Discussion Yamato’s Gender

[Zmsp]

Racism is ignorance, homophobia is ignorance, misogyny is ignorance and transphobia is ignorance.

I agree.

Every aggression is, in fact, ignorance.

What? How did we go from one conclusion to the other?

The thought behind that phrase is that works are separated by gender and even if you don't realize it there are, still, people upholding those ideas. Even if it's not "the kitchen".

That's actually interesting. It's pretty obvious that a statement like that is ignorant, but I'll raise you this one:

Women are more prone to housework than men. Is this a mysogynistic view?

 

[Uriel]

What? How did we go from one conclusion to the other?

Star Wars logic. Ignorance leads to fear, Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Joke aside, it's not that it's exclusively just that, but it's behind each. So you can say that ignorance is within racism but you can't say that an ignorant person is racist. It's just composition. Sorry if I made too many leaps there.

That's actually interesting. It's pretty obvious that a statement like that is ignorant, but I'll raise you this one:
Women are more prone to housework than men. Is this a mysogynistic view?

Yes. Because that is a cultural view. There is enough evidence that different cultures handled housework in different ways, in which that work was delegated instead to the elder just to mention one on top of my head.


Something to be clear here: Having a misogynistic view on something doesn't make you automatically a bad person or be misogynous. This applies to most unintended microaggressions (Which happen often). Instead of feeling on the defensive, it's a chance to reflect on what sustains that aggression in oneself. And while the work is difficult, it's worth reviewing and growing from it.

 

[Zmsp]

Yes. Because that is a cultural view. There is enough evidence that different cultures handled housework in different ways, in which that work was delegated instead to the elder just to mention one on top of my head.


Something to be clear here: Having a misogynistic view on something doesn't make you automatically a bad person or be misogynous. This applies to most unintended microaggressions (Which happen often). Instead of feeling on the defensive, it's a chance to reflect on what sustains that aggression in oneself. And while the work is difficult, it's worth reviewing and growing from it.

I guess if I say: no, it's not a mysoginistic view, I'll put you on the defensive, so I'll just share a few scientific correlations and raise a few questions. You're free to reflect on them, or not, for this case in particular.

Let's take household out of the equation and look at something else: Women are more organized than men.
This is not my take on the matter, but rather conclusions that have been drawn from both psychoanalytical studies (mostly personal preferences) and executional studies based on multitasking, in which women perform slightly better than men, on average, when given sequential tasks. (there's also some interesting stuff about how performance in women varies with their menstrual cycle.)

What can we perceive as good household? Well, I guess you could list a number of things, but I don't think it's hard to imagine that being good in sequential tasking is a positive, if you're aiming for efficiency. The personal preference thing is a bit muddier, because it does raise the question: is that a trait derived from biology, or ingrained by cultural pressure? Better studies probably need to be designed to answer that one, but there's an established association.

So my statement was not mysoginistic, because I didn't base it on any perceived notion of what a women's role should be. I just based it on some evidence that women are, on average, better at something that's obviously important for good household, and probably more inclined to do it better, because they value an organized room more than men. If I was given a big sample size of people, complete strangers that I know nothing about, and I was asked to pick one to clean my house, I'd probably pick a women. Would that be me perpetuating stereotypes? Or would I be making a slightly more educated guess than closing my eyes and randomly picking someone? Should I pick a man just so I don't offend a women that might think I'm doing it out of some mysoginistic view? Where's the equality/honesty in that?

Now, you might say that these studies had flaws, or that some of the conclusions don't correlate to housekeeping in a robust way, and if I want to make that sort of association, I'd need better studies designed to correlate the two. I completely agree, no arguments there, but there's something there.

Going back to the original statement: Women are more prone to housework than men.
Assuming that you believe in what I said, is this still a mysoginistic phrase? Should I retract the statement because you're offended or micro-aggressed?
(you can check it out for yourself with a small amount of research, or you can check pubmed and probably find articles on this type of stuff quite easily)

Follow up question: does this mean, in any sort of way, that a women's role is to do chores?

 

[Uriel]

Assuming that a study has no bias is a belief called scientism which tends to be bad for science. There are no sociological studies that can reach a definite answer around it, because of the same nature of society.

The idea that a woman "is more organized than a man" or men are "more assertive than a woman" is plainly cultural. You could argue about physical variations, but then again those are even more random and not so much related, and then we enter the genome, and there are new discoveries about the body that started as part of questioning gender. I will not enter that discussion, it's large and not the point I'm trying to make.

So even if you think you're not misogynistic for using a "scientific" study to justify your sayings, while at the same time ignoring studies that say the opposite, you are. In various degrees, not saying that it makes you a beater.

 

[Zmsp]

Assuming that a study has no bias is a belief called scientism which tends to be bad for science. There are no sociological studies that can reach a definite answer around it, because of the same nature of society.

The idea that a woman "is more organized than a man" or men are "more assertive than a woman" is plainly cultural. You could argue about physical variations, but then again those are even more random and not so much related, and then we enter the genome, and there new discoveries about the body that started as part of questioning gender. I will not enter that discussion, it's large and not the point I'm trying to make.

So even if you think you're not misogynistic for using a "scientific" study to justify your sayings, while at the same time ignoring studies that say the opposite, you are. In various degrees, not saying that it makes you a beater.

Now, you might say that these studies had flaws, or that some of the conclusions don't correlate to housekeeping in a robust way, and if I want to make that sort of association, I'd need better studies designed to correlate the two.

Well, I was mostly trying to prove a point in terms of deriving prejudice from statements that have no such connotations, and could be substantiated by something other than personal opinion, so... okay, I guess. I'm glad you questioned the validity of those studies, that's the right way to go about it (not being sarcastic), but I do have to question if you have the proper tools to make those claims.

After reading the follow up, I do agree that dropping the subject is for the best. You just blew my mind with that physilogical data.
I'll go burn every book I've read back in med school, guess most of it just comes down to cultural and frontier stuff.

You win, I'm out.

 

[Uriel]

The only way I consider a win in this thread is when people at least call Yamato a "They/Them" admitting the uncertainty around their identity. Or "He/Him" as He calls himself.

Yeah, I'm that stubborn.

 

[Sachsenhesse]

The only way I consider a win in this thread is when people at least call Yamato a "They/Them" admitting the uncertainty around their identity. Or "He/Him" as He calls himself.

Yeah, I'm that stubborn.

Never gonna happen.

 

[Uriel]

Never gonna happen.

You already fulfilled the prerequisites of my technique.

 

[Tengou]

The only way I consider a win in this thread is when people at least call Yamato a "They/Them" admitting the uncertainty around their identity. Or "He/Him" as He calls himself.

Yeah, I'm that stubborn.

I can't help but wonder if Kaidou may have compelled the same kind of speech you are advocating for around his 'son' ever since she was young. In which case, Yamato being treated as a man by all of her father's underlings and referring to herself using male identifiers may be a symptom of that pathology he has instilled in her, and it even kind of smacks of grooming. Like you, Kaidou is quite stubborn, And moreover, I doubt it has done Yamato much good in the long run. She had to literally stop being herself and become someone else in order to survive that hell. So I will keep referring to Yamato by her canonically established gender until I see the need to do otherwise.

Yeah, I'm also that stubborn.

 

[M3J]

But honestly. I dont care about microaggression or whatever grinds the gears. Sometimes you need to be above some things.

Problem is, microaggression can lead to actual violence, and we're seeing that happen with the transgender community. That's mainly why some of us are vocal about this.

But also, I guess if we want to move towards that discussion and not have to bring it back to Yamato, we should create a thread in the General World Topics section.

 

[xi0]

I can't help but wonder if Kaidou may have compelled the same kind of speech you are advocating for around his 'son' ever since she was young. In which case, Yamato being treated as a man by all of her father's underlings and referring to herself using male identifiers may be a symptom of that pathology he has instilled in her, and it even kind of smacks of grooming. Like you, Kaidou is quite stubborn, And moreover, I doubt it has done Yamato much good in the long run. She had to literally stop being herself and become someone else in order to survive that hell. So I will keep referring to Yamato by her canonically established gender until I see the need to do otherwise.

Yeah, I'm also that stubborn.

Are those things shown in the manga? Or is this just speculation?

On the other hand, it's not speculation that Yamato uses male pronouns

I think most people aren't raising points like this in consideration for Yamato, as Yamato isn't real. It's in consideration for people that are real that are similar to Yamato.

 

[Tengou]

Are those things shown in the manga? Or is this just speculation?

On the other hand, it's not speculation that Yamato uses male pronouns

I think most people aren't raising points like this in consideration for Yamato, as Yamato isn't real. It's in consideration for people that are real that are similar to Yamato.

I mean, is it speculation? Is it, really? For a biologically female child to be treated as a man by everyone around her throughout her entire childhood, it's impossible that that didn't have a strong effect on the way she grew up. I think the conditions in which her self-image arose also deserve to be thought about. In that vein, is blindly affirming Yamato's identity really 'considerate' at all, or are we allowing for real issues to go unaddressed by doing so?

Also, you don't use pronouns to refer to yourself, so I don't accept the assertion that Yamato uses male pronouns. She may use masculine identifiers to say 'I' (is that the case? Does she use 'ore' or 'boku' in conversation? I don't remember), but that doesn't necessarily say anything about gender identity. If referring to yourself in a masculine way automatically makes you a man, the concept of 'ore-onna' wouldn't exist.

 

[xi0]

I mean, is it speculation? Is it, really? For a biologically female child to be treated as a man by everyone around her throughout her entire childhood, it's impossible that that didn't have a strong effect on the way she grew up. I think the conditions in which her self-image arose also deserve to be thought about. In that vein, is blindly affirming Yamato's identity really 'considerate' at all, or are we allowing for real issues to go unaddressed by doing so?

The motivations and other underpinnings for why it happened? Yeah?

It's a unique situation, but I think bringing up the notion of "grooming" in this context is pretty incendiary. Do you think Oda had that in mind while writing it? I doubt many would even if they thought this entire topic was a waste of time.

 

[Tengou]

The motivations and other underpinnings for why it happened? Yeah?

It's a unique situation, but I think bringing up the notion of "grooming" in this context is pretty incendiary. Do you think Oda had that in mind while writing it? I doubt many would even if they thought this entire topic was a waste of time.

It wouldn't be incendiary if there wasn't a core of truth to it. I don't know what Oda's intentions were, but parents have a big hand in shaping their children, and Kaidou's hands are not gentle.

 

[xi0]

It wouldn't be incendiary if there wasn't a core of truth to it. I don't know what Oda's intentions were, but parents have a big hand in shaping their children, and Kaidou's hands are not gentle.

And none of that is automatically tantamount to grooming

 

[Tengou]

And none of that is automatically tantamount to grooming

Okay, you're right, I shouldn't have used that word. At the very least, the exploitation doesn't verge into sexual territory. And it also doesn't refute anything else I've said.

 

[xi0]

Okay, you're right, I shouldn't have used that word. Still, it doesn't refute anything else I've said.

Well, I think trying to psychoanalyze someone's development and make assertions about their identity and why it exists instead of just going by what terms they choose to use is a bit of a waste of time personally. But I just don't see the grounds for saying that Yamato only exists the way they exist because of Kaidou's abuse. I'm not really sure I'd want to give Oda credit for writing a character in One Piece with that kind of nuance, but maybe I'm wrong. If that is a legit thing, then I could also assert that their relationship is a clear allegory about oppressive upbringings that queer people can experience.

 

[Zmsp]

The only way I consider a win in this thread is when people at least call Yamato a "They/Them" admitting the uncertainty around their identity. Or "He/Him" as He calls himself.

Yeah, I'm that stubborn.

That's the problem.
Trying to get people to share your views shouldn't come from a place of stubbornness, but intellectual honesty.

The idea that a woman "is more organized than a man" or men are "more assertive than a woman" is plainly cultural. You could argue about physical variations, but then again those are even more random and not so much related, and then we enter the genome, and there are new discoveries about the body that started as part of questioning gender. I will not enter that discussion, it's large and not the point I'm trying to make.

Statements like this one probably won't do any favours to any sort of cause.
I know this is not really related to the topic, but it is similar in the sense that it's mostly about how one presents certain arguments when defending a point of view. There are differences between the male and female brain, and those translate to differences in both their cognitive and behavioural aspects. The reasons for it are what are not really understood. Hormonal differences have a role to play, that's a given, but cultural aspects could very well have an impact, because our environment influences our metabolism.

You were right about one thing: sociological studies are tremendously hard to correlate to biological ones, because there are too many confounding variables, but that doesn't mean that you should disregard the latter. If you go back to what I said earlier, irrespective of what data shows you or not (that was just an example), that doesn't mean that you can leap into attributing a defined role for women in society. See my point?

You micro-aggressed me with that statement. Do you feel the need to modulate your speech because of it?

Problem is, microaggression can lead to actual violence, and we're seeing that happen with the transgender community. That's mainly why some of us are vocal about this.

That's happened across human history with a lot of minorities, and society's come a long way in that regard. (with some obvious exceptions).
The funny thing is that by promoting diversity, we're accentuating differences that should have no value in society, and promoting people categorizing themselves under a certain banner, and there's no end to the amount of categories that people can put themselves under.

We shouldn't be promoting diversity, we should be promoting tolerance towards diversity.

That's how cults are made.

Exactly! I'd even add something more disturbing: that's how scientific progress is hindered, and that's happened across humanity's history quite a lot.

 

[Tengou]

Well, I think trying to psychoanalyze someone's development and make assertions about their identity and why it exists instead of just going by what terms they choose to use is a bit of a waste of time personally. But I just don't see the grounds for saying that Yamato only exists the way they exist because of Kaidou's abuse. I'm not really sure I'd want to give Oda credit for writing a character in One Piece with that kind of nuance, but maybe I'm wrong. If that is a legit thing, then I could also assert that their relationship is a clear allegory about oppressive upbringings that queer people can experience.

Her own father put seastone cuffs on her and punted her in jail until she stopped venerating the man she watched him kill. She was 8. I don't think psychoanalysis is needed at this point.

She is female but uses ぼく (boku) to refer to herself. That by itself doesn't mean anything. Why would anyone want to suggest one needs to forego the conventions of language to refer to someone who appears female with a male third-person pronoun? You don't use third-person pronouns to address a person. You use second person ones, and those are pretty much gender-neutral even in Japanese.

It is no business of mine how other people refer to Yamato as. But I don't see a need to revise my speech because others said so. Especially third parties.

 

[McNuss]

Sanji would agree with this, so he can harass them nonstop.

LOL no!

Sanji thinks Women belong on the throne in heaven!

How can someone from Germany misunderstand Sanji that much? Did you not grow up with Dr. Sommer?