusions are subject to being made inconclusive. for example, the dark riders apparently killed mesmero. a logical conclusion would've been that he was dead. turns out he wasn't. him being dead is not canon.without it saying may is a mutant, may is not a mutant. virtually every non-mutant superhero has a genetic quirk that needed only a catalyst to develop superpowers. bruce banner, without said quirk, would've died due to the gamma radiation. peter parker, without the quirk, would've been royally ****ed after his spider-bite. may's quirk can be something besides an x-gene. no proof means it's not canon.
and throughout her entire history, she has never had a "quirk" she's lead a normal life, up until her powers sprung into action at puberty hmmmmmm...just like a mutant. also, you do realize that many mutants have never been stated as "mutants", but are still viewed as mutants in the comic community...spider-girl being one of them. and you still haven't provided examples of characters who were born with powers, and didn't have an x-gene. her DNA couldn't have mutanted to the point where she has developed her own set of powers.
puberty may have been a sufficient catalyst for a second-generation non-mutant. bruce banner's quirk didn't show up 'til his catalyst came into play. neither did pete's. you've completely ignored that part of the argument, as well as the part that to be canon, it must be stated. otherwise, it's just part of the ether.
and, i'd venture to say that most of the non-declared mutants are in x-related books. applying that logic to a spider-man book, his alternate-reality future daughter or not, is reverse logic. you can't come to a conclusion, then scramble for evidence to try and back it up. particularly when there is no evidence, such as this case.
and, as a sidenote, you've contradicted yourself. to be "born with powers" and have them "spring into action at puberty" are separate. the latter implies a genetic "quirk" that needs to be catalyzed. you've yet to prove spider-girl is a mutant, but i've given solid reason why she can't be considered such. your desire for her to be one does not mean she is. sorry.
Originally posted by Disappear
puberty may have been a sufficient catalyst for a second-generation non-mutant. bruce banner's quirk didn't show up 'til his catalyst came into play. neither did pete's. you've completely ignored that part of the argument, as well as the part that to be canon, it must be stated. otherwise, it's just part of the ether.
and as i've stated, throughout mays entire history, she's never experienced a quirk, so the4re is really no explanation for her having powers other than being a mutant. also, you do realize that it isn't stated that a mere human can defeat galactus, but everyone knows that one couldn't...and it isn't stated that she isn't a mutant either?
and, as a sidenote, you've contradicted yourself. to be "born with powers" and have them "spring into action at puberty" are separate. the latter implies a genetic "quirk" that needs to be catalyzed.
i haven't contradicted myself at all. every mutant is born with powers...it's just their powers don't present themselves until puberty. it happens with almost all mutants. for example...cyke was born with powers, and they didn't spring up until puberty...but we both know he didn't have a quirk. same goes for jean grey, iceman, storm, and almost every other mutant.
you've yet to prove spider-girl is a mutant, but i've given solid reason why she can't be considered such. your desire for her to be one does not mean she is.
you also have yet to prove she isn't a mutant, and saying that it isn't stated that she's a mutant isn't solid reason/proof..because it's also not stated that she isn't a mutant.