In the Marvel universe, mutants are hated and discriminated, right? So how do the haters tell the difference between mutants and regular superheroes?

Even when I was a teenager reading X-Books, this idea kinda bothered me, as there seemed to be no obvious visible difference between mutants and most other superheroes. In the 80s here was some issue of Spider-Man featuring X-Force, where X-Force and other characters seemed to instinctively know that Spider-Man is not a mutant, even though obviously none of them knew the origin of his powers. And if mutants are hated because they're different and because their superhuman powers make them scary, why wouldn't people hate other superheroes for the same reasons, even if they knew the origin of their powers is not a mutation? If they're hated because they're freaks, why does it matter how they became freaks?

I guess this is just a problem that comes from having mutant stories (which have always had their own tone) share the same universe with other superhero stories, but I wonder if any Marvel writer has actually tried to explain this difference in treatment?

I've wondered this myself and there was actually a mini recently where "word got out" that Spider-man was a mutant (even tho he actually isn't) and everyone freaked and hated him. Maybe people assume the heroes aren't mutants until they learn the affiliation with the Xavier institute or whatever. Also, with regular heroes, they are normal humans who had radiation exposure, or spider bites, or psychotic breaks with reality. Mutants are supposedly the next evolution, that which is coming to replace humanity. So you can kinda see why someone who be in love with a super-human, but wary of a new replacement species.

Yeah, pretty much. Spider-Man isn't a mutant, but since he's considered one of the "bad heroes" that the public generally distrusts, he's lumped in with them and often called a mutie derogatively. I remember Busiek and Ross's Marvels had an interesting part where people discussed why certain superheroes were considered bad and counter-culture by the public (mutants, X-Men, Spider-Man) while other government-sanctioned heroes were approved by them in equal measure (Captain America and the Avengers, which had some reformed mutants on the team).

So while mutants are hated for being mutants, powered people of questionable reputation like Spider-Man have been lumped in with them, it's been this way for ages.

I've wondered this myself and there was actually a mini recently where "word got out" that Spider-man was a mutant (even tho he actually isn't) and everyone freaked and hated him.

Did the mini explain why people hadn't thought of Spider-Man as a mutant before?

Mutants are supposedly the next evolution, that which is coming to replace humanity. So you can kinda see why someone who be in love with a super-human, but wary of a new replacement species.

True enough, but at least in Claremont's X-Men, which really popularized the idea of mutants as a hated minority, I don't think this was ever given as the reason for mutant discrimination. Normal people simply hated mutants because they were different. Even in Morrison's X-Men, which highlighted the idea of mutants as the next step of human evolution, I don't remember this being used as an explanation for mutant hatred.

why certain superheroes were considered bad and counter-culture by the public (mutants, X-Men, Spider-Man) while other government-sanctioned heroes were approved by them in equal measure

But there are tons of non-mutant superheroes who are not government-sanctioned, where do they fit in this scheme? Spider-Man is kind of a special case, as the idea that the public is suspicious of him has been part of his story from the beginning; though in most Spider-Man stories the suspicion is based more on what he could do (he's an outlaw and a vigilante, what if he turns against us?) rather than what he is (a freak). But with most other non-mutant superheroes, even the ones who are not employed by the goverment, the public fearing and hating them has not been a major part of their story, even if logically they should be as feared as mutants.

One thing that's not been mentioned is that it was a specific goal of one group of mutants (Magneto et al) to rule over humans. This has been given as a reason for humans to hate and fear all mutants- the perception that even the 'good' mutants would use the results of their heroism as a justification for seizing power.

True, but there have many other non-mutant supervillains and supervillain groups who've tried to rule over humans too. Yet their actions haven't been used as justification for general hatred of superpowered beings. If it's all about the fear of someone seizing power, it doesn't really matter what exactly makes the superbeings powerful enough to do that, does it?

Isn't it meant to be a bit irrational? Like, it's unnatural, despite it being so, homosexuality metaphor or whatever

Despite it actually being natural I mean

Yeah, it's definitely irrational - the whole mutant fear was a blatant allegory for racism when the X-Men were created and all. They really ran with Magneto being a terrifying, poltically charged mutant presence and becoming the face of evil mutants (I mean, the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants!). Mutants as an ethnic group really separates them even further from other heroes/villains, making them a minority within a minority.

Yet their actions haven't been used as justification for general hatred of superpowered beings. If it's all about the fear of someone seizing power, it doesn't really matter what exactly makes the superbeings powerful enough to do that, does it?

This was what Civil War and much of the modern Marvel universe stuff is essentially about now, right? Stark's rationale for government control of superheroes was in fact that the public had (somewhat justified) fear of irresponsible superpowered people on both sides of the good/evil fence. The mutant hysteria is just one thing that some of those people would latch onto.

Yeah, but I think the thread question is something trickier to solve - I mean, IF a given superhero is known to be a mutant or not, then all this stuff comes into play, but there's a definite storytelling problem: how the fuck does anybody know? One of countless reasons why the X-Men would really work better in a separate, non-Marvel Universe.

This is something that could be really explored in some interesting ways. What is the 'Marvel Universes' public's perception of stuff like the Sentinels and the government tied projects that spawned them? If you think about that and how stuff like that ties into the Avengers and SHIELD, it gets pretty dicey.

Between that and stuff like Skrulls or Galactus showing up, what the hell would the the Marvel Universe version of the Art Bell show be like? That right there is deep vein for story nugget mining and definite comic comedic gold.

President Art Bell.

One of countless reasons why the X-Men would really work better in a separate, non-Marvel Universe.

This is true. I think the basic idea of X-Men would work much better if they existed in a separate universe where all superpowered people are mutants. (This is pretty much the setting of the X-Men movies, right?) That would solve question of how regular people can tell non-mutant superfolks from mutant ones when there's no visible difference.

Except they're in the X-Men, bit of a giveaway

Not many mutants in the DC universe, are there?

Although didn't they justify pretty much every superhero with innate powers as having a "meta-gene" or some such thing at one stage?

In the DC Universe, I mean.

Yeah, that was Invasion